Showing 1–18 of 18 results for author: Karpinska, M

OWL: Probing Cross-Lingual Recall of Memorized Texts via World Literature

Authors: Alisha Srivastava, Emir Korukluoglu, Minh Nhat Le, Duyen Tran, Chau Minh Pham, Marzena Karpinska, Mohit Iyyer

Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are known to memorize and recall English text from their pretraining data. However, the extent to which this ability generalizes to non-English languages or transfers across languages remains unclear. This paper investigates multilingual and cross-lingual memorization in LLMs, probing if memorized content in one language (e.g., English) can be recalled when presented i… ▽ More Large language models (LLMs) are known to memorize and recall English text from their pretraining data. However, the extent to which this ability generalizes to non-English languages or transfers across languages remains unclear. This paper investigates multilingual and cross-lingual memorization in LLMs, probing if memorized content in one language (e.g., English) can be recalled when presented in translation. To do so, we introduce OWL, a dataset of 31.5K aligned excerpts from 20 books in ten languages, including English originals, official translations (Vietnamese, Spanish, Turkish), and new translations in six low-resource languages (Sesotho, Yoruba, Maithili, Malagasy, Setswana, Tahitian). We evaluate memorization across model families and sizes through three tasks: (1) direct probing, which asks the model to identify a book's title and author; (2) name cloze, which requires predicting masked character names; and (3) prefix probing, which involves generating continuations. We find that LLMs consistently recall content across languages, even for texts without direct translation in pretraining data. GPT-4o, for example, identifies authors and titles 69% of the time and masked entities 6% of the time in newly translated excerpts. Perturbations (e.g., masking characters, shuffling words) modestly reduce direct probing accuracy (7% drop for shuffled official translations). Our results highlight the extent of cross-lingual memorization and provide insights on the differences between the models. △ Less

Submitted 28 May, 2025; originally announced May 2025.

Comments: preprint, 25 pages

Does quantization affect models' performance on long-context tasks?

Authors: Anmol Mekala, Anirudh Atmakuru, Yixiao Song, Marzena Karpinska, Mohit Iyyer

Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) now support context windows exceeding 128K tokens, but this comes with significant memory requirements and high inference latency. Quantization can mitigate these costs, but may degrade performance. In this work, we present the first systematic evaluation of quantized LLMs on tasks with long-inputs (>64K tokens) and long-form outputs. Our evaluation spans 9.7K test exa… ▽ More Large language models (LLMs) now support context windows exceeding 128K tokens, but this comes with significant memory requirements and high inference latency. Quantization can mitigate these costs, but may degrade performance. In this work, we present the first systematic evaluation of quantized LLMs on tasks with long-inputs (>64K tokens) and long-form outputs. Our evaluation spans 9.7K test examples, five quantization methods (FP8, GPTQ-int8, AWQ-int4, GPTQ-int4, BNB-nf4), and five models (Llama-3.1 8B and 70B; Qwen-2.5 7B, 32B, and 72B). We find that, on average, 8-bit quantization preserves accuracy (~0.8% drop), whereas 4-bit methods lead to substantial losses, especially for tasks involving long context inputs (drops of up to 59%). This degradation tends to worsen when the input is in a language other than English. Crucially, the effects of quantization depend heavily on the quantization method, model, and task. For instance, while Qwen-2.5 72B remains robust under BNB-nf4, Llama-3.1 70B experiences a 32% performance drop on the same task. These findings highlight the importance of a careful, task-specific evaluation before deploying quantized LLMs, particularly in long-context scenarios and with languages other than English. △ Less

Submitted 27 May, 2025; v1 submitted 26 May, 2025; originally announced May 2025.

