Studying and building datasets for dialogue tasks is both expensive and time-consuming due to the need to recruit, train, and collect data from study participants. In response, much recent work has sought to use large language models (LLMs) to simulate both human-human and human-LLM interactions, as they have been shown to generate convincingly human-like text in many settings. However, to what extent do LLM-based simulations actually reflect human dialogues? In this work, we answer this question by generating a large-scale dataset of 100,000 paired LLM-LLM and human-LLM dialogues from the WildChat dataset and quantifying how well the LLM simulations align with their human counterparts. Overall, we find relatively low alignment between simulations and human interactions, demonstrating a systematic divergence along the multiple textual properties, including style and content. Further, in comparisons of English, Chinese, and Russian dialogues, we find that models perform similarly. Our results suggest that LLMs generally perform better when the human themself writes in a way that is more similar to the LLM's own style.

Evaluating the factual consistency of abstractive text summarization remains a significant challenge, particularly for long documents, where conventional metrics struggle with input length limitations and long-range dependencies. In this work, we systematically evaluate the reliability of six widely used reference-free factuality metrics, originally proposed for short-form summarization, in the long-document setting. We probe metric robustness through seven factuality-preserving perturbations applied to summaries, namely paraphrasing, simplification, synonym replacement, logically equivalent negations, vocabulary reduction, compression, and source text insertion, and further analyze their sensitivity to retrieval context and claim information density. Across three long-form benchmark datasets spanning science fiction, legal, and scientific domains, our results reveal that existing short-form metrics produce inconsistent scores for semantically equivalent summaries and exhibit declining reliability for information-dense claims whose content is semantically similar to many parts of the source document. While expanding the retrieval context improves stability in some domains, no metric consistently maintains factual alignment under long-context conditions. Finally, our results highlight concrete directions for improving factuality evaluation, including multi-span reasoning, context-aware calibration, and training on meaning-preserving variations to enhance robustness in long-form summarization.

Effectively engaging the public with science is vital for fostering trust and understanding in our scientific community. Yet, with an ever-growing volume of information, science communicators struggle to anticipate how audiences will perceive and interact with scientific news. In this paper, we introduce a computational framework that models public perception across twelve dimensions, such as newsworthiness, importance, and surprisingness. Using this framework, we create a large-scale science news perception dataset with 10,489 annotations from 2,101 participants from diverse US and UK populations, providing valuable insights into public responses to scientific information across domains. We further develop NLP models that predict public perception scores with a strong performance. Leveraging the dataset and model, we examine public perception of science from two perspectives: (1) Perception as an outcome: What factors affect the public perception of scientific information? (2) Perception as a predictor: Can we use the estimated perceptions to predict public engagement with science? We find that individuals' frequency of science news consumption is the driver of perception, whereas demographic factors exert minimal influence. More importantly, through a large-scale analysis and carefully designed natural experiment on Reddit, we demonstrate that the estimated public perception of scientific information has direct connections with the final engagement pattern. Posts with more positive perception scores receive significantly more comments and upvotes, which is consistent across different scientific information and for the same science, but are framed differently. Overall, this research underscores the importance of nuanced perception modeling in science communication, offering new pathways to predict public interest and engagement with scientific content.

