Michiel van der Meer

Julia Kiseleva, Ziming Li, Mohammad Aliannejadi et al. · meta-ai, mit

Human intelligence has the remarkable ability to quickly adapt to new tasks and environments. Starting from a very young age, humans acquire new skills and learn how to solve new tasks either by imitating the behavior of others or by following provided natural language instructions. To facilitate research in this direction, we propose \emph{IGLU: Interactive Grounded Language Understanding in a Collaborative Environment}. The primary goal of the competition is to approach the problem of how to build interactive agents that learn to solve a task while provided with grounded natural language instructions in a collaborative environment. Understanding the complexity of the challenge, we split it into sub-tasks to make it feasible for participants.

Thomas M. Moerland, Matthias Müller-Brockhausen, Zhao Yang et al.

Due to the empirical success of reinforcement learning, an increasing number of students study the subject. However, from our practical teaching experience, we see students entering the field (bachelor, master and early PhD) often struggle. On the one hand, textbooks and (online) lectures provide the fundamentals, but students find it hard to translate between equations and code. On the other hand, public codebases do provide practical examples, but the implemented algorithms tend to be complex, and the underlying test environments contain multiple reinforcement learning challenges at once. Although this is realistic from a research perspective, it often hinders educational conceptual understanding. To solve this issue we introduce EduGym, a set of educational reinforcement learning environments and associated interactive notebooks tailored for education. Each EduGym environment is specifically designed to illustrate a certain aspect/challenge of reinforcement learning (e.g., exploration, partial observability, stochasticity, etc.), while the associated interactive notebook explains the challenge and its possible solution approaches, connecting equations and code in a single document. An evaluation among RL students and researchers shows 86% of them think EduGym is a useful tool for reinforcement learning education. All notebooks are available from https://www.edugym.org/, while the full software package can be installed from https://github.com/RLG-Leiden/edugym.

Michiel van der Meer, Piek Vossen, Catholijn M. Jonker et al.

Disagreements are common in online discussions. Disagreement may foster collaboration and improve the quality of a discussion under some conditions. Although there exist methods for recognizing disagreement, a deeper understanding of factors that influence disagreement is lacking in the literature. We investigate a hypothesis that differences in personal values are indicative of disagreement in online discussions. We show how state-of-the-art models can be used for estimating values in online discussions and how the estimated values can be aggregated into value profiles. We evaluate the estimated value profiles based on human-annotated agreement labels. We find that the dissimilarity of value profiles correlates with disagreement in specific cases. We also find that including value information in agreement prediction improves performance.

Michiel van der Meer, Myrthe Reuver, Urja Khurana et al.

This paper describes our contributions to the Shared Task of the 9th Workshop on Argument Mining (2022). Our approach uses Large Language Models for the task of Argument Quality Prediction. We perform prompt engineering using GPT-3, and also investigate the training paradigms multi-task learning, contrastive learning, and intermediate-task training. We find that a mixed prediction setup outperforms single models. Prompting GPT-3 works best for predicting argument validity, and argument novelty is best estimated by a model trained using all three training paradigms.

Lea Krause, Selene Báez Santamaría, Michiel van der Meer et al.

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

Urja Khurana, Michiel van der Meer, Enrico Liscio et al.

Subjective judgments are part of several NLP datasets and recent work is increasingly prioritizing models whose outputs reflect this diversity of perspectives. Such responses allow us to shed light on minority voices, which are frequently marginalized or obscured by dominant perspectives. It remains a question whether our evaluation practices align with these models' objectives. This position paper proposes seven evaluation desiderata for subjectivity-sensitive models, rooted in how subjectivity is represented in NLP data and models. The desiderata are constructed in a top-down approach, keeping in mind the user-centric impact of such models. We scan the experimental setup of 60 papers and show that various aspects of subjectivity are still understudied: the distinction between ambiguous and polyphonic input, whether subjectivity is effectively expressed to the user, and a lack of interplay between different desiderata, amongst other gaps.

Tom Kouwenhoven, Michiel van der Meer, Max van Duijn

The False Belief Test (FBT) has been the main method for assessing Theory of Mind (ToM) and related socio-cognitive competencies. For Large Language Models (LLMs), the reliability and explanatory potential of this test have remained limited due to issues like data contamination, insufficient model details, and inconsistent controls. We address these issues by testing 17 open-weight models on a balanced set of 192 FBT variants (Trott et al. 2023) using Bayesian Logistic regression to identify how model size and post-training affect socio-cognitive competence. We find that scaling model size benefits performance, but not strictly. A cross-over effect reveals that explicating propositional attitudes (X thinks) fundamentally alters response patterns. Instruction tuning partially mitigates this effect, but further reasoning-oriented finetuning amplifies it. In a case study analysing social reasoning ability throughout OLMo 2 training, we show that this cross-over effect emerges during pre-training, suggesting that models acquire stereotypical response patterns tied to mental-state vocabulary that can outweigh other scenario semantics. Finally, vector steering allows us to isolate a think vector as the causal driver of observed FBT behaviour.

Michiel van der Meer, Neele Falk, Pradeep K. Murukannaiah et al.