Comments: 9 pages of content with 9 figures. 37 remaining pages of references and supplementary with 17 figures. Under review as of May 26

One ruler to measure them all: Benchmarking multilingual long-context language models

Authors: Yekyung Kim, Jenna Russell, Marzena Karpinska, Mohit Iyyer

Abstract: We present ONERULER, a multilingual benchmark designed to evaluate long-context language models across 26 languages. ONERULER adapts the English-only RULER benchmark (Hsieh et al., 2024) by including seven synthetic tasks that test both retrieval and aggregation, including new variations of the "needle-in-a-haystack" task that allow for the possibility of a nonexistent needle. We create ONERULER t… ▽ More We present ONERULER, a multilingual benchmark designed to evaluate long-context language models across 26 languages. ONERULER adapts the English-only RULER benchmark (Hsieh et al., 2024) by including seven synthetic tasks that test both retrieval and aggregation, including new variations of the "needle-in-a-haystack" task that allow for the possibility of a nonexistent needle. We create ONERULER through a two-step process, first writing English instructions for each task and then collaborating with native speakers to translate them into 25 additional languages. Experiments with both open-weight and closed LLMs reveal a widening performance gap between low- and high-resource languages as context length increases from 8K to 128K tokens. Surprisingly, English is not the top-performing language on long-context tasks (ranked 6th out of 26), with Polish emerging as the top language. Our experiments also show that many LLMs (particularly OpenAI's o3-mini-high) incorrectly predict the absence of an answer, even in high-resource languages. Finally, in cross-lingual scenarios where instructions and context appear in different languages, performance can fluctuate by up to 20% depending on the instruction language. We hope the release of ONERULER will facilitate future research into improving multilingual and cross-lingual long-context training pipelines. △ Less

Submitted 3 March, 2025; originally announced March 2025.

OverThink: Slowdown Attacks on Reasoning LLMs

Authors: Abhinav Kumar, Jaechul Roh, Ali Naseh, Marzena Karpinska, Mohit Iyyer, Amir Houmansadr, Eugene Bagdasarian

Abstract: We increase overhead for applications that rely on reasoning LLMs-we force models to spend an amplified number of reasoning tokens, i.e., "overthink", to respond to the user query while providing contextually correct answers. The adversary performs an OVERTHINK attack by injecting decoy reasoning problems into the public content that is used by the reasoning LLM (e.g., for RAG applications) during… ▽ More We increase overhead for applications that rely on reasoning LLMs-we force models to spend an amplified number of reasoning tokens, i.e., "overthink", to respond to the user query while providing contextually correct answers. The adversary performs an OVERTHINK attack by injecting decoy reasoning problems into the public content that is used by the reasoning LLM (e.g., for RAG applications) during inference time. Due to the nature of our decoy problems (e.g., a Markov Decision Process), modified texts do not violate safety guardrails. We evaluated our attack across closed-(OpenAI o1, o1-mini, o3-mini) and open-(DeepSeek R1) weights reasoning models on the FreshQA and SQuAD datasets. Our results show up to 18x slowdown on FreshQA dataset and 46x slowdown on SQuAD dataset. The attack also shows high transferability across models. To protect applications, we discuss and implement defenses leveraging LLM-based and system design approaches. Finally, we discuss societal, financial, and energy impacts of OVERTHINK attack which could amplify the costs for third-party applications operating reasoning models. △ Less

Submitted 5 February, 2025; v1 submitted 4 February, 2025; originally announced February 2025.

People who frequently use ChatGPT for writing tasks are accurate and robust detectors of AI-generated text

