Tuhin Chakrabarty

Tuhin Chakrabarty, Philippe Laban, Divyansh Agarwal et al. · microsoft-research, salesforce

Researchers have argued that large language models (LLMs) exhibit high-quality writing capabilities from blogs to stories. However, evaluating objectively the creativity of a piece of writing is challenging. Inspired by the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT), which measures creativity as a process, we use the Consensual Assessment Technique [3] and propose the Torrance Test of Creative Writing (TTCW) to evaluate creativity as a product. TTCW consists of 14 binary tests organized into the original dimensions of Fluency, Flexibility, Originality, and Elaboration. We recruit 10 creative writers and implement a human assessment of 48 stories written either by professional authors or LLMs using TTCW. Our analysis shows that LLM-generated stories pass 3-10X less TTCW tests than stories written by professionals. In addition, we explore the use of LLMs as assessors to automate the TTCW evaluation, revealing that none of the LLMs positively correlate with the expert assessments.

Tuhin Chakrabarty, Philippe Laban, Chien-Sheng Wu · microsoft-research

LLM-based applications are helping people write, and LLM-generated text is making its way into social media, journalism, and our classrooms. However, the differences between LLM-generated and human written text remain unclear. To explore this, we hired professional writers to edit paragraphs in several creative domains. We first found these writers agree on undesirable idiosyncrasies in LLM generated text, formalizing it into a seven-category taxonomy (e.g. clichés, unnecessary exposition). Second, we curated the LAMP corpus: 1,057 LLM-generated paragraphs edited by professional writers according to our taxonomy. Analysis of LAMP reveals that none of the LLMs used in our study (GPT4o, Claude-3.5-Sonnet, Llama-3.1-70b) outperform each other in terms of writing quality, revealing common limitations across model families. Third, building on existing work in automatic editing we evaluated methods to improve LLM-generated text. A large-scale preference annotation confirms that although experts largely prefer text edited by other experts, automatic editing methods show promise in improving alignment between LLM-generated and human-written text.

Thomas Scialom, Tuhin Chakrabarty, Smaranda Muresan

Recent work on large language models relies on the intuition that most natural language processing tasks can be described via natural language instructions. Language models trained on these instructions show strong zero-shot performance on several standard datasets. However, these models even though impressive still perform poorly on a wide range of tasks outside of their respective training and evaluation sets. To address this limitation, we argue that a model should be able to keep extending its knowledge and abilities, without forgetting previous skills. In spite of the limited success of Continual Learning we show that Language Models can be continual learners. We empirically investigate the reason for this success and conclude that Continual Learning emerges from self-supervision pre-training. Our resulting model Continual-T0 (CT0) is able to learn diverse new tasks, while still maintaining good performance on previous tasks, spanning remarkably through 70 datasets in total. Finally, we show that CT0 is able to combine instructions in ways it was never trained for, demonstrating some compositionality.

Tuhin Chakrabarty, Arkadiy Saakyan, Debanjan Ghosh et al.

Figurative language understanding has been recently framed as a recognizing textual entailment (RTE) task (a.k.a. natural language inference, or NLI). However, similar to classical RTE/NLI datasets, the current benchmarks suffer from spurious correlations and annotation artifacts. To tackle this problem, work on NLI has built explanation-based datasets such as e-SNLI, allowing us to probe whether language models are right for the right reasons.Yet no such data exists for figurative language, making it harder to assess genuine understanding of such expressions. To address this issue, we release FLUTE, a dataset of 9,000 figurative NLI instances with explanations, spanning four categories: Sarcasm, Simile, Metaphor, and Idioms. We collect the data through a model-in-the-loop framework based on GPT-3, crowd workers, and expert annotators. We show how utilizing GPT-3 in conjunction with human annotators (novices and experts) can aid in scaling up the creation of datasets even for such complex linguistic phenomena as figurative language. The baseline performance of the T5 model fine-tuned on FLUTE shows that our dataset can bring us a step closer to developing models that understand figurative language through textual explanations.

Tuhin Chakrabarty, Vishakh Padmakumar, Faeze Brahman et al.

The development of large language models (LLMs) capable of following instructions and engaging in conversational interactions sparked increased interest in their utilization across various support tools. We investigate the utility of modern LLMs in assisting professional writers via an empirical user study (n=30). The design of our collaborative writing interface is grounded in the cognitive process model of writing that views writing as a goal-oriented thinking process encompassing non-linear cognitive activities: planning, translating, and reviewing. Participants are asked to submit a post-completion survey to provide feedback on the potential and pitfalls of LLMs as writing collaborators. Upon analyzing the writer-LLM interactions, we find that while writers seek LLM's help across all three types of cognitive activities, they find LLMs more helpful in translation and reviewing. Our findings from analyzing both the interactions and the survey responses highlight future research directions in creative writing assistance using LLMs.

