If you had an AI Whale-to-English translator, how could you validate whether or not it is working? Does one need to interact with the animals or rely on grounded observations such as temperature? We provide theoretical and proof-of-concept experimental evidence suggesting that interaction and even observations may not be necessary for sufficiently complex languages. One may be able to evaluate translators solely by their English outputs, offering potential advantages in terms of safety, ethics, and cost. This is an instance of machine translation quality evaluation (MTQE) without any reference translations available. A key challenge is identifying ``hallucinations,'' false translations which may appear fluent and plausible. We propose using segment-by-segment translation together with the classic NLP shuffle test to evaluate translators. The idea is to translate animal communication, turn by turn, and evaluate how often the resulting translations make more sense in order than permuted. Proof-of-concept experiments on data-scarce human languages and constructed languages demonstrate the potential utility of this evaluation methodology. These human-language experiments serve solely to validate our reference-free metric under data scarcity. It is found to correlate highly with a standard evaluation based on reference translations, which are available in our experiments. We also perform a theoretical analysis suggesting that interaction may not be necessary nor efficient in the early stages of learning to translate.

The introduction of ChatGPT has garnered significant attention within the NLP community and beyond. Previous studies have demonstrated ChatGPT's substantial advancements across various downstream NLP tasks, highlighting its adaptability and potential to revolutionize language-related applications. However, its capabilities and limitations in genre prediction remain unclear. This work analyzes three Large Language Models (LLMs) using the MovieLens-100K dataset to assess their genre prediction capabilities. Our findings show that ChatGPT, without fine-tuning, outperformed other LLMs, and fine-tuned ChatGPT performed best overall. We set up zero-shot and few-shot prompts using audio transcripts/subtitles from movie trailers in the MovieLens-100K dataset, covering 1682 movies of 18 genres, where each movie can have multiple genres. Additionally, we extended our study by extracting IMDb movie posters to utilize a Vision Language Model (VLM) with prompts for poster information. This fine-grained information was used to enhance existing LLM prompts. In conclusion, our study reveals ChatGPT's remarkable genre prediction capabilities, surpassing other language models. The integration of VLM further enhances our findings, showcasing ChatGPT's potential for content-related applications by incorporating visual information from movie posters.

Existing studies on fairness are largely Western-focused, making them inadequate for culturally diverse countries such as India. To address this gap, we introduce INDIC-BIAS, a comprehensive India-centric benchmark designed to evaluate fairness of LLMs across 85 identity groups encompassing diverse castes, religions, regions, and tribes. We first consult domain experts to curate over 1,800 socio-cultural topics spanning behaviors and situations, where biases and stereotypes are likely to emerge. Grounded in these topics, we generate and manually validate 20,000 real-world scenario templates to probe LLMs for fairness. We structure these templates into three evaluation tasks: plausibility, judgment, and generation. Our evaluation of 14 popular LLMs on these tasks reveals strong negative biases against marginalized identities, with models frequently reinforcing common stereotypes. Additionally, we find that models struggle to mitigate bias even when explicitly asked to rationalize their decision. Our evaluation provides evidence of both allocative and representational harms that current LLMs could cause towards Indian identities, calling for a more cautious usage in practical applications. We release INDIC-BIAS as an open-source benchmark to advance research on benchmarking and mitigating biases and stereotypes in the Indian context.

Subjective Answer Grading (SAG) plays a crucial role in education, standardized testing, and automated assessment systems, particularly for evaluating short-form responses in Short Answer Scoring (SAS). However, existing approaches often produce coarse-grained scores and lack detailed reasoning. Although large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated potential as zero-shot evaluators, they remain susceptible to bias, inconsistencies with human judgment, and limited transparency in scoring decisions. To overcome these limitations, we introduce SAS-Bench, a benchmark specifically designed for LLM-based SAS tasks. SAS-Bench provides fine-grained, step-wise scoring, expert-annotated error categories, and a diverse range of question types derived from real-world subject-specific exams. This benchmark facilitates detailed evaluation of model reasoning processes and explainability. We also release an open-source dataset containing 1,030 questions and 4,109 student responses, each annotated by domain experts. Furthermore, we conduct comprehensive experiments with various LLMs, identifying major challenges in scoring science-related questions and highlighting the effectiveness of few-shot prompting in improving scoring accuracy. Our work offers valuable insights into the development of more robust, fair, and educationally meaningful LLM-based evaluation systems.

