Sentence embeddings are central to modern NLP and AI systems, yet little is known about their internal structure. While we can compare these embeddings using measures such as cosine similarity, the contributing features are not human-interpretable, and the content of an embedding seems untraceable, as it is masked by complex neural transformations and a final pooling operation that combines individual token embeddings. To alleviate this issue, we propose a new method to mechanistically decompose sentence embeddings into interpretable components, by using dictionary learning on token-level representations. We analyze how pooling compresses these features into sentence representations, and assess the latent features that reside in a sentence embedding. This bridges token-level mechanistic interpretability with sentence-level analysis, making for more transparent and controllable representations. In our studies, we obtain several interesting insights into the inner workings of sentence embedding spaces, for instance, that many semantic and syntactic aspects are linearly encoded in the embeddings.

We propose the Sentence Smith framework that enables controlled and specified manipulation of text meaning. It consists of three main steps: 1. Parsing a sentence into a semantic graph, 2. Applying human-designed semantic manipulation rules, and 3. Generating text from the manipulated graph. A final filtering step (4.) ensures the validity of the applied transformation. To demonstrate the utility of Sentence Smith in an application study, we use it to generate hard negative pairs that challenge text embedding models. Since the controllable generation makes it possible to clearly isolate different types of semantic shifts, we can gain deeper insights into the specific strengths and weaknesses of widely used text embedding models, also addressing an issue in current benchmarking where linguistic phenomena remain opaque. Human validation confirms that the generations produced by Sentence Smith are highly accurate.

Text embeddings and text embedding models are a backbone of many AI and NLP systems, particularly those involving search. However, interpretability challenges persist, especially in explaining obtained similarity scores, which is crucial for applications requiring transparency. In this paper, we give a structured overview of interpretability methods specializing in explaining those similarity scores, an emerging research area. We study the methods' individual ideas and techniques, evaluating their potential for improving interpretability of text embeddings and explaining predicted similarities.

The growing volume of digitized historical texts requires effective semantic search using text embeddings. However, pre-trained multilingual models, typically evaluated on contemporary texts, face challenges with historical digitized content due to OCR noise and outdated spellings. We explore the use of multilingual embeddings for cross-lingual semantic search on historical Luxembourgish, a low-resource language. We collect historical Luxembourgish news articles spanning various time periods and use GPT-4o to segment and translate them into closely related languages, creating 20,000 parallel training sentences per language pair. We further create a historical bitext mining evaluation set and find that these models struggle to perform cross-lingual search on historical Luxembourgish. To address this, we propose a simple adaptation method using in-domain training data, achieving up to 98\% accuracy in cross-lingual evaluations. We release our adapted models and historical Luxembourgish-German/French bitexts to support further research.

The task of determining whether two texts are paraphrases has long been a challenge in NLP. However, the prevailing notion of paraphrase is often quite simplistic, offering only a limited view of the vast spectrum of paraphrase phenomena. Indeed, we find that evaluating models in a paraphrase dataset can leave uncertainty about their true semantic understanding. To alleviate this, we release paraphrasus, a benchmark designed for multi-dimensional assessment of paraphrase detection models and finer model selection. We find that paraphrase detection models under a fine-grained evaluation lens exhibit trade-offs that cannot be captured through a single classification dataset.

Classification systems are evaluated in a countless number of papers. However, we find that evaluation practice is often nebulous. Frequently, metrics are selected without arguments, and blurry terminology invites misconceptions. For instance, many works use so-called 'macro' metrics to rank systems (e.g., 'macro F1') but do not clearly specify what they would expect from such a `macro' metric. This is problematic, since picking a metric can affect research findings, and thus any clarity in the process should be maximized. Starting from the intuitive concepts of bias and prevalence, we perform an analysis of common evaluation metrics. The analysis helps us understand the metrics' underlying properties, and how they align with expectations as found expressed in papers. Then we reflect on the practical situation in the field, and survey evaluation practice in recent shared tasks. We find that metric selection is often not supported with convincing arguments, an issue that can make a system ranking seem arbitrary. Our work aims at providing overview and guidance for more informed and transparent metric selection, fostering meaningful evaluation.

The Area Under Curve measure (AUC) seems apt to evaluate and compare diverse models, possibly without calibration. An important example of AUC application is the evaluation and benchmarking of models that predict faithfulness of generated text. But we show that the AUC yields an academic and optimistic notion of accuracy that can misalign with the actual accuracy observed in application, yielding significant changes in benchmark rankings. To paint a more realistic picture of downstream model performance (and prepare a model for actual application), we explore different calibration modes, testing calibration data and method.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have become capable of generating highly fluent text in certain languages, without modules specially designed to capture grammar or semantic coherence. What does this mean for the future of linguistic expertise in NLP? We highlight several aspects in which NLP (still) relies on linguistics, or where linguistic thinking can illuminate new directions. We argue our case around the acronym $RELIES$ that encapsulates six major facets where linguistics contributes to NLP: $R$esources, $E$valuation, $L$ow-resource settings, $I$nterpretability, $E$xplanation, and the $S$tudy of language. This list is not exhaustive, nor is linguistics the main point of reference for every effort under these themes; but at a macro level, these facets highlight the enduring importance of studying machine systems vis-a-vis systems of human language.

At the heart of the Pyramid evaluation method for text summarization lie human written summary content units (SCUs). These SCUs are concise sentences that decompose a summary into small facts. Such SCUs can be used to judge the quality of a candidate summary, possibly partially automated via natural language inference (NLI) systems. Interestingly, with the aim to fully automate the Pyramid evaluation, Zhang and Bansal (2021) show that SCUs can be approximated by automatically generated semantic role triplets (STUs). However, several questions currently lack answers, in particular: i) Are there other ways of approximating SCUs that can offer advantages? ii) Under which conditions are SCUs (or their approximations) offering the most value? In this work, we examine two novel strategies to approximate SCUs: generating SCU approximations from AMR meaning representations (SMUs) and from large language models (SGUs), respectively. We find that while STUs and SMUs are competitive, the best approximation quality is achieved by SGUs. We also show through a simple sentence-decomposition baseline (SSUs) that SCUs (and their approximations) offer the most value when ranking short summaries, but may not help as much when ranking systems or longer summaries.

With an increasing number of parameters and pre-training data, generative large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable capabilities to solve tasks with minimal or no task-related examples. Notably, LLMs have been successfully employed as evaluation metrics in text generation tasks. Within this context, we introduce the Eval4NLP 2023 shared task that asks participants to explore prompting and score extraction for machine translation (MT) and summarization evaluation. Specifically, we propose a novel competition setting in which we select a list of allowed LLMs and disallow fine-tuning to ensure a focus on prompting. We present an overview of participants' approaches and evaluate them on a new reference-free test set spanning three language pairs for MT and a summarization dataset. Notably, despite the task's restrictions, the best-performing systems achieve results on par with or even surpassing recent reference-free metrics developed using larger models, including GEMBA and Comet-Kiwi-XXL. Finally, as a separate track, we perform a small-scale human evaluation of the plausibility of explanations given by the LLMs.