Chitta Baral

2papers

2 Papers

0.6CLFeb 6
Lost in Speech: Benchmarking, Evaluation, and Parsing of Spoken Code-Switching Beyond Standard UD Assumptions

Nemika Tyagi, Holly Hendrix, Nelvin Licona-Guevara et al.

Spoken code-switching (CSW) challenges syntactic parsing in ways not observed in written text. Disfluencies, repetition, ellipsis, and discourse-driven structure routinely violate standard Universal Dependencies (UD) assumptions, causing parsers and large language models (LLMs) to fail despite strong performance on written data. These failures are compounded by rigid evaluation metrics that conflate genuine structural errors with acceptable variation. In this work, we present a systems-oriented approach to spoken CSW parsing. We introduce a linguistically grounded taxonomy of spoken CSW phenomena and SpokeBench, an expert-annotated gold benchmark designed to test spoken-language structure beyond standard UD assumptions. We further propose FLEX-UD, an ambiguity-aware evaluation metric, which reveals that existing parsing techniques perform poorly on spoken CSW by penalizing linguistically plausible analyses as errors. We then propose DECAP, a decoupled agentic parsing framework that isolates spoken-phenomena handling from core syntactic analysis. Experiments show that DECAP produces more robust and interpretable parses without retraining and achieves up to 52.6% improvements over existing parsing techniques. FLEX-UD evaluations further reveal qualitative improvements that are masked by standard metrics.

0.6CLFeb 17
ViTaB-A: Evaluating Multimodal Large Language Models on Visual Table Attribution

Yahia Alqurnawi, Preetom Biswas, Anmol Rao et al.

Multimodal Large Language Models (mLLMs) are often used to answer questions in structured data such as tables in Markdown, JSON, and images. While these models can often give correct answers, users also need to know where those answers come from. In this work, we study structured data attribution/citation, which is the ability of the models to point to the specific rows and columns that support an answer. We evaluate several mLLMs across different table formats and prompting strategies. Our results show a clear gap between question answering and evidence attribution. Although question answering accuracy remains moderate, attribution accuracy is much lower, near random for JSON inputs, across all models. We also find that models are more reliable at citing rows than columns, and struggle more with textual formats than images. Finally, we observe notable differences across model families. Overall, our findings show that current mLLMs are unreliable at providing fine-grained, trustworthy attribution for structured data, which limits their usage in applications requiring transparency and traceability.