Canada

A common practice for text retrieval is to use an encoder to map the documents and the query to a common vector space and perform a nearest neighbor search (NNS); multi-hop retrieval also often adopts the same paradigm, usually with a modification of iteratively reformulating the query vector so that it can retrieve different documents at each hop. However, such a bi-encoder approach has limitations in multi-hop settings; (1) the reformulated query gets longer as the number of hops increases, which further tightens the embedding bottleneck of the query vector, and (2) it is prone to error propagation. In this paper, we focus on alleviating these limitations in multi-hop settings by formulating the problem in a fully generative way. We propose an encoder-decoder model that performs multi-hop retrieval by simply generating the entire text sequences of the retrieval targets, which means the query and the documents interact in the language model&#39;s parametric space rather than L2 or inner product space as in the bi-encoder approach. Our approach, Generative Multi-hop Retrieval(GMR), consistently achieves comparable or higher performance than bi-encoder models in five datasets while demonstrating superior GPU memory and storage footprint.

ACL 2023

Generative Multi-hop Retrieval

multi-hop retrieval; generative retrieval; embedding space bottleneck

## Welcome to EMNLP 2022!
I am delighted to welcome you to EMNLP 2022! I believe this conference has been complicated beyond any precedent. Over the past year, it’s been thrilling to see the organization team approach each new puzzle with creativity and enthusiasm. We hope that those participating in Abu Dhabi as well as those joining remotely will leave the conference feeling newly inspired by the program and newly connected to our ever-growing community. Following EMNLP 2021 and major NLP conferences since, EMNLP 2022 is “hybrid,” serving both virtual and in-person participants.

Our key innovations for EMNLP 2022 include:

* EMNLP 2022 is “hybrid” in a second sense, as well: we allowed both direct and rolling review paper submissions, building on the pilot experiment of EMNLP 2021, which considered a small number of ARR submissions. 
* Familiar from NAACL but new to EMNLP, we’ve added an industry track.
* During the conference, “portals” will link virtual poster sessions to in-person conference participants during poster sessions each day.
* The first ACL-family conference in the United Arab Emirates.

 *Message from Noah A. Smith, University of Washington and Allen Institute for AI, Seattle, Washington, USA* 
***EMNLP 2022 General Chair***
 
[![](https://assets.underline.io/uploads/markdown_image/1/image/9eec7d4a287ee18c278b08229290aa83.png)](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OlPv6QBeo62VVTughj2jkiLeyHd1WnUt/view)
 
[![](https://assets.underline.io/uploads/markdown_image/1/image/a3db7a768409f05192210d98601edb25.png)](https://emnlp2022.rocket.chat/)

To access this site you need to register. Please register [here](https://2022.emnlp.org/registration/).

Register here

EMNLP 2022

Welcome!
EMNLP 2022 will take place in Abu Dhabi from December 7th to December 11th, 2022. And it will be held in hybrid mode, both online and offline.

A common practice for text retrieval is to use an encoder to map the documents and the query to a common vector space and perform a nearest neighbor search (NNS); multi-hop retrieval also often adopts the same paradigm, usually with a modification of iteratively reformulating the query vector so that it can retrieve different documents at each hop. However, such a bi-encoder approach has limitations in multi-hop settings; (1) the reformulated query gets longer as the number of hops increases, which further tightens the embedding bottleneck of the query vector, and (2) it is prone to error propagation. In this paper, we focus on alleviating these limitations in multi-hop settings by formulating the problem in a fully generative way. We propose an encoder-decoder model that performs multi-hop retrieval by simply generating the entire text sequences of the retrieval targets, which means the query and the documents interact in the language model's parametric space rather than L2 or inner product space as in the bi-encoder approach. Our approach, Generative Multi-hop Retrieval(GMR), consistently achieves comparable or higher performance than bi-encoder models in five datasets while demonstrating superior GPU memory and storage footprint.

workshop paper

### Welcome to ACL 2023, the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics! 
 The conference will be held in Toronto, Canada, July 9-14, 2023. 
Following the succession of the recent conferences in our field, ACL 2023 will adopt a hybrid format.
While the impact of Covid has considerably diminished in terms of traveling, obtaining visas to Canada
entails a very long process. Moreover, the global economic conditions pose challenges for many individuals to travel to conferences. Recognizing these circumstances, we know many participants may not be
able to attend the conference in person. Therefore, we are committed to providing a great virtual platform
so everyone has the opportunity to interact with other participants and enjoy the conference. Based on the
current registered participants, approxiately 30% have chosen to attend the conference virtually. Whether
you join us in person or virtually, we sincerely hope everyone has a remarkable conference experience. 
This General Chair’s message is where I express my gratitude to the many individuals who have made
enormous contributions to the conference over the past year.

Read [**ACL 2023 General Chair's message**](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WobYM7norbG4dI48s75HfJoD89qgX5a_F-6U8AteLSA/edit?usp=sharing/) in full.

