Isabelle Augenstein

Yuxia Wang, Revanth Gangi Reddy, Zain Muhammad Mujahid et al.

The increased use of large language models (LLMs) across a variety of real-world applications calls for mechanisms to verify the factual accuracy of their outputs. In this work, we present a holistic end-to-end solution for annotating the factuality of LLM-generated responses, which encompasses a multi-stage annotation scheme designed to yield detailed labels concerning the verifiability and factual inconsistencies found in LLM outputs. We further construct an open-domain document-level factuality benchmark in three-level granularity: claim, sentence and document, aiming to facilitate the evaluation of automatic fact-checking systems. Preliminary experiments show that FacTool, FactScore and Perplexity.ai are struggling to identify false claims, with the best F1=0.63 by this annotation solution based on GPT-4. Annotation tool, benchmark and code are available at https://github.com/yuxiaw/Factcheck-GPT.

Isabelle Augenstein, Timothy Baldwin, Meeyoung Cha et al.

The emergence of tools based on Large Language Models (LLMs), such as OpenAI's ChatGPT, Microsoft's Bing Chat, and Google's Bard, has garnered immense public attention. These incredibly useful, natural-sounding tools mark significant advances in natural language generation, yet they exhibit a propensity to generate false, erroneous, or misleading content -- commonly referred to as "hallucinations." Moreover, LLMs can be exploited for malicious applications, such as generating false but credible-sounding content and profiles at scale. This poses a significant challenge to society in terms of the potential deception of users and the increasing dissemination of inaccurate information. In light of these risks, we explore the kinds of technological innovations, regulatory reforms, and AI literacy initiatives needed from fact-checkers, news organizations, and the broader research and policy communities. By identifying the risks, the imminent threats, and some viable solutions, we seek to shed light on navigating various aspects of veracity in the era of generative AI.

Dustin Wright, Jiaxin Pei, David Jurgens et al. · stanford

Whether the media faithfully communicate scientific information has long been a core issue to the science community. Automatically identifying paraphrased scientific findings could enable large-scale tracking and analysis of information changes in the science communication process, but this requires systems to understand the similarity between scientific information across multiple domains. To this end, we present the SCIENTIFIC PARAPHRASE AND INFORMATION CHANGE DATASET (SPICED), the first paraphrase dataset of scientific findings annotated for degree of information change. SPICED contains 6,000 scientific finding pairs extracted from news stories, social media discussions, and full texts of original papers. We demonstrate that SPICED poses a challenging task and that models trained on SPICED improve downstream performance on evidence retrieval for fact checking of real-world scientific claims. Finally, we show that models trained on SPICED can reveal large-scale trends in the degrees to which people and organizations faithfully communicate new scientific findings. Data, code, and pre-trained models are available at http://www.copenlu.com/publication/2022_emnlp_wright/.

Karolina Stańczak, Edoardo Ponti, Lucas Torroba Hennigen et al. · eth-zurich, mit

The success of multilingual pre-trained models is underpinned by their ability to learn representations shared by multiple languages even in absence of any explicit supervision. However, it remains unclear how these models learn to generalise across languages. In this work, we conjecture that multilingual pre-trained models can derive language-universal abstractions about grammar. In particular, we investigate whether morphosyntactic information is encoded in the same subset of neurons in different languages. We conduct the first large-scale empirical study over 43 languages and 14 morphosyntactic categories with a state-of-the-art neuron-level probe. Our findings show that the cross-lingual overlap between neurons is significant, but its extent may vary across categories and depends on language proximity and pre-training data size.

Dustin Wright, David Wadden, Kyle Lo et al. · allen-ai, uw

Automated scientific fact checking is difficult due to the complexity of scientific language and a lack of significant amounts of training data, as annotation requires domain expertise. To address this challenge, we propose scientific claim generation, the task of generating one or more atomic and verifiable claims from scientific sentences, and demonstrate its usefulness in zero-shot fact checking for biomedical claims. We propose CLAIMGEN-BART, a new supervised method for generating claims supported by the literature, as well as KBIN, a novel method for generating claim negations. Additionally, we adapt an existing unsupervised entity-centric method of claim generation to biomedical claims, which we call CLAIMGEN-ENTITY. Experiments on zero-shot fact checking demonstrate that both CLAIMGEN-ENTITY and CLAIMGEN-BART, coupled with KBIN, achieve up to 90% performance of fully supervised models trained on manually annotated claims and evidence. A rigorous evaluation study demonstrates significant improvement in generated claim and negation quality over existing baselines

Marta Marchiori Manerba, Karolina Stańczak, Riccardo Guidotti et al. · eth-zurich

While the impact of social biases in language models has been recognized, prior methods for bias evaluation have been limited to binary association tests on small datasets, limiting our understanding of bias complexities. This paper proposes a novel framework for probing language models for social biases by assessing disparate treatment, which involves treating individuals differently according to their affiliation with a sensitive demographic group. We curate SoFa, a large-scale benchmark designed to address the limitations of existing fairness collections. SoFa expands the analysis beyond the binary comparison of stereotypical versus anti-stereotypical identities to include a diverse range of identities and stereotypes. Comparing our methodology with existing benchmarks, we reveal that biases within language models are more nuanced than acknowledged, indicating a broader scope of encoded biases than previously recognized. Benchmarking LMs on SoFa, we expose how identities expressing different religions lead to the most pronounced disparate treatments across all models. Finally, our findings indicate that real-life adversities faced by various groups such as women and people with disabilities are mirrored in the behavior of these models.

Dustin Wright, Isabelle Augenstein

Selecting an effective training signal for machine learning tasks is difficult: expert annotations are expensive, and crowd-sourced annotations may not be reliable. Recent work has demonstrated that learning from a distribution over labels acquired from crowd annotations can be effective both for performance and uncertainty estimation. However, this has mainly been studied using a limited set of soft-labeling methods in an in-domain setting. Additionally, no one method has been shown to consistently perform well across tasks, making it difficult to know a priori which to choose. To fill these gaps, this paper provides the first large-scale empirical study on learning from crowd labels in the out-of-domain setting, systematically analyzing 8 soft-labeling methods on 4 language and vision tasks. Additionally, we propose to aggregate soft-labels via a simple average in order to achieve consistent performance across tasks. We demonstrate that this yields classifiers with improved predictive uncertainty estimation in most settings while maintaining consistent raw performance compared to learning from individual soft-labeling methods or taking a majority vote of the annotations. We additionally highlight that in regimes with abundant or minimal training data, the selection of soft labeling method is less important, while for highly subjective labels and moderate amounts of training data, aggregation yields significant improvements in uncertainty estimation over individual methods. Code can be found at https://github.com/copenlu/aggregating-crowd-annotations-ood.