Tariq Alhindi, Tuhin Chakrabarty, Elena Musi et al.

Fallacies are used as seemingly valid arguments to support a position and persuade the audience about its validity. Recognizing fallacies is an intrinsically difficult task both for humans and machines. Moreover, a big challenge for computational models lies in the fact that fallacies are formulated differently across the datasets with differences in the input format (e.g., question-answer pair, sentence with fallacy fragment), genre (e.g., social media, dialogue, news), as well as types and number of fallacies (from 5 to 18 types per dataset). To move towards solving the fallacy recognition task, we approach these differences across datasets as multiple tasks and show how instruction-based prompting in a multitask setup based on the T5 model improves the results against approaches built for a specific dataset such as T5, BERT or GPT-3. We show the ability of this multitask prompting approach to recognize 28 unique fallacies across domains and genres and study the effect of model size and prompt choice by analyzing the per-class (i.e., fallacy type) results. Finally, we analyze the effect of annotation quality on model performance, and the feasibility of complementing this approach with external knowledge.

Tuhin Chakrabarty, Vishakh Padmakumar, He He

Recent work in training large language models (LLMs) to follow natural language instructions has opened up exciting opportunities for natural language interface design. Building on the prior success of LLMs in the realm of computer-assisted creativity, we aim to study if LLMs can improve the quality of user-generated content through collaboration. We present CoPoet, a collaborative poetry writing system. In contrast to auto-completing a user's text, CoPoet is controlled by user instructions that specify the attributes of the desired text, such as Write a sentence about `love' or Write a sentence ending in `fly'. The core component of our system is a language model fine-tuned on a diverse collection of instructions for poetry writing. Our model is not only competitive with publicly available LLMs trained on instructions (InstructGPT), but is also capable of satisfying unseen compositional instructions. A study with 15 qualified crowdworkers shows that users successfully write poems with CoPoet on diverse topics ranging from Monarchy to Climate change. Further, the collaboratively written poems are preferred by third-party evaluators over those written without the system.

Chenghao Yang, Tuhin Chakrabarty, Karli R Hochstatter et al.

In the last decade, the United States has lost more than 500,000 people from an overdose involving prescription and illicit opioids making it a national public health emergency (USDHHS, 2017). Medical practitioners require robust and timely tools that can effectively identify at-risk patients. Community-based social media platforms such as Reddit allow self-disclosure for users to discuss otherwise sensitive drug-related behaviors. We present a moderate size corpus of 2500 opioid-related posts from various subreddits labeled with six different phases of opioid use: Medical Use, Misuse, Addiction, Recovery, Relapse, Not Using. For every post, we annotate span-level extractive explanations and crucially study their role both in annotation quality and model development. We evaluate several state-of-the-art models in a supervised, few-shot, or zero-shot setting. Experimental results and error analysis show that identifying the phases of opioid use disorder is highly contextual and challenging. However, we find that using explanations during modeling leads to a significant boost in classification accuracy demonstrating their beneficial role in a high-stakes domain such as studying the opioid use disorder continuum.

Tuhin Chakrabarty, Kanishk Singh, Arkadiy Saakyan et al.

Natural language instructions are a powerful interface for editing the outputs of text-to-image diffusion models. However, several challenges need to be addressed: 1) underspecification (the need to model the implicit meaning of instructions) 2) grounding (the need to localize where the edit has to be performed), 3) faithfulness (the need to preserve the elements of the image not affected by the edit instruction). Current approaches focusing on image editing with natural language instructions rely on automatically generated paired data, which, as shown in our investigation, is noisy and sometimes nonsensical, exacerbating the above issues. Building on recent advances in segmentation, Chain-of-Thought prompting, and visual question answering, we significantly improve the quality of the paired data. In addition, we enhance the supervision signal by highlighting parts of the image that need to be changed by the instruction. The model fine-tuned on the improved data is capable of performing fine-grained object-centric edits better than state-of-the-art baselines, mitigating the problems outlined above, as shown by automatic and human evaluations. Moreover, our model is capable of generalizing to domains unseen during training, such as visual metaphors.

Tuhin Chakrabarty, Justin Lewis, Smaranda Muresan

Recent work on question generation has largely focused on factoid questions such as who, what, where, when about basic facts. Generating open-ended why, how, what, etc. questions that require long-form answers have proven more difficult. To facilitate the generation of open-ended questions, we propose CONSISTENT, a new end-to-end system for generating open-ended questions that are answerable from and faithful to the input text. Using news articles as a trustworthy foundation for experimentation, we demonstrate our model's strength over several baselines using both automatic and human=based evaluations. We contribute an evaluation dataset of expert-generated open-ended questions.We discuss potential downstream applications for news media organizations.

