Crowdsourcing Multiple Choice Science Questions

We present a novel method for obtaining high-quality, domain-targeted multiple choice questions from crowd workers. Generating these questions can be difficult without trading away originality, relevance or diversity in the answer options. Our method addresses these problems by leveraging a large corpus of domain-specific text and a small set of existing questions. It produces model suggestions for document selection and answer distractor choice which aid the human question generation process. With this method we have assembled SciQ, a dataset of 13.7K multiple choice science exam questions (Dataset available at http://allenai.org/data.html). We demonstrate that the method produces in-domain questions by providing an analysis of this new dataset and by showing that humans cannot distinguish the crowdsourced questions from original questions. When using SciQ as additional training data to existing questions, we observe accuracy improvements on real science exams.Comment: accepted for the Workshop on Noisy User-generated Text (W-NUT) 201

Evaluating Verifiability in Generative Search Engines

Generative search engines directly generate responses to user queries, along with in-line citations. A prerequisite trait of a trustworthy generative search engine is verifiability, i.e., systems should cite comprehensively (high citation recall; all statements are fully supported by citations) and accurately (high citation precision; every cite supports its associated statement). We conduct human evaluation to audit four popular generative search engines -- Bing Chat, NeevaAI, perplexity.ai, and YouChat -- across a diverse set of queries from a variety of sources (e.g., historical Google user queries, dynamically-collected open-ended questions on Reddit, etc.). We find that responses from existing generative search engines are fluent and appear informative, but frequently contain unsupported statements and inaccurate citations: on average, a mere 51.5% of generated sentences are fully supported by citations and only 74.5% of citations support their associated sentence. We believe that these results are concerningly low for systems that may serve as a primary tool for information-seeking users, especially given their facade of trustworthiness. We hope that our results further motivate the development of trustworthy generative search engines and help researchers and users better understand the shortcomings of existing commercial systems.Comment: 25 pages, 12 figure

Lexical Semantic Recognition

In lexical semantics, full-sentence segmentation and segment labeling of various phenomena are generally treated separately, despite their interdependence. We hypothesize that a unified lexical semantic recognition task is an effective way to encapsulate previously disparate styles of annotation, including multiword expression identification / classification and supersense tagging. Using the STREUSLE corpus, we train a neural CRF sequence tagger and evaluate its performance along various axes of annotation. As the label set generalizes that of previous tasks (PARSEME, DiMSUM), we additionally evaluate how well the model generalizes to those test sets, finding that it approaches or surpasses existing models despite training only on STREUSLE. Our work also establishes baseline models and evaluation metrics for integrated and accurate modeling of lexical semantics, facilitating future work in this area.Comment: 11 pages, 3 figures; to appear at MWE 202

Can Small and Synthetic Benchmarks Drive Modeling Innovation? A Retrospective Study of Question Answering Modeling Approaches

Datasets are not only resources for training accurate, deployable systems, but are also benchmarks for developing new modeling approaches. While large, natural datasets are necessary for training accurate systems, are they necessary for driving modeling innovation? For example, while the popular SQuAD question answering benchmark has driven the development of new modeling approaches, could synthetic or smaller benchmarks have led to similar innovations? This counterfactual question is impossible to answer, but we can study a necessary condition: the ability for a benchmark to recapitulate findings made on SQuAD. We conduct a retrospective study of 20 SQuAD modeling approaches, investigating how well 32 existing and synthesized benchmarks concur with SQuAD -- i.e., do they rank the approaches similarly? We carefully construct small, targeted synthetic benchmarks that do not resemble natural language, yet have high concurrence with SQuAD, demonstrating that naturalness and size are not necessary for reflecting historical modeling improvements on SQuAD. Our results raise the intriguing possibility that small and carefully designed synthetic benchmarks may be useful for driving the development of new modeling approaches.Comment: 40 pages, 13 figures; preprin

E-cadherin engagement stimulates proliferation via Rac1

E-cadherin has been linked to the suppression of tumor growth and the inhibition of cell proliferation in culture. We observed that progressively decreasing the seeding density of normal rat kidney-52E (NRK- 52E) or MCF-10A epithelial cells from confluence, indeed, released cells from growth arrest. Unexpectedly, a further decrease in seeding density so that cells were isolated from neighboring cells decreased proliferation. Experiments using microengineered substrates showed that E-cadherin engagement stimulated the peak in proliferation at intermediate seeding densities, and that the proliferation arrest at high densities did not involve E-cadherin, but rather resulted from a crowding-dependent decrease in cell spreading against the underlying substrate. Rac1 activity, which was induced by E-cadherin engagement specifically at intermediate seeding densities, was required for the cadherin-stimulated proliferation, and the control of Rac1 activation by E-cadherin was mediated by p120- catenin. Together, these findings demonstrate a stimulatory role for E-cadherin in proliferative regulation, and identify a simple mechanism by which cell–cell contact may trigger or inhibit epithelial cell proliferation in different settings