Sandra Martinková, Karolina Stańczak, Isabelle Augenstein · eth-zurich

Pre-trained language models have been known to perpetuate biases from the underlying datasets to downstream tasks. However, these findings are predominantly based on monolingual language models for English, whereas there are few investigative studies of biases encoded in language models for languages beyond English. In this paper, we fill this gap by analysing gender bias in West Slavic language models. We introduce the first template-based dataset in Czech, Polish, and Slovak for measuring gender bias towards male, female and non-binary subjects. We complete the sentences using both mono- and multilingual language models and assess their suitability for the masked language modelling objective. Next, we measure gender bias encoded in West Slavic language models by quantifying the toxicity and genderness of the generated words. We find that these language models produce hurtful completions that depend on the subject's gender. Perhaps surprisingly, Czech, Slovak, and Polish language models produce more hurtful completions with men as subjects, which, upon inspection, we find is due to completions being related to violence, death, and sickness.

Arnav Arora, Lucie-Aimée Kaffee, Isabelle Augenstein

Language embeds information about social, cultural, and political values people hold. Prior work has explored social and potentially harmful biases encoded in Pre-Trained Language models (PTLMs). However, there has been no systematic study investigating how values embedded in these models vary across cultures. In this paper, we introduce probes to study which values across cultures are embedded in these models, and whether they align with existing theories and cross-cultural value surveys. We find that PTLMs capture differences in values across cultures, but those only weakly align with established value surveys. We discuss implications of using mis-aligned models in cross-cultural settings, as well as ways of aligning PTLMs with value surveys.

Siddhesh Milind Pawar, Sarah Masud, Haneul Yoo et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are being increasingly used to answer subjective, information-seeking questions, where users are sensitive to how responses are communicated, not just whether the answers are correct. Existing LLM evaluations for subjective cultural queries largely focus on factual correctness, ignoring how the response is framed. To this end, we introduce FRANZ, an automated FRAmework for respoNse characteriZation to conduct communicative audit of LLM responses along four dimensions: cultural positioning, use of generalizing language, anthropomorphic cues, and adherence to conversational maxims. To enable this evaluation, we contribute SQUARE - a corpus of 376k subjective questions sourced from 57 subreddits, and mapped to 7 countries and 19 question categories. We demonstrate FRANZ's applicability by scoring responses from three open-weight LLMs. We observe that LLMs show statistically significant differences in the frequency with which they employ each response characteristic. Unlike single-dimensional audits, FRANZ reveals that insider positioning and anthropomorphism are positively coupled, with the degree of coupling varying by country, providing a diagnostic lens for identifying framing divergences.

Karolina Stańczak, Kevin Du, Adina Williams et al. · eth-zurich

How much meaning influences gender assignment across languages is an active area of research in linguistics and cognitive science. We can view current approaches as aiming to determine where gender assignment falls on a spectrum, from being fully arbitrarily determined to being largely semantically determined. For the latter case, there is a formulation of the neo-Whorfian hypothesis, which claims that even inanimate noun gender influences how people conceive of and talk about objects (using the choice of adjective used to modify inanimate nouns as a proxy for meaning). We offer a novel, causal graphical model that jointly represents the interactions between a noun's grammatical gender, its meaning, and adjective choice. In accordance with past results, we find a significant relationship between the gender of nouns and the adjectives that modify them. However, when we control for the meaning of the noun, the relationship between grammatical gender and adjective choice is near zero and insignificant.

Indira Sen, Dennis Assenmacher, Mattia Samory et al.

NLP models are used in a variety of critical social computing tasks, such as detecting sexist, racist, or otherwise hateful content. Therefore, it is imperative that these models are robust to spurious features. Past work has attempted to tackle such spurious features using training data augmentation, including Counterfactually Augmented Data (CADs). CADs introduce minimal changes to existing training data points and flip their labels; training on them may reduce model dependency on spurious features. However, manually generating CADs can be time-consuming and expensive. Hence in this work, we assess if this task can be automated using generative NLP models. We automatically generate CADs using Polyjuice, ChatGPT, and Flan-T5, and evaluate their usefulness in improving model robustness compared to manually-generated CADs. By testing both model performance on multiple out-of-domain test sets and individual data point efficacy, our results show that while manual CADs are still the most effective, CADs generated by ChatGPT come a close second. One key reason for the lower performance of automated methods is that the changes they introduce are often insufficient to flip the original label.

Sara Vera Marjanović, Haeun Yu, Pepa Atanasova et al.

Knowledge-intensive language understanding tasks require Language Models (LMs) to integrate relevant context, mitigating their inherent weaknesses, such as incomplete or outdated knowledge. However, conflicting knowledge can be present in the LM's parameters, termed intra-memory conflict, which can affect a model's propensity to accept contextual knowledge. To study the effect of intra-memory conflict on an LM's ability to accept relevant context, we utilize two knowledge conflict measures and a novel dataset containing inherently conflicting data, DynamicQA. This dataset includes facts with a temporal dynamic nature where facts can change over time and disputable dynamic facts, which can change depending on the viewpoint. DynamicQA is the first to include real-world knowledge conflicts and provide context to study the link between the different types of knowledge conflicts. We also evaluate several measures on their ability to reflect the presence of intra-memory conflict: semantic entropy and a novel coherent persuasion score. With our extensive experiments, we verify that LMs exhibit a greater degree of intra-memory conflict with dynamic facts compared to facts that have a single truth value. Furthermore, we reveal that facts with intra-memory conflict are harder to update with context, suggesting that retrieval-augmented generation will struggle with the most commonly adapted facts.

Erik Arakelyan, Pasquale Minervini, Daniel Daza et al.

