arXiv Computation and Language

Concept Direction Reliability Across Languages with Different Tokenizer Fertility

arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 27

Apples to Apples? Towards Comparable Crosslingual Language Model Evaluation

The paper investigates how to fairly compare language models across languages, noting that current evaluation methods vary widely and lack empirical validation. By training controlled monolingual models on parallel data and testing multilingual LLMs, the authors find that many normalized metrics suffer from biases due to tokenization, encoding, and orthographic differences. Instead, they recommend using sentence‑level negative log‑likelihood over semantically equivalent sequences for more reliable cross‑lingual comparisons.

By Xiulin Yang, Ethan Gotlieb Wilcox, Catherine Arnett
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jul 13

A Durability and Cross-Language Transfer Benchmark for a Validated Teaching-Feedback Classification Protocol

Institutions collect far more open-ended teaching-evaluation feedback than they read. A prior study introduced a validated protocol for classifying such comments by thematic category and sentiment, built from a documented annotation guide, an intra-annotator reliability measurement, stratified cross-validation, and a held-out evaluation on a Spanish institutional corpus with a frozen-encoder design.

arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 27

KESA: A Knowledge Enhanced Approach For Sentiment Analysis

The paper introduces KESA, a knowledge‑enhanced approach for sentence‑level sentiment analysis that incorporates sentiment knowledge through two auxiliary tasks: sentiment word cloze and conditional sentiment prediction. These tasks use prior sentiment polarity to guide the selection of sentiment words and the prediction of overall sentiment, respectively, and explore label combination methods to unify multiple label types. Experiments show that KESA consistently outperforms pre‑trained models and complements existing knowledge‑enhanced post‑training methods.

By Qinghua Zhao, Shuai Ma, Shuo Ren
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 7

A Systematic Comparison of Multilingual Interpretability Methods Reveals Anisotropy-Driven Failures

The paper evaluates four metrics—CKA, ANC, GMM dominance per token, and ILO—used to measure cross‑lingual representation sharing in multilingual language models. Across 21 models ranging from 125 M to 14 B parameters, the metrics disagree, and the authors attribute this to anisotropy, where representations cluster in a narrow embedding cone. Only ILO shows a strong, robust correlation with cross‑lingual transfer performance (Spearman’s ρ = 0.90) after controlling for model size, family, and task variation, leading the authors to recommend ILO as the primary metric alongside anisotropy diagnostics.

By Oskar Holmstr\"om, Marcel Bollmann, Marco Kuhlmann