Yulia Otmakhova

Thinh Hung Truong, Yulia Otmakhova, Timothy Baldwin et al.

Negation is poorly captured by current language models, although the extent of this problem is not widely understood. We introduce a natural language inference (NLI) test suite to enable probing the capabilities of NLP methods, with the aim of understanding sub-clausal negation. The test suite contains premise--hypothesis pairs where the premise contains sub-clausal negation and the hypothesis is constructed by making minimal modifications to the premise in order to reflect different possible interpretations. Aside from adopting standard NLI labels, our test suite is systematically constructed under a rigorous linguistic framework. It includes annotation of negation types and constructions grounded in linguistic theory, as well as the operations used to construct hypotheses. This facilitates fine-grained analysis of model performance. We conduct experiments using pre-trained language models to demonstrate that our test suite is more challenging than existing benchmarks focused on negation, and show how our annotation supports a deeper understanding of the current NLI capabilities in terms of negation and quantification.

Yulia Otmakhova, Hung Thinh Truong, Timothy Baldwin et al.

In this paper we report on our submission to the Multidocument Summarisation for Literature Review (MSLR) shared task. Specifically, we adapt PRIMERA (Xiao et al., 2022) to the biomedical domain by placing global attention on important biomedical entities in several ways. We analyse the outputs of the 23 resulting models, and report patterns in the results related to the presence of additional global attention, number of training steps, and the input configuration.

Thinh Hung Truong, Yulia Otmakhova, Karin Verspoor et al.

In this work, we measure the impact of affixal negation on modern English large language models (LLMs). In affixal negation, the negated meaning is expressed through a negative morpheme, which is potentially challenging for LLMs as their tokenizers are often not morphologically plausible. We conduct extensive experiments using LLMs with different subword tokenization methods, which lead to several insights on the interaction between tokenization performance and negation sensitivity. Despite some interesting mismatches between tokenization accuracy and negation detection performance, we show that models can, on the whole, reliably recognize the meaning of affixal negation.

Yulia Otmakhova, Hung Thinh Truong, Rahmad Mahendra et al.

We present FLUKE (Framework for LingUistically-driven and tasK-agnostic robustness Evaluation), a framework for assessing model robustness through systematic minimal variations of test data. FLUKE introduces controlled variations across linguistic levels -- from orthography to dialect and style -- and leverages large language models (LLMs) with human validation to generate modifications. We demonstrate FLUKE's utility by evaluating both fine-tuned models and LLMs across six diverse NLP tasks (four classification and two generation tasks), and reveal that (1) the impact of linguistic variations is highly task-dependent, with some tests being critical for certain tasks but irrelevant for others; (2) LLMs still exhibit significant brittleness to certain linguistic variations, with reasoning LLMs surprisingly showing less robustness on some tasks compared to base models; (3) models are overall more brittle to natural, fluent modifications such as syntax or style changes (and especially to negation), compared to corruption-style tests such as letter flipping; (4) the ability of a model to use a linguistic feature in generation does not correlate to its robustness to this feature on downstream tasks. These findings highlight the importance of systematic robustness testing for understanding model behaviors.

Lucy Lu Wang, Yulia Otmakhova, Jay DeYoung et al.

Evaluating multi-document summarization (MDS) quality is difficult. This is especially true in the case of MDS for biomedical literature reviews, where models must synthesize contradicting evidence reported across different documents. Prior work has shown that rather than performing the task, models may exploit shortcuts that are difficult to detect using standard n-gram similarity metrics such as ROUGE. Better automated evaluation metrics are needed, but few resources exist to assess metrics when they are proposed. Therefore, we introduce a dataset of human-assessed summary quality facets and pairwise preferences to encourage and support the development of better automated evaluation methods for literature review MDS. We take advantage of community submissions to the Multi-document Summarization for Literature Review (MSLR) shared task to compile a diverse and representative sample of generated summaries. We analyze how automated summarization evaluation metrics correlate with lexical features of generated summaries, to other automated metrics including several we propose in this work, and to aspects of human-assessed summary quality. We find that not only do automated metrics fail to capture aspects of quality as assessed by humans, in many cases the system rankings produced by these metrics are anti-correlated with rankings according to human annotators.

Thinh Hung Truong, Yulia Otmakhova, Rahmad Mahendra et al.

This paper describes the submissions of the Natural Language Processing (NLP) team from the Australian Research Council Industrial Transformation Training Centre (ITTC) for Cognitive Computing in Medical Technologies to the TREC 2021 Clinical Trials Track. The task focuses on the problem of matching eligible clinical trials to topics constituting a summary of a patient's admission notes. We explore different ways of representing trials and topics using NLP techniques, and then use a common retrieval model to generate the ranked list of relevant trials for each topic. The results from all our submitted runs are well above the median scores for all topics, but there is still plenty of scope for improvement.

Simon Šuster, Karin Verspoor, Timothy Baldwin et al.

The COVID-19 pandemic has driven ever-greater demand for tools which enable efficient exploration of biomedical literature. Although semi-structured information resulting from concept recognition and detection of the defining elements of clinical trials (e.g. PICO criteria) has been commonly used to support literature search, the contributions of this abstraction remain poorly understood, especially in relation to text-based retrieval. In this study, we compare the results retrieved by a standard search engine with those filtered using clinically-relevant concepts and their relations. With analysis based on the annotations from the TREC-COVID shared task, we obtain quantitative as well as qualitative insights into characteristics of relational and concept-based literature exploration. Most importantly, we find that the relational concept selection filters the original retrieved collection in a way that decreases the proportion of unjudged documents and increases the precision, which means that the user is likely to be exposed to a larger number of relevant documents.