Answering complex queries on incomplete knowledge graphs is a challenging task where a model needs to answer complex logical queries in the presence of missing knowledge. Prior work in the literature has proposed to address this problem by designing architectures trained end-to-end for the complex query answering task with a reasoning process that is hard to interpret while requiring data and resource-intensive training. Other lines of research have proposed re-using simple neural link predictors to answer complex queries, reducing the amount of training data by orders of magnitude while providing interpretable answers. The neural link predictor used in such approaches is not explicitly optimised for the complex query answering task, implying that its scores are not calibrated to interact together. We propose to address these problems via CQD$^{\mathcal{A}}$, a parameter-efficient score \emph{adaptation} model optimised to re-calibrate neural link prediction scores for the complex query answering task. While the neural link predictor is frozen, the adaptation component -- which only increases the number of model parameters by $0.03\%$ -- is trained on the downstream complex query answering task. Furthermore, the calibration component enables us to support reasoning over queries that include atomic negations, which was previously impossible with link predictors. In our experiments, CQD$^{\mathcal{A}}$ produces significantly more accurate results than current state-of-the-art methods, improving from $34.4$ to $35.1$ Mean Reciprocal Rank values averaged across all datasets and query types while using $\leq 30\%$ of the available training query types. We further show that CQD$^{\mathcal{A}}$ is data-efficient, achieving competitive results with only $1\%$ of the training complex queries, and robust in out-of-domain evaluations.

Alphaeus Dmonte, Roland Oruche, Marcos Zampieri et al.

The large and ever-increasing amount of data available on the Internet coupled with the laborious task of manual claim and fact verification has sparked the interest in the development of automated claim verification systems. Several deep learning and transformer-based models have been proposed for this task over the years. With the introduction of Large Language Models (LLMs) and their superior performance in several NLP tasks, we have seen a surge of LLM-based approaches to claim verification along with the use of novel methods such as Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG). In this survey, we present a comprehensive account of recent claim verification frameworks using LLMs. We describe the different components of the claim verification pipeline used in these frameworks in detail including common approaches to retrieval, prompting, and fine-tuning. Finally, we describe publicly available English datasets created for this task.

Sagnik Ray Choudhury, Anna Rogers, Isabelle Augenstein

Two of the most fundamental challenges in Natural Language Understanding (NLU) at present are: (a) how to establish whether deep learning-based models score highly on NLU benchmarks for the 'right' reasons; and (b) to understand what those reasons would even be. We investigate the behavior of reading comprehension models with respect to two linguistic 'skills': coreference resolution and comparison. We propose a definition for the reasoning steps expected from a system that would be 'reading slowly', and compare that with the behavior of five models of the BERT family of various sizes, observed through saliency scores and counterfactual explanations. We find that for comparison (but not coreference) the systems based on larger encoders are more likely to rely on the 'right' information, but even they struggle with generalization, suggesting that they still learn specific lexical patterns rather than the general principles of comparison.

Indira Sen, Mattia Samory, Claudia Wagner et al.

Counterfactually Augmented Data (CAD) aims to improve out-of-domain generalizability, an indicator of model robustness. The improvement is credited with promoting core features of the construct over spurious artifacts that happen to correlate with it. Yet, over-relying on core features may lead to unintended model bias. Especially, construct-driven CAD -- perturbations of core features -- may induce models to ignore the context in which core features are used. Here, we test models for sexism and hate speech detection on challenging data: non-hateful and non-sexist usage of identity and gendered terms. In these hard cases, models trained on CAD, especially construct-driven CAD, show higher false-positive rates than models trained on the original, unperturbed data. Using a diverse set of CAD -- construct-driven and construct-agnostic -- reduces such unintended bias.

Klim Zaporojets, Lucie-Aimee Kaffee, Johannes Deleu et al.

In our continuously evolving world, entities change over time and new, previously non-existing or unknown, entities appear. We study how this evolutionary scenario impacts the performance on a well established entity linking (EL) task. For that study, we introduce TempEL, an entity linking dataset that consists of time-stratified English Wikipedia snapshots from 2013 to 2022, from which we collect both anchor mentions of entities, and these target entities' descriptions. By capturing such temporal aspects, our newly introduced TempEL resource contrasts with currently existing entity linking datasets, which are composed of fixed mentions linked to a single static version of a target Knowledge Base (e.g., Wikipedia 2010 for CoNLL-AIDA). Indeed, for each of our collected temporal snapshots, TempEL contains links to entities that are continual, i.e., occur in all of the years, as well as completely new entities that appear for the first time at some point. Thus, we enable to quantify the performance of current state-of-the-art EL models for: (i) entities that are subject to changes over time in their Knowledge Base descriptions as well as their mentions' contexts, and (ii) newly created entities that were previously non-existing (e.g., at the time the EL model was trained). Our experimental results show that in terms of temporal performance degradation, (i) continual entities suffer a decrease of up to 3.1% EL accuracy, while (ii) for new entities this accuracy drop is up to 17.9%. This highlights the challenge of the introduced TempEL dataset and opens new research prospects in the area of time-evolving entity disambiguation.

Pepa Atanasova, Jakob Grue Simonsen, Christina Lioma et al.

Automating the fact checking (FC) process relies on information obtained from external sources. In this work, we posit that it is crucial for FC models to make veracity predictions only when there is sufficient evidence and otherwise indicate when it is not enough. To this end, we are the first to study what information FC models consider sufficient by introducing a novel task and advancing it with three main contributions. First, we conduct an in-depth empirical analysis of the task with a new fluency-preserving method for omitting information from the evidence at the constituent and sentence level. We identify when models consider the remaining evidence (in)sufficient for FC, based on three trained models with different Transformer architectures and three FC datasets. Second, we ask annotators whether the omitted evidence was important for FC, resulting in a novel diagnostic dataset, SufficientFacts, for FC with omitted evidence. We find that models are least successful in detecting missing evidence when adverbial modifiers are omitted (21% accuracy), whereas it is easiest for omitted date modifiers (63% accuracy). Finally, we propose a novel data augmentation strategy for contrastive self-learning of missing evidence by employing the proposed omission method combined with tri-training. It improves performance for Evidence Sufficiency Prediction by up to 17.8 F1 score, which in turn improves FC performance by up to 2.6 F1 score.

Erik Arakelyan, Arnav Arora, Isabelle Augenstein

Stance Detection is concerned with identifying the attitudes expressed by an author towards a target of interest. This task spans a variety of domains ranging from social media opinion identification to detecting the stance for a legal claim. However, the framing of the task varies within these domains, in terms of the data collection protocol, the label dictionary and the number of available annotations. Furthermore, these stance annotations are significantly imbalanced on a per-topic and inter-topic basis. These make multi-domain stance detection a challenging task, requiring standardization and domain adaptation. To overcome this challenge, we propose $\textbf{T}$opic $\textbf{E}$fficient $\textbf{St}$anc$\textbf{E}$ $\textbf{D}$etection (TESTED), consisting of a topic-guided diversity sampling technique and a contrastive objective that is used for fine-tuning a stance classifier. We evaluate the method on an existing benchmark of $16$ datasets with in-domain, i.e. all topics seen and out-of-domain, i.e. unseen topics, experiments. The results show that our method outperforms the state-of-the-art with an average of $3.5$ F1 points increase in-domain, and is more generalizable with an averaged increase of $10.2$ F1 on out-of-domain evaluation while using $\leq10\%$ of the training data. We show that our sampling technique mitigates both inter- and per-topic class imbalances. Finally, our analysis demonstrates that the contrastive learning objective allows the model a more pronounced segmentation of samples with varying labels.