Tuhin Chakrabarty, Paramveer S. Dhillon

Creative writing has long been considered a uniquely human endeavor, requiring voice and style that machines could not replicate. This assumption is challenged by Generative AI that can emulate thousands of author styles in seconds with negligible marginal labor. To understand this better, we conducted a behavioral experiment where 28 MFA writers (experts) competed against three LLMs in emulating 50 critically acclaimed authors. Based on blind pairwise comparisons by 28 expert judges and 131 lay judges, we find that experts preferred human writing in 82.7% of cases under the in-context prompting condition but this reversed to 62% preference for AI after fine-tuning on authors' complete works. Lay judges, however, consistently preferred AI writing. Debrief interviews with expert writers revealed that their preference for AI writing triggered an identity crisis, eroding aesthetic confidence and questioning what constitutes "good writing." These findings challenge discourse about AI's creative limitations and raise fundamental questions about the future of creative labor.

Xinyue Liu, Niloofar Mireshghallah, Jane C. Ginsburg et al.

Frontier LLM companies have repeatedly assured courts and regulators that their models do not store copies of training data. They further rely on safety alignment strategies via RLHF, system prompts, and output filters to block verbatim regurgitation of copyrighted works, and have cited the efficacy of these measures in their legal defenses against copyright infringement claims. We show that finetuning bypasses these protections: by training models to expand plot summaries into full text, a task naturally suited for commercial writing assistants, we cause GPT-4o, Gemini-2.5-Pro, and DeepSeek-V3.1 to reproduce up to 85-90% of held-out copyrighted books, with single verbatim spans exceeding 460 words, using only semantic descriptions as prompts and no actual book text. This extraction generalizes across authors: finetuning exclusively on Haruki Murakami's novels unlocks verbatim recall of copyrighted books from over 30 unrelated authors. The effect is not specific to any training author or corpus: random author pairs and public-domain finetuning data produce comparable extraction, while finetuning on synthetic text yields near-zero extraction, indicating that finetuning on individual authors' works reactivates latent memorization from pretraining. Three models from different providers memorize the same books in the same regions ($r \ge 0.90$), pointing to an industry-wide vulnerability. Our findings offer compelling evidence that model weights store copies of copyrighted works and that the security failures that manifest after finetuning on individual authors' works undermine a key premise of recent fair use rulings, where courts have conditioned favorable outcomes on the adequacy of measures preventing reproduction of protected expression.

Arkadiy Saakyan, Najoung Kim, Smaranda Muresan et al.

N-gram novelty is widely used to evaluate language models' ability to generate text outside of their training data. More recently, it has also been adopted as a metric for measuring textual creativity. However, theoretical work on creativity suggests that this approach may be inadequate, as it does not account for creativity's dual nature: novelty (how original the text is) and appropriateness (how sensical and pragmatic it is). We investigate the relationship between this notion of creativity and n-gram novelty through 7542 expert writer annotations (n=26) of novelty, pragmaticality, and sensicality via close reading of human and AI-generated text. We find that while n-gram novelty is positively associated with expert writer-judged creativity, ~91% of top-quartile expressions by n-gram novelty are not judged as creative, cautioning against relying on n-gram novelty alone. Furthermore, unlike human-written text, higher n-gram novelty in open-source LLMs correlates with lower pragmaticality. In an exploratory study with frontier close-source models, we additionally confirm that they are less likely to produce creative expressions than humans. Using our dataset, we test whether zero-shot, few-shot, and finetuned models are able to identify creative expressions (a positive aspect of writing) and non-pragmatic ones (a negative aspect). Overall, frontier LLMs exhibit performance much higher than random but leave room for improvement, especially struggling to identify non-pragmatic expressions. We further find that LLM-as-a-Judge novelty scores from the best-performing model were predictive of expert writer preferences.

Tuhin Chakrabarty, Arkadiy Saakyan, Smaranda Muresan

Despite constant improvements in machine translation quality, automatic poetry translation remains a challenging problem due to the lack of open-sourced parallel poetic corpora, and to the intrinsic complexities involved in preserving the semantics, style, and figurative nature of poetry. We present an empirical investigation for poetry translation along several dimensions: 1) size and style of training data (poetic vs. non-poetic), including a zero-shot setup; 2) bilingual vs. multilingual learning; and 3) language-family-specific models vs. mixed-multilingual models. To accomplish this, we contribute a parallel dataset of poetry translations for several language pairs. Our results show that multilingual fine-tuning on poetic text significantly outperforms multilingual fine-tuning on non-poetic text that is 35X larger in size, both in terms of automatic metrics (BLEU, BERTScore) and human evaluation metrics such as faithfulness (meaning and poetic style). Moreover, multilingual fine-tuning on poetic data outperforms \emph{bilingual} fine-tuning on poetic data.

