Anna Bavaresco

Anna Bavaresco, Marianne de Heer Kloots, Sandro Pezzelle et al.

Recent studies suggest that transformer-based vision-language models (VLMs) capture the multimodality of concept processing in the human brain. However, a systematic evaluation exploring different types of VLM architectures and the role played by visual and textual context is still lacking. Here, we analyse multiple VLMs employing different strategies to integrate visual and textual modalities, along with language-only counterparts. We measure the alignment between concept representations by models and existing (fMRI) brain responses to concept words presented in two experimental conditions, where either visual (pictures) or textual (sentences) context is provided. Our results reveal that VLMs outperform the language-only counterparts in both experimental conditions. However, controlled ablation studies show that only for some VLMs, such as LXMERT and IDEFICS2, brain alignment stems from genuinely learning more human-like concepts during pretraining, while others are highly sensitive to the context provided at inference. Additionally, we find that vision-language encoders are more brain-aligned than more recent, generative VLMs. Altogether, our study shows that VLMs align with human neural representations in concept processing, while highlighting differences among architectures. We open-source code and materials to reproduce our experiments at: https://github.com/dmg-illc/vl-concept-processing.

Anna Bavaresco, Raquel Fernández

A common assumption in Computational Linguistics is that text representations learnt by multimodal models are richer and more human-like than those by language-only models, as they are grounded in images or audio -- similar to how human language is grounded in real-world experiences. However, empirical studies checking whether this is true are largely lacking. We address this gap by comparing word representations from contrastive multimodal models vs. language-only ones in the extent to which they capture experiential information -- as defined by an existing norm-based 'experiential model' -- and align with human fMRI responses. Our results indicate that, surprisingly, language-only models are superior to multimodal ones in both respects. Additionally, they learn more unique brain-relevant semantic information beyond that shared with the experiential model. Overall, our study highlights the need to develop computational models that better integrate the complementary semantic information provided by multimodal data sources.

Anna Bavaresco, Raffaella Bernardi, Leonardo Bertolazzi et al.

There is an increasing trend towards evaluating NLP models with LLMs instead of human judgments, raising questions about the validity of these evaluations, as well as their reproducibility in the case of proprietary models. We provide JUDGE-BENCH, an extensible collection of 20 NLP datasets with human annotations covering a broad range of evaluated properties and types of data, and comprehensively evaluate 11 current LLMs, covering both open-weight and proprietary models, for their ability to replicate the annotations. Our evaluations show substantial variance across models and datasets. Models are reliable evaluators on some tasks, but overall display substantial variability depending on the property being evaluated, the expertise level of the human judges, and whether the language is human or model-generated. We conclude that LLMs should be carefully validated against human judgments before being used as evaluators.