Authors: Jenna Russell, Marzena Karpinska, Mohit Iyyer

Abstract: In this paper, we study how well humans can detect text generated by commercial LLMs (GPT-4o, Claude, o1). We hire annotators to read 300 non-fiction English articles, label them as either human-written or AI-generated, and provide paragraph-length explanations for their decisions. Our experiments show that annotators who frequently use LLMs for writing tasks excel at detecting AI-generated text,… ▽ More In this paper, we study how well humans can detect text generated by commercial LLMs (GPT-4o, Claude, o1). We hire annotators to read 300 non-fiction English articles, label them as either human-written or AI-generated, and provide paragraph-length explanations for their decisions. Our experiments show that annotators who frequently use LLMs for writing tasks excel at detecting AI-generated text, even without any specialized training or feedback. In fact, the majority vote among five such "expert" annotators misclassifies only 1 of 300 articles, significantly outperforming most commercial and open-source detectors we evaluated even in the presence of evasion tactics like paraphrasing and humanization. Qualitative analysis of the experts' free-form explanations shows that while they rely heavily on specific lexical clues ('AI vocabulary'), they also pick up on more complex phenomena within the text (e.g., formality, originality, clarity) that are challenging to assess for automatic detectors. We release our annotated dataset and code to spur future research into both human and automated detection of AI-generated text. △ Less

Submitted 19 May, 2025; v1 submitted 26 January, 2025; originally announced January 2025.

Comments: ACL 2025 33 pages

Preliminary WMT24 Ranking of General MT Systems and LLMs

Authors: Tom Kocmi, Eleftherios Avramidis, Rachel Bawden, Ondrej Bojar, Anton Dvorkovich, Christian Federmann, Mark Fishel, Markus Freitag, Thamme Gowda, Roman Grundkiewicz, Barry Haddow, Marzena Karpinska, Philipp Koehn, Benjamin Marie, Kenton Murray, Masaaki Nagata, Martin Popel, Maja Popovic, Mariya Shmatova, Steinþór Steingrímsson, Vilém Zouhar

Abstract: This is the preliminary ranking of WMT24 General MT systems based on automatic metrics. The official ranking will be a human evaluation, which is superior to the automatic ranking and supersedes it. The purpose of this report is not to interpret any findings but only provide preliminary results to the participants of the General MT task that may be useful during the writing of the system submissio… ▽ More This is the preliminary ranking of WMT24 General MT systems based on automatic metrics. The official ranking will be a human evaluation, which is superior to the automatic ranking and supersedes it. The purpose of this report is not to interpret any findings but only provide preliminary results to the participants of the General MT task that may be useful during the writing of the system submission. △ Less

Submitted 29 July, 2024; originally announced July 2024.

CaLMQA: Exploring culturally specific long-form question answering across 23 languages

Authors: Shane Arora, Marzena Karpinska, Hung-Ting Chen, Ipsita Bhattacharjee, Mohit Iyyer, Eunsol Choi

Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are used for long-form question answering (LFQA), which requires them to generate paragraph-length answers to complex questions. While LFQA has been well-studied in English, this research has not been extended to other languages. To bridge this gap, we introduce CaLMQA, a collection of 1.5K complex culturally specific questions spanning 23 languages and 51 culturally a… ▽ More Large language models (LLMs) are used for long-form question answering (LFQA), which requires them to generate paragraph-length answers to complex questions. While LFQA has been well-studied in English, this research has not been extended to other languages. To bridge this gap, we introduce CaLMQA, a collection of 1.5K complex culturally specific questions spanning 23 languages and 51 culturally agnostic questions translated from English into 22 other languages. We define culturally specific questions as those uniquely or more likely to be asked by people from cultures associated with the question's language. We collect naturally-occurring questions from community web forums and hire native speakers to write questions to cover under-resourced, rarely-studied languages such as Fijian and Kirundi. Our dataset contains diverse, complex questions that reflect cultural topics (e.g. traditions, laws, news) and the language usage of native speakers. We automatically evaluate a suite of open- and closed-source models on CaLMQA by detecting incorrect language and token repetitions in answers, and observe that the quality of LLM-generated answers degrades significantly for some low-resource languages. Lastly, we perform human evaluation on a subset of models and languages. Manual evaluation reveals that model performance is significantly worse for culturally specific questions than for culturally agnostic questions. Our findings highlight the need for further research in non-English LFQA and provide an evaluation framework. △ Less

Submitted 3 July, 2024; v1 submitted 25 June, 2024; originally announced June 2024.