Tuhin Chakrabarty, Philippe Laban, Chien-Sheng Wu · microsoft-research

AI-generated text is proliferating across domains, from creative writing and journalism to marketing content and scientific articles. Models can follow user-provided instructions to generate coherent and grammatically correct outputs but in this work, we study a more fundamental question: how do we evaluate and improve the writing quality of AI-generated text? Writing quality assessment has received less attention from the community, in part because it is fundamentally subjective and requires expertise. We first introduce the Writing Quality Benchmark (WQ) by consolidating five writing-preference datasets into 4,729 writing quality judgments. Our experiments show that most of the competitive baselines, including state-of-the-art LLMs that excel at reasoning tasks, barely outperform random baselines on WQ. We then train specialized Writing Quality Reward Models (WQRM) of various sizes for writing quality assessment that demonstrate strong generalization on four out-of-distribution test sets and 74% accuracy on the WQ benchmark. To further show WQRM's practical benefits during inference, we leverage additional test-time compute to generate and rank multiple candidate revisions, allowing us to select higher-quality outputs from an initial draft. Human evaluation with 9 experienced writers confirm that WQRM-based selection produces writing samples preferred by experts 66% overall, and 72.2% when the reward gap is larger than 1 point. We release our datasets and models to encourage community engagement with writing quality assessment and development of AI writing systems better aligned with human preferences.

Arkadiy Saakyan, Shreyas Kulkarni, Tuhin Chakrabarty et al.

Large Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have demonstrated strong capabilities in tasks requiring a fine-grained understanding of literal meaning in images and text, such as visual question-answering or visual entailment. However, there has been little exploration of the capabilities of these models when presented with images and captions containing figurative meaning, such as metaphors or humor. To close this gap, we propose a new task framing the figurative meaning understanding problem as an explainable visual entailment task, where the model has to predict whether the image (premise) entails a caption (hypothesis) and justify the predicted label with a textual explanation. The figurative phenomena can be present in the image, in the caption, or both. Using a human-AI collaboration approach, we build the accompanying expert-verified dataset V-FLUTE, containing 6,027 {image, caption, label, explanation} instances spanning five diverse figurative phenomena: metaphors, similes, idioms, sarcasm, and humor. Through automatic evaluation, we find that VLMs struggle to generalize from literal to figurative meaning, particularly when it is present in images. Further, we identify common types of errors in VLM reasoning (hallucination and incomplete or unsound reasoning) across classes of models via human evaluation.

Sanchaita Hazra, Bodhisattwa Prasad Majumder, Tuhin Chakrabarty

Current efforts in AI safety prioritize filtering harmful content, preventing manipulation of human behavior, and eliminating existential risks in cybersecurity or biosecurity. While pressing, this narrow focus overlooks critical human-centric considerations that shape the long-term trajectory of a society. In this position paper, we identify the risks of overlooking the impact of AI on the future of work and recommend comprehensive transition support towards the evolution of meaningful labor with human agency. Through the lens of economic theories, we highlight the intertemporal impacts of AI on human livelihood and the structural changes in labor markets that exacerbate income inequality. Additionally, the closed-source approach of major stakeholders in AI development resembles rent-seeking behavior through exploiting resources, breeding mediocrity in creative labor, and monopolizing innovation. To address this, we argue in favor of a robust international copyright anatomy supported by implementing collective licensing that ensures fair compensation mechanisms for using data to train AI models. We strongly recommend a pro-worker framework of global AI governance to enhance shared prosperity and economic justice while reducing technical debt.

Antonio Laverghetta, Tuhin Chakrabarty, Tom Hope et al.

Creativity assessment in science and engineering is increasingly based on both human and AI judgment, but the cognitive processes and biases behind these evaluations remain poorly understood. We conducted two experiments examining how including example solutions with ratings impact creativity evaluation, using a finegrained annotation protocol where raters were tasked with explaining their originality scores and rating for the facets of remoteness (whether the response is "far" from everyday ideas), uncommonness (whether the response is rare), and cleverness. In Study 1, we analyzed creativity ratings from 72 experts with formal science or engineering training, comparing those who received example solutions with ratings (example) to those who did not (no example). Computational text analysis revealed that, compared to experts with examples, no-example experts used more comparative language (e.g., "better/worse") and emphasized solution uncommonness, suggesting they may have relied more on memory retrieval for comparisons. In Study 2, parallel analyses with state-of-the-art LLMs revealed that models prioritized uncommonness and remoteness of ideas when rating originality, suggesting an evaluative process rooted around the semantic similarity of ideas. In the example condition, while LLM accuracy in predicting the true originality scores improved, the correlations of remoteness, uncommonness, and cleverness with originality also increased substantially -- to upwards of $0.99$ -- suggesting a homogenization in the LLMs evaluation of the individual facets. These findings highlight important implications for how humans and AI reason about creativity and suggest diverging preferences for what different populations prioritize when rating.

