arXiv subjects

Joonsuk Park

Publications and source records attributed to Joonsuk Park.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

PTCG: Persona-guided Tree-based Counterargument Generation

The ability to generate counterarguments is important for critical thinking and balanced discourse, yet existing approaches typically produce only a single counterargument, failing to capture the diversity and persuasiveness required in real-world debates. To address this limitation, we propose Persona-guided Tree-based Counterargument Generation (PTCG), a framework that combines Tree-of-Thoughts-inspired step-wise generation and pruning with speaker persona selection. By estimating the author's persona from the original argument and incorporating speaker personas representing distinct perspectives, PTCG operationalizes perspective-taking and enables the generation of diverse counterarguments. Results from LLM-as-a-Judge, classifier-based assessment, and human evaluations indicate that PTCG shows consistent improvements in both the diversity and persuasiveness of counterarguments compared to baseline methods.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Enhancing Hallucination Detection via Future Context

Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used to generate plausible text on online platforms, without revealing the generation process. As users increasingly encounter such black-box outputs, detecting hallucinations has become a critical challenge. To address this challenge, we focus on developing a hallucination detection framework for black-box generators. Motivated by the observation that hallucinations, once introduced, tend to persist, we sample future contexts. The sampled future contexts provide valuable clues for hallucination detection and can be effectively integrated with various sampling-based methods. We extensively demonstrate performance improvements across multiple methods using our proposed sampling approach.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Finding Answers in Thought Matters: Revisiting Evaluation on Large Language Models with Reasoning

Evaluating generative models, such as large language models (LLMs), commonly involves question-answering tasks where the final answer is selected based on probability of answer choices. On the other hand, for models requiring reasoning, the method of answer extraction plays a critical role. Our research reveals that the performance of reasoning models and their final answer distributions are highly sensitive to the answer extraction algorithm employed. In order to mitigate this, we propose a basic framework: Answer Regeneration. The method uses an additional model inference, providing the prior input and output prefaced by the prompt "Answer:". The final answer is then selected or extracted from the regenerated output. We show that this extraction-rule-agnostic approach exhibits improved performance and enhanced robustness. Furthermore, we have applied this framework to general math problems and open-ended question answering tasks. Our analysis and this framework could offer a more reliable results for model evaluation.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

ArgInstruct: Specialized Instruction Fine-Tuning for Computational Argumentation

Training large language models (LLMs) to follow instructions has significantly enhanced their ability to tackle unseen tasks. However, despite their strong generalization capabilities, instruction-following LLMs encounter difficulties when dealing with tasks that require domain knowledge. This work introduces a specialized instruction fine-tuning for the domain of computational argumentation (CA). The goal is to enable an LLM to effectively tackle any unseen CA tasks while preserving its generalization capabilities. Reviewing existing CA research, we crafted natural language instructions for 105 CA tasks to this end. On this basis, we developed a CA-specific benchmark for LLMs that allows for a comprehensive evaluation of LLMs' capabilities in solving various CA tasks. We synthesized 52k CA-related instructions, adapting the self-instruct process to train a CA-specialized instruction-following LLM. Our experiments suggest that CA-specialized instruction fine-tuning significantly enhances the LLM on both seen and unseen CA tasks. At the same time, performance on the general NLP tasks of the SuperNI benchmark remains stable.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

ReSCORE: Label-free Iterative Retriever Training for Multi-hop Question Answering with Relevance-Consistency Supervision

Multi-hop question answering (MHQA) involves reasoning across multiple documents to answer complex questions. Dense retrievers typically outperform sparse methods like BM25 by leveraging semantic embeddings; however, they require labeled query-document pairs for fine-tuning. This poses a significant challenge in MHQA due to the high variability of queries (reformulated) questions throughout the reasoning steps. To overcome this limitation, we introduce Retriever Supervision with Consistency and Relevance (ReSCORE), a novel method for training dense retrievers for MHQA without labeled documents. ReSCORE leverages large language models to capture each documents relevance to the question and consistency with the correct answer and use them to train a retriever within an iterative question-answering framework. Experiments on three MHQA benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of ReSCORE, with significant improvements in retrieval, and in turn, the state-of-the-art MHQA performance. Our implementation is available at: https://leeds1219.github.io/ReSCORE.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Are LLM-Judges Robust to Expressions of Uncertainty? Investigating the effect of Epistemic Markers on LLM-based Evaluation

