Petr Parshakov

Petr Parshakov

We present the first Komi-Yazva--Russian parallel corpus together with an explicit evaluation protocol for studying LLM translation in an endangered, extremely low-resource setting. The dataset contains 457 aligned sentence pairs from 74 narrative texts and is accompanied by documented provenance, sentence-level alignment, and story identifiers that enable leakage-aware evaluation. We use this setup to compare modern large language models on Komi-Yazva-to-Russian translation under severe parallel-data scarcity in zero-shot and retrieval-based few-shot regimes. The protocol includes story-level cross-validation, deterministic retrieval for few-shot prompting, strict validation of generated outputs, complementary reference-based and judge-based metrics, and story-level uncertainty estimates. Across models, LLMs produce non-trivial translations, but performance varies strongly by model family and prompting regime. Retrieval-based few-shot prompting consistently improves over zero-shot prompting, while gains beyond a small retrieved context remain limited. The results show that evaluative conclusions in this setting depend materially on metric choice and failure handling, so the paper frames the corpus as both a dataset contribution and a reproducible evaluation testbed for endangered-language machine translation.

Dmitry Dagaev, Egor Ivanov, Petr Parshakov et al.

The emergence of large language models (LLMs) has spurred economists to study how humans and LLMs behave in strategic settings. We organized a series of round-robin tournaments in the Colonel Blotto game. This game attracts game theorists' attention due to high-dimensional action space and the absence of pure strategy Nash equilibria. In the first tournament, more than 200 human participants competed against one another. In the second tournament, several popular LLMs were invited to submit strategies. In the third tournament, we matched the number of LLM strategies to the number submitted by humans. We find that humans more often employ better-calibrated intermediate-level allocation heuristics and outperform the simpler, more stereotyped strategies submitted by LLMs. Strategic sophistication is key to success if and only if the necessary level of reasoning depth is reached, while lower and higher levels of reasoning offer no clear advantage over the primitive strategies. Among humans, field of study weakly predicts success: participants with STEM backgrounds perform better in the first tournament. Surprisingly, humans almost do not adjust their strategies across tournaments with different sets of opponents. This result suggests that humans base their choices primarily on the game's rules rather than on the identity of their opponents, treating LLMs much like human competitors.

Nikita Matkin, Aleksei Smirnov, Mikhail Usanin et al.

The labor market is undergoing rapid changes, with increasing demands on job seekers and a surge in job openings. Identifying essential skills and competencies from job descriptions is challenging due to varying employer requirements and the omission of key skills. This study addresses these challenges by comparing traditional Named Entity Recognition (NER) methods based on encoders with Large Language Models (LLMs) for extracting skills from Russian job vacancies. Using a labeled dataset of 4,000 job vacancies for training and 1,472 for testing, the performance of both approaches is evaluated. Results indicate that traditional NER models, especially DeepPavlov RuBERT NER tuned, outperform LLMs across various metrics including accuracy, precision, recall, and inference time. The findings suggest that traditional NER models provide more effective and efficient solutions for skill extraction, enhancing job requirement clarity and aiding job seekers in aligning their qualifications with employer expectations. This research contributes to the field of natural language processing (NLP) and its application in the labor market, particularly in non-English contexts.

Petr Parshakov, Iuliia Naidenova, Sofia Paklina et al.

In this paper, we investigate how individuals evaluate human and large langue models generated responses to popular questions when the source of the content is either concealed or disclosed. Through a controlled field experiment, participants were presented with a set of questions, each accompanied by a response generated by either a human or an AI. In a randomized design, half of the participants were informed of the response's origin while the other half remained unaware. Our findings indicate that, overall, participants tend to prefer AI-generated responses. However, when the AI origin is revealed, this preference diminishes significantly, suggesting that evaluative judgments are influenced by the disclosure of the response's provenance rather than solely by its quality. These results underscore a bias against AI-generated content, highlighting the societal challenge of improving the perception of AI work in contexts where quality assessments should be paramount.

Marina Zavertiaeva, Petr Parshakov, Mikhail Usanin et al.

This study introduces an AI-based methodology that utilizes natural language processing (NLP) to detect burnout from textual data. The approach relies on a RuBERT model originally trained for sentiment analysis and subsequently fine-tuned for burnout detection using two data sources: synthetic sentences generated with ChatGPT and user comments collected from Russian YouTube videos about burnout. The resulting model assigns a burnout probability to input texts and can be applied to process large volumes of written communication for monitoring burnout-related language signals in high-stress work environments.