Poulami Ghosh
2026
How Good Are LLMs at Processing Tool Outputs?
Kiran Kate | Yara Rizk | Poulami Ghosh | Ashu Gulati | Tathagata Chakraborti | Zidane Wright | Mayank Agarwal
Proceedings of the 19th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)
Kiran Kate | Yara Rizk | Poulami Ghosh | Ashu Gulati | Tathagata Chakraborti | Zidane Wright | Mayank Agarwal
Proceedings of the 19th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)
Most realistic task automation problems require large language models (LLMs) to call tools, which often return complex JSON responses. These responses must be further processed to derive the information necessary for task completion. The ability of LLMs to do so is under-studied. In this paper, we study the tool response processing task and LLMs’ abilities to process structured (JSON) responses. We created a dataset for this task, and evaluated 15 open and closed weight models using multiple prompting approaches. Our results show that JSON processing remains a difficult task even for frontier models across multiple prompting strategies. The optimal response processing strategy depends on both the nature and size of the tool outputs, as well as the complexity of the required reasoning. Variations in processing approaches can lead to performance differences ranging from 3% to 50%.
2025
Are Language Models Agnostic to Linguistically Grounded Perturbations? A Case Study of Indic Languages
Poulami Ghosh | Raj Dabre | Pushpak Bhattacharyya
Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2025
Poulami Ghosh | Raj Dabre | Pushpak Bhattacharyya
Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2025
Pre-trained language models (PLMs) are known to be susceptible to perturbations to the input text, but existing works do not explicitly focus on linguistically grounded attacks, which are subtle and more prevalent in nature. In this paper, we study whether PLMs are agnostic to linguistically grounded attacks or not. To this end, we offer the first study addressing this, investigating different Indic languages and various downstream tasks. Our findings reveal that although PLMs are susceptible to linguistic perturbations, when compared to non-linguistic attacks, PLMs exhibit a slightly lower susceptibility to linguistic attacks. This highlights that even constrained attacks are effective. Moreover, we investigate the implications of these outcomes across a range of languages, encompassing diverse language families and different scripts.
2024
A Morphology-Based Investigation of Positional Encodings
Poulami Ghosh | Shikhar Vashishth | Raj Dabre | Pushpak Bhattacharyya
Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
Poulami Ghosh | Shikhar Vashishth | Raj Dabre | Pushpak Bhattacharyya
Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
Contemporary deep learning models effectively handle languages with diverse morphology despite not being directly integrated into them. Morphology and word order are closely linked, with the latter incorporated into transformer-based models through positional encodings. This prompts a fundamental inquiry: Is there a correlation between the morphological complexity of a language and the utilization of positional encoding in pre-trained language models? In pursuit of an answer, we present the first study addressing this question, encompassing 22 languages and 5 downstream tasks. Our findings reveal that the importance of positional encoding diminishes with increasing morphological complexity in languages. Our study motivates the need for a deeper understanding of positional encoding, augmenting them to better reflect the different languages under consideration.