In line with the principle of honesty, there has been a growing effort to train large language models (LLMs) to generate outputs containing epistemic markers. However, evaluation in the presence of epistemic markers has been largely overlooked, raising a critical question: Could the use of epistemic markers in LLM-generated outputs lead to unintended negative consequences? To address this, we present EMBER, a benchmark designed to assess the robustness of LLM-judges to epistemic markers in both single and pairwise evaluation settings. Our findings, based on evaluations using EMBER, reveal that all tested LLM-judges, including GPT-4o, show a notable lack of robustness in the presence of epistemic markers. Specifically, we observe a negative bias toward epistemic markers, with a stronger bias against markers expressing uncertainty. This suggests that LLM-judges are influenced by the presence of these markers and do not focus solely on the correctness of the content.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

AdvisorQA: Towards Helpful and Harmless Advice-seeking Question Answering with Collective Intelligence

As the integration of large language models into daily life is on the rise, there is a clear gap in benchmarks for advising on subjective and personal dilemmas. To address this, we introduce AdvisorQA, the first benchmark developed to assess LLMs' capability in offering advice for deeply personalized concerns, utilizing the LifeProTips subreddit forum. This forum features a dynamic interaction where users post advice-seeking questions, receiving an average of 8.9 advice per query, with 164.2 upvotes from hundreds of users, embodying a collective intelligence framework. Therefore, we've completed a benchmark encompassing daily life questions, diverse corresponding responses, and majority vote ranking to train our helpfulness metric. Baseline experiments validate the efficacy of AdvisorQA through our helpfulness metric, GPT-4, and human evaluation, analyzing phenomena beyond the trade-off between helpfulness and harmlessness. AdvisorQA marks a significant leap in enhancing QA systems for providing personalized, empathetic advice, showcasing LLMs' improved understanding of human subjectivity.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Return of EM: Entity-driven Answer Set Expansion for QA Evaluation

Recently, directly using large language models (LLMs) has been shown to be the most reliable method to evaluate QA models. However, it suffers from limited interpretability, high cost, and environmental harm. To address these, we propose to use soft EM with entity-driven answer set expansion. Our approach expands the gold answer set to include diverse surface forms, based on the observation that the surface forms often follow particular patterns depending on the entity type. The experimental results show that our method outperforms traditional evaluation methods by a large margin. Moreover, the reliability of our evaluation method is comparable to that of LLM-based ones, while offering the benefits of high interpretability and reduced environmental harm.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Hierarchical Deconstruction of LLM Reasoning: A Graph-Based Framework for Analyzing Knowledge Utilization

Despite the advances in large language models (LLMs), how they use their knowledge for reasoning is not yet well understood. In this study, we propose a method that deconstructs complex real-world questions into a graph, representing each question as a node with predecessors of background knowledge needed to solve the question. We develop the DepthQA dataset, deconstructing questions into three depths: (i) recalling conceptual knowledge, (ii) applying procedural knowledge, and (iii) analyzing strategic knowledge. Based on a hierarchical graph, we quantify forward discrepancy, a discrepancy in LLM performance on simpler sub-problems versus complex questions. We also measure backward discrepancy where LLMs answer complex questions but struggle with simpler ones. Our analysis shows that smaller models exhibit more discrepancies than larger models. Distinct patterns of discrepancies are observed across model capacity and possibility of training data memorization. Additionally, guiding models from simpler to complex questions through multi-turn interactions improves performance across model sizes, highlighting the importance of structured intermediate steps in knowledge reasoning. This work enhances our understanding of LLM reasoning and suggests ways to improve their problem-solving abilities.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

