We introduce Dynaboard, an evaluation-as-a-service framework for hosting benchmarks and conducting holistic model comparison, integrated with the Dynabench platform. Our platform evaluates NLP models directly instead of relying on selfreported metrics or predictions on a single dataset. Under this paradigm, models are submitted to be evaluated in the cloud, circumventing the issues of reproducibility, accessibility, and backwards compatibility that often hinder benchmarking in NLP. This allows users to interact with uploaded models in real time to assess their quality, and permits the collection of additional metrics such as memory use, throughput, and robustness, which - despite their importance to practitioners - have traditionally been absent from leaderboards. On each task, models are ranked according to the Dynascore, a novel utility-based aggregation of these statistics, which users can customize to better reflect their preferences, placing more/less weight on a particular axis of evaluation or dataset. As state-of-the-art NLP models push the limits of traditional benchmarks, Dynaboard offers a standardized solution for a more diverse and comprehensive evaluation of model quality.

Expressing universal semantics common to all languages is helpful in understanding the meanings of complex and culture-specific sentences. The research theme underlying this scenario focuses on learning universal representations across languages with the usage of massive parallel corpora. However, due to the sparsity and scarcity of parallel data, there is still a big challenge in learning authentic "universals" for any two languages. In this paper, we propose EMMA-X: an EM-like Multilingual pre-training Algorithm, to learn (X)Cross-lingual universals with the aid of excessive multilingual non-parallel data.

Topic model evaluation, like evaluation of other unsupervised methods, can be contentious. However, the field has coalesced around automated estimates of topic coherence, which rely on the frequency of word co-occurrences in a reference corpus. Contemporary neural topic models surpass classical ones according to these metrics. At the same time, topic model evaluation suffers from a validation gap: automated coherence, developed for classical models, has not been validated using human experimentation for neural models. In addition, a meta-analysis of topic modeling literature reveals a substantial standardization gap in automated topic modeling benchmarks. To address the validation gap, we compare automated coherence with the two most widely accepted human judgment tasks: topic rating and word intrusion. To address the standardization gap, we systematically evaluate a dominant classical model and two state-of-the-art neural models on two commonly used datasets. Automated evaluations declare a winning model when corresponding human evaluations do not, calling into question the validity of fully automatic evaluations independent of human judgments.

Large language models (LLMs), typically designed as a function of next-word prediction, have excelled across extensive NLP tasks. Despite the generality, next-word prediction is often not an efficient formulation for many of the tasks, demanding an extreme scale of model parameters (10s or 100s of billions) and sometimes yielding suboptimal performance. In practice, it is often desirable to build more efficient models--despite being less versatile, they still apply to a substantial subset of problems, delivering on par or even superior performance with much smaller model sizes.

Discriminative methods were used to execute such tasks and achieved state-of-the-art performance.