##### **[Conference Handbook](https://2023.aclweb.org/downloads/acl2023-handbook.pdf)**

The Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) is the premier international scientific and professional society for people working on computational problems involving human language, a field often referred to as either computational linguistics or natural language processing.

Large language models show an emergent ability to learn a new task from a small number of input-output demonstrations.
However, recent work shows that in-context learners largely rely on their pre-trained knowledge, such as the sentiment of the labels, instead of finding new associations in the input.
However, the commonly-used few-shot evaluation settings using a random selection of in-context demonstrations can not disentangle models' ability to learn a new skill from demonstrations, as most of the randomly-selected demonstrations do not present relations informative for prediction beyond exposing the new task distribution.

To disentangle models' in-context learning ability independent of models' memory, we introduce a Conceptual few-shot learning method selecting the demonstrations sharing a possibly-informative concept with the predicted sample. We extract a set of such concepts from annotated explanations and measure how much can models benefit from presenting these concepts in few-shot demonstrations.

We find that smaller models are more sensitive to the presented concepts. While some of the models are able to benefit from concept-presenting demonstrations for each assessed concept, we find that none of the assessed in-context learners can benefit from all presented reasoning concepts consistently, leaving the in-context concept learning an open challenge.

Can In-context Learners Learn a Reasoning Concept from Demonstrations?

When people answer questions about a specific situation, e.g., “I cheated on my mid- term exam last week. Was that wrong?”, cognitive science suggests that they form a mental picture of that situation before answering. While we do not know how language models (LMs) answer such questions, we conjecture that they may answer more accurately if they are also provided with additional details about the question situation, elaborating the “scene”. To test this conjecture, we train a new model, DREAM, to answer questions that elaborate the scenes that situated questions are about, and then provide those elaborations as additional context to a question- answering (QA) model. We find that DREAM is able to create better scene elaborations (more accurate, useful, and consistent) than a representative state-of-the-art, zero- shot model (Macaw). We also find that using the scene elaborations as additional context improves the answer accuracy of a downstream QA system, including beyond that obtainable by simply further fine-tuning the QA system on DREAM's training data. These results suggest that adding focused elaborations about a situation can improve a system's reasoning about it, and may serve as an effective way of injecting new scenario-based knowledge into QA models. Finally, our approach is dataset-neutral; we observe improved QA performance across different models, with even bigger gains on models with fewer parameters.


DREAM: Improving Situational QA by First Elaborating the Situation

Deploying large language models (LLMs) is challenging because they are memory inefficient and compute-intensive for practical applications. In reaction, researchers train smaller task-specific models by either finetuning with human labels or distilling using LLM-generated labels. However, finetuning and distillation require large amounts of training data to achieve comparable performance to LLMs. We introduce Distilling step-by-step, a new mechanism that (a) trains smaller models that outperform LLMs, and (b) achieves so by leveraging less training data needed by finetuning or distillation. Our method extracts LLM rationales as additional supervision for training small models within a multi-task framework. We present three findings across 4 NLP benchmarks: First, compared to both finetuning and distillation, our mechanism achieves better performance with much fewer labeled/unlabeled training examples. Second, compared to few-shot prompted LLMs, we achieve better performance using substantially smaller model sizes. Third, we reduce both the model size and the amount of data required to outperform LLMs; our finetuned 770M T5 model outperforms the few-shot prompted 540B PaLM model using only 80% of available data on a benchmark, whereas standard finetuning the same T5 model struggles to match even by using 100% of the dataset.

Distilling Step-by-Step! Outperforming Larger Language Models with Less Training Data and Smaller Model Sizes

Argumentation is an important means of communication. For describing especially arguments about consequences, the notion of effect relations has been introduced recently. We propose a method to extract effect relations from large text resources and apply it on encyclopedic and argumentative texts. By connecting the extracted relations, we generate a knowledge graph which we call effect graph. For evaluating the effect graph, we perform crowd and expert annotations and create a novel dataset. We demonstrate a possible use case of the effect graph by proposing a method for explaining arguments from consequences.

Effect Graph: Effect Relation Extraction for Explanation Generation

We approach competitive-level programming problem-solving as a compos- ite task of reasoning and code generation. We propose a novel method to automatically anno- tate natural language explanations to <problem, solution> pairs. We show that despite poor per- formance in solving competitive-level program- ming problems, state-of-the-art LLMs exhibit a strong capacity in describing and explaining solutions. Our explanation generation method- ology can generate a structured solution expla- nation for the problem containing descriptions and analysis. To evaluate the quality of the annotated explanations, we examine their effec- tiveness in two aspects: 1) satisfying the human programming expert who authored the oracle solution, and 2) aiding LLMs in solving prob- lems more effectively. The experimental results on the CodeContests dataset demonstrate that while LLM GPT3.5’s and GPT-4’s abilities in describing the solution are comparable, GPT-4 shows a better understanding of the key idea behind the solution.

