United States

Improving user experience and providing personalized search results in E-commerce platforms heavily rely on understanding purchase intention. However, existing methods for acquiring large-scale intentions bank on distilling large language models with human annotation for verification. Such an approach tends to generate product-centric intentions, overlook valuable visual information from product images, and incurs high costs for scalability. To address these issues, we introduce MIND, a multimodal framework that allows Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) to infer purchase intentions from multimodal product metadata and prioritize human-centric ones. Using Amazon Review data, we apply MIND and create a multimodal intention knowledge base, which contains 1,264,441 intentions derived from 126,142 co-buy shopping records across 107,215 products. Extensive human evaluations demonstrate the high plausibility and typicality of our obtained intentions and validate the effectiveness of our distillation framework and filtering mechanism. Further experiments reveal the positive downstream benefits that MIND brings to intention comprehension tasks and highlight the importance of multimodal generation and role-aware filtering. Additionally, MIND shows robustness to different prompts and superior generation quality compared to previous methods.

EMNLP 2024

MIND: Multimodal Shopping Intention Distillation from Large Vision-language Models for E-commerce Purchase Understanding

factual conflicts

evidence conflicts

## Welcome to EMNLP 2024! 
We are excited to welcome you to one of the most prominent conferences in the field of Natural Language Processing. This year, EMNLP 2024 is being held in a hybrid format,
offering both virtual and in-person participation in beautiful Miami. Due to a record-breaking number of submissions, we've expanded the total number of accepted papers to accommodate more cutting-edge research from around the globe.
### [Conference Handbook](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WPROgxjLAC96AJL7Ugy0tEnYm7dkrbHt/view?usp=sharing)

You are required to register for this event. **Please register [here](https://2024.emnlp.org/registration/).** The EMNLP 2024 event page on Underline will be open to public one week prior to the event.

Please register!

EMNLP 2024 will take place in Miami, Florida from Nov 12th to Nov 16th, 2024, at the Hyatt Regency Miami Hote and on Underline for remote participants.

poster

The rise of large language models (LLMs) has significantly influenced the quality of information in decision-making systems, leading to the prevalence of AI-generated content and challenges in detecting misinformation and managing conflicting information, or "inter-evidence conflicts." This study introduces a method for generating diverse, validated evidence conflicts to simulate real-world misinformation scenarios. We evaluate conflict detection methods, including Natural Language Inference (NLI) models, factual consistency (FC) models, and LLMs, on these conflicts (RQ1) and analyze LLMs' conflict resolution behaviors (RQ2). Our key findings include: (1) NLI and LLM models exhibit high precision in detecting answer conflicts, though weaker models suffer from low recall; (2) FC models struggle with lexically similar answer conflicts, while NLI and LLM models handle these better; and (3) stronger models like GPT-4 show robust performance, especially with nuanced conflicts. For conflict resolution, LLMs often favor one piece of conflicting evidence without justification and rely on internal knowledge if they have prior beliefs.

ECON: On the Detection and Resolution of Evidence Conflicts

Direct preference optimization (DPO) has shown to be an effective method for large language model (LLM) alignment. Recent works have attempted to apply DPO to multimodal scenarios but have found it challenging to achieve consistent improvement. Through a comparative experiment, we identify the unconditional preference problem in multimodal preference optimization, where the model overlooks the image condition. To address this problem, we propose mDPO, a multimodal DPO objective that prevents the over-prioritization of language-only preferences by also optimizing image preference. Moreover, we introduce a reward anchor that forces the reward to be positive for chosen responses, thereby avoiding the decrease in their likelihood—an intrinsic problem of relative preference optimization. Experiments on two multimodal LLMs of different sizes and three widely used benchmarks demonstrate that mDPO effectively addresses the unconditional preference problem in multimodal preference optimization and significantly improves model performance, particularly in reducing hallucination.

