While multilingual language models like XLM-R have advanced multilingualism in NLP, they still perform poorly in extremely low-resource languages. This situation is exacerbated by the fact that modern LLMs such as LLaMA and Qwen support far fewer languages than XLM-R, making text generation models non-existent for many languages in the world. To tackle this challenge, we propose a novel framework for adapting multilingual encoders to text generation in extremely low-resource languages. By reusing the weights between the encoder and the decoder, our framework allows the model to leverage the learned semantic space of the encoder, enabling efficient learning and effective generalization in low-resource languages. Applying this framework to four Chinese minority languages, we present XLM-SWCM, and demonstrate its superior performance on various downstream tasks even when compared with much larger models.

Speculative Decoding (SD) has become an important technique in accelerating the inference speed of large language models. Conventional SD methods employ a fixed draft length, which ignores the token generation difficulty across tasks. Consequently, in this paper, we address such an issue and introduce SVIP - a difficulty-aware dynamic draft length policy for speculative decoding systems. Based on a theoretical lower bound of draft token acceptance rate and its inference-time approximation, SVIP adaptively determines the lengths of draft sequences based on the entropy of each draft token distribution. Experimental results on mainstream SD benchmarks and frameworks demonstrate the superior performance of SVIP, achieving up to 20\% walltime speedup on SpecBench over baseline SD methods and 60\% speedup on MT-Bench for long-form generation of up to 8K tokens. Moreover, SVIP is totally training-free and compatible with any existing SD methods that generate draft tokens autoregressively. Experimental results also show that SVIP yields consistent walltime improvement on top of GliDe & CaPE and EAGLE-2.

We present GSM-MC, a multiple-choice (MC) dataset constructed by collecting answers and incorrect predictions on GSM8K from 60 open-source models. Through extensive experiments, we show that LLMs' performance on the MC version of this popular benchmark is strongly correlated with their performance on the original version and is quite robust to distractor choices and option orders, while the evaluation time is reduced by a factor of up to 30. Following similar procedures, we introduce MATH-MC, constructed from MATH, and PythonIO, a new program reasoning MC dataset constructed from HumanEval and MBPP. Experimental results indicate that LLMs' performance on these MC benchmarks leaves much room for improvement. Our data and code are available at https://github.com/Geralt-Targaryen/MC-Evaluation.

In this study, we investigate the reliability of Large Language Models (LLMs) in professing human-like personality traits through responses to personality questionnaires. Our goal is to evaluate the consistency between LLMs' professed personality inclinations and their actual "behavior", examining the extent to which these models can emulate human-like personality patterns. Through a comprehensive analysis of LLM outputs against established human benchmarks, we seek to understand the cognition-action divergence in LLMs and propose hypotheses for the observed results based on psychological theories and metrics.

In this work we systematically review the recent advancements in code processing with language models, covering 50+ models, 30+ evaluation tasks, 170+ datasets, and 700+ related works. We break down code processing models into general language models represented by the GPT family and specialized models that are specifically pretrained on code, often with tailored objectives. We discuss the relations and differences between these models, and highlight the historical transition of code modeling from statistical models and RNNs to pretrained Transformers and LLMs, which is exactly the same course that had been taken by NLP. We also discuss code-specific features such as AST, CFG, and unit tests, along with their application in training code language models, and identify key challenges and potential future directions in this domain.

Inspired by the increasing interest in leveraging large language models for translation, this paper evaluates the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) represented by ChatGPT in comparison to the mainstream neural machine translation (NMT) engines in translating Chinese diplomatic texts into English. Specifically, we examine the translation quality of ChatGPT and NMT engines as measured by four automated metrics and human evaluation based on an error-typology and six analytic rubrics. Our findings show that automated metrics yield similar results for ChatGPT under different prompts and NMT systems, while human annotators tend to assign noticeably higher scores to ChatGPT when it is provided an example or contextual information about the translation task. Pairwise correlation between automated metrics and dimensions of human evaluation produces weak and non-significant results, suggesting the divergence between the two methods of translation quality assessment. These findings provide valuable insights into the potential of ChatGPT as a capable machine translator, and the influence of prompt engineering on its performance.