Explaining Competitive-Level Programming Solutions using LLMs

Current natural language systems designed for multi-step claim validation typically operate in two phases: retrieve a set of relevant premise statements using heuristics (planning), then generate novel conclusions from those statements using a large language model (deduction). The planning step often requires expensive Transformer operations and does not scale to arbitrary numbers of premise statements. In this paper, we investigate whether an efficient planning heuristic is possible via embedding spaces compatible with deductive reasoning. Specifically, we evaluate whether embedding spaces exhibit a property we call deductive additivity: the sum of premise statement embeddings should be close to embeddings of conclusions based on those premises. We explore multiple sources of off-the-shelf dense embeddings in addition to fine-tuned embeddings from GPT3 and sparse embeddings from BM25. We study embedding models both intrinsically, evaluating whether the property of deductive additivity holds, and extrinsically, using them to assist planning in natural language proof generation. Lastly, we create a dataset, Single-Step Reasoning Contrast (SSRC), to further probe performance on various reasoning types. Our findings suggest that while standard embedding methods frequently embed conclusions near the sums of their premises, they fall short of being effective heuristics and lack the ability to model certain categories of reasoning.

Deductive Additivity for Planning of Natural Language Proofs

The ease and speed of spreading misinformation and propaganda on the Web motivate the need to develop trustworthy technology for detecting fallacies in natural language arguments. However, state-of-the-art language modeling methods exhibit a lack of robustness on tasks like logical fallacy classification that require complex reasoning. In this paper, we propose a Case-Based Reasoning method that classifies new cases of logical fallacy by language-modeling-driven retrieval and adaptation of historical cases. We design four complementary strategies to enrich input representation for our model, based on external information about goals, explanations, counterarguments, and argument structure. Our experiments in in-domain and out-of-domain settings indicate that Case-Based Reasoning improves the accuracy and generalizability of language models. Our ablation studies suggest that representations of similar cases have a strong impact on the model performance, that models perform well with fewer retrieved cases, and that the size of the case database has a negligible effect on the performance. Finally, we dive deeper into the relationship between the properties of the retrieved cases and the model performance.

Case-Based Reasoning with Language Models for Classification of Logical Fallacies

It has been suggested in literature that large pre-trained language models (PLMs) are able to suppress human-level performance for natural language inference (NLI) tasks. However, the failure of learning the underlying generalizations and the inconsistency to small textual perturbations rise doubt about whether models rely on adopting shallow heuristics to guess the correct label. To mitigate this issue, we propose a neural-symbolic contrastive learning framework inspired by Inductive Logic Programming (ILP) to better capture logical relationships from data. Unlike the usual methods for NLI tasks, our approach represents data as logic programs, sets of logic rules. We aim to learn an embedding space in which – the examples share as various as possible textual information with as similar as possible underlying logical meanings that are close together, and vice versa. Experimental results affirm this approach's ability to enhance the model's transferability performance.

Neural-symbolic Contrastive Learning for Cross-domain Inference

We introduce a synthetic dataset called Sentences Involving Complex Compositional Knowledge (SICCK) and a novel analysis that investigates the performance of Natural Language Inference (NLI) models to understand compositionality in logic. We produce 1,304 sentence pairs by modifying 15 examples from the SICK dataset (Marelli et al., 2014). To this end, we modify the original texts using a set of phrases – modifiers that correspond to universal quantifiers, existential quantifiers, negation, and other concept modifiers in Natural Logic (NL) (MacCartney, 2009). We use these phrases to modify the subject, verb, and object parts of the premise and hypothesis. Lastly, we annotate these modified texts with the corresponding entailment labels following NL rules. We conduct a preliminary verification of how well the change in the structural and semantic composition is captured by neural NLI models, in both zero-shot and fine-tuned scenarios. We found that the performance of NLI models under the zero-shot setting is poor, especially for modified sentences with negation and existential quantifiers. After fine-tuning this dataset, we observe that models continue to perform poorly over negation, existential and universal modifiers.

Synthetic Dataset for Evaluating Complex Compositional Knowledge for Natural Language Inference

We introduce STREET, a unified multi-task and multi-domain natural language reasoning and explanation benchmark. Unlike most existing question-answering (QA) datasets, we expect models to not only answer questions, but also produce step-by-step structured explanations describing how premises in the question are used to produce intermediate conclusions that can prove the correctness of a certain answer. We perform extensive evaluation with popular language models such as few-shot prompting GPT-3 and fine-tuned T5. We find that these models still lag behind human performance when producing such structured reasoning steps. We believe this work will provide a way for the community to better train and test systems on multi-step reasoning and explanations in natural language.

Next from ACL 2023

Can In-context Learners Learn a Reasoning Concept from Demonstrations?

Similar lecture

Generative Multi-hop Retrieval