mDPO: Conditional Preference Optimization for Multimodal Large Language Models

Large Visual Language Models (LVLMs) struggle with hallucinations in visual instruction following task(s). These issues hinder their trustworthiness and real-world applicability. We propose Pelican -- a novel framework designed to detect and mitigate hallucinations through claim verification. Pelican first decomposes the visual claim into a chain of sub-claims based on first-order predicates. These sub-claims consists of (predicate, question) pairs and can be conceptualized as nodes of a computational graph. We then use use Program-of-Thought prompting to generate Python code for answering these questions through flexible composition of external tools. Pelican improves over prior work by introducing (1) intermediate variables for precise grounding of object instances, and (2) shared computation for answering the sub-question to enable adaptive corrections and inconsistency identification. We finally use reasoning abilities of LLM to verify the correctness of the the claim by considering the consistency and confidence of the (question, answer) pairs from each sub-claim. Our experiments demonstrate consistent performance improvements over various baseline LVLMs and existing hallucination mitigation approaches across several benchmarks.

Pelican: Correcting Hallucination in Vision-LLMs via Claim Decomposition and Program of Thought Verification

Large language models (LLMs) offer many opportunities to scale high-quality personalized tutoring. A promising approach is to build dialog tutoring models to scaffold students' problem-solving. However, even though existing models perform well in solving reasoning questions, they can struggle to precisely detect student's errors and tailor their feedback to these errors. Inspired by real-world teaching practice where teachers identify student errors and customize their response based on them, we focus on verifying student solutions and show how grounding to such verification improves the overall quality of tutor response generation. We collect a dataset of 1,002 stepwise math reasoning chains with the first error step annotated by teachers. We show empirically that finding the mistake in a student solution is challenging for current models. We propose and evaluate several verifiers for detecting these errors. Using both automatic and human evaluation we show that the student solution verifiers steer the generation model towards highly targeted responses to student error which are more often correct with less hallucinations compared to existing baselines. The benchmark dataset and code will be released openly.

Stepwise Verification and Remediation of Student Reasoning Errors with Large Language Model Tutors

Zero-shot cross-domain dialogue state tracking (DST) enables us to manage task-oriented dialogues in new, unseen domains without the cost of collecting in-domain data. Previous studies have implemented slot-based input improvements, such as schema-driven descriptions and question-answering formats, but still suffer from negative transfer for seen slots and inefficient transfer for unseen slots due to the significant source-target domain gap. To address these issues, we introduce a novel framework called Context-aware Auto-prompting and Instruction-following Contrastive Decoding (CAPID). This framework generates dynamic, context-aware slot queries, effectively improving the model's transferability. Our context-aware auto-prompting approach tailors slot queries to the current dialogue context, increasing flexibility and reducing ambiguities. Additionally, an instruction-following contrastive decoding strategy helps reduce errors related to off-topic slots by penalizing deviations from the provided instructions. Extensive experiments on two datasets, with varying model sizes (from 60M to 7B), demonstrate the superior performance of CAPID. The source code is provided for reproducibility.

Zero-shot Cross-domain Dialogue State Tracking via Context-aware Auto-prompting and Instruction-following Contrastive Decoding

Recent language models enable new opportunities for structured reasoning with text, such as the construction of intuitive, proof-like textual entailment trees without relying on brittle formal logic. However, progress in this direction has been hampered by a long-standing lack of a clear protocol for determining what _valid decompositional entailment_ is. This absence causes noisy datasets and limited performance gains by modern neuro-symbolic entailment engines. To address these problems, we formulate a consistent and theoretically grounded approach to annotating decompositional entailment and evaluate its impact on LLM-based textual inference. We find that our new dataset, RDTE (Recognizing Decompositional Textual Entailment), has a substantially higher internal consistency than prior decompositional entailment datasets, suggesting that RDTE is a significant step forward in the long-standing problem of forming a clear protocol for discerning entailment. We also find that training an RDTE-oriented entailment classifier via knowledge distillation and employing it in an entailment tree reasoning engine significantly improves both accuracy and proof quality, illustrating the practical benefit of this advance for textual inference.