Andreas Nugaard Holm, Dustin Wright, Isabelle Augenstein

Uncertainty approximation in text classification is an important area with applications in domain adaptation and interpretability. One of the most widely used uncertainty approximation methods is Monte Carlo (MC) Dropout, which is computationally expensive as it requires multiple forward passes through the model. A cheaper alternative is to simply use the softmax based on a single forward pass without dropout to estimate model uncertainty. However, prior work has indicated that these predictions tend to be overconfident. In this paper, we perform a thorough empirical analysis of these methods on five datasets with two base neural architectures in order to identify the trade-offs between the two. We compare both softmax and an efficient version of MC Dropout on their uncertainty approximations and downstream text classification performance, while weighing their runtime (cost) against performance (benefit). We find that, while MC dropout produces the best uncertainty approximations, using a simple softmax leads to competitive and in some cases better uncertainty estimation for text classification at a much lower computational cost, suggesting that softmax can in fact be a sufficient uncertainty estimate when computational resources are a concern.

Sekh Mainul Islam, Pepa Atanasova, Isabelle Augenstein

Natural Language Explanations (NLEs) describe how Large Language Models (LLMs) make decisions, drawing on both external Context Knowledge (CK) and Parametric Knowledge (PK) stored in model weights. Understanding their interaction is key to assessing the grounding of NLEs, yet it remains underexplored. Prior work has largely examined only single-step generation, typically the final answer, and has modelled PK and CK interaction only as a binary choice in a rank-1 subspace. This overlooks richer forms of interaction, such as complementary or supportive knowledge. We propose a novel rank-2 projection subspace that disentangles PK and CK contributions more accurately and use it for the first multi-step analysis of knowledge interactions across longer NLE sequences. Experiments on four QA datasets and three open-weight instruction-tuned LLMs show that diverse knowledge interactions are poorly represented in a rank-1 subspace but are effectively captured in our rank-2 formulation. Our multi-step analysis reveals that hallucinated NLEs align strongly with the PK direction, context-faithful ones balance PK and CK, and Chain-of-Thought prompting for NLEs shifts generated NLEs toward CK by reducing PK reliance. This work provides the first framework for systematic studies of multi-step knowledge interactions in LLMs through a richer rank-2 subspace disentanglement. Code and data: https://github.com/copenlu/pk-ck-knowledge-disentanglement.

Lucie-Aimée Kaffee, Arnav Arora, Zeerak Talat et al.

Dual use, the intentional, harmful reuse of technology and scientific artefacts, is a problem yet to be well-defined within the context of Natural Language Processing (NLP). However, as NLP technologies continue to advance and become increasingly widespread in society, their inner workings have become increasingly opaque. Therefore, understanding dual use concerns and potential ways of limiting them is critical to minimising the potential harms of research and development. In this paper, we conduct a survey of NLP researchers and practitioners to understand the depth and their perspective of the problem as well as to assess existing available support. Based on the results of our survey, we offer a definition of dual use that is tailored to the needs of the NLP community. The survey revealed that a majority of researchers are concerned about the potential dual use of their research but only take limited action toward it. In light of the survey results, we discuss the current state and potential means for mitigating dual use in NLP and propose a checklist that can be integrated into existing conference ethics-frameworks, e.g., the ACL ethics checklist.

Lucie-Aimée Kaffee, Arnav Arora, Isabelle Augenstein

The moderation of content on online platforms is usually non-transparent. On Wikipedia, however, this discussion is carried out publicly and the editors are encouraged to use the content moderation policies as explanations for making moderation decisions. Currently, only a few comments explicitly mention those policies -- 20% of the English ones, but as few as 2% of the German and Turkish comments. To aid in this process of understanding how content is moderated, we construct a novel multilingual dataset of Wikipedia editor discussions along with their reasoning in three languages. The dataset contains the stances of the editors (keep, delete, merge, comment), along with the stated reason, and a content moderation policy, for each edit decision. We demonstrate that stance and corresponding reason (policy) can be predicted jointly with a high degree of accuracy, adding transparency to the decision-making process. We release both our joint prediction models and the multilingual content moderation dataset for further research on automated transparent content moderation.

Nadav Borenstein, Phillip Rust, Desmond Elliott et al.

The digitisation of historical documents has provided historians with unprecedented research opportunities. Yet, the conventional approach to analysing historical documents involves converting them from images to text using OCR, a process that overlooks the potential benefits of treating them as images and introduces high levels of noise. To bridge this gap, we take advantage of recent advancements in pixel-based language models trained to reconstruct masked patches of pixels instead of predicting token distributions. Due to the scarcity of real historical scans, we propose a novel method for generating synthetic scans to resemble real historical documents. We then pre-train our model, PHD, on a combination of synthetic scans and real historical newspapers from the 1700-1900 period. Through our experiments, we demonstrate that PHD exhibits high proficiency in reconstructing masked image patches and provide evidence of our model's noteworthy language understanding capabilities. Notably, we successfully apply our model to a historical QA task, highlighting its usefulness in this domain.

Sagnik Ray Choudhury, Pepa Atanasova, Isabelle Augenstein

Reasoning over spans of tokens from different parts of the input is essential for natural language understanding (NLU) tasks such as fact-checking (FC), machine reading comprehension (MRC) or natural language inference (NLI). However, existing highlight-based explanations primarily focus on identifying individual important tokens or interactions only between adjacent tokens or tuples of tokens. Most notably, there is a lack of annotations capturing the human decision-making process w.r.t. the necessary interactions for informed decision-making in such tasks. To bridge this gap, we introduce SpanEx, a multi-annotator dataset of human span interaction explanations for two NLU tasks: NLI and FC. We then investigate the decision-making processes of multiple fine-tuned large language models in terms of the employed connections between spans in separate parts of the input and compare them to the human reasoning processes. Finally, we present a novel community detection based unsupervised method to extract such interaction explanations from a model's inner workings.

