Grammatical error correction (GEC) aims to improve text quality and readability. Previous work on the task focused primarily on high-resource languages, while low-resource languages lack robust tools. To address this shortcoming, we present a study on GEC for Zarma, a language spoken by over five million people in West Africa. We compare three approaches: rule-based methods, machine translation (MT) models, and large language models (LLMs). We evaluated GEC models using a dataset of more than 250,000 examples, including synthetic and human-annotated data. Our results showed that the MT-based approach using M2M100 outperforms others, with a detection rate of 95.82% and a suggestion accuracy of 78.90% in automatic evaluations (AE) and an average score of 3.0 out of 5.0 in manual evaluation (ME) from native speakers for grammar and logical corrections. The rule-based method was effective for spelling errors but failed on complex context-level errors. LLMs—Gemma 2b and MT5-small—showed moderate performance. Our work supports use of MT models to enhance GEC in low-resource settings, and we validated these results with Bambara, another West African language.

A cornerstone of machine learning evaluation is the (often hidden) assumption that model and human responses are reliable enough to evaluate models against unitary, authoritative, “gold standard” data, via simple metrics such as accuracy, precision, and recall. The generative AI revolution would seem to explode this assumption, given the critical role stochastic inference plays. Yet, in spite of public demand for more transparency in AI—along with strong evidence that humans are unreliable judges—estimates of model reliability are conventionally based on, at most, a few output responses per input item. We adapt a method, previously used to evaluate the reliability of various metrics and estimators for machine learning evaluation, to determine whether an (existing or planned) dataset has enough responses per item to assure reliable null hypothesis statistical testing. We show that, for many common metrics, collecting even 5-10 responses per item (from each model and team of human evaluators) is not sufficient. We apply our methods to several of the very few extant gold standard test sets with multiple disaggregated responses per item and show that even these datasets lack enough responses per item. We show how our methods can help AI researchers make better decisions about how to collect data for AI evaluation.

We introduce negative space learning machine translation (NSL-MT), a training method for underresourced languages, that augments limited parallel data with synthetically generated violations of the target language’s grammar and explicitly penalizes the model when it assigns high probability to these linguistically invalid outputs. NSL-MT delivers improvements across all baselines we tested, including 3-12% BLEU gains for well-performing models and 56-89% gains for models lacking decent initial support. Furthermore, NSL-MT provides a 5x data efficiency multiplier: training with 1,000 examples matches or exceeds normal training with 5,000 examples. NSL-MT thus provides a data-efficient alternative training method for settings where parallel data is limited.

Effective text generation and chat interfaces for low-resource languages (LRLs) remain a challenge for state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) to support. This is mainly due to the difficulty of curating high-quality instruction datasets for LRLs, a limitation prevalent in the languages spoken across the African continent and other regions. Current approaches, such as automated translation and synthetic data generation, frequently yield outputs that lack fluency or even orthographic consistency. In this paper, we introduce InstructLR, a novel framework designed to generate high-quality instruction datasets for LRLs. Our approach integrates LLM-driven text generation with a dual-layer quality filtering mechanism: an automated filtering layer based on retrieval-augmented-generation (RAG)-based n-shot prompting, and a human-in-the-loop validation layer. Drawing inspiration from benchmarks such as MMLU in task definition, InstructLR has facilitated the creation of three multi-domain instruction benchmarks: **ZarmaInstruct-50k**, **BambaraInstruct-50k**, and **FulfuldeInstruct-50k**.

Humans play a vital role at every stage of AI development, from data collection and curation to model development and evaluation. However, humans often disagree with each other and sometimes with themselves over time. It is essential to take disagreement into account when building human-centered AI systems, especially in domains where it is prevalent, such as AI safety, content moderation, or sentiment analysis. Disagreement often arises from subjective human opinion and can vary with one’s identity, beliefs, and social environment. Despite this, current LLM evaluation approaches frequently rely on aggregating labels (often via plurality voting) to represent consensus, thereby obscuring minority perspectives. By failing to account for human disagreement, these evaluation methods contribute to the reproducibility crisis in AI. Human feedback is also crucial for ensuring that AI systems align with human values. For these systems to be trustworthy, it is critical to ensure that they reflect diverse human values and perspectives. In this thesis proposal, we present a human-centered and perspective-aware framework for reproducible ML evaluation and AI alignment.