A Design Space for Intelligent and Interactive Writing Assistants

In our era of rapid technological advancement, the research landscape for writing assistants has become increasingly fragmented across various research communities. We seek to address this challenge by proposing a design space as a structured way to examine and explore the multidimensional space of intelligent and interactive writing assistants. Through a large community collaboration, we explore five aspects of writing assistants: task, user, technology, interaction, and ecosystem. Within each aspect, we define dimensions (i.e., fundamental components of an aspect) and codes (i.e., potential options for each dimension) by systematically reviewing 115 papers. Our design space aims to offer researchers and designers a practical tool to navigate, comprehend, and compare the various possibilities of writing assistants, and aid in the envisioning and design of new writing assistants.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

Argument Quality Assessment in the Age of Instruction-Following Large Language Models

The computational treatment of arguments on controversial issues has been subject to extensive NLP research, due to its envisioned impact on opinion formation, decision making, writing education, and the like. A critical task in any such application is the assessment of an argument's quality - but it is also particularly challenging. In this position paper, we start from a brief survey of argument quality research, where we identify the diversity of quality notions and the subjectiveness of their perception as the main hurdles towards substantial progress on argument quality assessment. We argue that the capabilities of instruction-following large language models (LLMs) to leverage knowledge across contexts enable a much more reliable assessment. Rather than just fine-tuning LLMs towards leaderboard chasing on assessment tasks, they need to be instructed systematically with argumentation theories and scenarios as well as with ways to solve argument-related problems. We discuss the real-world opportunities and ethical issues emerging thereby.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

LifeTox: Unveiling Implicit Toxicity in Life Advice

As large language models become increasingly integrated into daily life, detecting implicit toxicity across diverse contexts is crucial. To this end, we introduce LifeTox, a dataset designed for identifying implicit toxicity within a broad range of advice-seeking scenarios. Unlike existing safety datasets, LifeTox comprises diverse contexts derived from personal experiences through open-ended questions. Experiments demonstrate that RoBERTa fine-tuned on LifeTox matches or surpasses the zero-shot performance of large language models in toxicity classification tasks. These results underscore the efficacy of LifeTox in addressing the complex challenges inherent in implicit toxicity. We open-sourced the dataset\footnote{\url{https://huggingface.co/datasets/mbkim/LifeTox}} and the LifeTox moderator family; 350M, 7B, and 13B.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2023

On the Analysis of Cross-Lingual Prompt Tuning for Decoder-based Multilingual Model

An exciting advancement in the field of multilingual models is the emergence of autoregressive models with zero- and few-shot capabilities, a phenomenon widely reported in large-scale language models. To further improve model adaptation to cross-lingual tasks, another trend is to further fine-tune the language models with either full fine-tuning or parameter-efficient tuning. However, the interaction between parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) and cross-lingual tasks in multilingual autoregressive models has yet to be studied. Specifically, we lack an understanding of the role of linguistic distributions in multilingual models in the effectiveness of token-based prompt tuning. To address this question, we conduct experiments comparing prompt tuning and fine-tuning on the decoder-based multilingual model, XGLM, with four cross-lingual tasks (XNLI, PAWS-X, POS, NER). According to our study, prompt tuning achieves on par or better performance over fine-tuning across all languages while updating at most 0.13\% of the model parameters. Moreover, we empirically show that prompt tuning is more effective in enhancing the performance of low-resource languages than fine-tuning. Our further analysis shows that the phenomenon is related to the tokenization scheme of the multilingual model.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2023

Memory-Efficient Fine-Tuning of Compressed Large Language Models via sub-4-bit Integer Quantization

Large language models (LLMs) face the challenges in fine-tuning and deployment due to their high memory demands and computational costs. While parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) methods aim to reduce the memory usage of the optimizer state during fine-tuning, the inherent size of pre-trained LLM weights continues to be a pressing concern. Even though quantization techniques are widely proposed to ease memory demands and accelerate LLM inference, most of these techniques are geared towards the deployment phase. To bridge this gap, this paper presents Parameter-Efficient and Quantization-aware Adaptation (PEQA) - a simple yet effective method that combines the advantages of PEFT with quantized LLMs. By updating solely the quantization scales, PEQA can be directly applied to quantized LLMs, ensuring seamless task transitions. Parallel to existing PEFT methods, PEQA significantly reduces the memory overhead associated with the optimizer state. Furthermore, it leverages the advantages of quantization to substantially reduce model sizes. Even after fine-tuning, the quantization structure of a PEQA-tuned LLM remains intact, allowing for accelerated inference on the deployment stage. We employ PEQA-tuning for task-specific adaptation on LLMs with up to 65 billion parameters. To assess the logical reasoning and language comprehension of PEQA-tuned LLMs, we fine-tune low-bit quantized LLMs using a instruction dataset. Our results show that even when LLMs are quantized to below 4-bit precision, their capabilities in language modeling, few-shot in-context learning, and comprehension can be resiliently restored to (or even improved over) their full-precision original performances with PEQA.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2023