Zain Muhammad Mujahid, Dustin Wright, Isabelle Augenstein

Evaluating the factual consistency of abstractive text summarization remains a significant challenge, particularly for long documents, where conventional metrics struggle with input length limitations and long-range dependencies. In this work, we systematically evaluate the reliability of six widely used reference-free factuality metrics, originally proposed for short-form summarization, in the long-document setting. We probe metric robustness through seven factuality-preserving perturbations applied to summaries, namely paraphrasing, simplification, synonym replacement, logically equivalent negations, vocabulary reduction, compression, and source text insertion, and further analyze their sensitivity to retrieval context and claim information density. Across three long-form benchmark datasets spanning science fiction, legal, and scientific domains, our results reveal that existing short-form metrics produce inconsistent scores for semantically equivalent summaries and exhibit declining reliability for information-dense claims whose content is semantically similar to many parts of the source document. While expanding the retrieval context improves stability in some domains, no metric consistently maintains factual alignment under long-context conditions. Finally, our results highlight concrete directions for improving factuality evaluation, including multi-span reasoning, context-aware calibration, and training on meaning-preserving variations to enhance robustness in long-form summarization. We release all code, perturbed data, and scripts required to reproduce our results at https://github.com/zainmujahid/metricEval-longSum.

Jingyi Sun, Qianli Wang, Pepa Atanasova et al.

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) faithfulness, i.e., whether CoTs genuinely reflect large language models' (LLM) underlying behavior, is typically evaluated under two disjoint paradigms: contextual faithfulness, measured by perturbing the input or CoT trace, and parametric faithfulness, assessed by intervening on a model's parametric knowledge. Yet prior work compares them only descriptively. We fill this gap by proposing FaithMate, a unified preference-alignment interface for optimizing models towards either faithfulness paradigm. It enables us to investigate the interplay between the two paradigms, examining whether and to what extent faithfulness gains generalize within and across paradigms. Across three models, two datasets, and six faithfulness metrics, we find that the two paradigms are positively coupled, yet asymmetric: optimizing towards parametric faithfulness yields consistent gains across both paradigms, whereas the contextual counterpart delivers more variable gains. Within the contextual paradigm, faithfulness gains on one metric do not consistently transfer to others, implying that existing contextual metrics capture disjoint facets of faithfulness and exposing inherent trade-offs. These findings imply that CoT faithfulness is not a monolithic objective and therefore requires multifaceted optimization and evaluation.

Ahmad Dawar Hakimi, Lea Hirlimann, Isabelle Augenstein et al.

Instruction-tuned LLMs can annotate thousands of instances from a short prompt at negligible cost. This raises two questions for active learning (AL): can LLM labels replace human labels within the AL loop, and does AL remain necessary when entire corpora can be labelled at once? We investigate both questions on a new dataset of 277,902 German political TikTok comments (25,974 LLM-labelled, 5,000 human-annotated), comparing seven annotation strategies across four encoders to detect anti-immigrant hostility. A classifier trained on 25,974 GPT-5.2 labels (\$43) achieves comparable F1-Macro to one trained on 3,800 human annotations (\$316). Active learning offers little advantage over random sampling in our pre-enriched pool and delivers lower F1 than full LLM annotation at the same cost. However, comparable aggregate F1 masks a systematic difference in error structure: LLM-trained classifiers over-predict the positive class relative to the human gold standard. This divergence concentrates in topically ambiguous discussions where the distinction between anti-immigrant hostility and policy critique is most subtle, suggesting that annotation strategy should be guided not by aggregate F1 alone but by the error profile acceptable for the target application.

Haeun Yu, Seogyeong Jeong, Siddhesh Pawar et al.

The growing deployment of large language models (LLMs) across diverse cultural contexts necessitates a better understanding of how the overgeneralization of less documented cultures within LLMs' representations impacts their cultural understanding. Prior work only performs extrinsic evaluation of LLMs' cultural competence, without accounting for how LLMs' internal mechanisms lead to cultural (mis)representation. To bridge this gap, we propose Culturescope, the first mechanistic interpretability-based method that probes the internal representations of LLMs to elicit the underlying cultural knowledge space. CultureScope utilizes a patching method to extract the cultural knowledge. We introduce a cultural flattening score as a measure of the intrinsic cultural biases. Additionally, we study how LLMs internalize Western-dominance bias and cultural flattening, which allows us to trace how cultural biases emerge within LLMs. Our experimental results reveal that LLMs encode Western-dominance bias and cultural flattening in their cultural knowledge space. We find that low-resource cultures are less susceptible to cultural biases, likely due to their limited training resources. Our work provides a foundation for future research on mitigating cultural biases and enhancing LLMs' cultural understanding. Our codes and data used for experiments are publicly available.

Isabelle Augenstein

Language Models (LMs) acquire parametric knowledge from their training process, embedding it within their weights. The increasing scalability of LMs, however, poses significant challenges for understanding a model's inner workings and further for updating or correcting this embedded knowledge without the significant cost of retraining. Moreover, when using these language models for knowledge-intensive language understanding tasks, LMs have to integrate relevant context, mitigating their inherent weaknesses, such as incomplete or outdated knowledge. Nevertheless, studies indicate that LMs often ignore the provided context as it can be in conflict with the pre-existing LM's memory learned during pre-training. Conflicting knowledge can also already be present in the LM's parameters, termed intra-memory conflict. This underscores the importance of understanding the interplay between how a language model uses its parametric knowledge and the retrieved contextual knowledge. In this talk, I will aim to shed light on this important issue by presenting our research on evaluating the knowledge present in LMs, diagnostic tests that can reveal knowledge conflicts, as well as on understanding the characteristics of successfully used contextual knowledge.

Amalie Brogaard Pauli, Maria Barrett, Max Müller-Eberstein et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for everyday communication tasks, including drafting interpersonal messages intended to influence and persuade. Prior work has shown that LLMs can successfully persuade humans and amplify persuasive language. It is therefore essential to understand how user instructions affect the generation of persuasive language, and to understand whether the generated persuasive language differs, for example, when targeting different groups. In this work, we propose a framework for evaluating how persuasive language generation is affected by recipient gender, sender intent, or output language. We evaluate 13 LLMs and 16 languages using pairwise prompt instructions. We evaluate model responses on 19 categories of persuasive language using an LLM-as-judge setup grounded in social psychology and communication science. Our results reveal significant gender differences in the persuasive language generated across all models. These patterns reflect biases consistent with gender-stereotypical linguistic tendencies documented in social psychology and sociolinguistics.

Siddhesh Pawar, Junyeong Park, Jiho Jin et al.