We open-source SMOL (Set of Maximal Over-all Leverage), a suite of training data to un-lock machine translation for low-resource languages (LRLs). SMOL has been translated into123 under-resourced languages (125 language pairs), including many for which there exist no previous public resources, for a total of 6.1M translated tokens. SMOL comprises two sub-datasets, each carefully chosen for maximum impact given its size: SMOLSENT, a set of sentences chosen for broad unique token coverage, and SMOLDOC, a document-level source focusing on a broad topic coverage. They join the already released GATITOS for a trifecta of paragraph, sentence, and token-level content. We demonstrate that using SMOL to prompt or fine-tune Large Language Models yields robust chrF improvements. In addition to translation, we provide factuality ratings and rationales for all documents in SMOLDOC, yielding the first factuality datasets for most of these languages.

The Learning With Disagreements (LeWiDi) 2025 shared task aims to model annotator disagreement through soft label distribution prediction and perspectivist evaluation, which focuses on modeling individual annotators. We adapt DisCo (Distribution from Context), a neural architecture that jointly models item-level and annotator-level label distributions, and present detailed analysis and improvements. In this paper, we extend DisCo by introducing annotator metadata embeddings, enhancing input representations, and multi-objective training losses to capture disagreement patterns better. Through extensive experiments, we demonstrate substantial improvements in both soft and perspectivist evaluation metrics across three datasets. We also conduct in-depth calibration and error analyses that reveal when and why disagreement-aware modeling improves. Our findings show that disagreement can be better captured by conditioning on annotator demographics and by optimizing directly for distributional metrics, yielding consistent improvements across datasets.

Accurate detection of offensive language is essential for a number of applications related to social media safety. There is a sharp contrast in performance in this task between low and high-resource languages. In this paper, we adapt fine-tuning strategies that have not been previously explored for Sinhala in the downstream task of offensive language detection. Using this approach, we introduce four models: “Subasa-XLM-R”, which incorporates an intermediate Pre-Finetuning step using Masked Rationale Prediction. Two variants of “Subasa-Llama” and “Subasa-Mistral”, are fine-tuned versions of Llama (3.2) and Mistral (v0.3), respectively, with a task-specific strategy. We evaluate our models on the SOLD benchmark dataset for Sinhala offensive language detection. All our models outperform existing baselines. Subasa-XLM-R achieves the highest Macro F1 score (0.84) surpassing state-of-the-art large language models like GPT-4o when evaluated on the same SOLD benchmark dataset under zero-shot settings. The models and code are publicly available.

Data curation for under-resource languages enables the development of more accurate and culturally sensitive natural language processing models. However, the scarcity of well-structured multilingual datasets remains a challenge for advancing machine translation in these languages, especially for African languages. This paper focuses on creating high-quality parallel corpora that capture linguistic diversity to address this gap. We introduce Bayelemabaga, the most extensive curated multilingual dataset for machine translation in the Bambara language, the vehicular language of Mali. The dataset consists of 47K Bambara-French parallel sentences curated from 231 data sources, including short stories, formal documents, and religious literature, combining modern, historical, and indigenous languages. We present our data curation process and analyze its impact on neural machine translation by fine-tuning seven commonly used transformer-based language models, i.e., MBART, MT5, M2M-100, NLLB-200, Mistral-7B, Open-Llama-7B, and Meta-Llama3-8B on Bayelemabaga. Our evaluation on four Bambara-French language pair datasets (three existing datasets and the test set of Bayelemabaga) show up to +4.5, +11.4, and +0.27 in gains, respectively, on BLEU, CHRF++, and AfriCOMET evaluation metrics. We also conducted machine and human evaluations of translations from studied models to compare the machine translation quality of encoder-decoder and decoder-only models. Our results indicate that encoder-decoder models remain the best, highlighting the importance of additional datasets to train decoder-only models.

