Kevin Stowe

Jan-Christoph Klie, Ji-Ung Lee, Kevin Stowe et al.

Many Natural Language Processing (NLP) systems use annotated corpora for training and evaluation. However, labeled data is often costly to obtain and scaling annotation projects is difficult, which is why annotation tasks are often outsourced to paid crowdworkers. Citizen Science is an alternative to crowdsourcing that is relatively unexplored in the context of NLP. To investigate whether and how well Citizen Science can be applied in this setting, we conduct an exploratory study into engaging different groups of volunteers in Citizen Science for NLP by re-annotating parts of a pre-existing crowdsourced dataset. Our results show that this can yield high-quality annotations and attract motivated volunteers, but also requires considering factors such as scalability, participation over time, and legal and ethical issues. We summarize lessons learned in the form of guidelines and provide our code and data to aid future work on Citizen Science.

Kevin Stowe, Debanjan Ghosh, Mengxuan Zhao

This work aims to employ natural language generation (NLG) to rapidly generate items for English language learning applications: this requires both language models capable of generating fluent, high-quality English, and to control the output of the generation to match the requirements of the relevant items. We experiment with deep pretrained models for this task, developing novel methods for controlling items for factors relevant in language learning: diverse sentences for different proficiency levels and argument structure to test grammar. Human evaluation demonstrates high grammatically scores for all models (3.4 and above out of 4), and higher length (24%) and complexity (9%) over the baseline for the advanced proficiency model. Our results show that we can achieve strong performance while adding additional control to ensure diverse, tailored content for individual users.

Kevin Stowe, Kailash Patil

With the rise of generative language models, machine-generated text detection has become a critical challenge. A wide variety of models is available, but inconsistent datasets, evaluation metrics, and assessment strategies obscure comparisons of model effectiveness. To address this, we evaluate 15 different detection models from six distinct systems, as well as seven trained models, across seven English-language textual test sets and three creative human-written datasets. We provide an empirical analysis of model performance, the influence of training and evaluation data, and the impact of key metrics. We find that no single system excels in all areas and nearly all are effective for certain tasks, and the representation of model performance is critically linked to dataset and metric choices. We find high variance in model ranks based on datasets and metrics, and overall poor performance on novel human-written texts in high-risk domains. Across datasets and metrics, we find that methodological choices that are often assumed or overlooked are essential for clearly and accurately reflecting model performance.

Shafiuddin Rehan Ahmed, Zhiyong Eric Wang, George Arthur Baker et al.

The most popular Cross-Document Event Coreference Resolution (CDEC) datasets fail to convey the true difficulty of the task, due to the lack of lexical diversity between coreferring event triggers (words or phrases that refer to an event). Furthermore, there is a dearth of event datasets for figurative language, limiting a crucial avenue of research in event comprehension. We address these two issues by introducing ECB+META, a lexically rich variant of Event Coref Bank Plus (ECB+) for CDEC on symbolic and metaphoric language. We use ChatGPT as a tool for the metaphoric transformation of sentences in the documents of ECB+, then tag the original event triggers in the transformed sentences in a semi-automated manner. In this way, we avoid the re-annotation of expensive coreference links. We present results that show existing methods that work well on ECB+ struggle with ECB+META, thereby paving the way for CDEC research on a much more challenging dataset. Code/data: https://github.com/ahmeshaf/llms_coref

Kevin Stowe, Svetlana Afanaseva, Rodolfo Raimundo et al.

The meteoric rise in text generation capability has been accompanied by parallel growth in interest in machine-generated text detection: the capability to identify whether a given text was generated using a model or written by a person. While detection models show strong performance, they have the capacity to cause significant negative impacts. We explore potential biases in English machine-generated text detection systems. We curate a dataset of student essays and assess 16 different detection systems for bias across four attributes: gender, race/ethnicity, English-language learner (ELL) status, and economic status. We evaluate these attributes using regression-based models to determine the significance and power of the effects, as well as performing subgroup analysis. We find that while biases are generally inconsistent across systems, there are several key issues: several models tend to classify disadvantaged groups as machine-generated, ELL essays are more likely to be classified as machine-generated, economically disadvantaged students' essays are less likely to be classified as machine-generated, and non-White ELL essays are disproportionately classified as machine-generated relative to their White counterparts. Finally, we perform human annotation and find that while humans perform generally poorly at the detection task, they show no significant biases on the studied attributes.

Kevin Stowe, Benny Longwill, Alyssa Francis et al.

Natural language generation tools are powerful and effective for generating content. However, language models are known to display bias and fairness issues, making them impractical to deploy for many use cases. We here focus on how fairness issues impact automatically generated test content, which can have stringent requirements to ensure the test measures only what it was intended to measure. Specifically, we review test content generated for a large-scale standardized English proficiency test with the goal of identifying content that only pertains to a certain subset of the test population as well as content that has the potential to be upsetting or distracting to some test takers. Issues like these could inadvertently impact a test taker's score and thus should be avoided. This kind of content does not reflect the more commonly-acknowledged biases, making it challenging even for modern models that contain safeguards. We build a dataset of 601 generated texts annotated for fairness and explore a variety of methods for classification: fine-tuning, topic-based classification, and prompting, including few-shot and self-correcting prompts. We find that combining prompt self-correction and few-shot learning performs best, yielding an F1 score of 0.79 on our held-out test set, while much smaller BERT- and topic-based models have competitive performance on out-of-domain data.

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.

Julia Siekiera, Marius Köppel, Edwin Simpson et al.

The ability to rank creative natural language provides an important general tool for downstream language understanding and generation. However, current deep ranking models require substantial amounts of labeled data that are difficult and expensive to obtain for different domains, languages and creative characteristics. A recent neural approach, the DirectRanker, promises to reduce the amount of training data needed but its application to text isn't fully explored. We therefore adapt the DirectRanker to provide a new deep model for ranking creative language with small data. We compare DirectRanker with a Bayesian approach, Gaussian process preference learning (GPPL), which has previously been shown to work well with sparse data. Our experiments with sparse training data show that while the performance of standard neural ranking approaches collapses with small training datasets, DirectRanker remains effective. We find that combining DirectRanker with GPPL increases performance across different settings by leveraging the complementary benefits of both models. Our combined approach outperforms the previous state-of-the-art on humor and metaphor novelty tasks, increasing Spearman's $ρ$ by 14% and 16% on average.

Kevin Stowe, Leonardo Ribeiro, Iryna Gurevych

This work describes the task of metaphoric paraphrase generation, in which we are given a literal sentence and are charged with generating a metaphoric paraphrase. We propose two different models for this task: a lexical replacement baseline and a novel sequence to sequence model, 'metaphor masking', that generates free metaphoric paraphrases. We use crowdsourcing to evaluate our results, as well as developing an automatic metric for evaluating metaphoric paraphrases. We show that while the lexical replacement baseline is capable of producing accurate paraphrases, they often lack metaphoricity, while our metaphor masking model excels in generating metaphoric sentences while performing nearly as well with regard to fluency and paraphrase quality.