Seth Aycock

Seth Aycock, David Stap, Di Wu et al.

Extremely low-resource (XLR) languages lack substantial corpora for training NLP models, motivating the use of all available resources such as dictionaries and grammar books. Machine Translation from One Book (Tanzer et al., 2024) suggests that prompting long-context LLMs with one grammar book enables English-Kalamang translation, an XLR language unseen by LLMs - a noteworthy case of linguistics helping an NLP task. We investigate the source of this translation ability, finding almost all improvements stem from the book's parallel examples rather than its grammatical explanations. We find similar results for Nepali and Guarani, seen low-resource languages, and we achieve performance comparable to an LLM with a grammar book by simply fine-tuning an encoder-decoder translation model. We then investigate where grammar books help by testing two linguistic tasks, grammaticality judgment and gloss prediction, and we explore what kind of grammatical knowledge helps by introducing a typological feature prompt that achieves leading results on these more relevant tasks. We thus emphasise the importance of task-appropriate data for XLR languages: parallel examples for translation, and grammatical data for linguistic tasks. As we find no evidence that long-context LLMs can make effective use of grammatical explanations for XLR translation, we conclude data collection for multilingual XLR tasks such as translation is best focused on parallel data over linguistic description.

Seth Aycock, Fedor Vitiugin, Aleksandr Umnov et al.

Endowing models with consistent multilingual performance can be achieved by mixing pre-training data, or post-training approaches such as language-specific model merging. In this work, we test whether merging can be applied to monolingually pre-trained models. We conduct a controlled study on the efficacy of mixed, merged, and monolingual pre-training setups. We find that while monolingual pre-training results in strong in-language performance, merging any combination of monolingual models leads to performance collapse due to interference. Our analysis suggests representational similarity is a prerequisite for model merging. We therefore conclude that the flexibility of merging in fine-tuning does not extend trivially to language-specific pre-training.

Nadezhda Chirkova, Tunde Oluwaseyi Ajayi, Seth Aycock et al.

Prompting large language models (LLMs) to evaluate generated text, known as LLM-as-a-judge, has become a standard evaluation approach in natural language generation (NLG), but is primarily used as a quantitative tool, i.e. with numerical scores as main outputs. In this work, we propose LLM-as-a-qualitative-judge, an LLM-based evaluation approach with the main output being a structured report of common issue types in the NLG system outputs. Our approach is targeted at providing developers with meaningful insights on what improvements can be done to a given NLG system and consists of two main steps, namely open-ended per-instance issue analysis and clustering of the discovered issues using an intuitive cumulative algorithm. We also introduce a strategy for evaluating the proposed approach, coupled with ~300 annotations of issues in instances from 12 NLG datasets. Our results show that instance-specific issues output by LLM-as-a-qualitative-judge match those annotated by humans in 2/3 cases, and that LLM-as-a-qualitative-judge is capable of producing error type reports resembling the reports composed by human annotators. We also demonstrate in a case study how the use of LLM-as-a-qualitative-judge can substantially improve NLG systems performance. Our code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/tunde-ajayi/llm-as-a-qualitative-judge.

Di Wu, Seth Aycock, Christof Monz

Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate strong reasoning capabilities for many tasks, often by explicitly decomposing the task via Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning. Recent work on LLM-based translation designs hand-crafted prompts to decompose translation, or trains models to incorporate intermediate steps. Translating Step-by-step (Briakou et al., 2024), for instance, introduces a multi-step prompt with decomposition and refinement of translation with LLMs, which achieved state-of-the-art results on WMT24 test data. In this work, we scrutinise this strategy's effectiveness. Empirically, we find no clear evidence that performance gains stem from explicitly decomposing the translation process via CoT, at least for the models on test; and we show prompting LLMs to 'translate again' and self-refine yields even better results than human-like step-by-step prompting. While the decomposition influences translation behaviour, faithfulness to the decomposition has both positive and negative effects on translation. Our analysis therefore suggests a divergence between the optimal translation strategies for humans and LLMs.

Kenneth Alperin, Rohan Leekha, Adaku Uchendu et al.

The increasing use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies, such as Large Language Models (LLMs) has led to nontrivial improvements in various tasks, including accurate authorship identification of documents. However, while LLMs improve such defense techniques, they also simultaneously provide a vehicle for malicious actors to launch new attack vectors. To combat this security risk, we evaluate the adversarial robustness of authorship models (specifically an authorship verification model) to potent LLM-based attacks. These attacks include untargeted methods - \textit{authorship obfuscation} and targeted methods - \textit{authorship impersonation}. For both attacks, the objective is to mask or mimic the writing style of an author while preserving the original texts' semantics, respectively. Thus, we perturb an accurate authorship verification model, and achieve maximum attack success rates of 92\% and 78\% for both obfuscation and impersonation attacks, respectively.

Patrícia Schmidtová, Niyati Bafna, Seth Aycock et al.

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved top results in recent machine translation evaluations, but they are also known to be sensitive to errors and perturbations in their prompts. We systematically evaluate how both humanly plausible and synthetic errors in user prompts affect LLMs' performance on two related tasks: Machine translation and machine translation evaluation. We provide both a quantitative analysis and qualitative insights into how the models respond to increasing noise in the user prompt. The prompt quality strongly affects the translation performance: With many errors, even a good prompt can underperform a minimal or poor prompt without errors. However, different noise types impact translation quality differently, with character-level and combined noisers degrading performance more than phrasal perturbations. Qualitative analysis reveals that lower prompt quality largely leads to poorer instruction following, rather than directly affecting translation quality itself. Further, LLMs can still translate in scenarios with overwhelming random noise that would make the prompt illegible to humans.