2.7CLNov 21, 2025Code
PUCP-Metrix: An Open-source and Comprehensive Toolkit for Linguistic Analysis of Spanish TextsJavier Alonso Villegas Luis, Marco Antonio Sobrevilla Cabezudo
Linguistic features remain essential for interpretability and tasks that involve style, structure, and readability, but existing Spanish tools offer limited coverage. We present PUCP-Metrix, an open-source and comprehensive toolkit for linguistic analysis of Spanish texts. PUCP-Metrix includes 182 linguistic metrics spanning lexical diversity, syntactic and semantic complexity, cohesion, psycholinguistics, and readability. It enables fine-grained, interpretable text analysis. We evaluate its usefulness on Automated Readability Assessment and Machine-Generated Text Detection, showing competitive performance compared to an existing repository and strong neural baselines. PUCP-Metrix offers a comprehensive and extensible resource for Spanish, supporting diverse NLP applications.
NL-Augmenter: A Framework for Task-Sensitive Natural Language AugmentationKaustubh D. Dhole, Varun Gangal, Sebastian Gehrmann et al.
Data augmentation is an important component in the robustness evaluation of models in natural language processing (NLP) and in enhancing the diversity of the data they are trained on. In this paper, we present NL-Augmenter, a new participatory Python-based natural language augmentation framework which supports the creation of both transformations (modifications to the data) and filters (data splits according to specific features). We describe the framework and an initial set of 117 transformations and 23 filters for a variety of natural language tasks. We demonstrate the efficacy of NL-Augmenter by using several of its transformations to analyze the robustness of popular natural language models. The infrastructure, datacards and robustness analysis results are available publicly on the NL-Augmenter repository (https://github.com/GEM-benchmark/NL-Augmenter).
27.2CLMay 25, 2023
The Dangers of trusting Stochastic Parrots: Faithfulness and Trust in Open-domain Conversational Question AnsweringSabrina Chiesurin, Dimitris Dimakopoulos, Marco Antonio Sobrevilla Cabezudo et al.
Large language models are known to produce output which sounds fluent and convincing, but is also often wrong, e.g. "unfaithful" with respect to a rationale as retrieved from a knowledge base. In this paper, we show that task-based systems which exhibit certain advanced linguistic dialog behaviors, such as lexical alignment (repeating what the user said), are in fact preferred and trusted more, whereas other phenomena, such as pronouns and ellipsis are dis-preferred. We use open-domain question answering systems as our test-bed for task based dialog generation and compare several open- and closed-book models. Our results highlight the danger of systems that appear to be trustworthy by parroting user input while providing an unfaithful response.
33.9CLFeb 2, 2021
The GEM Benchmark: Natural Language Generation, its Evaluation and MetricsSebastian Gehrmann, Tosin Adewumi, Karmanya Aggarwal et al.
We introduce GEM, a living benchmark for natural language Generation (NLG), its Evaluation, and Metrics. Measuring progress in NLG relies on a constantly evolving ecosystem of automated metrics, datasets, and human evaluation standards. Due to this moving target, new models often still evaluate on divergent anglo-centric corpora with well-established, but flawed, metrics. This disconnect makes it challenging to identify the limitations of current models and opportunities for progress. Addressing this limitation, GEM provides an environment in which models can easily be applied to a wide set of tasks and in which evaluation strategies can be tested. Regular updates to the benchmark will help NLG research become more multilingual and evolve the challenge alongside models. This paper serves as the description of the data for which we are organizing a shared task at our ACL 2021 Workshop and to which we invite the entire NLG community to participate.
31.1CLMay 5, 2020
Efficient strategies for hierarchical text classification: External knowledge and auxiliary tasksKervy Rivas Rojas, Gina Bustamante, Arturo Oncevay et al.
In hierarchical text classification, we perform a sequence of inference steps to predict the category of a document from top to bottom of a given class taxonomy. Most of the studies have focused on developing novels neural network architectures to deal with the hierarchical structure, but we prefer to look for efficient ways to strengthen a baseline model. We first define the task as a sequence-to-sequence problem. Afterwards, we propose an auxiliary synthetic task of bottom-up-classification. Then, from external dictionaries, we retrieve textual definitions for the classes of all the hierarchy's layers, and map them into the word vector space. We use the class-definition embeddings as an additional input to condition the prediction of the next layer and in an adapted beam search. Whereas the modified search did not provide large gains, the combination of the auxiliary task and the additional input of class-definitions significantly enhance the classification accuracy. With our efficient approaches, we outperform previous studies, using a drastically reduced number of parameters, in two well-known English datasets.
SEMA: an Extended Semantic Evaluation Metric for AMRRafael T. Anchieta, Marco A. S. Cabezudo, Thiago A. S. Pardo
Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) is a recently designed semantic representation language intended to capture the meaning of a sentence, which may be represented as a single-rooted directed acyclic graph with labeled nodes and edges. The automatic evaluation of this structure plays an important role in the development of better systems, as well as for semantic annotation. Despite there is one available metric, smatch, it has some drawbacks. For instance, smatch creates a self-relation on the root of the graph, has weights for different error types, and does not take into account the dependence of the elements in the AMR structure. With these drawbacks, smatch masks several problems of the AMR parsers and distorts the evaluation of the AMRs. In view of this, in this paper, we introduce an extended metric to evaluate AMR parsers, which deals with the drawbacks of the smatch metric. Finally, we compare both metrics, using four well-known AMR parsers, and we argue that our metric is more refined, robust, fairer, and faster than smatch.