Papers for

multilingual ai teams

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Arabic language models tested with new detailed error analysis dataset

E-CONAN (Entailment, CONtradition And Neutral) Diagnostics Dataset Investigating Linguistic Phenomena in Arabic Natural Language Understanding

Abstract: Natural Language Understanding (NLU) plays a crucial role in various applications, yet its performance suffers from weaknesses in handling the complexities of human languages, ranging from lexical ambiguity to high-level reasoning difficulties. Analyzing errors across diverse linguistic phenomena is crucial for NLU improvement, as it will help humans get insights to comprehensively assess models' limitations and capabilities, so optimizing models' generalization. Notably, several benchmarks contain diagnostics datasets designed for investigation and fine-grained error analysis. When highlighting the gaps in the state-of-the-art, we noted that there is no naming convention for macro and micro categories or even a standard set of linguistic phenomena that should be covered. To overcome this gap, we propose an initial hierarchy for Cross-Lingual NLU error analysis. Moreover, we propose a methodology to create an NLI hierarchical framework and applied a case study on Arabic NLU. Moreover, this paper introduces E-CONAN diagnostics dataset, a freely available dataset manually-annotated with coarse-grained and fine-grained categories based on our proposed Arabic hierarchy. E-CONAN dataset helps NLU designers better understand their models by doing error analysis and in-depth investigation. We used E-CONAN to investigate the performance of 9 pretrained language models and 5 LLMs. Results indicate that LLMs outperform pretrained models in world knowledge and commonsense reasoning macro-category, and underperform pretrained models in syntactic macro-category. Moreover, the hardest phenomena for all models is Reasoning, and the easiest phenomena for all pretrained models is Syntactic, and the easiest for LLMs is Lexico-Syntactic.

Sun 27 SeptComputation and LanguageArtificial IntelligenceHuman-Computer Interaction
The gist
Understanding human language is complicated for computers because of things like word meanings and logic. The authors noticed there wasn’t a clear way to categorize and analyze errors in Arabic language understanding systems. They created a new Arabic dataset called E-CONAN that organizes errors into broad and detailed categories so developers can better see where their systems struggle. They tested several language AI models and found some did better on world facts while others handled sentence structure better. This dataset helps improve Arabic natural language tools by pinpointing their weaknesses.
Open → 2609.33530v1

Voice agent language model benchmark improves conversation assessment

MTVA-Bench: Evaluating the Language Model Inside Cascaded Voice Agents

Abstract: Generally, most voice agents are cascaded systems, i.e., an ASR model transcribes the caller's audio, a language model reads the transcript and decides what to say and which backend tools to call, and a TTS model speaks the reply. Nearly all of the decision making happens in the language model, but existing evaluations measure it either too broadly or too narrowly. End-to-end voice benchmarks score the full pipeline, so recognition errors and model errors mix into a single number. LLM benchmarks isolate the model but they do not evaluate what makes real phone calls hard, such as transcription issues, caller's voice being split across messages and the requirement that replies follow the language and script specified. We introduce the Multi-Turn Voice Agent Benchmark (MTVA-Bench), which evaluates the language model on the same conditions it faces inside a cascaded system. The caller is played by an LLM following a set of rubrics and tool calls are answered by a mock backend which responds to the arguments the model actually sent. The benchmark contains 49 agents working across 490 reviewed scenarios and supports 7 languages. Scoring is a combination of deterministic checks on tool calls with two LLM judges, one that scores scenario specific rules and one that grades conversation quality without access to the task. Both judges must cite specific messages from the transcript. Task and conversation scores are weighted equally, since a call can complete its task and still go badly for the caller. In a seven-model study, six of the models select the correct tool within 6.4 points of one another, but their overall scores span 24.4 points. Most of the gap comes from argument values, action ordering, rule compliance, and what the model says around its tool calls.

Thu 17 SeptArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Voice assistants use multiple steps: hearing, understanding, and replying. Existing tests either look at the whole system in a way that mixes errors or only check understanding without real conversation challenges. The authors created MTVA-Bench to judge the language part of these assistants in realistic call situations, including handling interrupted speech and scripted replies. They tested many voice agents across different languages, scoring both the tasks completed and how natural the conversations felt. Results showed agents often pick tools correctly but vary widely in how they handle details and talks around those tools.
Open → 2609.20152v1