Evaluating the truthfulness of online content is critical for combating misinformation. This study examines the efficiency and effectiveness of crowdsourced truthfulness assessments through a comparative analysis of two approaches: one involving full-length webpages as evidence for each claim, and another using summaries for each evidence document generated with an LLM. Using an A/B testing setting, we engage a diverse pool of participants tasked with evaluating the truthfulness of statements under these conditions. Our analysis explores both the quality of assessments and the behavioral patterns of participants. The results reveal that relying on summarized evidence offers comparable accuracy and error metrics to the standard modality while significantly improving efficiency. Workers in the Summary setting complete a significantly higher number of assessments, reducing task duration and costs. Additionally, the Summary modality maximizes internal agreement and maintains consistent reliance on and perceived usefulness of evidence, demonstrating its potential to streamline large-scale truthfulness evaluations.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is currently spearheaded by machine learning (ML) methods such as deep learning (DL) which have accelerated progress on many tasks thought to be out of reach of AI. These ML methods can often be compute hungry, energy intensive, and result in significant carbon emissions, a known driver of anthropogenic climate change. Additionally, the platforms on which ML systems run are associated with environmental impacts including and beyond carbon emissions. The solution lionized by both industry and the ML community to improve the environmental sustainability of ML is to increase the efficiency with which ML systems operate in terms of both compute and energy consumption. In this perspective, we argue that efficiency alone is not enough to make ML as a technology environmentally sustainable. We do so by presenting three high level discrepancies between the effect of efficiency on the environmental sustainability of ML when considering the many variables which it interacts with. In doing so, we comprehensively demonstrate, at multiple levels of granularity both technical and non-technical reasons, why efficiency is not enough to fully remedy the environmental impacts of ML. Based on this, we present and argue for systems thinking as a viable path towards improving the environmental sustainability of ML holistically.

Scientific information expresses human understanding of nature. This knowledge is largely disseminated in different forms of text, including scientific papers, news articles, and discourse among people on social media. While important for accelerating our pursuit of knowledge, not all scientific text is faithful to the underlying science. As the volume of this text has burgeoned online in recent years, it has become a problem of societal importance to be able to identify the faithfulness of a given piece of scientific text automatically. This thesis is concerned with the cultivation of datasets, methods, and tools for machine understanding of scientific language, in order to analyze and understand science communication at scale. To arrive at this, I present several contributions in three areas of natural language processing and machine learning: automatic fact checking, learning with limited data, and scientific text processing. These contributions include new methods and resources for identifying check-worthy claims, adversarial claim generation, multi-source domain adaptation, learning from crowd-sourced labels, cite-worthiness detection, zero-shot scientific fact checking, detecting exaggerated scientific claims, and modeling degrees of information change in science communication. Critically, I demonstrate how the research outputs of this thesis are useful for effectively learning from limited amounts of scientific text in order to identify misinformative scientific statements and generate new insights into the science communication process

Large language models (LLMs) are capable of generating coherent summaries from very long contexts given a user query, and extracting and citing evidence spans helps improve the trustworthiness of these summaries. Whereas previous work has focused on evidence citation with fixed levels of granularity (e.g. sentence, paragraph, document, etc.), we propose to extract unstructured (i.e., spans of any length) evidence in order to acquire more relevant and consistent evidence than in the fixed granularity case. We show how existing systems struggle to copy and properly cite unstructured evidence, which also tends to be “lost-in-the-middle”. To help models perform this task, we create the Summaries with Unstructured Evidence Text dataset (SUnsET), a synthetic dataset generated using a novel pipeline, which can be used as training supervision for unstructured evidence summarization. We demonstrate across 5 LLMs and 4 datasets spanning human written, synthetic, single, and multi-document settings that LLMs adapted with SUnsET generate more relevant and factually consistent evidence with their summaries, extract evidence from more diverse locations in their context, and can generate more relevant and consistent summaries than baselines with no fine-tuning and fixed granularity evidence. We release SUnsET and our generation code to the public (https://github.com/dwright37/unstructured-evidence-sunset).