Comments: 39 pages, 17 figures. Code and data available at https://github.com/2015aroras/CaLMQA. Revised argument in section 4, results unchanged

One Thousand and One Pairs: A "novel" challenge for long-context language models

Authors: Marzena Karpinska, Katherine Thai, Kyle Lo, Tanya Goyal, Mohit Iyyer

Abstract: Synthetic long-context LLM benchmarks (e.g., "needle-in-the-haystack") test only surface-level retrieval capabilities, but how well can long-context LLMs retrieve, synthesize, and reason over information across book-length inputs? We address this question by creating NoCha, a dataset of 1,001 minimally different pairs of true and false claims about 67 recently-published English fictional books, wr… ▽ More Synthetic long-context LLM benchmarks (e.g., "needle-in-the-haystack") test only surface-level retrieval capabilities, but how well can long-context LLMs retrieve, synthesize, and reason over information across book-length inputs? We address this question by creating NoCha, a dataset of 1,001 minimally different pairs of true and false claims about 67 recently-published English fictional books, written by human readers of those books. In contrast to existing long-context benchmarks, our annotators confirm that the largest share of pairs in NoCha require global reasoning over the entire book to verify. Our experiments show that while human readers easily perform this task, it is enormously challenging for all ten long-context LLMs that we evaluate: no open-weight model performs above random chance (despite their strong performance on synthetic benchmarks), while GPT-4o achieves the highest accuracy at 55.8%. Further analysis reveals that (1) on average, models perform much better on pairs that require only sentence-level retrieval vs. global reasoning; (2) model-generated explanations for their decisions are often inaccurate even for correctly-labeled claims; and (3) models perform substantially worse on speculative fiction books that contain extensive world-building. The methodology proposed in NoCha allows for the evolution of the benchmark dataset and the easy analysis of future models. △ Less

Submitted 22 October, 2024; v1 submitted 23 June, 2024; originally announced June 2024.

Comments: EMNLP 2024, camera ready

Error Span Annotation: A Balanced Approach for Human Evaluation of Machine Translation

Authors: Tom Kocmi, Vilém Zouhar, Eleftherios Avramidis, Roman Grundkiewicz, Marzena Karpinska, Maja Popović, Mrinmaya Sachan, Mariya Shmatova

Abstract: High-quality Machine Translation (MT) evaluation relies heavily on human judgments. Comprehensive error classification methods, such as Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM), are expensive as they are time-consuming and can only be done by experts, whose availability may be limited especially for low-resource languages. On the other hand, just assigning overall scores, like Direct Assessment (DA)… ▽ More High-quality Machine Translation (MT) evaluation relies heavily on human judgments. Comprehensive error classification methods, such as Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM), are expensive as they are time-consuming and can only be done by experts, whose availability may be limited especially for low-resource languages. On the other hand, just assigning overall scores, like Direct Assessment (DA), is simpler and faster and can be done by translators of any level, but is less reliable. In this paper, we introduce Error Span Annotation (ESA), a human evaluation protocol which combines the continuous rating of DA with the high-level error severity span marking of MQM. We validate ESA by comparing it to MQM and DA for 12 MT systems and one human reference translation (English to German) from WMT23. The results show that ESA offers faster and cheaper annotations than MQM at the same quality level, without the requirement of expensive MQM experts. △ Less

Submitted 18 October, 2024; v1 submitted 17 June, 2024; originally announced June 2024.

