Viktor Kewenig

2papers

2 Papers

AIAug 11, 2023
Multimodality and Attention Increase Alignment in Natural Language Prediction Between Humans and Computational Models

Viktor Kewenig, Andrew Lampinen, Samuel A. Nastase et al.

The potential of multimodal generative artificial intelligence (mAI) to replicate human grounded language understanding, including the pragmatic, context-rich aspects of communication, remains to be clarified. Humans are known to use salient multimodal features, such as visual cues, to facilitate the processing of upcoming words. Correspondingly, multimodal computational models can integrate visual and linguistic data using a visual attention mechanism to assign next-word probabilities. To test whether these processes align, we tasked both human participants (N = 200) as well as several state-of-the-art computational models with evaluating the predictability of forthcoming words after viewing short audio-only or audio-visual clips with speech. During the task, the model's attention weights were recorded and human attention was indexed via eye tracking. Results show that predictability estimates from humans aligned more closely with scores generated from multimodal models vs. their unimodal counterparts. Furthermore, including an attention mechanism doubled alignment with human judgments when visual and linguistic context facilitated predictions. In these cases, the model's attention patches and human eye tracking significantly overlapped. Our results indicate that improved modeling of naturalistic language processing in mAI does not merely depend on training diet but can be driven by multimodality in combination with attention-based architectures. Humans and computational models alike can leverage the predictive constraints of multimodal information by attending to relevant features in the input.

79.9HCApr 9
From Binary Groundedness to Support Relations: Towards a Reader-Centred Taxonomy for Comprehension of AI Output

Advait Sarkar, Christian Poelitz, Viktor Kewenig

Generative AI tools often answer questions using source documents, e.g., through retrieval augmented generation. Current groundedness and hallucination evaluations largely frame the relationship between an answer and its sources as binary (the answer is either supported or unsupported). However, this obscures both the syntactic moves (e.g., direct quotation vs. paraphrase) and the interpretive moves (e.g., induction vs. deduction) performed when models reformulate evidence into an answer. This limits both benchmarking and user-facing provenance interfaces. We propose the development of a reader-centred taxonomy of grounding as a set of support relations between generated statements and source documents. We explain how this might be synthesised from prior research in linguistics and philosophy of language, and evaluated through a benchmark and human annotation protocol. Such a framework would enable interfaces that communicate not just whether a claim is grounded, but how.