Singapore

The potential of using a large language model (LLM) as a knowledge base (KB) has sparked significant interest. To manage the knowledge acquired by LLMs, we need to ensure that the editing of learned facts respects internal logical constraints, which are known as dependency of knowledge. Existing work on editing LLMs has partially addressed the issue of dependency, when the editing of a fact should apply to its lexical variations without disrupting irrelevant ones. However, they neglect the dependency between a fact and its logical implications. We propose an evaluation protocol with an accompanying question-answering dataset, DepEdit, that provides a comprehensive assessment of the editing process considering the above notions of dependency. Our protocol involves setting up a controlled environment in which we edit facts and monitor their impact on LLMs, along with their implications based on If-Then rules. Extensive experiments on DepEdit show that existing knowledge editing methods are sensitive to the surface form of knowledge, and that they have limited performance in inferring the implications of edited facts.

EMNLP 2023

Evaluating Dependencies in Fact Editing for Language Models: Specificity and Implication Awareness

knowledge editing

question answering

evaluation

## Welcome!
"I am excited to welcome you to this year’s edition of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing! Importantly, it marks the 30th edition of EMNLP. With over 8,000 submissions, more than 3,000 accepted papers, and thousands of attendees, we have come a long way from that first
workshop, which had 14 accepted papers. As the field looks ahead, Suzhou is the fitting location for celebrating this milestone: rooted in a long literary tradition, yet modern and forward-looking, and home to a large share of the NLP community." 

*Message from the General Chair, Dirk Hovy*

EMNLP 2025

Celebrate 30 Years of EMNLP! 
EMNLP 2025 will be held in Suzhou, China from November 5th to November 9th, 2025.

workshop paper

**Welcome to EMNLP 2023!**

On behalf of the EMNLP 2023 Organizing Committee, I extend a warm and heartfelt welcome to all of you to the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). It is with immense pleasure and excitement that we gather here in Singapore, a vibrant hub of innovation and technological advancement.

The conference program is packed with insightful presentations, thought-provoking workshops, and engaging networking opportunities. In addition to the technical sessions, we have also planned several social events that will provide you with the opportunity to connect with your colleagues.

The conference is held in person at the Resorts World Convention Centre in Singapore, and available on-line with the help of Underline.

For those in Singapore, I hope that you will find time to explore the exciting Sentosa Island, Gardens by the Bay, Singapore Botanic Gardens and the many other attractions unique to Singapore.

Of course, we are grateful to our sponsors and partners for their generous support of EMNLP 2023, whose contributions make it possible for us to host this world-class event.

Yuji Matsumoto (RIKEN AIP) 
EMNLP 2023 General Chair

To access the **EMNLP 2023** event page on Underline, you need to register for the Conference. 
Please follow **[this link](https://2023.emnlp.org/registration/)** for more details.

EMNLP 2023 took place in Singapore from Dec 6th to Dec 10th, 2023.

An important assumption that comes with using LLMs on psycholinguistic data has gone unverified. LLM-based predictions are based on subword tokenization, not decomposition of words into morphemes. Does that matter? We carefully test this by comparing surprisal estimates using orthographic, morphological, and BPE tokenization against reading time data. Our results replicate previous findings and provide evidence that in the aggregate, predictions using BPE tokenization do not suffer relative to morphological and orthographic segmentation. However, a finer-grained analysis points to potential issues with relying on BPE-based tokenization, as well as providing promising results involving morphologically-aware surprisal estimates and suggesting a new method for evaluating morphological prediction.

Words, Subwords, and Morphemes: What Really Matters in the Surprisal-Reading Time Relationship?

Robustness of Named-Entity Replacements for In-Context Learning

In this paper, we evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of popular retriever-augmented language models, namely kNN-LM, REALM, DPR + FiD, Contriever + ATLAS, and Contriever + Flan-T5, in reasoning over retrieved statements. Our findings indicate that the simple similarity metric employed by retrievers is insufficient for retrieving all the necessary statements for reasoning. Additionally, the language models do not exhibit strong reasoning even when provided with only the required statements. Furthermore, when combined with imperfect retrievers, the performance of the language models becomes even worse. While larger language models improve performance, there is still substantial room for enhancement. Our further analysis indicates that multihop retrieve- and-read is promising for large language models like GPT-3.5, but does not generalize to other language models like Flan-T5-xxl.

Can Retriever-Augmented Language Models Reason? The Blame Game Between the Retriever and the Language Model


Language models can be prompted to perform a wide variety of tasks with zero- and few-shot in-context learning. However, performance varies significantly with the choice of prompt, and we do not yet understand why this happens.
In this paper, we analyze the factors that contribute to this variance and establish a new empirical hypothesis: the performance of a prompt is predicted by the extent to which the model is familiar with the language it contains. Over a wide range of tasks, we show that the lower the perplexity of the prompt, the better it is able to perform the task, when considering reasonable prompts that are related to it. As part of our analysis, we also devise a method to automatically extend a small seed set of manually written prompts by paraphrasing with GPT3 and backtranslation. This larger set allows us to verify that perplexity is a strong predictor of the success of a prompt and we show that the lowest perplexity prompts are consistently effective.