FABLES: Evaluating faithfulness and content selection in book-length summarization

Authors: Yekyung Kim, Yapei Chang, Marzena Karpinska, Aparna Garimella, Varun Manjunatha, Kyle Lo, Tanya Goyal, Mohit Iyyer

Abstract: While long-context large language models (LLMs) can technically summarize book-length documents (>100K tokens), the length and complexity of the documents have so far prohibited evaluations of input-dependent aspects like faithfulness. In this paper, we conduct the first large-scale human evaluation of faithfulness and content selection on LLM-generated summaries of fictional books. Our study miti… ▽ More While long-context large language models (LLMs) can technically summarize book-length documents (>100K tokens), the length and complexity of the documents have so far prohibited evaluations of input-dependent aspects like faithfulness. In this paper, we conduct the first large-scale human evaluation of faithfulness and content selection on LLM-generated summaries of fictional books. Our study mitigates the issue of data contamination by focusing on summaries of books published in 2023 or 2024, and we hire annotators who have fully read each book prior to the annotation task to minimize cost and cognitive burden. We collect FABLES, a dataset of annotations on 3,158 claims made in LLM-generated summaries of 26 books, at a cost of $5.2K USD, which allows us to rank LLM summarizers based on faithfulness: Claude-3-Opus significantly outperforms all closed-source LLMs, while the open-source Mixtral is on par with GPT-3.5-Turbo. An analysis of the annotations reveals that most unfaithful claims relate to events and character states, and they generally require indirect reasoning over the narrative to invalidate. While LLM-based auto-raters have proven reliable for factuality and coherence in other settings, we implement several LLM raters of faithfulness and find that none correlates strongly with human annotations, especially with regard to detecting unfaithful claims. Our experiments suggest that detecting unfaithful claims is an important future direction not only for summarization evaluation but also as a testbed for long-context understanding. Finally, we move beyond faithfulness by exploring content selection errors in book-length summarization: we develop a typology of omission errors related to crucial narrative elements and also identify a systematic over-emphasis on events occurring towards the end of the book. △ Less

Submitted 30 September, 2024; v1 submitted 1 April, 2024; originally announced April 2024.

Comments: preprint - 39 pages

Journal ref: 1st Conference on Language Modeling (COLM 2024)

Aurora-M: Open Source Continual Pre-training for Multilingual Language and Code

Authors: Taishi Nakamura, Mayank Mishra, Simone Tedeschi, Yekun Chai, Jason T Stillerman, Felix Friedrich, Prateek Yadav, Tanmay Laud, Vu Minh Chien, Terry Yue Zhuo, Diganta Misra, Ben Bogin, Xuan-Son Vu, Marzena Karpinska, Arnav Varma Dantuluri, Wojciech Kusa, Tommaso Furlanello, Rio Yokota, Niklas Muennighoff, Suhas Pai, Tosin Adewumi, Veronika Laippala, Xiaozhe Yao, Adalberto Junior, Alpay Ariyak , et al. (20 additional authors not shown)

Abstract: Pretrained language models are an integral part of AI applications, but their high computational cost for training limits accessibility. Initiatives such as Bloom and StarCoder aim to democratize access to pretrained models for collaborative community development. Despite these efforts, such models encounter challenges such as limited multilingual capabilities, risks of catastrophic forgetting dur… ▽ More Pretrained language models are an integral part of AI applications, but their high computational cost for training limits accessibility. Initiatives such as Bloom and StarCoder aim to democratize access to pretrained models for collaborative community development. Despite these efforts, such models encounter challenges such as limited multilingual capabilities, risks of catastrophic forgetting during continual pretraining, and the high costs of training models from scratch, alongside the need to align with AI safety standards and regulatory frameworks. This paper presents Aurora-M, a 15B parameter multilingual open-source model trained on English, Finnish, Hindi, Japanese, Vietnamese, and code. Continually pretrained from StarCoderPlus on 435B additional tokens, Aurora-M surpasses 2T tokens in total training token count. It is the first open-source multilingual model fine-tuned on human-reviewed safety instructions, thus aligning its development not only with conventional red-teaming considerations, but also with the specific concerns articulated in the Biden-Harris Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence. We evaluate Aurora-M across a wide range of tasks and languages, showcasing its robustness against catastrophic forgetting and its superior performance in multilingual settings, particularly in safety evaluations. We open-source Aurora-M and its variants to encourage responsible open-source development of large language models at https://huggingface.co/aurora-m. △ Less

Submitted 26 December, 2024; v1 submitted 30 March, 2024; originally announced April 2024.