Large-scale deployment of large language models (LLMs) in various applications, such as chatbots and virtual assistants, requires LLMs to be culturally sensitive to the user to ensure inclusivity. Culture has been widely studied in psychology and anthropology, and there has been a recent surge in research on making LLMs more culturally inclusive in LLMs that goes beyond multilinguality and builds on findings from psychology and anthropology. In this paper, we survey efforts towards incorporating cultural awareness into text-based and multimodal LLMs. We start by defining cultural awareness in LLMs, taking the definitions of culture from anthropology and psychology as a point of departure. We then examine methodologies adopted for creating cross-cultural datasets, strategies for cultural inclusion in downstream tasks, and methodologies that have been used for benchmarking cultural awareness in LLMs. Further, we discuss the ethical implications of cultural alignment, the role of Human-Computer Interaction in driving cultural inclusion in LLMs, and the role of cultural alignment in driving social science research. We finally provide pointers to future research based on our findings about gaps in the literature.

Greta Warren, Irina Shklovski, Isabelle Augenstein

The pervasiveness of large language models and generative AI in online media has amplified the need for effective automated fact-checking to assist fact-checkers in tackling the increasing volume and sophistication of misinformation. The complex nature of fact-checking demands that automated fact-checking systems provide explanations that enable fact-checkers to scrutinise their outputs. However, it is unclear how these explanations should align with the decision-making and reasoning processes of fact-checkers to be effectively integrated into their workflows. Through semi-structured interviews with fact-checking professionals, we bridge this gap by: (i) providing an account of how fact-checkers assess evidence, make decisions, and explain their processes; (ii) examining how fact-checkers use automated tools in practice; and (iii) identifying fact-checker explanation requirements for automated fact-checking tools. The findings show unmet explanation needs and identify important criteria for replicable fact-checking explanations that trace the model's reasoning path, reference specific evidence, and highlight uncertainty and information gaps.

Yong Cao, Haijiang Liu, Arnav Arora et al.

Large-scale surveys are essential tools for informing social science research and policy, but running surveys is costly and time-intensive. If we could accurately simulate group-level survey results, this would therefore be very valuable to social science research. Prior work has explored the use of large language models (LLMs) for simulating human behaviors, mostly through prompting. In this paper, we are the first to specialize LLMs for the task of simulating survey response distributions. As a testbed, we use country-level results from two global cultural surveys. We devise a fine-tuning method based on first-token probabilities to minimize divergence between predicted and actual response distributions for a given question. Then, we show that this method substantially outperforms other methods and zero-shot classifiers, even on unseen questions, countries, and a completely unseen survey. While even our best models struggle with the task, especially on unseen questions, our results demonstrate the benefits of specialization for simulation, which may accelerate progress towards sufficiently accurate simulation in the future.

Nadav Borenstein, Greta Warren, Desmond Elliott et al.

Two commonly employed strategies to combat the rise of misinformation on social media are (i) fact-checking by professional organisations and (ii) community moderation by platform users. Policy changes by Twitter/X and, more recently, Meta, signal a shift away from partnerships with fact-checking organisations and towards an increased reliance on crowdsourced community notes. However, the extent and nature of dependencies between fact-checking and helpful community notes remain unclear. To address these questions, we use language models to annotate a large corpus of Twitter/X community notes with attributes such as topic, cited sources, and whether they refute claims tied to broader misinformation narratives. Our analysis reveals that community notes cite fact-checking sources up to five times more than previously reported. Fact-checking is especially crucial for notes on posts linked to broader narratives, which are twice as likely to reference fact-checking sources compared to other sources. Our results show that successful community moderation relies on professional fact-checking and highlight how citizen and professional fact-checking are deeply intertwined.

Haeun Yu, Pepa Atanasova, Isabelle Augenstein

Language Models (LMs) acquire parametric knowledge from their training process, embedding it within their weights. The increasing scalability of LMs, however, poses significant challenges for understanding a model's inner workings and further for updating or correcting this embedded knowledge without the significant cost of retraining. This underscores the importance of unveiling exactly what knowledge is stored and its association with specific model components. Instance Attribution (IA) and Neuron Attribution (NA) offer insights into this training-acquired knowledge, though they have not been compared systematically. Our study introduces a novel evaluation framework to quantify and compare the knowledge revealed by IA and NA. To align the results of the methods we introduce the attribution method NA-Instances to apply NA for retrieving influential training instances, and IA-Neurons to discover important neurons of influential instances discovered by IA. We further propose a comprehensive list of faithfulness tests to evaluate the comprehensiveness and sufficiency of the explanations provided by both methods. Through extensive experiments and analysis, we demonstrate that NA generally reveals more diverse and comprehensive information regarding the LM's parametric knowledge compared to IA. Nevertheless, IA provides unique and valuable insights into the LM's parametric knowledge, which are not revealed by NA. Our findings further suggest the potential of a synergistic approach of combining the diverse findings of IA and NA for a more holistic understanding of an LM's parametric knowledge.

Amelie Wührl, Dustin Wright, Roman Klinger et al.

Distorted science communication harms individuals and society as it can lead to unhealthy behavior change and decrease trust in scientific institutions. Given the rapidly increasing volume of science communication in recent years, a fine-grained understanding of how findings from scientific publications are reported to the general public, and methods to detect distortions from the original work automatically, are crucial. Prior work focused on individual aspects of distortions or worked with unpaired data. In this work, we make three foundational contributions towards addressing this problem: (1) annotating 1,600 instances of scientific findings from academic papers paired with corresponding findings as reported in news articles and tweets wrt. four characteristics: causality, certainty, generality and sensationalism; (2) establishing baselines for automatically detecting these characteristics; and (3) analyzing the prevalence of changes in these characteristics in both human-annotated and large-scale unlabeled data. Our results show that scientific findings frequently undergo subtle distortions when reported. Tweets distort findings more often than science news reports. Detecting fine-grained distortions automatically poses a challenging task. In our experiments, fine-tuned task-specific models consistently outperform few-shot LLM prompting.

Siddhesh Pawar, Arnav Arora, Lucie-Aimée Kaffee et al.

Names are deeply tied to human identity. They can serve as markers of individuality, cultural heritage, and personal history. However, using names as a core indicator of identity can lead to over-simplification of complex identities. When interacting with LLMs, user names are an important point of information for personalisation. Names can enter chatbot conversations through direct user input (requested by chatbots), as part of task contexts such as CV reviews, or as built-in memory features that store user information for personalisation. We study biases associated with names by measuring cultural presumptions in the responses generated by LLMs when presented with common suggestion-seeking queries, which might involve making assumptions about the user. Our analyses demonstrate strong assumptions about cultural identity associated with names present in LLM generations across multiple cultures. Our work has implications for designing more nuanced personalisation systems that avoid reinforcing stereotypes while maintaining meaningful customisation.