Illiteracy is a predictor of many negative social and personal outcomes. Illiteracy rates are particularly high in countries with underresourced languages, where few books exist that are suitable for children to learn to read from. We present GAIfE (Generative AI for Education), a toolchain and workflow developed through empirical methods, that demonstrates how existing tools can be adapted to address low literacy for an underresourced language. We used GAIfE (a play on the Bambara word for “book”) to construct materials for developing children’s reading competence in Bambara, the vehicular language of Mali. Our approach to the generation and post-generation editing of content skewed by the Global-North-centric bias of available LLMs, enabled us to rapidly multiply the content in Bambara available online by 10 times while maintaining high standards of attractiveness of the material to maintain high engagement, accurate representation of the Malian culture and physical and social environment and language quality. Using our materials, pilot reading programs achieved a 67% reduction in the number of children unable to read Bambara. Our approach demonstrated the power of bias-aware application of generative AI to the problem domain as well as the potential impact the application of this technology could have on reducing illiteracy and improving learning outcomes through native language education.

This paper makes three contributions. First, via a substantial corpus of 1,419,047 comments posted on 3,161 YouTube news videos of major US cable news outlets, we analyze how users engage with LGBTQ+ news content. Our analyses focus both on positive and negative content. In particular, we construct a hope speech classifier that detects positive (hope speech), negative, neutral, and irrelevant content. Second, in consultation with a public health expert specializing on LGBTQ+ health, we conduct an annotation study with a balanced and diverse political representation and release a dataset of 3,750 instances with crowd-sourced labels and detailed annotator demographic information. Finally, beyond providing a vital resource for the LGBTQ+ community, our annotation study and subsequent in-the-wild assessments reveal (1) strong association between rater political beliefs and how they rate content relevant to a marginalized community, (2) models trained on individual political beliefs exhibit considerable in-the-wild disagreement, and (3) zero-shot large language models (LLMs) align more with liberal raters.

How people interpret content is deeply influenced by their socio-cultural backgrounds and lived experiences. This is especially crucial when evaluating AI systems for safety, where accounting for such diversity in interpretations and potential impacts on human users will make them both more successful and inclusive. While recent work has demonstrated the importance of diversity in human ratings that underlie AI pipelines, effective and efficient ways to incorporate diverse perspectives in human data annotation pipelines is still largely elusive. In this paper, we discuss the primary challenges faced in incorporating diversity into model evaluations, and propose a practical diversity-aware annotation approach. Using an existing dataset with highly parallel safety annotations, we take as a test case a policy that prioritizes recall of safety issues, and demonstrate that our diversity-aware approach can efficiently obtain a higher recall of safety issues flagged by minoritized rater groups without hurting overall precision.

State-of-the-art conversational AI exhibits a level of sophistication that promises to have profound impacts on many aspects of daily life, including how people seek information, create content, and find emotional support. It has also shown a propensity for bias, offensive language, and false information. Consequently, understanding and moderating safety risks posed by interacting with AI chatbots is a critical technical and social challenge. Safety annotation is an intrinsically subjective task, where many factors—often intersecting—determine why people may express different opinions on whether a conversation is safe. We apply Bayesian multilevel models to surface factors that best predict rater behavior to a dataset of 101,286 annotations of conversations between humans and an AI chatbot, stratified by rater gender, age, race/ethnicity, and education level. We show that intersectional effects involving these factors play significant roles in validating safety in conversational AI data. For example, race/ethnicity and gender show strong intersectional effects, particularly among South Asian and East Asian women. We also find that conversational degree of harm impacts raters of all race/ethnicity groups, but that Indigenous and South Asian raters are particularly sensitive. Finally, we discover that the effect of education is uniquely intersectional for Indigenous raters. Our results underscore the utility of multilevel frameworks for uncovering underrepresented social perspectives.