Comments: Preprint

Large language models effectively leverage document-level context for literary translation, but critical errors persist

Authors: Marzena Karpinska, Mohit Iyyer

Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are competitive with the state of the art on a wide range of sentence-level translation datasets. However, their ability to translate paragraphs and documents remains unexplored because evaluation in these settings is costly and difficult. We show through a rigorous human evaluation that asking the Gpt-3.5 (text-davinci-003) LLM to translate an entire literary paragrap… ▽ More Large language models (LLMs) are competitive with the state of the art on a wide range of sentence-level translation datasets. However, their ability to translate paragraphs and documents remains unexplored because evaluation in these settings is costly and difficult. We show through a rigorous human evaluation that asking the Gpt-3.5 (text-davinci-003) LLM to translate an entire literary paragraph (e.g., from a novel) at once results in higher-quality translations than standard sentence-by-sentence translation across 18 linguistically-diverse language pairs (e.g., translating into and out of Japanese, Polish, and English). Our evaluation, which took approximately 350 hours of effort for annotation and analysis, is conducted by hiring translators fluent in both the source and target language and asking them to provide both span-level error annotations as well as preference judgments of which system's translations are better. We observe that discourse-level LLM translators commit fewer mistranslations, grammar errors, and stylistic inconsistencies than sentence-level approaches. With that said, critical errors still abound, including occasional content omissions, and a human translator's intervention remains necessary to ensure that the author's voice remains intact. We publicly release our dataset and error annotations to spur future research on evaluation of document-level literary translation. △ Less

Submitted 22 May, 2023; v1 submitted 6 April, 2023; originally announced April 2023.

Comments: preprint (31 pages)

Paraphrasing evades detectors of AI-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defense

Authors: Kalpesh Krishna, Yixiao Song, Marzena Karpinska, John Wieting, Mohit Iyyer

Abstract: The rise in malicious usage of large language models, such as fake content creation and academic plagiarism, has motivated the development of approaches that identify AI-generated text, including those based on watermarking or outlier detection. However, the robustness of these detection algorithms to paraphrases of AI-generated text remains unclear. To stress test these detectors, we build a 11B… ▽ More The rise in malicious usage of large language models, such as fake content creation and academic plagiarism, has motivated the development of approaches that identify AI-generated text, including those based on watermarking or outlier detection. However, the robustness of these detection algorithms to paraphrases of AI-generated text remains unclear. To stress test these detectors, we build a 11B parameter paraphrase generation model (DIPPER) that can paraphrase paragraphs, condition on surrounding context, and control lexical diversity and content reordering. Using DIPPER to paraphrase text generated by three large language models (including GPT3.5-davinci-003) successfully evades several detectors, including watermarking, GPTZero, DetectGPT, and OpenAI's text classifier. For example, DIPPER drops detection accuracy of DetectGPT from 70.3% to 4.6% (at a constant false positive rate of 1%), without appreciably modifying the input semantics. To increase the robustness of AI-generated text detection to paraphrase attacks, we introduce a simple defense that relies on retrieving semantically-similar generations and must be maintained by a language model API provider. Given a candidate text, our algorithm searches a database of sequences previously generated by the API, looking for sequences that match the candidate text within a certain threshold. We empirically verify our defense using a database of 15M generations from a fine-tuned T5-XXL model and find that it can detect 80% to 97% of paraphrased generations across different settings while only classifying 1% of human-written sequences as AI-generated. We open-source our models, code and data. △ Less

Submitted 17 October, 2023; v1 submitted 23 March, 2023; originally announced March 2023.