Chantal Shaib, Tuhin Chakrabarty, Diego Garcia-Olano et al.

AI "slop" is an increasingly popular term used to describe low-quality AI-generated text, but there is currently no agreed upon definition of this term nor a means to measure its occurrence. In this work, we develop a taxonomy of "slop" through interviews with experts in NLP, writing, and philosophy, and propose a set of interpretable dimensions for its assessment in text. Through span-level annotation, we find that binary "slop" judgments are (somewhat) subjective, but such determinations nonetheless correlate with latent dimensions such as coherence and relevance. Our framework can be used to evaluate AI-generated text in both detection and binary preference tasks, potentially offering new insights into the linguistic and stylistic factors that contribute to quality judgments.

Tao Long, Sitong Wang, Émilie Fabre et al.

UIST researchers develop tools to address user challenges. However, user interactions with AI evolve over time through learning, adaptation, and repurposing, making one time evaluations insufficient. Capturing these dynamics requires longer-term studies, but challenges in deployment, evaluation design, and data collection have made such longitudinal research difficult to implement. Our workshop aims to tackle these challenges and prepare researchers with practical strategies for longitudinal studies. The workshop includes a keynote, panel discussions, and interactive breakout groups for discussion and hands-on protocol design and tool prototyping sessions. We seek to foster a community around longitudinal system research and promote it as a more embraced method for designing, building, and evaluating UIST tools.

Tuhin Chakrabarty, Jane C. Ginsburg, Paramveer Dhillon

The use of copyrighted books for training AI models has led to numerous lawsuits from authors concerned about AI's ability to generate derivative content. Yet it's unclear if these models can generate high quality literary text while emulating authors' styles. To answer this we conducted a preregistered study comparing MFA-trained expert writers with three frontier AI models: ChatGPT, Claude & Gemini in writing up to 450 word excerpts emulating 50 award-winning authors' diverse styles. In blind pairwise evaluations by 159 representative expert & lay readers, AI-generated text from in-context prompting was strongly disfavored by experts for both stylistic fidelity (OR=0.16, p<10^-8) & writing quality (OR=0.13, p<10^-7) but showed mixed results with lay readers. However, fine-tuning ChatGPT on individual authors' complete works completely reversed these findings: experts now favored AI-generated text for stylistic fidelity (OR=8.16, p<10^-13) & writing quality (OR=1.87, p=0.010), with lay readers showing similar shifts. These effects generalize across authors & styles. The fine-tuned outputs were rarely flagged as AI-generated (3% rate v. 97% for in-context prompting) by best AI detectors. Mediation analysis shows this reversal occurs because fine-tuning eliminates detectable AI stylistic quirks (e.g., cliche density) that penalize in-context outputs. While we do not account for additional costs of human effort required to transform raw AI output into cohesive, publishable prose, the median fine-tuning & inference cost of $81 per author represents a dramatic 99.7% reduction compared to typical professional writer compensation. Author-specific fine-tuning thus enables non-verbatim AI writing that readers prefer to expert human writing, providing empirical evidence directly relevant to copyright's fourth fair-use factor, the "effect upon the potential market or value" of the source works.

Prisha Samadarshi, Mariam Mustafa, Anushka Kulkarni et al.

The New York Times Connections game has emerged as a popular and challenging pursuit for word puzzle enthusiasts. We collect 438 Connections games to evaluate the performance of state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) against expert and novice human players. Our results show that even the best performing LLM, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, which has otherwise shown impressive reasoning abilities on a wide variety of benchmarks, can only fully solve 18% of the games. Novice and expert players perform better than Claude 3.5 Sonnet, with expert human players significantly outperforming it. We create a taxonomy of the knowledge types required to successfully cluster and categorize words in the Connections game. We find that while LLMs perform relatively well on categorizing words based on semantic relations they struggle with other types of knowledge such as Encyclopedic Knowledge, Multiword Expressions or knowledge that combines both Word Form and Meaning. Our results establish the New York Times Connections game as a challenging benchmark for evaluating abstract reasoning capabilities in AI systems.

Tuhin Chakrabarty, Arkadiy Saakyan, Olivia Winn et al.