Human annotation plays a core role in machine learning — annotations for supervised models, safety guardrails for generative models, and human feedback for reinforcement learning, to cite a few avenues. However, the fact that many of these human annotations are inherently subjective is often overlooked. Recent work has demonstrated that ignoring rater subjectivity (typically resulting in rater disagreement) is problematic within specific tasks and for specific subgroups. Generalizable methods to harness rater disagreement and thus understand the socio-cultural leanings of subjective tasks remain elusive. In this paper, we propose GRASP, a comprehensive disagreement analysis framework to measure group association in perspectives among different rater subgroups, and demonstrate its utility in assessing the extent of systematic disagreements in two datasets: (1) safety annotations of human-chatbot conversations, and (2) offensiveness annotations of social media posts, both annotated by diverse rater pools across different socio-demographic axes. Our framework (based on disagreement metrics) reveals specific rater groups that have significantly different perspectives than others on certain tasks, and helps identify demographic axes that are crucial to consider in specific task contexts.

Human feedback is essential for building human-centered AI systems across domains where disagreement is prevalent, such as AI safety, content moderation, or sentiment analysis. Many disagreements, particularly in politically charged settings, arise because raters have opposing values or beliefs. Vicarious annotation is a method for breaking down disagreement by asking raters how they think others would annotate the data. In this paper, we explore the use of vicarious annotation with analytical methods for moderating rater disagreement. We employ rater cohesion metrics to study the potential influence of political affiliations and demographic backgrounds on raters’ perceptions of offense. Additionally, we utilize CrowdTruth’s rater quality metrics, which consider the demographics of the raters, to score the raters and their annotations. We study how the rater quality metrics influence the in-group and cross-group rater cohesion across the personal and vicarious levels.

Machine translation (MT) is a rapidly expanding field that has experienced significant advancements in recent years with the development of models capable of translating multiple languages with remarkable accuracy. However, the representation of African languages in this field still needs improvement due to linguistic complexities and limited resources. This applies to the Zarma language, a dialect of Songhay (of the Nilo-Saharan language family) spoken by over 5 million people across Niger and neighboring countries (Lewis et al., 2016). This paper introduces Feriji, the first robust French-Zarma parallel corpus and glossary designed for MT. The corpus, containing 61,085 sentences in Zarma and 42,789 in French, and a glossary of 4,062 words represents a significant step in addressing the need for more resources for Zarma. We fine-tune three large language models on our dataset, obtaining a BLEU score of 30.06 on the best-performing model. We further evaluate the models on human judgments of fluency, comprehension, and readability and the importance and impact of the corpus and models. Our contributions help to bridge a significant language gap and promote an essential and overlooked indigenous African language.

Orange Silicon Valley hosted a low-resource machine translation (MT) competition with monetary prizes. The goals of the competition were to raise awareness of the challenges in the low-resource MT domain, improve MT algorithms and data strategies, and support MT expertise development in the regions where people speak Bambara and other low-resource languages. The participants built Bambara to French and French to Bambara machine translation systems using data provided by the organizers and additional data resources shared amongst the competitors. This paper details each team’s different approaches and motivation for ongoing work in Bambara and the broader low-resource machine translation domain.

Annotator disagreement is common whenever human judgment is needed for supervised learning. It is conventional to assume that one label per item represents ground truth. However, this obscures minority opinions, if present. We regard “ground truth” as the distribution of all labels that a population of annotators could produce, if asked (and of which we only have a small sample). We next introduce DisCo (Distribution from Context), a simple neural model that learns to predict this distribution. The model takes annotator-item pairs, rather than items alone, as input, and performs inference by aggregating over all annotators. Despite its simplicity, our experiments show that, on six benchmark datasets, our model is competitive with, and frequently outperforms, other, more complex models that either do not model specific annotators or were not designed for label distribution learning.