Comments: NeurIPS 2023 camera ready (32 pages). Code, models, data available in https://github.com/martiansideofthemoon/ai-detection-paraphrases

Exploring Document-Level Literary Machine Translation with Parallel Paragraphs from World Literature

Authors: Katherine Thai, Marzena Karpinska, Kalpesh Krishna, Bill Ray, Moira Inghilleri, John Wieting, Mohit Iyyer

Abstract: Literary translation is a culturally significant task, but it is bottlenecked by the small number of qualified literary translators relative to the many untranslated works published around the world. Machine translation (MT) holds potential to complement the work of human translators by improving both training procedures and their overall efficiency. Literary translation is less constrained than m… ▽ More Literary translation is a culturally significant task, but it is bottlenecked by the small number of qualified literary translators relative to the many untranslated works published around the world. Machine translation (MT) holds potential to complement the work of human translators by improving both training procedures and their overall efficiency. Literary translation is less constrained than more traditional MT settings since translators must balance meaning equivalence, readability, and critical interpretability in the target language. This property, along with the complex discourse-level context present in literary texts, also makes literary MT more challenging to computationally model and evaluate. To explore this task, we collect a dataset (Par3) of non-English language novels in the public domain, each aligned at the paragraph level to both human and automatic English translations. Using Par3, we discover that expert literary translators prefer reference human translations over machine-translated paragraphs at a rate of 84%, while state-of-the-art automatic MT metrics do not correlate with those preferences. The experts note that MT outputs contain not only mistranslations, but also discourse-disrupting errors and stylistic inconsistencies. To address these problems, we train a post-editing model whose output is preferred over normal MT output at a rate of 69% by experts. We publicly release Par3 at https://github.com/katherinethai/par3/ to spur future research into literary MT. △ Less

Submitted 25 October, 2022; originally announced October 2022.

Comments: EMNLP 2022

DEMETR: Diagnosing Evaluation Metrics for Translation

Authors: Marzena Karpinska, Nishant Raj, Katherine Thai, Yixiao Song, Ankita Gupta, Mohit Iyyer

Abstract: While machine translation evaluation metrics based on string overlap (e.g., BLEU) have their limitations, their computations are transparent: the BLEU score assigned to a particular candidate translation can be traced back to the presence or absence of certain words. The operations of newer learned metrics (e.g., BLEURT, COMET), which leverage pretrained language models to achieve higher correlati… ▽ More While machine translation evaluation metrics based on string overlap (e.g., BLEU) have their limitations, their computations are transparent: the BLEU score assigned to a particular candidate translation can be traced back to the presence or absence of certain words. The operations of newer learned metrics (e.g., BLEURT, COMET), which leverage pretrained language models to achieve higher correlations with human quality judgments than BLEU, are opaque in comparison. In this paper, we shed light on the behavior of these learned metrics by creating DEMETR, a diagnostic dataset with 31K English examples (translated from 10 source languages) for evaluating the sensitivity of MT evaluation metrics to 35 different linguistic perturbations spanning semantic, syntactic, and morphological error categories. All perturbations were carefully designed to form minimal pairs with the actual translation (i.e., differ in only one aspect). We find that learned metrics perform substantially better than string-based metrics on DEMETR. Additionally, learned metrics differ in their sensitivity to various phenomena (e.g., BERTScore is sensitive to untranslated words but relatively insensitive to gender manipulation, while COMET is much more sensitive to word repetition than to aspectual changes). We publicly release DEMETR to spur more informed future development of machine translation evaluation metrics △ Less

Submitted 24 October, 2022; originally announced October 2022.

Comments: 22 pages, EMNLP 2022 (camera ready)

ezCoref: Towards Unifying Annotation Guidelines for Coreference Resolution

Authors: Ankita Gupta, Marzena Karpinska, Wenlong Zhao, Kalpesh Krishna, Jack Merullo, Luke Yeh, Mohit Iyyer, Brendan O'Connor