Visual metaphors are powerful rhetorical devices used to persuade or communicate creative ideas through images. Similar to linguistic metaphors, they convey meaning implicitly through symbolism and juxtaposition of the symbols. We propose a new task of generating visual metaphors from linguistic metaphors. This is a challenging task for diffusion-based text-to-image models, such as DALL$\cdot$E 2, since it requires the ability to model implicit meaning and compositionality. We propose to solve the task through the collaboration between Large Language Models (LLMs) and Diffusion Models: Instruct GPT-3 (davinci-002) with Chain-of-Thought prompting generates text that represents a visual elaboration of the linguistic metaphor containing the implicit meaning and relevant objects, which is then used as input to the diffusion-based text-to-image models.Using a human-AI collaboration framework, where humans interact both with the LLM and the top-performing diffusion model, we create a high-quality dataset containing 6,476 visual metaphors for 1,540 linguistic metaphors and their associated visual elaborations. Evaluation by professional illustrators shows the promise of LLM-Diffusion Model collaboration for this task . To evaluate the utility of our Human-AI collaboration framework and the quality of our dataset, we perform both an intrinsic human-based evaluation and an extrinsic evaluation using visual entailment as a downstream task.

Tuhin Chakrabarty, Aadit Trivedi, Smaranda Muresan

Enthymemes are defined as arguments where a premise or conclusion is left implicit. We tackle the task of generating the implicit premise in an enthymeme, which requires not only an understanding of the stated conclusion and premise but also additional inferences that could depend on commonsense knowledge. The largest available dataset for enthymemes (Habernal et al., 2018) consists of 1.7k samples, which is not large enough to train a neural text generation model. To address this issue, we take advantage of a similar task and dataset: Abductive reasoning in narrative text (Bhagavatula et al., 2020). However, we show that simply using a state-of-the-art seq2seq model fine-tuned on this data might not generate meaningful implicit premises associated with the given enthymemes. We demonstrate that encoding discourse-aware commonsense during fine-tuning improves the quality of the generated implicit premises and outperforms all other baselines both in automatic and human evaluations on three different datasets.

Tuhin Chakrabarty, Yejin Choi, Vered Shwartz

Figurative language is ubiquitous in English. Yet, the vast majority of NLP research focuses on literal language. Existing text representations by design rely on compositionality, while figurative language is often non-compositional. In this paper, we study the interpretation of two non-compositional figurative languages (idioms and similes). We collected datasets of fictional narratives containing a figurative expression along with crowd-sourced plausible and implausible continuations relying on the correct interpretation of the expression. We then trained models to choose or generate the plausible continuation. Our experiments show that models based solely on pre-trained language models perform substantially worse than humans on these tasks. We additionally propose knowledge-enhanced models, adopting human strategies for interpreting figurative language types : inferring meaning from the context and relying on the constituent words' literal meanings. The knowledge-enhanced models improve the performance on both the discriminative and generative tasks, further bridging the gap from human performance.

Arkadiy Saakyan, Tuhin Chakrabarty, Smaranda Muresan

We introduce a FEVER-like dataset COVID-Fact of $4,086$ claims concerning the COVID-19 pandemic. The dataset contains claims, evidence for the claims, and contradictory claims refuted by the evidence. Unlike previous approaches, we automatically detect true claims and their source articles and then generate counter-claims using automatic methods rather than employing human annotators. Along with our constructed resource, we formally present the task of identifying relevant evidence for the claims and verifying whether the evidence refutes or supports a given claim. In addition to scientific claims, our data contains simplified general claims from media sources, making it better suited for detecting general misinformation regarding COVID-19. Our experiments indicate that COVID-Fact will provide a challenging testbed for the development of new systems and our approach will reduce the costs of building domain-specific datasets for detecting misinformation.

Kevin Stowe, Tuhin Chakrabarty, Nanyun Peng et al.

Generating metaphors is a difficult task as it requires understanding nuanced relationships between abstract concepts. In this paper, we aim to generate a metaphoric sentence given a literal expression by replacing relevant verbs. Guided by conceptual metaphor theory, we propose to control the generation process by encoding conceptual mappings between cognitive domains to generate meaningful metaphoric expressions. To achieve this, we develop two methods: 1) using FrameNet-based embeddings to learn mappings between domains and applying them at the lexical level (CM-Lex), and 2) deriving source/target pairs to train a controlled seq-to-seq generation model (CM-BART). We assess our methods through automatic and human evaluation for basic metaphoricity and conceptual metaphor presence. We show that the unsupervised CM-Lex model is competitive with recent deep learning metaphor generation systems, and CM-BART outperforms all other models both in automatic and human evaluations.

Tuhin Chakrabarty, Debanjan Ghosh, Adam Poliak et al.