Reinforcement learning often faces challenges with reward misalignment, where agents optimize for given rewards but fail to exhibit the desired behaviors. This occurs when the reward function incentivizes proxy behaviors that diverge from the true objective. While human-in-the-loop (HIL) methods can help, they may exacerbate the problem, as humans are prone to biases that lead to inconsistent, subjective, or misaligned feedback, complicating the learning process. To address these issues, we propose two key contributions. First, we extend the use of zero-shot, off-the-shelf large language models (LLMs) for reward shaping beyond natural language processing (NLP) to continuous control tasks. By leveraging LLMs as direct feedback providers, we replace surrogate models trained on human feedback, which often suffer from the bias inherent in the feedback data it is trained on. Second, we introduce a hybrid framework (LLM-HFBF) that enables LLMs to identify and correct biases in human feedback while incorporating this feedback into the reward shaping process. The LLM-HFBF framework creates a more balanced and reliable system by addressing both the limitations of LLMs (e.g., lack of domain-specific knowledge) and human supervision (e.g., inherent biases). By enabling human feedback bias flagging and correction, our approach improves reinforcement learning performance and reduces reliance on potentially biased human guidance. Empirical experiments show that biased human feedback significantly reduces performance, with average episodic reward (AER) dropping from 28.472 in (unbiased approaches) to 7.039 (biased with conservative bias). In contrast, LLM-based approaches maintain a matching AER like unbiased feedback, even in custom edge case scenarios.

For a long time, the authorship of the Federalist Papers had been a subject of inquiry and debate, not only by linguists and historians but also by statisticians. In what was arguably the first Bayesian case study, Mosteller and Wallace (1963) provided the first statistical evidence for attributing all disputed papers to Madison. Our paper revisits this historical dataset but from a lens of modern language models, both small and large. We review some of the more popular Large Language Model (LLM) tools and examine them from a statistical point of view in the context of text classification. We investigate whether, without any attempt to fine-tune, the general embedding constructs can be useful for stylometry and attribution. We explain differences between various word/phrase embeddings and discuss how to aggregate them in a document. Contrary to our expectations, we exemplify that dimension expansion with word embeddings may not always be beneficial for attribution relative to dimension reduction with topic embeddings. Our experiments demonstrate that default LLM embeddings (even after manual fine-tuning) may not consistently improve authorship attribution accuracy. Instead, Bayesian analysis with topic embeddings trained on ``function words" yields superior out-of-sample classification performance. This suggests that traditional (small) statistical language models, with their interpretability and solid theoretical foundation, can offer significant advantages in authorship attribution tasks. The code used in this analysis is available at github.com/sowonjeong/slm-to-llm

Sarcasm is a linguistic phenomenon that intends to ridicule a target (e.g., entity, event, or person) in an inherent way. Multimodal Sarcasm Explanation (MuSE) aims at revealing the intended irony in a sarcastic post using a natural language explanation. Though important, existing systems overlooked the significance of the target of sarcasm in generating explanations. In this paper, we propose a Target-aUgmented shaRed fusion-Based sarcasm explanatiOn model, aka. TURBO. We design a novel shared-fusion mechanism to leverage the inter-modality relationships between an image and its caption. TURBO assumes the target of the sarcasm and guides the multimodal shared fusion mechanism in learning intricacies of the intended irony for explanations. We evaluate our proposed TURBO model on the MORE+ dataset. Comparison against multiple baselines and state-of-the-art models signifies the performance improvement of TURBO by an average margin of $+3.3\%$. Moreover, we explore LLMs in zero and one-shot settings for our task and observe that LLM-generated explanation, though remarkable, often fails to capture the critical nuances of the sarcasm. Furthermore, we supplement our study with extensive human evaluation on TURBO's generated explanations and find them out to be comparatively better than other systems.

This research assesses the effectiveness of state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs), including ChatGPT, Llama, Aya, Jais, and ACEGPT, in the task of Arabic automated essay scoring (AES) using the AR-AES dataset. It explores various evaluation methodologies, including zero-shot, few-shot in-context learning, and fine-tuning, and examines the influence of instruction-following capabilities through the inclusion of marking guidelines within the prompts. A mixed-language prompting strategy, integrating English prompts with Arabic content, was implemented to improve model comprehension and performance. Among the models tested, ACEGPT demonstrated the strongest performance across the dataset, achieving a Quadratic Weighted Kappa (QWK) of 0.67, but was outperformed by a smaller BERT-based model with a QWK of 0.88. The study identifies challenges faced by LLMs in processing Arabic, including tokenization complexities and higher computational demands. Performance variation across different courses underscores the need for adaptive models capable of handling diverse assessment formats and highlights the positive impact of effective prompt engineering on improving LLM outputs. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to empirically evaluate the performance of multiple generative Large Language Models (LLMs) on Arabic essays using authentic student data.