The growing popularity of neural machine translation (NMT) and LLMs represented by ChatGPT underscores the need for a deeper understanding of their distinct characteristics and relationships. Such understanding is crucial for language professionals and researchers to make informed decisions and tactful use of these cutting-edge translation technology, but remains underexplored. This study aims to fill this gap by investigating three key questions: (1) the distinguishability of ChatGPT-generated translations from NMT and human translation (HT), (2) the linguistic characteristics of each translation type, and (3) the degree of resemblance between ChatGPT-produced translations and HT or NMT. To achieve these objectives, we employ statistical testing, machine learning algorithms, and multidimensional analysis (MDA) to analyze Spokesperson's Remarks and their translations. After extracting a wide range of linguistic features, supervised classifiers demonstrate high accuracy in distinguishing the three translation types, whereas unsupervised clustering techniques do not yield satisfactory results. Another major finding is that ChatGPT-produced translations exhibit greater similarity with NMT than HT in most MDA dimensions, which is further corroborated by distance computing and visualization. These novel insights shed light on the interrelationships among the three translation types and have implications for the future advancements of NMT and generative AI.

Recent benchmarks for Large Language Models (LLMs) have mostly focused on application-driven tasks such as complex reasoning and code generation, and this has led to a scarcity in purely linguistic evaluation of LLMs. Against this background, we introduce Multilingual Evaluation of Linguistic Acceptability -- MELA, the first multilingual benchmark on linguistic acceptability with 48K samples covering 10 languages from a diverse set of language families. We establish baselines of commonly used LLMs along with supervised models, and conduct cross-lingual transfer and multi-task learning experiments with XLM-R. In pursuit of multilingual interpretability, we analyze the weights of fine-tuned XLM-R to explore the possibility of identifying transfer difficulty between languages. Our results show that ChatGPT benefits much from in-context examples but still lags behind fine-tuned XLM-R, while the performance of GPT-4 is on par with fine-tuned XLM-R even in zero-shot setting. Cross-lingual and multi-task learning experiments show that unlike semantic tasks, in-language training data is crucial in acceptability judgements. Results in layerwise probing indicate that the upper layers of XLM-R become a task-specific but language-agnostic region for multilingual acceptability judgment. We also introduce the concept of conflicting weight, which could be a potential indicator for the difficulty of cross-lingual transfer between languages. Our data will be available at https://github.com/sjtu-compling/MELA.

In this work, we revisit linguistic acceptability in the context of large language models. We introduce CoLAC - Corpus of Linguistic Acceptability in Chinese, the first large-scale acceptability dataset for a non-Indo-European language. It is verified by native speakers and is the first acceptability dataset that comes with two sets of labels: a linguist label and a crowd label. Our experiments show that even the largest InstructGPT model performs only at chance level on CoLAC, while ChatGPT's performance (48.30 MCC) is also much below supervised models (59.03 MCC) and human (65.11 MCC). Through cross-lingual transfer experiments and fine-grained linguistic analysis, we provide detailed analysis of the model predictions and demonstrate for the first time that knowledge of linguistic acceptability can be transferred across typologically distinct languages, as well as be traced back to pre-training. Our dataset is publicly available at \url{https://github.com/huhailinguist/CoLAC}.

AI generated content (AIGC) presents considerable challenge to educators around the world. Instructors need to be able to detect such text generated by large language models, either with the naked eye or with the help of some tools. There is also growing need to understand the lexical, syntactic and stylistic features of AIGC. To address these challenges in English language teaching, we first present ArguGPT, a balanced corpus of 4,038 argumentative essays generated by 7 GPT models in response to essay prompts from three sources: (1) in-class or homework exercises, (2) TOEFL and (3) GRE writing tasks. Machine-generated texts are paired with roughly equal number of human-written essays with three score levels matched in essay prompts. We then hire English instructors to distinguish machine essays from human ones. Results show that when first exposed to machine-generated essays, the instructors only have an accuracy of 61% in detecting them. But the number rises to 67% after one round of minimal self-training. Next, we perform linguistic analyses of these essays, which show that machines produce sentences with more complex syntactic structures while human essays tend to be lexically more complex. Finally, we test existing AIGC detectors and build our own detectors using SVMs and RoBERTa. Results suggest that a RoBERTa fine-tuned with the training set of ArguGPT achieves above 90% accuracy in both essay- and sentence-level classification. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive analysis of argumentative essays produced by generative large language models. Machine-authored essays in ArguGPT and our models will be made publicly available at https://github.com/huhailinguist/ArguGPT