Lovisa Hagström, Sara Vera Marjanović, Haeun Yu et al.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) helps address the limitations of parametric knowledge embedded within a language model (LM). In real world settings, retrieved information can vary in complexity, yet most investigations of LM utilisation of context has been limited to synthetic text. We introduce DRUID (Dataset of Retrieved Unreliable, Insufficient and Difficult-to-understand contexts) with real-world queries and contexts manually annotated for stance. The dataset is based on the prototypical task of automated claim verification, for which automated retrieval of real-world evidence is crucial. We compare DRUID to synthetic datasets (CounterFact, ConflictQA) and find that artificial datasets often fail to represent the complexity and diversity of realistically retrieved context. We show that synthetic datasets exaggerate context characteristics rare in real retrieved data, which leads to inflated context utilisation results, as measured by our novel ACU score. Moreover, while previous work has mainly focused on singleton context characteristics to explain context utilisation, correlations between singleton context properties and ACU on DRUID are surprisingly small compared to other properties related to context source. Overall, our work underscores the need for real-world aligned context utilisation studies to represent and improve performance in real-world RAG settings.

Arnav Arora, Srishti Yadav, Maria Antoniak et al.

Automated frame analysis of political communication is a popular task in computational social science that is used to study how authors select aspects of a topic to frame its reception. So far, such studies have been narrow, in that they use a fixed set of pre-defined frames and focus only on the text, ignoring the visual contexts in which those texts appear. Especially for framing in the news, this leaves out valuable information about editorial choices, which include not just the written article but also accompanying photographs. To overcome such limitations, we present a method for conducting multi-modal, multi-label framing analysis at scale using large (vision-) language models. Grounding our work in framing theory, we extract latent meaning embedded in images used to convey a certain point and contrast that to the text by comparing the respective frames used. We also identify highly partisan framing of topics with issue-specific frame analysis found in prior qualitative work. We demonstrate a method for doing scalable integrative framing analysis of both text and image in news, providing a more complete picture for understanding media bias.

Erik Arakelyan, Pasquale Minervini, Pat Verga et al.

Modern Question Answering (QA) and Reasoning approaches based on Large Language Models (LLMs) commonly use prompting techniques, such as Chain-of-Thought (CoT), assuming the resulting generation will have a more granular exploration and reasoning over the question space and scope. However, such methods struggle with generating outputs that are faithful to the intermediate chain of reasoning produced by the model. On the other end of the spectrum, neuro-symbolic methods such as Faithful CoT (F-CoT) propose to combine LLMs with external symbolic solvers. While such approaches boast a high degree of faithfulness, they usually require a model trained for code generation and struggle with tasks that are ambiguous or hard to formalise strictly. We introduce $\textbf{F}$aithful $\textbf{L}$ogic-$\textbf{A}$ided $\textbf{R}$easoning and $\textbf{E}$xploration ($\textbf{FLARE}$), a novel interpretable approach for traversing the problem space using task decompositions. We use the LLM to plan a solution, soft-formalise the query into facts and predicates using a logic programming code and simulate that code execution using an exhaustive multi-hop search over the defined space. Our method allows us to compute the faithfulness of the reasoning process w.r.t. the generated code and analyse the steps of the multi-hop search without relying on external solvers. Our methods achieve SOTA results on $\mathbf{7}$ out of $\mathbf{9}$ diverse reasoning benchmarks. We also show that model faithfulness positively correlates with overall performance and further demonstrate that $\textbf{FLARE}$ allows pinpointing the decisive factors sufficient for and leading to the correct answer with optimal reasoning during the multi-hop search.

Lovisa Hagström, Youna Kim, Haeun Yu et al.

Incorporating external knowledge is crucial for knowledge-intensive tasks, such as question answering and fact checking. However, language models (LMs) may ignore relevant information that contradicts outdated parametric memory or be distracted by irrelevant contexts. While many context utilisation manipulation techniques (CMTs) have recently been proposed to alleviate these issues, few have seen systematic comparison. In this paper, we develop CUB (Context Utilisation Benchmark) - the first comprehensive benchmark designed to help practitioners within retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) diagnose CMTs under different context conditions. With this benchmark, we conduct the most extensive evaluation to date of seven state-of-the-art methods, representative of the main categories of CMTs, across three diverse datasets and tasks, applied to nine LMs. Our results reveal that most existing CMTs struggle to handle the full spectrum of context types encountered in real-world retrieval-augmented scenarios. We also find that many CMTs display inflated performance on simple synthesised datasets, compared to more realistic datasets with naturally occurring samples. Our findings expose critical gaps in current CMT evaluation practices and demonstrate the need for holistic testing and the development of CMTs that can robustly handle multiple context types.

Shuzhou Yuan, Jingyi Sun, Ran Zhang et al.

Natural language explanations (NLEs) are commonly used to provide plausible free-text explanations of a model's reasoning about its predictions. However, recent work has questioned their faithfulness, as they may not accurately reflect the model's internal reasoning process regarding its predicted answer. In contrast, highlight explanations--input fragments critical for the model's predicted answers--exhibit measurable faithfulness. Building on this foundation, we propose G-Tex, a Graph-Guided Textual Explanation Generation framework designed to enhance the faithfulness of NLEs. Specifically, highlight explanations are first extracted as faithful cues reflecting the model's reasoning logic toward answer prediction. They are subsequently encoded through a graph neural network layer to guide the NLE generation, which aligns the generated explanations with the model's underlying reasoning toward the predicted answer. Experiments on T5 and BART using three reasoning datasets show that G-Tex improves NLE faithfulness by up to 12.18% compared to baseline methods. Additionally, G-Tex generates NLEs with greater semantic and lexical similarity to human-written ones. Human evaluations show that G-Tex can decrease redundant content and enhance the overall quality of NLEs. Our work presents a novel method for explicitly guiding NLE generation to enhance faithfulness, serving as a foundation for addressing broader criteria in NLE and generated text.

