TurkishMMLU: Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding in Turkish

Multiple choice question answering tasks evaluate the reasoning, comprehension, and mathematical abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). While existing benchmarks employ automatic translation for multilingual evaluation, this approach is error-prone and potentially introduces culturally biased questions, especially in social sciences. We introduce the first multitask, multiple-choice Turkish QA benchmark, TurkishMMLU, to evaluate LLMs' understanding of the Turkish language. TurkishMMLU includes over 10,000 questions, covering 9 different subjects from Turkish high-school education curricula. These questions are written by curriculum experts, suitable for the high-school curricula in Turkey, covering subjects ranging from natural sciences and math questions to more culturally representative topics such as Turkish Literature and the history of the Turkish Republic. We evaluate over 20 LLMs, including multilingual open-source (e.g., Gemma, Llama, MT5), closed-source (GPT 4o, Claude, Gemini), and Turkish-adapted (e.g., Trendyol) models. We provide an extensive evaluation, including zero-shot and few-shot evaluation of LLMs, chain-of-thought reasoning, and question difficulty analysis along with model performance. We provide an in-depth analysis of the Turkish capabilities and limitations of current LLMs to provide insights for future LLMs for the Turkish language. We publicly release our code for the dataset and evaluation: https://github.com/ArdaYueksel/TurkishMMLU.

"Seeing the Big through the Small": Can LLMs Approximate Human Judgment Distributions on NLI from a Few Explanations?

Human label variation (HLV) is a valuable source of information that arises when multiple human annotators provide different labels for valid reasons. In Natural Language Inference (NLI) earlier approaches to capturing HLV involve either collecting annotations from many crowd workers to represent human judgment distribution (HJD) or use expert linguists to provide detailed explanations for their chosen labels. While the former method provides denser HJD information, obtaining it is resource-intensive. In contrast, the latter offers richer textual information but it is challenging to scale up to many human judges. Besides, large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as evaluators (``LLM judges'') but with mixed results, and few works aim to study HJDs. This study proposes to exploit LLMs to approximate HJDs using a small number of expert labels and explanations. Our experiments show that a few explanations significantly improve LLMs' ability to approximate HJDs with and without explicit labels, thereby providing a solution to scale up annotations for HJD. However, fine-tuning smaller soft-label aware models with the LLM-generated model judgment distributions (MJDs) presents partially inconsistent results: while similar in distance, their resulting fine-tuned models and visualized distributions differ substantially. We show the importance of complementing instance-level distance measures with a global-level shape metric and visualization to more effectively evaluate MJDs against human judgment distributions.

Fairer Preferences Elicit Improved Human-Aligned Large Language Model Judgments

Large language models (LLMs) have shown promising abilities as cost-effective and reference-free evaluators for assessing language generation quality. In particular, pairwise LLM evaluators, which compare two generated texts and determine the preferred one, have been employed in a wide range of applications. However, LLMs exhibit preference biases and worrying sensitivity to prompt designs. In this work, we first reveal that the predictive preference of LLMs can be highly brittle and skewed, even with semantically equivalent instructions. We find that fairer predictive preferences from LLMs consistently lead to judgments that are better aligned with humans. Motivated by this phenomenon, we propose an automatic Zero-shot Evaluation-oriented Prompt Optimization framework, ZEPO, which aims to produce fairer preference decisions and improve the alignment of LLM evaluators with human judgments. To this end, we propose a zero-shot learning objective based on the preference decision fairness. ZEPO demonstrates substantial performance improvements over state-of-the-art LLM evaluators, without requiring labeled data, on representative meta-evaluation benchmarks. Our findings underscore the critical correlation between preference fairness and human alignment, positioning ZEPO as an efficient prompt optimizer for bridging the gap between LLM evaluators and human judgments.

Culturally Aware and Adapted NLP: A Taxonomy and a Survey of the State of the Art

The surge of interest in culturally aware and adapted Natural Language Processing (NLP) has inspired much recent research. However, the lack of common understanding of the concept of "culture" has made it difficult to evaluate progress in this emerging area. Drawing on prior research in NLP and related fields, we propose an extensive taxonomy of elements of culture that can provide a systematic framework for analyzing and understanding research progress. Using the taxonomy, we survey existing resources and models for culturally aware and adapted NLP, providing an overview of the state of the art and the research gaps that still need to be filled.

TopViewRS: Vision-Language Models as Top-View Spatial Reasoners

Top-view perspective denotes a typical way in which humans read and reason over different types of maps, and it is vital for localization and navigation of humans as well as of `non-human' agents, such as the ones backed by large Vision-Language Models (VLMs). Nonetheless, spatial reasoning capabilities of modern VLMs remain unattested and underexplored. In this work, we thus study their capability to understand and reason over spatial relations from the top view. The focus on top view also enables controlled evaluations at different granularity of spatial reasoning; we clearly disentangle different abilities (e.g., recognizing particular objects versus understanding their relative positions). We introduce the TopViewRS (Top-View Reasoning in Space) dataset, consisting of 11,384 multiple-choice questions with either realistic or semantic top-view map as visual input. We then use it to study and evaluate VLMs across 4 perception and reasoning tasks with different levels of complexity. Evaluation of 10 representative open- and closed-source VLMs reveals the gap of more than 50% compared to average human performance, and it is even lower than the random baseline in some cases. Although additional experiments show that Chain-of-Thought reasoning can boost model capabilities by 5.82% on average, the overall performance of VLMs remains limited. Our findings underscore the critical need for enhanced model capability in top-view spatial reasoning and set a foundation for further research towards human-level proficiency of VLMs in real-world multimodal tasks.

