Mark Gales

Erfan Loweimi, Mengjie Qian, Kate Knill et al.

When retrieving a person from a video archive by voice and face, should the system be multimodal or not? In real-world broadcast archives, unlike curated benchmarks, a target may be heard but unseen, seen but unheard, or both. Fusing scores from an absent modality injects noise, degrading precision below the best unimodal system. We propose a query-adaptive framework that detects active modalities via cross-modal score consistency: when both modalities are active, files retrieved by one also score highly on the other; this agreement breaks down when a modality is absent. Classifiers driven by these cross-modal features achieve 89% detection accuracy. On the BBC Rewind corpus (with over 12,000 broadcast videos) the adaptive system attains 94.2% P@1, outperforming speaker-only (82.9%), face-only (93.4%), and fixed fusion (90.0%), recovering 64% of the gap to an oracle with ground-truth modality labels (96.6%).

Stefano Bannò, Kate Knill, Mark Gales

Automated essay scoring (AES) research often relies on rank-based correlation metrics to validate analytic assessment. However, such metrics obscure both intrinsic intercorrelations among analytic dimensions that arise from the structure of writing proficiency itself and halo effects, whereby holistic impressions bleed into fine-grained component scores. As a result, high correlations may mask a system's true diagnostic behaviour. In this study, we propose a novel self-referential assessment evaluation framework that focuses on identifying intra-learner strengths and weaknesses rather than assessing inter-learner rankings. We conduct experiments on the publicly available ICNALE GRA, a uniquely dense second-language writing dataset annotated holistically and analytically by up to 80 trained raters. To obtain reliable reference scores, we apply two-facet Rasch modelling to calibrate rater severity and derive fair average scores across ten analytic aspects and holistic proficiency. We compare the analytic scoring performance of human operational raters and three large language models (LLMs) in a zero-shot setting. Our results show that LLMs tend to outperform single human raters in identifying relative weaknesses (negative feedback) across several proficiency aspects, while human raters remain stronger at identifying relative strengths (positive feedback). Overall, our findings highlight the limitations of rank-based evaluation for analytic assessment and demonstrate the value of intra-learner, profile-based methods for assessing and deploying LLMs in AES.

Guangzhi Sun, Xiao Zhan, Mark Gales

Benchmark-based evaluation is the dominant paradigm for assessing large language model (LLM) capabilities, yet data contamination inflates reported performance and undermines fair comparison. Existing decontamination methods are evaluated solely through aggregate accuracy, which can obscure substantial differences in per-sample model behaviour, and many require access to an uncontaminated model. In this paper, we propose a sample-level evaluation framework for decontamination that complements accuracy-based assessment with distributional distance metrics, measuring how closely a decontaminated model recovers the output distribution of an uncontaminated model on each sample. Building on this framework, we introduce Uncertainty-Based Decontamination (UBD), a family of methods that leverage deep ensembles of the contaminated model to estimate per-sample memorization without requiring a uncontaminated model or knowledge of which samples are contaminated. UBD estimates a per-sample correction scalar from ensemble uncertainty, which is used to construct a debiased target distribution that suppresses the inflated probability mass on correct answers induced by contamination. This target is then used either as a post-hoc output correction (debiasing) or as a soft training signal for parameter update (unlearning). Experiments on MMLU-Pro and MATH-MCQA across multiple LLM backbones demonstrate that UBD produces per-sample output distributions substantially closer to those of an uncontaminated model than paraphrasing or choice-permutation baselines, while preserving model performance on uncontaminated data.

Ahmet Yavuz Uluslu, Mark Gales, Kate Knill et al.

Native Language Identification (NLI) is the task of determining an author's native language (L1) from their non-native writings. With the advent of human-AI co-authorship, non-native texts are routinely corrected and rewritten by large language models, fundamentally altering the linguistic features NLI models depend on. In this paper, we investigate the robustness of L1 traces across increasing degrees of editorial intervention. By processing 450 essays from the Write & Improve 2024 corpus through varying levels of grammatical error correction (GEC) and paraphrasing, we demonstrate that L1 attribution does not entirely depend on surface-level errors. Instead, the detection models leverage deeper L1 features: unidiomatic lexico-semantic choices, pragmatic transfer, and the author's underlying cultural perspective. We find that minimal edits preserve these structural traces and maintain high profiling accuracy. In contrast, fluency edits and paraphrasing normalize these L1 features, leading to a severe degradation in performance.