Lucas Resck, Isabelle Augenstein, Anna Korhonen

Despite their impressive capabilities, multilingual large language models (MLLMs) frequently exhibit inconsistent behaviour when the prompt's language changes. While such adaptation is generally desirable, it becomes a critical failure when a user's identity is explicitly defined. For instance, given a fixed British persona and an ambiguous everyday knowledge query about literature, the prompt's language frequently overwrites the system persona -- yielding Shakespeare in English but Cervantes in Spanish. To robustly quantify this Cross-lingual Cultural Inconsistency, we introduce Singleton Fleiss's $κ_S$, a metric mathematically resilient to hallucinations. For mitigation, we propose Cross-lingual Cultural Consistent Preference Optimisation (C-3PO), a consensus-driven alignment framework. C-3PO achieves up to a 0.10-point absolute increase in $κ_S$ over unaligned models, outperforming strong prompting and representation steering baselines. Empirical evaluations show this inconsistency disproportionately affects lower-resource languages like Indonesian and Persian. A layer-wise interpretability analysis reveals the underlying mechanism: by early-decoding intermediate layer representations, we find that MLLMs implicitly personalise outputs towards the prompt language's stereotypical culture as forward-pass representations stabilise.

Jingyi Sun, Greta Warren, Irina Shklovski et al.

Understanding sources of a model's uncertainty regarding its predictions is crucial for effective human-AI collaboration. Prior work proposes using numerical uncertainty or hedges ("I'm not sure, but ..."), which do not explain uncertainty that arises from conflicting evidence, leaving users unable to resolve disagreements or rely on the output. We introduce CLUE (Conflict-and-Agreement-aware Language-model Uncertainty Explanations), the first framework to generate natural language explanations of model uncertainty by (i) identifying relationships between spans of text that expose claim-evidence or inter-evidence conflicts and agreements that drive the model's predictive uncertainty in an unsupervised way, and (ii) generating explanations via prompting and attention steering that verbalize these critical interactions. Across three language models and two fact-checking datasets, we show that CLUE produces explanations that are more faithful to the model's uncertainty and more consistent with fact-checking decisions than prompting for uncertainty explanations without span-interaction guidance. Human evaluators judge our explanations to be more helpful, more informative, less redundant, and more logically consistent with the input than this baseline. CLUE requires no fine-tuning or architectural changes, making it plug-and-play for any white-box language model. By explicitly linking uncertainty to evidence conflicts, it offers practical support for fact-checking and generalises readily to other tasks that require reasoning over complex information.

Dustin Wright, Zain Muhammad Mujahid, Lu Wang et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are capable of generating coherent summaries from very long contexts given a user query, and extracting and citing evidence spans helps improve the trustworthiness of these summaries. Whereas previous work has focused on evidence citation with fixed levels of granularity (e.g. sentence, paragraph, document, etc.), we propose to extract unstructured (i.e., spans of any length) evidence in order to acquire more relevant and consistent evidence than in the fixed granularity case. We show how existing systems struggle to copy and properly cite unstructured evidence, which also tends to be "lost-in-the-middle". To help models perform this task, we create the Summaries with Unstructured Evidence Text dataset (SUnsET), a synthetic dataset generated using a novel pipeline, which can be used as training supervision for unstructured evidence summarization. We demonstrate across 5 LLMs and 4 datasets spanning human written, synthetic, single, and multi-document settings that LLMs adapted with SUnsET generate more relevant and factually consistent evidence with their summaries, extract evidence from more diverse locations in their context, and can generate more relevant and consistent summaries than baselines with no fine-tuning and fixed granularity evidence. We release SUnsET and our generation code to the public.

Sara Vera Marjanović, Isabelle Augenstein, Christina Lioma

Explainable AI methods facilitate the understanding of model behaviour, yet, small, imperceptible perturbations to inputs can vastly distort explanations. As these explanations are typically evaluated holistically, before model deployment, it is difficult to assess when a particular explanation is trustworthy. Some studies have tried to create confidence estimators for explanations, but none have investigated an existing link between uncertainty and explanation quality. We artificially simulate epistemic uncertainty in text input by introducing noise at inference time. In this large-scale empirical study, we insert different levels of noise perturbations and measure the effect on the output of pre-trained language models and different uncertainty metrics. Realistic perturbations have minimal effect on performance and explanations, yet masking has a drastic effect. We find that high uncertainty doesn't necessarily imply low explanation plausibility; the correlation between the two metrics can be moderately positive when noise is exposed during the training process. This suggests that noise-augmented models may be better at identifying salient tokens when uncertain. Furthermore, when predictive and epistemic uncertainty measures are over-confident, the robustness of a saliency map to perturbation can indicate model stability issues. Integrated Gradients shows the overall greatest robustness to perturbation, while still showing model-specific patterns in performance; however, this phenomenon is limited to smaller Transformer-based language models.

Dustin Wright, Sarah Masud, Jared Moore et al.

Large language models (LLMs) tend to generate lexically, semantically, and stylistically homogenous texts. This poses a risk of knowledge collapse, where homogenous LLMs mediate a shrinking in the range of accessible information over time. Existing works on homogenization are limited by a focus on closed-ended multiple-choice setups or fuzzy semantic features, and do not look at trends across time and cultural contexts. To overcome this, we present a new methodology to measure epistemic diversity, i.e., variation in real-world claims in LLM outputs, which we use to perform a broad empirical study of LLM knowledge collapse. We test 27 LLMs, 155 topics covering 12 countries, and 200 prompt variations sourced from real user chats. For the topics in our study, we show that while newer models tend to generate more diverse claims, nearly all models are less epistemically diverse than a basic web search. We find that model size has a negative impact on epistemic diversity, while retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has a positive impact, though the improvement from RAG varies by the cultural context. Finally, compared to a traditional knowledge source (Wikipedia), we find that country-specific claims reflect the English language more than the local one, highlighting a gap in epistemic representation

Jingyi Sun, Pepa Atanasova, Sagnik Ray Choudhury et al.

Context utilisation, the ability of Language Models (LMs) to incorporate relevant information from the provided context when generating responses, remains largely opaque to users, who cannot determine whether models draw from parametric memory or provided context, nor identify which specific context pieces inform the response. Highlight explanations (HEs) offer a natural solution as they can point the exact context pieces and tokens that influenced model outputs. However, no existing work evaluates their effectiveness in accurately explaining context utilisation. We address this gap by introducing the first gold standard HE evaluation framework for context attribution, using controlled test cases with known ground-truth context usage, which avoids the limitations of existing indirect proxy evaluations. To demonstrate the framework's broad applicability, we evaluate four HE methods -- three established techniques and MechLight, a mechanistic interpretability approach we adapt for this task -- across four context scenarios, four datasets, and five LMs. Overall, we find that MechLight performs best across all context scenarios. However, all methods struggle with longer contexts and exhibit positional biases, pointing to fundamental challenges in explanation accuracy that require new approaches to deliver reliable context utilisation explanations at scale.