Active Learning (AL) addresses the high costs of collecting human annotations by strategically annotating the most informative samples. However, for subjective NLP tasks, incorporating a wide range of perspectives in the annotation process is crucial to capture the variability in human judgments. We introduce Annotator-Centric Active Learning (ACAL), which incorporates an annotator selection strategy following data sampling. Our objective is two-fold: 1) to efficiently approximate the full diversity of human judgments, and 2) to assess model performance using annotator-centric metrics, which value minority and majority perspectives equally. We experiment with multiple annotator selection strategies across seven subjective NLP tasks, employing both traditional and novel, human-centered evaluation metrics. Our findings indicate that ACAL improves data efficiency and excels in annotator-centric performance evaluations. However, its success depends on the availability of a sufficiently large and diverse pool of annotators to sample from.

Michiel van der Meer, Piek Vossen, Catholijn M. Jonker et al.

Presenting high-level arguments is a crucial task for fostering participation in online societal discussions. Current argument summarization approaches miss an important facet of this task -- capturing diversity -- which is important for accommodating multiple perspectives. We introduce three aspects of diversity: those of opinions, annotators, and sources. We evaluate approaches to a popular argument summarization task called Key Point Analysis, which shows how these approaches struggle to (1) represent arguments shared by few people, (2) deal with data from various sources, and (3) align with subjectivity in human-provided annotations. We find that both general-purpose LLMs and dedicated KPA models exhibit this behavior, but have complementary strengths. Further, we observe that diversification of training data may ameliorate generalization. Addressing diversity in argument summarization requires a mix of strategies to deal with subjectivity.

Michiel van der Meer, Enrico Liscio, Catholijn M. Jonker et al.

Large-scale survey tools enable the collection of citizen feedback in opinion corpora. Extracting the key arguments from a large and noisy set of opinions helps in understanding the opinions quickly and accurately. Fully automated methods can extract arguments but (1) require large labeled datasets that induce large annotation costs and (2) work well for known viewpoints, but not for novel points of view. We propose HyEnA, a hybrid (human + AI) method for extracting arguments from opinionated texts, combining the speed of automated processing with the understanding and reasoning capabilities of humans. We evaluate HyEnA on three citizen feedback corpora. We find that, on the one hand, HyEnA achieves higher coverage and precision than a state-of-the-art automated method when compared to a common set of diverse opinions, justifying the need for human insight. On the other hand, HyEnA requires less human effort and does not compromise quality compared to (fully manual) expert analysis, demonstrating the benefit of combining human and artificial intelligence.

Michiel van der Meer, Pavel Korshunov, Sébastien Marcel et al.

Misinformation can be countered with fact-checking, but the process is costly and slow. Identifying checkworthy claims is the first step, where automation can help scale fact-checkers' efforts. However, detection methods struggle with content that is (1) multimodal, (2) from diverse domains, and (3) synthetic. We introduce HintsOfTruth, a public dataset for multimodal checkworthiness detection with 27K real-world and synthetic image/claim pairs. The mix of real and synthetic data makes this dataset unique and ideal for benchmarking detection methods. We compare fine-tuned and prompted Large Language Models (LLMs). We find that well-configured lightweight text-based encoders perform comparably to multimodal models but the former only focus on identifying non-claim-like content. Multimodal LLMs can be more accurate but come at a significant computational cost, making them impractical for large-scale applications. When faced with synthetic data, multimodal models perform more robustly.

Michiel van der Meer

Modern democracies face a critical issue of declining citizen participation in decision-making. Online discussion forums are an important avenue for enhancing citizen participation. This thesis proposal 1) identifies the challenges involved in facilitating large-scale online discussions with Natural Language Processing (NLP), 2) suggests solutions to these challenges by incorporating hybrid human-AI technologies, and 3) investigates what these technologies can reveal about individual perspectives in online discussions. We propose a three-layered hierarchy for representing perspectives that can be obtained by a mixture of human intelligence and large language models. We illustrate how these representations can draw insights into the diversity of perspectives and allow us to investigate interactions in online discussions.

Ruth Shortall, Anatol Itten, Michiel van der Meer et al.

Designers of online deliberative platforms aim to counter the degrading quality of online debates. Support technologies such as machine learning and natural language processing open avenues for widening the circle of people involved in deliberation, moving from small groups to "crowd" scale. Numerous design features of large-scale online discussion systems allow larger numbers of people to discuss shared problems, enhance critical thinking, and formulate solutions. We review the transdisciplinary literature on the design of digital mass deliberation platforms and examine the commonly featured design aspects (e.g., argumentation support, automated facilitation, and gamification) that attempt to facilitate scaling up. We find that the literature is largely focused on developing technical fixes for scaling up deliberation, but may neglect the more nuanced requirements of high quality deliberation. Current design research is carried out with a small, atypical segment of the world's population, and much research is still needed on how to facilitate and accommodate different genders or cultures in deliberation, how to deal with the implications of pre-existing social inequalities, how to build motivation and self-efficacy in certain groups, and how to deal with differences in cognitive abilities and cultural or linguistic differences. Few studies bridge disciplines between deliberative theory, design and engineering. As a result, scaling up deliberation will likely advance in separate systemic siloes. We make design and process recommendations to correct this course and suggest avenues for future research

Michiel van der Meer, Matteo Pirotta, Elia Bruni

In this work, we present an alternative approach to making an agent compositional through the use of a diagnostic classifier. Because of the need for explainable agents in automated decision processes, we attempt to interpret the latent space from an RL agent to identify its current objective in a complex language instruction. Results show that the classification process causes changes in the hidden states which makes them more easily interpretable, but also causes a shift in zero-shot performance to novel instructions. Lastly, we limit the supervisory signal on the classification, and observe a similar but less notable effect.