Among the problems with leaderboard culture in NLP has been the widespread lack of confidence estimation in reported results. In this work, we present a framework and simulator for estimating p-values for comparisons between the results of two systems, in order to understand the confidence that one is actually better (i.e. ranked higher) than the other. What has made this difficult in the past is that each system must itself be evaluated by comparison to a gold standard. We define a null hypothesis that each system’s metric scores are drawn from the same distribution, using variance found naturally (though rarely reported) in test set items and individual labels on an item (responses) to produce the metric distributions. We create a test set that evenly mixes the responses of the two systems under the assumption the null hypothesis is true. Exploring how to best estimate the true p-value from a single test set under different metrics, tests, and sampling methods, we find that the presence of response variance (from multiple raters or multiple model versions) has a profound impact on p-value estimates for model comparison, and that choice of metric and sampling method is critical to providing statistical guarantees on model comparisons.

Offensive speech detection is a key component of content moderation. However, what is offensive can be highly subjective. This paper investigates how machine and human moderators disagree on what is offensive when it comes to real-world social web political discourse. We show that (1) there is extensive disagreement among the moderators (humans and machines); and (2) human and large-language-model classifiers are unable to predict how other human raters will respond, based on their political leanings. For (1), we conduct a ***noise audit*** at an unprecedented scale that combines both machine and human responses. For (2), we introduce a first-of-its-kind dataset of ***vicarious offense***. Our noise audit reveals that moderation outcomes vary wildly across different machine moderators. Our experiments with human moderators suggest that political leanings combined with sensitive issues affect both first-person and vicarious offense. The dataset is available through https://github.com/Homan-Lab/voiced.

Human-annotated data plays a critical role in the fairness of AI systems, including those that deal with life-altering decisions or moderating human-created web/social media content. Conventionally, annotator disagreements are resolved before any learning takes place. However, researchers are increasingly identifying annotator disagreement as pervasive and meaningful. They also question the performance of a system when annotators disagree. Particularly when minority views are disregarded, especially among groups that may already be underrepresented in the annotator population. In this paper, we introduce CrowdOpinion, an unsupervised learning based approach that uses language features and label distributions to pool similar items into larger samples of label distributions. We experiment with four generative and one density-based clustering method, applied to five linear combinations of label distributions and features. We use five publicly available benchmark datasets (with varying levels of annotator disagreements) from social media (Twitter, Gab, and Reddit). We also experiment in the wild using a dataset from Facebook, where annotations come from the platform itself by users reacting to posts. We evaluate CrowdOpinion as a label distribution prediction task using KL-divergence and a single-label problem using accuracy measures.

Annotator disagreement is often dismissed as noise or the result of poor annotation process quality. Others have argued that it can be meaningful. But lacking a rigorous statistical foundation, the analysis of disagreement patterns can resemble a high-tech form of tea-leaf-reading. We contribute a framework for analyzing the variation of per-item annotator response distributions to data for humans-in-the-loop machine learning. We provide visualizations for, and use the framework to analyze the variance in, a crowdsourced dataset of hard-to-classify examples from the OpenImages archive.

We propose a fully Bayesian framework for learning ground truth labels from noisy annotators. Our framework ensures scalability by factoring a generative, Bayesian soft clustering model over label distributions into the classic David and Skene joint annotator-data model. Earlier research along these lines has neither fully incorporated label distributions nor explored clustering by annotators only or data only. Our framework incorporates all of these properties within a graphical model designed to provide better ground truth estimates of annotator responses as input to any black box supervised learning algorithm. We conduct supervised learning experiments with variations of our models and compare them to the performance of several baseline models.

This paper presents the results of the newstranslation task, the multilingual low-resourcetranslation for Indo-European languages, thetriangular translation task, and the automaticpost-editing task organised as part of the Con-ference on Machine Translation (WMT) 2021.In the news task, participants were asked tobuild machine translation systems for any of10 language pairs, to be evaluated on test setsconsisting mainly of news stories. The taskwas also opened up to additional test suites toprobe specific aspects of translation.