From Values to Opinions: Predicting Human Behaviors and Stances Using Value-Injected Large Language Models

Being able to predict people's opinions on issues and behaviors in realistic scenarios can be helpful in various domains, such as politics and marketing. However, conducting large-scale surveys like the European Social Survey to solicit people's opinions on individual issues can incur prohibitive costs. Leveraging prior research showing influence of core human values on individual decisions and actions, we propose to use value-injected large language models (LLM) to predict opinions and behaviors. To this end, we present Value Injection Method (VIM), a collection of two methods -- argument generation and question answering -- designed to inject targeted value distributions into LLMs via fine-tuning. We then conduct a series of experiments on four tasks to test the effectiveness of VIM and the possibility of using value-injected LLMs to predict opinions and behaviors of people. We find that LLMs value-injected with variations of VIM substantially outperform the baselines. Also, the results suggest that opinions and behaviors can be better predicted using value-injected LLMs than the baseline approaches.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2023

Asking Clarification Questions to Handle Ambiguity in Open-Domain QA

Ambiguous questions persist in open-domain question answering, because formulating a precise question with a unique answer is often challenging. Previously, Min et al. (2020) have tackled this issue by generating disambiguated questions for all possible interpretations of the ambiguous question. This can be effective, but not ideal for providing an answer to the user. Instead, we propose to ask a clarification question, where the user's response will help identify the interpretation that best aligns with the user's intention. We first present CAMBIGNQ, a dataset consisting of 5,654 ambiguous questions, each with relevant passages, possible answers, and a clarification question. The clarification questions were efficiently created by generating them using InstructGPT and manually revising them as necessary. We then define a pipeline of tasks and design appropriate evaluation metrics. Lastly, we achieve 61.3 F1 on ambiguity detection and 40.5 F1 on clarification-based QA, providing strong baselines for future work.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2023

Tree of Clarifications: Answering Ambiguous Questions with Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models

Questions in open-domain question answering are often ambiguous, allowing multiple interpretations. One approach to handling them is to identify all possible interpretations of the ambiguous question (AQ) and to generate a long-form answer addressing them all, as suggested by Stelmakh et al., (2022). While it provides a comprehensive response without bothering the user for clarification, considering multiple dimensions of ambiguity and gathering corresponding knowledge remains a challenge. To cope with the challenge, we propose a novel framework, Tree of Clarifications (ToC): It recursively constructs a tree of disambiguations for the AQ -- via few-shot prompting leveraging external knowledge -- and uses it to generate a long-form answer. ToC outperforms existing baselines on ASQA in a few-shot setup across the metrics, while surpassing fully-supervised baselines trained on the whole training set in terms of Disambig-F1 and Disambig-ROUGE. Code is available at https://github.com/gankim/tree-of-clarifications.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2023

ClaimDiff: Comparing and Contrasting Claims on Contentious Issues

With the growing importance of detecting misinformation, many studies have focused on verifying factual claims by retrieving evidence. However, canonical fact verification tasks do not apply to catching subtle differences in factually consistent claims, which might still bias the readers, especially on contentious political or economic issues. Our underlying assumption is that among the trusted sources, one's argument is not necessarily more true than the other, requiring comparison rather than verification. In this study, we propose ClaimDiff, a novel dataset that primarily focuses on comparing the nuance between claim pairs. In ClaimDiff, we provide 2,941 annotated claim pairs from 268 news articles. We observe that while humans are capable of detecting the nuances between claims, strong baselines struggle to detect them, showing over a 19% absolute gap with the humans. We hope this initial study could help readers to gain an unbiased grasp of contentious issues through machine-aided comparison.

cs.CL↗