Models of reference production: How do they withstand the test of time?Fahime Same, Guanyi Chen, Kees van Deemter
In recent years, many NLP studies have focused solely on performance improvement. In this work, we focus on the linguistic and scientific aspects of NLP. We use the task of generating referring expressions in context (REG-in-context) as a case study and start our analysis from GREC, a comprehensive set of shared tasks in English that addressed this topic over a decade ago. We ask what the performance of models would be if we assessed them (1) on more realistic datasets, and (2) using more advanced methods. We test the models using different evaluation metrics and feature selection experiments. We conclude that GREC can no longer be regarded as offering a reliable assessment of models' ability to mimic human reference production, because the results are highly impacted by the choice of corpus and evaluation metrics. Our results also suggest that pre-trained language models are less dependent on the choice of corpus than classic Machine Learning models, and therefore make more robust class predictions.
4.9CLMay 17, 2025Code
CCNU at SemEval-2025 Task 3: Leveraging Internal and External Knowledge of Large Language Models for Multilingual Hallucination AnnotationXu Liu, Guanyi Chen
We present the system developed by the Central China Normal University (CCNU) team for the Mu-SHROOM shared task, which focuses on identifying hallucinations in question-answering systems across 14 different languages. Our approach leverages multiple Large Language Models (LLMs) with distinct areas of expertise, employing them in parallel to annotate hallucinations, effectively simulating a crowdsourcing annotation process. Furthermore, each LLM-based annotator integrates both internal and external knowledge related to the input during the annotation process. Using the open-source LLM DeepSeek-V3, our system achieves the top ranking (\#1) for Hindi data and secures a Top-5 position in seven other languages. In this paper, we also discuss unsuccessful approaches explored during our development process and share key insights gained from participating in this shared task.
0.6CLFeb 10
How Do People Quantify Naturally: Evidence from Mandarin Picture DescriptionYayun Zhang, Guanyi Chen, Fahime Same et al.
Quantification is a fundamental component of everyday language use, yet little is known about how speakers decide whether and how to quantify in naturalistic production. We investigate quantification in Mandarin Chinese using a picture-based elicited description task in which speakers freely described scenes containing multiple objects, without explicit instructions to count or quantify. Across both spoken and written modalities, we examine three aspects of quantification: whether speakers choose to quantify at all, how precise their quantification is, and which quantificational strategies they adopt. Results show that object numerosity, animacy, and production modality systematically shape quantificational behaviour. In particular, increasing numerosity reduces both the likelihood and the precision of quantification, while animate referents and modality selectively modulate strategy choice. This study demonstrates how quantification can be examined under unconstrained production conditions and provides a naturalistic dataset for further analyses of quantity expression in language production.
2.7CLJun 5, 2025
Do Large Language Models Judge Error Severity Like Humans?Diege Sun, Guanyi Chen, Zhao Fan et al.
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as automated evaluators in natural language generation, yet it remains unclear whether they can accurately replicate human judgments of error severity. In this study, we systematically compare human and LLM assessments of image descriptions containing controlled semantic errors. We extend the experimental framework of van Miltenburg et al. (2020) to both unimodal (text-only) and multimodal (text + image) settings, evaluating four error types: age, gender, clothing type, and clothing colour. Our findings reveal that humans assign varying levels of severity to different error types, with visual context significantly amplifying perceived severity for colour and type errors. Notably, most LLMs assign low scores to gender errors but disproportionately high scores to colour errors, unlike humans, who judge both as highly severe but for different reasons. This suggests that these models may have internalised social norms influencing gender judgments but lack the perceptual grounding to emulate human sensitivity to colour, which is shaped by distinct neural mechanisms. Only one of the evaluated LLMs, Doubao, replicates the human-like ranking of error severity, but it fails to distinguish between error types as clearly as humans. Surprisingly, DeepSeek-V3, a unimodal LLM, achieves the highest alignment with human judgments across both unimodal and multimodal conditions, outperforming even state-of-the-art multimodal models.