This paper describes team LCP-RIT’s submission to the SemEval-2021 Task 1: Lexical Complexity Prediction (LCP). The task organizers provided participants with an augmented version of CompLex (Shardlow et al., 2020), an English multi-domain dataset in which words in context were annotated with respect to their complexity using a five point Likert scale. Our system uses logistic regression and a wide range of linguistic features (e.g. psycholinguistic features, n-grams, word frequency, POS tags) to predict the complexity of single words in this dataset. We analyze the impact of different linguistic features on the classification performance and we evaluate the results in terms of mean absolute error, mean squared error, Pearson correlation, and Spearman correlation.

The widespread presence of offensive language on social media motivated the development of systems capable of recognizing such content automatically. Apart from a few notable exceptions, most research on automatic offensive language identification has dealt with English. To address this shortcoming, we introduce MOLD, the Marathi Offensive Language Dataset. MOLD is the first dataset of its kind compiled for Marathi, thus opening a new domain for research in low-resource Indo-Aryan languages. We present results from several machine learning experiments on this dataset, including zero-short and other transfer learning experiments on state-of-the-art cross-lingual transformers from existing data in Bengali, English, and Hindi.

Low-resource languages present unique challenges to (neural) machine translation. We discuss the case of Bambara, a Mande language for which training data is scarce and requires significant amounts of pre-processing. More than the linguistic situation of Bambara itself, the socio-cultural context within which Bambara speakers live poses challenges for automated processing of this language. In this paper, we present the first parallel data set for machine translation of Bambara into and from English and French and the first benchmark results on machine translation to and from Bambara. We discuss challenges in working with low-resource languages and propose strategies to cope with data scarcity in low-resource machine translation (MT).

While labor issues and quality assurance in crowdwork are increasingly studied, how annotators make sense of texts and how they are personally impacted by doing so are not. We study these questions via a narrative-sorting annotation task, where carefully selected (by sequentiality, topic, emotional content, and length) collections of tweets serve as examples of everyday storytelling. As readers process these narratives, we measure their facial expressions, galvanic skin response, and self-reported reactions. From the perspective of annotator well-being, a reassuring outcome was that the sorting task did not cause a measurable stress response, however readers reacted to humor. In terms of sensemaking, readers were more confident when sorting sequential, target-topical, and highly emotional tweets. As crowdsourcing becomes more common, this research sheds light onto the perceptive capabilities and emotional impact of human readers.

Interpersonal violence (IPV) is a prominent sociological problem that affects people of all demographic backgrounds. By analyzing how readers interpret, perceive, and react to experiences narrated in social media posts, we explore an understudied source for discourse about abuse. We asked readers to annotate Reddit posts about relationships with vs. without IPV for stakeholder roles and emotion, while measuring their galvanic skin response (GSR), pulse, and facial expression. We map annotations to coreference resolution output to obtain a labeled coreference chain for stakeholders in texts, and apply automated semantic role labeling for analyzing IPV discourse. Findings provide insights into how readers process roles and emotion in narratives. For example, abusers tend to be linked with violent actions and certain affect states. We train classifiers to predict stakeholder categories of coreference chains. We also find that subjects’ GSR noticeably changed for IPV texts, suggesting that co-collected measurement-based data about annotators can be used to support text annotation.

University students in the United States are routinely asked to provide feedback on the quality of the instruction they have received. Such feedback is widely used by university administrators to evaluate teaching ability, despite growing evidence that students assign lower numerical scores to women and people of color, regardless of the actual quality of instruction. In this paper, we analyze students’ written comments on faculty evaluation forms spanning eight years and five STEM disciplines in order to determine whether open-ended comments reflect these same biases. First, we apply sentiment analysis techniques to the corpus of comments to determine the overall affect of each comment. We then use this information, in combination with other features, to explore whether there is bias in how students describe their instructors. We show that while the gender of the evaluated instructor does not seem to affect students’ expressed level of overall satisfaction with their instruction, it does strongly influence the language that they use to describe their instructors and their experience in class.