Spectral Editing of Activations for Large Language Model Alignment

Large language models (LLMs) often exhibit undesirable behaviours, such as generating untruthful or biased content. Editing their internal representations has been shown to be effective in mitigating such behaviours on top of the existing alignment methods. We propose a novel inference-time editing method, namely spectral editing of activations (SEA), to project the input representations into directions with maximal covariance with the positive demonstrations (e.g., truthful) while minimising covariance with the negative demonstrations (e.g., hallucinated). We also extend our method to non-linear editing using feature functions. We run extensive experiments on benchmarks concerning truthfulness and bias with six open-source LLMs of different sizes and model families. The results demonstrate the superiority of SEA in effectiveness, generalisation to similar tasks, as well as inference and data efficiency. We also show that SEA editing only has a limited negative impact on other model capabilities.

CALRec: Contrastive Alignment of Generative LLMs For Sequential Recommendation

Traditional recommender systems such as matrix factorization methods rely on learning a shared dense embedding space to represent both items and user preferences. Sequence models such as RNN, GRUs, and, recently, Transformers have also excelled in the task of sequential recommendation. This task requires understanding the sequential structure present in users' historical interactions to predict the next item they may like. Building upon the success of Large Language Models (LLMs) in a variety of tasks, researchers have recently explored using LLMs that are pretrained on vast corpora of text for sequential recommendation. To use LLMs in sequential recommendations, both the history of user interactions and the model's prediction of the next item are expressed in text form. We propose CALRec, a two-stage LLM finetuning framework that finetunes a pretrained LLM in a two-tower fashion using a mixture of two contrastive losses and a language modeling loss: the LLM is first finetuned on a data mixture from multiple domains followed by another round of target domain finetuning. Our model significantly outperforms many state-of-the-art baselines (+37% in Recall@1 and +24% in NDCG@10) and systematic ablation studies reveal that (i) both stages of finetuning are crucial, and, when combined, we achieve improved performance, and (ii) contrastive alignment is effective among the target domains explored in our experiments.

Aligning with Human Judgement: The Role of Pairwise Preference in Large Language Model Evaluators

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising capabilities as automatic evaluators in assessing the quality of generated natural language. However, LLMs still exhibit biases in evaluation and often struggle to generate coherent evaluations that align with human assessments. In this work, we first conduct a systematic study of the misalignment between LLM evaluators and human judgement, revealing that existing calibration methods aimed at mitigating biases are insufficient for effectively aligning LLM evaluators. Inspired by the use of preference data in RLHF, we formulate the evaluation as a ranking problem and introduce Pairwise-preference Search (PairS), an uncertainty-guided search method that employs LLMs to conduct pairwise comparisons and efficiently ranks candidate texts. PairS achieves state-of-the-art performance on representative evaluation tasks and demonstrates significant improvements over direct scoring. Furthermore, we provide insights into the role of pairwise preference in quantifying the transitivity of LLMs and demonstrate how PairS benefits from calibration.

Analyzing and Adapting Large Language Models for Few-Shot Multilingual NLU: Are We There Yet?

Supervised fine-tuning (SFT), supervised instruction tuning (SIT) and in-context learning (ICL) are three alternative, de facto standard approaches to few-shot learning. ICL has gained popularity recently with the advent of LLMs due to its simplicity and sample efficiency. Prior research has conducted only limited investigation into how these approaches work for multilingual few-shot learning, and the focus so far has been mostly on their performance. In this work, we present an extensive and systematic comparison of the three approaches, testing them on 6 high- and low-resource languages, three different NLU tasks, and a myriad of language and domain setups. Importantly, performance is only one aspect of the comparison, where we also analyse the approaches through the optics of their computational, inference and financial costs. Our observations show that supervised instruction tuning has the best trade-off between performance and resource requirements. As another contribution, we analyse the impact of target language adaptation of pretrained LLMs and find that the standard adaptation approaches can (superficially) improve target language generation capabilities, but language understanding elicited through ICL does not improve and remains limited, with low scores especially for low-resource languages.

Self-Augmented In-Context Learning for Unsupervised Word Translation

Recent work has shown that, while large language models (LLMs) demonstrate strong word translation or bilingual lexicon induction (BLI) capabilities in few-shot setups, they still cannot match the performance of 'traditional' mapping-based approaches in the unsupervised scenario where no seed translation pairs are available, especially for lower-resource languages. To address this challenge with LLMs, we propose self-augmented in-context learning (SAIL) for unsupervised BLI: starting from a zero-shot prompt, SAIL iteratively induces a set of high-confidence word translation pairs for in-context learning (ICL) from an LLM, which it then reapplies to the same LLM in the ICL fashion. Our method shows substantial gains over zero-shot prompting of LLMs on two established BLI benchmarks spanning a wide range of language pairs, also outperforming mapping-based baselines across the board. In addition to achieving state-of-the-art unsupervised BLI performance, we also conduct comprehensive analyses on SAIL and discuss its limitations.