Demystifying Prompts in Language Models via Perplexity Estimation

Large language models (LLMs) show amazing proficiency and fluency in the use of language. Does this mean that they have also acquired insightful linguistic knowledge about the language, to an extent that they can serve as an "expert linguistic annotator"? In this paper, we examine the successes and limitations of the GPT-3, ChatGPT, and GPT-4 models in analysis of sentence meaning structure, focusing on the Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR; Banarescu et al. 2013) parsing formalism, which provides rich graphical representations of sentence meaning structure while abstracting away from surface forms. We compare models' analysis of this semantic structure across two settings: 1) direct production of AMR parses based on zero- and few-shot prompts, and 2) indirect partial reconstruction of AMR via metalinguistic natural language queries (e.g., "Identify the primary event of this sentence, and the predicate corresponding to that event."). Across these settings, we find that models can reliably reproduce the basic format of AMR, and can often capture core event, argument, and modifier structure -- however, model outputs are prone to frequent and major errors, and holistic analysis of parse acceptability shows that even with few-shot demonstrations, models have virtually 0% success in producing fully accurate parses. Eliciting natural language responses produces similar patterns of errors. Overall, our findings indicate that these models out-of-the-box can capture aspects of semantic structure, but there remain key limitations in their ability to support fully accurate semantic analyses or parses.

You Are An Expert Linguistic Annotator: Limits of LLMs as Analyzers of Abstract Meaning Representation

Transparency at the Source: Evaluating and Interpreting Language Models With Access to the True Distribution

When natural language phrases are combined, their meaning is often more than the sum of their parts. In the context of NLP tasks such as sentiment analysis, where the meaning of a phrase is its sentiment, that still applies. Many NLP studies on sentiment analysis, however, focus on the fact that sentiment computations are largely compositional. We, instead, set out to obtain non-compositionality ratings for phrases with respect to their sentiment. Our contributions are as follows: a) a methodology for obtaining those non-compositionality ratings, b) a resource of ratings for 259 phrases -- NonCompSST -- along with an analysis of that resource, and c) an evaluation of computational models for sentiment analysis using this new resource.

Non-Compositionality in Sentiment: New Data and Analyses

Recognizing entities in texts is a central need in many information-seeking scenarios, and indeed, Named Entity Recognition (NER) is arguably one of the most successful examples of a widely adopted NLP task and corresponding NLP technology. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) appear to provide effective solutions (also) for NER tasks that were traditionally handled with dedicated models, often matching or surpassing the abilities of the dedicated models. Should NER be considered a solved problem? We argue to the contrary: the capabilities provided by LLMs are not the end of NER research, but rather an exciting beginning. They allow taking NER to the next level, tackling increasingly more useful, and increasingly more challenging, variants. We present three variants of the NER task, together with a dataset to support them. The first is a move towards more fine-grained -- and intersectional -- entity types. The second is a move towards zero-shot recognition and extraction of these fine-grained types based on entity-type labels. The third, and most challenging, is the move from the recognition setup to a novel retrieval setup, where the query is a zero-shot entity type, and the expected result is all the sentences from a large, pre-indexed corpus that contain entities of these types, and their corresponding spans. We show that all of these are far from being solved. We provide a large, silver-annotated corpus of 4 million paragraphs covering 500 entity types, to facilitate research towards all of these three goals.

NERetrieve: A Dataset for Pioneering Named Entity Recognition and Retrieval

IndiSocialFT: Multilingual Word Representation for Indian languages in code-mixed environment

Given the complexity of the judiciary in the US Supreme Court, various procedures, along with various resources, contribute to the court system. However, most research focuses on a limited set of resources, e.g., court opinions or oral arguments, for analyzing a specific perspective in court, e.g., partisanship or voting. To gain a fuller understanding of these perspectives in the legal system of the US Supreme Court, a more comprehensive dataset, connecting different sources in different phases of the court procedure, is needed. To address this gap, we present a multi-sourced dataset for the Supreme Court, comprising court resources from different procedural phases, connecting language documents with extensive metadata. We showcase its utility through a case study on how different court documents reveal the decision direction (conservative vs. liberal) of the cases. We analyze performance differences across three protected attributes, indicating that different court resources encode different biases, and reinforcing that considering various resources provides a fuller picture of the court procedures. We further discuss how our dataset can contribute to future research directions.

Downloads

Next from EMNLP 2023

Words, Subwords, and Morphemes: What Really Matters in the Surprisal-Reading Time Relationship?

Similar lecture

MAKE: Memory-Associated Knowledge Editing

.css-70qvj9{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}Downloads

Next from EMNLP 2023

Words, Subwords, and Morphemes: What Really Matters in the Surprisal-Reading Time Relationship?

Similar lecture

MAKE: Memory-Associated Knowledge Editing

Downloads