Selecting an effective training signal for machine learning tasks is difficult: expert annotations are expensive, and crowd-sourced annotations may not be reliable. Recent work has demonstrated that learning from a distribution over labels acquired from crowd annotations can be effective both for performance and uncertainty estimation. However, this has mainly been studied using a limited set of soft-labeling methods in an in-domain setting. Additionally, no one method has been shown to consistently perform well across tasks, making it difficult to know a priori which to choose. To fill these gaps, this paper provides the first large-scale empirical study on learning from crowd labels in the out-of-domain setting, systematically analyzing 8 soft-labeling methods on 4 language and vision tasks. Additionally, we propose to aggregate soft-labels via a simple average in order to achieve consistent performance across tasks. We demonstrate that this yields classifiers with improved predictive uncertainty estimation in most settings while maintaining consistent raw performance compared to learning from individual soft-labeling methods or taking a majority vote of the annotations. We additionally highlight that in regimes with abundant or minimal training data, the selection of soft labeling method is less important, while for highly subjective labels and moderate amounts of training data, aggregation yields significant improvements in uncertainty estimation over individual methods. Code can be found at https://github.com/copenlu/aggregating-crowd-annotations-ood.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as primary knowledge sources, yet their epistemic diversity - defined as the diversity of real-world claims in their outputs - has never been measured. Low epistemic diversity would pose a risk of knowledge collapse as homogeneous LLMs mediate a shrinking in the range of accessible information over time. The dominant paradigm is that overall LLM diversity is low, but this is always with respect to a single point in time, with no reference baseline or consideration for variation across countries. We address this gap in knowledge by performing the first systematic study of epistemic diversity in LLMs across time and cultural context, testing 27 LLMs on 155 topics covering 12 countries, resulting in 1.7M responses and 70M individual claims. We find that epistemic diversity has increased substantially over the past three years, a positive counter to recent diversity pessimism. However, despite progress, we find that every system is less diverse than a search baseline. This gap is not uniform: RAG can improve diversity, while large models are counterintuitively less diverse than smaller ones. Moreover, LLM parametric knowledge systematically reflects English over local-language knowledge for country specific topics. Together, these results demonstrate that while progress on epistemic diversity is tangible, it is insufficient and unevenly distributed.

Uncovering latent values and opinions embedded in large language models (LLMs) can help identify biases and mitigate potential harm. Recently, this has been approached by prompting LLMs with survey questions and quantifying the stances in the outputs towards morally and politically charged statements. However, the stances generated by LLMs can vary greatly depending on how they are prompted, and there are many ways to argue for or against a given position. In this work, we propose to address this by analysing a large and robust dataset of 156k LLM responses to the 62 propositions of the Political Compass Test (PCT) generated by 6 LLMs using 420 prompt variations. We perform coarse-grained analysis of their generated stances and fine-grained analysis of the plain text justifications for those stances. For fine-grained analysis, we propose to identify tropes in the responses: semantically similar phrases that are recurrent and consistent across different prompts, revealing natural patterns in the text that a given LLM is prone to produce. We find that demographic features added to prompts significantly affect outcomes on the PCT, reflecting bias, as well as disparities between the results of tests when eliciting closed-form vs. open domain responses. Additionally, patterns in the plain text rationales via tropes show that similar justifications are repeatedly generated across models and prompts even with disparate stances.

Modern neural networks are often massively overparameterized leading to high compute costs during training and at inference. One effective method to improve both the compute and energy efficiency of neural networks while maintaining good performance is structured pruning, where full network structures (e.g. neurons or convolutional filters) that have limited impact on the model output are removed. In this work, we propose Bayesian Model Reduction for Structured pruning (BMRS), a fully end-to-end Bayesian method of structured pruning. BMRS is based on two recent methods: Bayesian structured pruning with multiplicative noise, and Bayesian model reduction (BMR), a method which allows efficient comparison of Bayesian models under a change in prior. We present two realizations of BMRS derived from different priors which yield different structured pruning characteristics: 1) BMRS_N with the truncated log-normal prior, which offers reliable compression rates and accuracy without the need for tuning any thresholds and 2) BMRS_U with the truncated log-uniform prior that can achieve more aggressive compression based on the boundaries of truncation. Overall, we find that BMRS offers a theoretically grounded approach to structured pruning of neural networks yielding both high compression rates and accuracy. Experiments on multiple datasets and neural networks of varying complexity showed that the two BMRS methods offer a competitive performance-efficiency trade-off compared to other pruning methods.