We introduce a collection of recognizing textual entailment (RTE) datasets focused on figurative language. We leverage five existing datasets annotated for a variety of figurative language -- simile, metaphor, and irony -- and frame them into over 12,500 RTE examples.We evaluate how well state-of-the-art models trained on popular RTE datasets capture different aspects of figurative language. Our results and analyses indicate that these models might not sufficiently capture figurative language, struggling to perform pragmatic inference and reasoning about world knowledge. Ultimately, our datasets provide a challenging testbed for evaluating RTE models.

Tuhin Chakrabarty, Xurui Zhang, Smaranda Muresan et al.

Generating metaphors is a challenging task as it requires a proper understanding of abstract concepts, making connections between unrelated concepts, and deviating from the literal meaning. In this paper, we aim to generate a metaphoric sentence given a literal expression by replacing relevant verbs. Based on a theoretically-grounded connection between metaphors and symbols, we propose a method to automatically construct a parallel corpus by transforming a large number of metaphorical sentences from the Gutenberg Poetry corpus (Jacobs, 2018) to their literal counterpart using recent advances in masked language modeling coupled with commonsense inference. For the generation task, we incorporate a metaphor discriminator to guide the decoding of a sequence to sequence model fine-tuned on our parallel data to generate high-quality metaphors. Human evaluation on an independent test set of literal statements shows that our best model generates metaphors better than three well-crafted baselines 66% of the time on average. A task-based evaluation shows that human-written poems enhanced with metaphors proposed by our model are preferred 68% of the time compared to poems without metaphors.

Tuhin Chakrabarty, Christopher Hidey, Smaranda Muresan

Framing involves the positive or negative presentation of an argument or issue depending on the audience and goal of the speaker (Entman 1983). Differences in lexical framing, the focus of our work, can have large effects on peoples' opinions and beliefs. To make progress towards reframing arguments for positive effects, we create a dataset and method for this task. We use a lexical resource for "connotations" to create a parallel corpus and propose a method for argument reframing that combines controllable text generation (positive connotation) with a post-decoding entailment component (same denotation). Our results show that our method is effective compared to strong baselines along the dimensions of fluency, meaning, and trustworthiness/reduction of fear.

Sarik Ghazarian, Zixi Liu, Tuhin Chakrabarty et al.

Having engaging and informative conversations with users is the utmost goal for open-domain conversational systems. Recent advances in transformer-based language models and their applications to dialogue systems have succeeded to generate fluent and human-like responses. However, they still lack control over the generation process towards producing contentful responses and achieving engaging conversations. To achieve this goal, we present \textbf{DiSCoL} (\textbf{Di}alogue \textbf{S}ystems through \textbf{Co}versational \textbf{L}ine guided response generation). DiSCoL is an open-domain dialogue system that leverages conversational lines (briefly \textbf{convlines}) as controllable and informative content-planning elements to guide the generation model produce engaging and informative responses. Two primary modules in DiSCoL's pipeline are conditional generators trained for 1) predicting relevant and informative convlines for dialogue contexts and 2) generating high-quality responses conditioned on the predicted convlines. Users can also change the returned convlines to \textit{control} the direction of the conversations towards topics that are more interesting for them. Through automatic and human evaluations, we demonstrate the efficiency of the convlines in producing engaging conversations.

Seraphina Goldfarb-Tarrant, Tuhin Chakrabarty, Ralph Weischedel et al.

Long-form narrative text generated from large language models manages a fluent impersonation of human writing, but only at the local sentence level, and lacks structure or global cohesion. We posit that many of the problems of story generation can be addressed via high-quality content planning, and present a system that focuses on how to learn good plot structures to guide story generation. We utilize a plot-generation language model along with an ensemble of rescoring models that each implement an aspect of good story-writing as detailed in Aristotle's Poetics. We find that stories written with our more principled plot-structure are both more relevant to a given prompt and higher quality than baselines that do not content plan, or that plan in an unprincipled way.

Tuhin Chakrabarty, Smaranda Muresan, Nanyun Peng

Literary tropes, from poetry to stories, are at the crux of human imagination and communication. Figurative language such as a simile go beyond plain expressions to give readers new insights and inspirations. In this paper, we tackle the problem of simile generation. Generating a simile requires proper understanding for effective mapping of properties between two concepts. To this end, we first propose a method to automatically construct a parallel corpus by transforming a large number of similes collected from Reddit to their literal counterpart using structured common sense knowledge. We then propose to fine-tune a pretrained sequence to sequence model, BART~\cite{lewis2019bart}, on the literal-simile pairs to gain generalizability, so that we can generate novel similes given a literal sentence. Experiments show that our approach generates $88\%$ novel similes that do not share properties with the training data. Human evaluation on an independent set of literal statements shows that our model generates similes better than two literary experts \textit{37\%}\footnote{We average 32.6\% and 41.3\% for 2 humans.} of the times, and three baseline systems including a recent metaphor generation model \textit{71\%}\footnote{We average 82\% ,63\% and 68\% for three baselines.} of the times when compared pairwise.\footnote{The simile in the title is generated by our best model. Input: Generating similes effortlessly, output: Generating similes \textit{like a Pro}.} We also show how replacing literal sentences with similes from our best model in machine generated stories improves evocativeness and leads to better acceptance by human judges.

