Modular deep learning has been proposed for the efficient adaption of pre-trained models to new tasks, domains and languages. In particular, combining language adapters with task adapters has shown potential where no supervised data exists for a language. In this paper, we explore the role of language adapters in zero-shot cross-lingual transfer for natural language understanding (NLU) benchmarks. We study the effect of including a target-language adapter in detailed ablation studies with two multilingual models and three multilingual datasets. Our results show that the effect of target-language adapters is highly inconsistent across tasks, languages and models. Retaining the source-language adapter instead often leads to an equivalent, and sometimes to a better, performance. Removing the language adapter after training has only a weak negative effect, indicating that the language adapters do not have a strong impact on the predictions.

Work on instruction-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) has used automatic methods based on text overlap and LLM judgments as cost-effective alternatives to human evaluation. In this paper, we perform a meta-evaluation of such methods and assess their reliability across a broad range of tasks. In evaluating how well automatic methods align with human evaluations, correlation metrics are the most commonly employed method despite their inherent limitations when dealing with ties and different scales. To address these shortcomings, we use Pairwise Accuracy as an alternative to standard correlation measures. We observe that while automatic evaluation methods can approximate human ratings under specific conditions, their validity is highly context-dependent. Specifically, the simple ROUGE-L metric correlates very well with human ratings for short-answer English tasks but is unreliable in free-form generation tasks and cross-lingual scenarios. The effectiveness of the more advanced method of using GPT-4 as a judge diminishes significantly if reference answers are not included in the prompt, which is the scenario where this method has the potential to provide the most value compared to other metrics. Our findings enhance the understanding of how automatic methods should be applied and interpreted when developing and evaluating instruction-tuned LLMs.

Text-to-SQL, which involves translating natural language into Structured Query Language (SQL), is crucial for enabling broad access to structured databases without expert knowledge. However, designing models for such tasks is challenging due to numerous factors, including the presence of noise, such as ambiguous questions and syntactical errors. This study provides an in-depth analysis of the distribution and types of noise in the widely used BIRD-Bench benchmark and the impact of noise on models. While BIRD-Bench was created to model dirty and noisy database values, it was not created to contain noise and errors in the questions and gold SQL queries. We found that noise in questions and gold queries are prevalent in the dataset, with varying amounts across domains, and with an uneven distribution between noise types. The presence of incorrect gold SQL queries, which then generate incorrect gold answers, has a significant impact on the benchmark’s reliability. Surprisingly, when evaluating models on corrected SQL queries, zero-shot baselines surpassed the performance of state-of-the-art prompting methods. We conclude that informative noise labels and reliable benchmarks are crucial to developing new Text-to-SQL methods that can handle varying types of noise.

Large language models (LLMs) have substantially improved natural language processing (NLP) performance, but training these models from scratch is resource-intensive and challenging for smaller languages. With this paper, we want to initiate a discussion on the necessity of language-specific pre-training of LLMs.We propose how the “one model-many models” conceptual framework for task transfer can be applied to language transfer and explore this approach by evaluating the performance of non-Swedish monolingual and multilingual models’ performance on tasks in Swedish.Our findings demonstrate that LLMs exposed to limited Swedish during training can be highly capable and transfer competencies from English off-the-shelf, including emergent abilities such as mathematical reasoning, while at the same time showing distinct culturally adapted behaviour. Our results suggest that there are resourceful alternatives to language-specific pre-training when creating useful LLMs for small languages.

In recent years, instruction finetuning models have received increased attention due to their remarkable zero-shot and generalization capabilities. However, the widespread implementation of these models has been limited to the English language, largely due to the costs and challenges associated with creating instruction datasets. To overcome this, automatic instruction generation has been proposed as a resourceful alternative. We see this as an opportunity for the adoption of instruction finetuning for other languages. In this paper we explore the viability of instruction finetuning for Swedish. We translate a dataset of generated instructions from English to Swedish, using it to finetune both Swedish and non-Swedish models. Results indicate that the use of translated instructions significantly improves the models’ zero-shot performance, even on unseen data, while staying competitive with strong baselines ten times in size. We see this paper is a first step and a proof of concept that instruction finetuning for Swedish is within reach, through resourceful means, and that there exist several directions for further improvements.

Models able to generate free-text rationales that explain their output have been proposed as an important step towards interpretable NLP for “reasoning” tasks such as natural language inference and commonsense question answering. However, the relative merits of different architectures and types of rationales are not well understood and hard to measure. In this paper, we contribute two insights to this line of research: First, we find that models trained on gold explanations learn to rely on these but, in the case of the more challenging question answering data set we use, fail when given generated explanations at test time. However, additional fine-tuning on generated explanations teaches the model to distinguish between reliable and unreliable information in explanations. Second, we compare explanations by a generation-only model to those generated by a self-rationalizing model and find that, while the former score higher in terms of validity, factual correctness, and similarity to gold explanations, they are not more useful for downstream classification. We observe that the self-rationalizing model is prone to hallucination, which is punished by most metrics but may add useful context for the classification step.