Abstract: Large-scale, high-quality corpora are critical for advancing research in coreference resolution. However, existing datasets vary in their definition of coreferences and have been collected via complex and lengthy guidelines that are curated for linguistic experts. These concerns have sparked a growing interest among researchers to curate a unified set of guidelines suitable for annotators with var… ▽ More Large-scale, high-quality corpora are critical for advancing research in coreference resolution. However, existing datasets vary in their definition of coreferences and have been collected via complex and lengthy guidelines that are curated for linguistic experts. These concerns have sparked a growing interest among researchers to curate a unified set of guidelines suitable for annotators with various backgrounds. In this work, we develop a crowdsourcing-friendly coreference annotation methodology, ezCoref, consisting of an annotation tool and an interactive tutorial. We use ezCoref to re-annotate 240 passages from seven existing English coreference datasets (spanning fiction, news, and multiple other domains) while teaching annotators only cases that are treated similarly across these datasets. Surprisingly, we find that reasonable quality annotations were already achievable (>90% agreement between the crowd and expert annotations) even without extensive training. On carefully analyzing the remaining disagreements, we identify the presence of linguistic cases that our annotators unanimously agree upon but lack unified treatments (e.g., generic pronouns, appositives) in existing datasets. We propose the research community should revisit these phenomena when curating future unified annotation guidelines. △ Less

Submitted 13 October, 2022; originally announced October 2022.

Comments: preprint (19 pages), code in https://github.com/gnkitaa/ezCoref

The Perils of Using Mechanical Turk to Evaluate Open-Ended Text Generation

Authors: Marzena Karpinska, Nader Akoury, Mohit Iyyer

Abstract: Recent text generation research has increasingly focused on open-ended domains such as story and poetry generation. Because models built for such tasks are difficult to evaluate automatically, most researchers in the space justify their modeling choices by collecting crowdsourced human judgments of text quality (e.g., Likert scores of coherence or grammaticality) from Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT).… ▽ More Recent text generation research has increasingly focused on open-ended domains such as story and poetry generation. Because models built for such tasks are difficult to evaluate automatically, most researchers in the space justify their modeling choices by collecting crowdsourced human judgments of text quality (e.g., Likert scores of coherence or grammaticality) from Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT). In this paper, we first conduct a survey of 45 open-ended text generation papers and find that the vast majority of them fail to report crucial details about their AMT tasks, hindering reproducibility. We then run a series of story evaluation experiments with both AMT workers and English teachers and discover that even with strict qualification filters, AMT workers (unlike teachers) fail to distinguish between model-generated text and human-generated references. We show that AMT worker judgments improve when they are shown model-generated output alongside human-generated references, which enables the workers to better calibrate their ratings. Finally, interviews with the English teachers provide deeper insights into the challenges of the evaluation process, particularly when rating model-generated text. △ Less

Submitted 14 September, 2021; originally announced September 2021.

Comments: EMNLP 2021 (20 pages)

NarrativeTime: Dense Temporal Annotation on a Timeline

Authors: Anna Rogers, Marzena Karpinska, Ankita Gupta, Vladislav Lialin, Gregory Smelkov, Anna Rumshisky

Abstract: For the past decade, temporal annotation has been sparse: only a small portion of event pairs in a text was annotated. We present NarrativeTime, the first timeline-based annotation framework that achieves full coverage of all possible TLinks. To compare with the previous SOTA in dense temporal annotation, we perform full re-annotation of TimeBankDense corpus, which shows comparable agreement with… ▽ More For the past decade, temporal annotation has been sparse: only a small portion of event pairs in a text was annotated. We present NarrativeTime, the first timeline-based annotation framework that achieves full coverage of all possible TLinks. To compare with the previous SOTA in dense temporal annotation, we perform full re-annotation of TimeBankDense corpus, which shows comparable agreement with a significant increase in density. We contribute TimeBankNT corpus (with each text fully annotated by two expert annotators), extensive annotation guidelines, open-source tools for annotation and conversion to TimeML format, baseline results, as well as quantitative and qualitative analysis of inter-annotator agreement. △ Less

Submitted 22 December, 2022; v1 submitted 29 August, 2019; originally announced August 2019.