-
Under the Surface: Tracking the Artifactuality of LLM-Generated Data
Authors:
Debarati Das,
Karin De Langis,
Anna Martin-Boyle,
Jaehyung Kim,
Minhwa Lee,
Zae Myung Kim,
Shirley Anugrah Hayati,
Risako Owan,
Bin Hu,
Ritik Parkar,
Ryan Koo,
Jonginn Park,
Aahan Tyagi,
Libby Ferland,
Sanjali Roy,
Vincent Liu,
Dongyeop Kang
Abstract:
This work delves into the expanding role of large language models (LLMs) in generating artificial data. LLMs are increasingly employed to create a variety of outputs, including annotations, preferences, instruction prompts, simulated dialogues, and free text. As these forms of LLM-generated data often intersect in their application, they exert mutual influence on each other and raise significant c…
▽ More
This work delves into the expanding role of large language models (LLMs) in generating artificial data. LLMs are increasingly employed to create a variety of outputs, including annotations, preferences, instruction prompts, simulated dialogues, and free text. As these forms of LLM-generated data often intersect in their application, they exert mutual influence on each other and raise significant concerns about the quality and diversity of the artificial data incorporated into training cycles, leading to an artificial data ecosystem. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to aggregate various types of LLM-generated text data, from more tightly constrained data like "task labels" to more lightly constrained "free-form text". We then stress test the quality and implications of LLM-generated artificial data, comparing it with human data across various existing benchmarks. Despite artificial data's capability to match human performance, this paper reveals significant hidden disparities, especially in complex tasks where LLMs often miss the nuanced understanding of intrinsic human-generated content. This study critically examines diverse LLM-generated data and emphasizes the need for ethical practices in data creation and when using LLMs. It highlights the LLMs' shortcomings in replicating human traits and behaviors, underscoring the importance of addressing biases and artifacts produced in LLM-generated content for future research and development. All data and code are available on our project page.
△ Less
Submitted 30 January, 2024; v1 submitted 26 January, 2024;
originally announced January 2024.
-
Annotation Imputation to Individualize Predictions: Initial Studies on Distribution Dynamics and Model Predictions
Authors:
London Lowmanstone,
Ruyuan Wan,
Risako Owan,
Jaehyung Kim,
Dongyeop Kang
Abstract:
Annotating data via crowdsourcing is time-consuming and expensive. Due to these costs, dataset creators often have each annotator label only a small subset of the data. This leads to sparse datasets with examples that are marked by few annotators. The downside of this process is that if an annotator doesn't get to label a particular example, their perspective on it is missed. This is especially co…
▽ More
Annotating data via crowdsourcing is time-consuming and expensive. Due to these costs, dataset creators often have each annotator label only a small subset of the data. This leads to sparse datasets with examples that are marked by few annotators. The downside of this process is that if an annotator doesn't get to label a particular example, their perspective on it is missed. This is especially concerning for subjective NLP datasets where there is no single correct label: people may have different valid opinions. Thus, we propose using imputation methods to generate the opinions of all annotators for all examples, creating a dataset that does not leave out any annotator's view. We then train and prompt models, using data from the imputed dataset, to make predictions about the distribution of responses and individual annotations.
In our analysis of the results, we found that the choice of imputation method significantly impacts soft label changes and distribution. While the imputation introduces noise in the prediction of the original dataset, it has shown potential in enhancing shots for prompts, particularly for low-response-rate annotators. We have made all of our code and data publicly available.
△ Less
Submitted 5 October, 2023; v1 submitted 24 May, 2023;
originally announced May 2023.
-
Quirk or Palmer: A Comparative Study of Modal Verb Frameworks with Annotated Datasets
Authors:
Risako Owan,
Maria Gini,
Dongyeop Kang
Abstract:
Modal verbs, such as "can", "may", and "must", are commonly used in daily communication to convey the speaker's perspective related to the likelihood and/or mode of the proposition. They can differ greatly in meaning depending on how they're used and the context of a sentence (e.g. "They 'must' help each other out." vs. "They 'must' have helped each other out.") Despite their practical importance…
▽ More
Modal verbs, such as "can", "may", and "must", are commonly used in daily communication to convey the speaker's perspective related to the likelihood and/or mode of the proposition. They can differ greatly in meaning depending on how they're used and the context of a sentence (e.g. "They 'must' help each other out." vs. "They 'must' have helped each other out.") Despite their practical importance in natural language understanding, linguists have yet to agree on a single, prominent framework for the categorization of modal verb senses. This lack of agreement stems from high degrees of flexibility and polysemy from the modal verbs, making it more difficult for researchers to incorporate insights from this family of words into their work. This work presents Moverb dataset, which consists of 27,240 annotations of modal verb senses over 4,540 utterances containing one or more sentences from social conversations. Each utterance is annotated by three annotators using two different theoretical frameworks (i.e., Quirk and Palmer) of modal verb senses. We observe that both frameworks have similar inter-annotator agreements, despite having different numbers of sense types (8 for Quirk and 3 for Palmer). With the RoBERTa-based classifiers fine-tuned on \dataset, we achieve F1 scores of 82.2 and 78.3 on Quirk and Palmer, respectively, showing that modal verb sense disambiguation is not a trivial task. Our dataset will be publicly available with our final version.
△ Less
Submitted 20 December, 2022;
originally announced December 2022.