Uncovering latent values and opinions embedded in large language models (LLMs) can help identify biases and mitigate potential harm. Recently, this has been approached by prompting LLMs with survey questions and quantifying the stances in the outputs towards morally and politically charged statements. However, the stances generated by LLMs can vary greatly depending on how they are prompted, and there are many ways to argue for or against a given position. In this work, we propose to address this by analysing a large and robust dataset of 156k LLM responses to the 62 propositions of the Political Compass Test (PCT) generated by 6 LLMs using 420 prompt variations. We perform coarse-grained analysis of their generated stances and fine-grained analysis of the plain text justifications for those stances. For fine-grained analysis, we propose to identify tropes in the responses: semantically similar phrases that are recurrent and consistent across different prompts, revealing natural patterns in the text that a given LLM is prone to produce. We find that demographic features added to prompts significantly affect outcomes on the PCT, reflecting bias, as well as disparities between the results of tests when eliciting closed-form vs. open domain responses. Additionally, patterns in the plain text rationales via tropes show that similar justifications are repeatedly generated across models and prompts even with disparate stances.

Distorted science communication harms individuals and society as it can lead to unhealthy behavior change and decrease trust in scientific institutions. Given the rapidly increasing volume of science communication in recent years, a fine-grained understanding of how findings from scientific publications are reported to the general public, and methods to detect distortions from the original work automatically, are crucial. Prior work focused on individual aspects of distortions or worked with unpaired data. In this work, we make three foundational contributions towards addressing this problem: (1) annotating 1,600 instances of scientific findings from academic papers paired with corresponding findings as reported in news articles and tweets wrt. four characteristics: causality, certainty, generality and sensationalism; (2) establishing baselines for automatically detecting these characteristics; and (3) analyzing the prevalence of changes in these characteristics in both human-annotated and large-scale unlabeled data. Our results show that scientific findings frequently undergo subtle distortions when reported. Tweets distort findings more often than science news reports. Detecting fine-grained distortions automatically poses a challenging task. In our experiments, fine-tuned task-specific models consistently outperform few-shot LLM prompting.

This editorial summarizes the content of the Special Issue on Truth and Trust Online of the Journal of Data and Information Quality. We thank the authors for their exceptional contributions to this special issue.

Uncertainty approximation in text classification is an important area with applications in domain adaptation and interpretability. One of the most widely used uncertainty approximation methods is Monte Carlo (MC) dropout, which is computationally expensive as it requires multiple forward passes through the model. A cheaper alternative is to simply use a softmax based on a single forward pass without dropout to estimate model uncertainty. However, prior work has indicated that these predictions tend to be overconfident. In this paper, we perform a thorough empirical analysis of these methods on five datasets with two base neural architectures in order to identify the trade-offs between the two. We compare both softmax and an efficient version of MC dropout on their uncertainty approximations and downstream text classification performance, while weighing their runtime (cost) against performance (benefit). We find that, while MC dropout produces the best uncertainty approximations, using a simple softmax leads to competitive, and in some cases better, uncertainty estimation for text classification at a much lower computational cost, suggesting that softmax can in fact be a sufficient uncertainty estimate when computational resources are a concern.

Creating and curating knowledge resources has been a paramount activity in the biomedical domain. In recent years, automated methods for knowledge base construction have flourished and have enabled large scale construction and curation of such resources. In the biological domain, techniques such as next generation sequencing produce new data at exponential rate, making mere manual curation of knowledge resources simply unfeasible. The major technology to automate knowledge base construction is Information Extraction — specifically tasks such as Named Entity Recognition or Relation Extraction. The major hurdle for IE methods is the availability of labelled data for training, which can be prohibitively expensive and challenging to obtain due to the need of domain experts. Active learning aims at minimizing the cost of manual labelling by only requiring it for smaller and more useful portions of the data. With this motivation, we devised a method to quickly construct highly curated datasets to enable biomedical knowledge base construction. The method, named BioAct , is based on a partnership between automatic annotation methods (leveraging SciBERT with other machine learning models) and subject matter experts and uses active learning to create training datasets in the biological domain. The main contribution of this work is twofold; in addition to the BioAct method itself, we publicly release an annotated dataset on antimicrobial resistance, produced by a team of subject matter experts using BioAct . Additionally, we simulate a knowledge base construction task using the MegaRes and CARD knowledge bases to provide insight and lessons learned about the usefulness of the annotated dataset for this task.

