| CARVIEW |

Hung-Ting Chen
PhD student in Computer Science at New York University
- New York, NY
- New York University
- Google Scholar
- GitHub
- X (formerly Twitter)
Publications
(*: equal contribution)
Preprints
Most text retrievers generate one query vector to retrieve relevant documents. Yet, the conditional distribution of relevant documents for the query may be multimodal, e.g., representing different interpretations of the query. We first quantify the limitations of existing retrievers. All retrievers we evaluate struggle more as the distance between target document embeddings grows. To address this limitation, we develop a new retriever architecture, Autoregressive Multi-Embedding Retriever (AMER). Our model autoregressively generates multiple query vectors, and all the predicted query vectors are used to retrieve documents from the corpus. We show that on the synthetic vectorized data, the proposed method could capture multiple target distributions perfectly, showing 4x better performance than single embedding model. We also fine-tune our model on real-world multi-answer retrieval datasets and evaluate in-domain. AMER presents 4 and 21% relative gains over single-embedding baselines on two datasets we evaluate on. Furthermore, we consistently observe larger gains on the subset of dataset where the embeddings of the target documents are less similar to each other. We demonstrate the potential of using a multi-query vector retriever and open up a new direction for future work.
Conference Papers
We study retrieving a set of documents that covers various perspectives on a complex and contentious question (e.g., will ChatGPT do more harm than good?). We curate a Benchmark for Retrieval Diversity for Subjective questions (BERDS), where each example consists of a question and diverse perspectives associated with the question, sourced from survey questions and debate websites. On this data, retrievers paired with a corpus are evaluated to surface a document set that contains diverse perspectives. Our framing diverges from most retrieval tasks in that document relevancy cannot be decided by simple string matches to references. Instead, we build a language model-based automatic evaluator that decides whether each retrieved document contains a perspective. This allows us to evaluate the performance of three different types of corpus (Wikipedia, web snapshot, and corpus constructed on the fly with retrieved pages from the search engine) paired with retrievers. Retrieving diverse documents remains challenging, with the outputs from existing retrievers covering all perspectives on only 33.74% of the examples. We further study the impact of query expansion and diversity-focused reranking approaches and analyze retriever sycophancy. Together, we lay the foundation for future studies in retrieval diversity handling complex queries.
This paper introduces CaLMQA, a benchmark for evaluating long-form question answering systems on culturally specific questions across 23 languages. We analyze how different models handle cultural nuances and language-specific knowledge.
This paper provides a comprehensive analysis of retrieval augmentation for long-form question answering. We examine how retrieval augmentation affects model performance across different types of questions and identify key factors that determine its effectiveness.
We study continually improving an extractive question answering (QA) system via human user feedback. We design and deploy an iterative approach, where information-seeking users ask questions, receive model-predicted answers, and provide feedback. We conduct experiments involving thousands of user interactions under diverse setups to broaden the understanding of learning from feedback over time. Our experiments show effective improvement from user feedback of extractive QA models over time across different data regimes, including significant potential for domain adaptation.
This paper addresses the challenge of knowledge conflicts that arise when models have access to rich, diverse knowledge sources. We propose methods for recalibrating models to appropriately handle conflicting evidence and reflect uncertainty in their predictions.