Tuhin Chakrabarty, Christopher Hidey, Smaranda Muresan et al.

Argumentation is a type of discourse where speakers try to persuade their audience about the reasonableness of a claim by presenting supportive arguments. Most work in argument mining has focused on modeling arguments in monologues. We propose a computational model for argument mining in online persuasive discussion forums that brings together the micro-level (argument as product) and macro-level (argument as process) models of argumentation. Fundamentally, this approach relies on identifying relations between components of arguments in a discussion thread. Our approach for relation prediction uses contextual information in terms of fine-tuning a pre-trained language model and leveraging discourse relations based on Rhetorical Structure Theory. We additionally propose a candidate selection method to automatically predict what parts of one's argument will be targeted by other participants in the discussion. Our models obtain significant improvements compared to recent state-of-the-art approaches using pointer networks and a pre-trained language model.

Tuhin Chakrabarty, Debanjan Ghosh, Smaranda Muresan et al.

We propose an unsupervised approach for sarcasm generation based on a non-sarcastic input sentence. Our method employs a retrieve-and-edit framework to instantiate two major characteristics of sarcasm: reversal of valence and semantic incongruity with the context which could include shared commonsense or world knowledge between the speaker and the listener. While prior works on sarcasm generation predominantly focus on context incongruity, we show that combining valence reversal and semantic incongruity based on the commonsense knowledge generates sarcasm of higher quality. Human evaluation shows that our system generates sarcasm better than human annotators 34% of the time, and better than a reinforced hybrid baseline 90% of the time.

Christopher Hidey, Tuhin Chakrabarty, Tariq Alhindi et al.

The increased focus on misinformation has spurred development of data and systems for detecting the veracity of a claim as well as retrieving authoritative evidence. The Fact Extraction and VERification (FEVER) dataset provides such a resource for evaluating end-to-end fact-checking, requiring retrieval of evidence from Wikipedia to validate a veracity prediction. We show that current systems for FEVER are vulnerable to three categories of realistic challenges for fact-checking -- multiple propositions, temporal reasoning, and ambiguity and lexical variation -- and introduce a resource with these types of claims. Then we present a system designed to be resilient to these "attacks" using multiple pointer networks for document selection and jointly modeling a sequence of evidence sentences and veracity relation predictions. We find that in handling these attacks we obtain state-of-the-art results on FEVER, largely due to improved evidence retrieval.

Yufei Tian, Tuhin Chakrabarty, Fred Morstatter et al.

Perspective differences exist among different cultures or languages. A lack of mutual understanding among different groups about their perspectives on specific values or events may lead to uninformed decisions or biased opinions. Automatically understanding the group perspectives can provide essential background for many downstream applications of natural language processing techniques. In this paper, we study colingual groups and use language corpora as a proxy to identify their distributional perspectives. We present a novel computational approach to learn shared understandings, and benchmark our method by building culturally-aware models for the English, Chinese, and Japanese languages. On a held out set of diverse topics including marriage, corruption, democracy, our model achieves high correlation with human judgements regarding intra-group values and inter-group differences.

Tuhin Chakrabarty, Christopher Hidey, Kathleen McKeown

Claims are the central component of an argument. Detecting claims across different domains or data sets can often be challenging due to their varying conceptualization. We propose to alleviate this problem by fine tuning a language model using a Reddit corpus of 5.5 million opinionated claims. These claims are self-labeled by their authors using the internet acronyms IMO/IMHO (in my (humble) opinion). Empirical results show that using this approach improves the state of art performance across four benchmark argumentation data sets by an average of 4 absolute F1 points in claim detection. As these data sets include diverse domains such as social media and student essays this improvement demonstrates the robustness of fine-tuning on this novel corpus.

Tuhin Chakrabarty, Kilol Gupta

The original goal of any social media platform is to facilitate users to indulge in healthy and meaningful conversations. But more often than not, it has been found that it becomes an avenue for wanton attacks. We want to alleviate this issue and hence we try to provide a detailed analysis of how abusive behavior can be monitored in Twitter. The complexity of the natural language constructs makes this task challenging. We show how applying contextual attention to Long Short Term Memory networks help us give near state of art results on multiple benchmarks abuse detection data sets from Twitter.