Whether the media faithfully communicate scientific information has long been a core issue to the science community. Automatically identifying paraphrased scientific findings could enable large-scale tracking and analysis of information changes in the science communication process, but this requires systems to understand the similarity between scientific information across multiple domains. To this end, we present the SCIENTIFIC PARAPHRASE AND INFORMATION CHANGE DATASET (SPICED), the first paraphrase dataset of scientific findings annotated for degree of information change. SPICED contains 6,000 scientific finding pairs extracted from news stories, social media discussions, and full texts of original papers. We demonstrate that SPICED poses a challenging task and that models trained on SPICED improve downstream performance on evidence retrieval for fact checking of real-world scientific claims. Finally, we show that models trained on SPICED can reveal large-scale trends in the degrees to which people and organizations faithfully communicate new scientific findings. Data, code, and pre-trained models are available at http://www.copenlu.com/publication/2022_emnlp_wright/.

Automated scientific fact checking is difficult due to the complexity of scientific language and a lack of significant amounts of training data, as annotation requires domain expertise. To address this challenge, we propose scientific claim generation, the task of generating one or more atomic and verifiable claims from scientific sentences, and demonstrate its usefulness in zero-shot fact checking for biomedical claims. We propose CLAIMGEN-BART, a new supervised method for generating claims supported by the literature, as well as KBIN, a novel method for generating claim negations. Additionally, we adapt an existing unsupervised entity-centric method of claim generation to biomedical claims, which we call CLAIMGEN-ENTITY. Experiments on zero-shot fact checking demonstrate that both CLAIMGEN-ENTITY and CLAIMGEN-BART, coupled with KBIN, achieve up to 90% performance of fully supervised models trained on manually annotated claims and evidence. A rigorous evaluation study demonstrates significant improvement in generated claim and negation quality over existing baselines

In this paper, we describe our participation in the TREC Health Misinformation Track 2020. We submitted $11$ runs to the Total Recall Task and 13 runs to the Ad Hoc task. Our approach consists of 3 steps: (1) we create an initial run with BM25 and RM3; (2) we estimate credibility and misinformation scores for the documents in the initial run; (3) we merge the relevance, credibility and misinformation scores to re-rank documents in the initial run. To estimate credibility scores, we implement a classifier which exploits features based on the content and the popularity of a document. To compute the misinformation score, we apply a stance detection approach with a pretrained Transformer language model. Finally, we use different approaches to merge scores: weighted average, the distance among score vectors and rank fusion.

Public trust in science depends on honest and factual communication of scientific papers. However, recent studies have demonstrated a tendency of news media to misrepresent scientific papers by exaggerating their findings. Given this, we present a formalization of and study into the problem of exaggeration detection in science communication. While there are an abundance of scientific papers and popular media articles written about them, very rarely do the articles include a direct link to the original paper, making data collection challenging. We address this by curating a set of labeled press release/abstract pairs from existing expert annotated studies on exaggeration in press releases of scientific papers suitable for benchmarking the performance of machine learning models on the task. Using limited data from this and previous studies on exaggeration detection in science, we introduce MT-PET, a multi-task version of Pattern Exploiting Training (PET), which leverages knowledge from complementary cloze-style QA tasks to improve few-shot learning. We demonstrate that MT-PET outperforms PET and supervised learning both when data is limited, as well as when there is an abundance of data for the main task.