Enhancing Systematic Decompositional Natural Language Inference Using Informal Logic

Conversational grounding, vital for building dependable dialog systems, involves ensuring a mutual understanding of shared information. Despite its importance, there has been limited research on this aspect of conversation in recent years, especially after the advent of Large Language Models (LLMs). Previous studies have highlighted the shortcomings of pre-trained language models in conversational grounding. However, most testing for conversational grounding capabilities involves human evaluations that are costly and time-consuming. This has led to a lack of testing across multiple models of varying sizes, a critical need given the rapid rate of new model releases. This gap in research becomes more significant considering recent advances in language models, which have led to new emergent capabilities. In this paper, we aim to evaluate the performance of LLMs in various aspects of conversational grounding and analyze why some models perform better than others. We demonstrate a direct correlation between the size of the pre-training data and conversational grounding abilities, meaning that they have independently acquired a specific form of pragmatic capabilities from larger pre-training datasets. Finally, we propose ways to enhance the capabilities of the models that lag in this aspect.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Large Language Models in Establishing Conversational Grounding

Personalized dialogue systems have gained significant attention in recent years for their ability to generate responses in alignment with different personas. However, most existing approaches rely on pre-defined personal profiles, which are not only time-consuming and labor-intensive to create but also lack flexibility. We propose In-Dialogue Learning (IDL), a fine-tuning framework that enhances the ability of pre-trained large language models to leverage dialogue history to characterize persona for personalized dialogue generation tasks without pre-defined profiles. Our experiments on three datasets demonstrate that IDL brings substantial improvements, with BLEU and ROUGE scores increasing by up to 200% and 247%, respectively. Additionally, the results of human evaluations further validate the efficacy of our proposed method.

In-Dialogues We Learn: Towards Personalized Dialogue Without Pre-defined Profiles through In-Dialogue Learning

The proliferation of online misinformation presents a significant challenge, requiring scalable strategies for effective mitigation. While detection methods exist, current reactive approaches, like content flagging and banning, are short-term and insufficient. Additionally, advancements like large language models (LLMs) exacerbate the issue by enabling large-scale creation and dissemination of misinformation. Thus, sustainable, scalable solutions that encourage behavior change and broaden perspectives by persuading misinformants against their viewpoints or broadening their perspectives are needed. To this end, we propose persuasive LLM-based dialogue systems to tackle misinformation. However, challenges arise due to the lack of suitable datasets and formal frameworks for generating persuasive responses. Inspired by existing methods for countering online hate speech, we explore adapting counter-hate response strategies for misinformation. Since misinformation and hate speech often coexist despite differing intentions, we develop classifiers to identify and annotate response strategies from hate-speech counter-responses for use in misinformation scenarios. Human evaluations show a 91% agreement on the applicability of these strategies to misinformation. Next, as a scalable counter-misinformation solution, we create an LLM-based argument graph framework that generates persuasive responses, using the strategies as control codes to adjust the style and content. Human evaluations and case studies demonstrate that our framework generates expert-like responses and is 14% more engaging, 21% more natural, and 18% more factual than the best available alternatives.

Integrating Argumentation and Hate-Speech-based Techniques for Countering Misinformation

Reasoning is a fundamental component of language understanding. Recent prompting techniques, such as chain of thought, have consistently improved LLMs' performance on various reasoning tasks. Nevertheless, there is still little understanding of what triggers reasoning abilities in LLMs in the inference stage. In this paper, we investigate the effect of the input representation on the reasoning abilities of LLMs. We hypothesize that representing natural language tasks as code can enhance specific reasoning abilities such as entity tracking or logical reasoning. To study this, we propose code prompting, a methodology we operationalize as a chain of prompts that transforms a natural language problem into code and directly prompts the LLM using the generated code without resorting to external code execution. We find that code prompting exhibits a high-performance boost for multiple LLMs (up to 22.52 percentage points on GPT 3.5, 7.75 on Mixtral, and 16.78 on Mistral) across multiple conditional reasoning datasets. We then conduct comprehensive experiments to understand how the code representation triggers reasoning abilities and which capabilities are elicited in the underlying models. Our analysis on GPT 3.5 reveals that the code formatting of the input problem is essential for performance improvement. Furthermore, the code representation improves sample efficiency of in-context learning and facilitates state tracking of entities.

Downloads

Next from EMNLP 2024

ECON: On the Detection and Resolution of Evidence Conflicts

Similar lecture

IntentionQA: A Benchmark for Evaluating Purchase Intention Comprehension Abilities of Language Models in E-commerce