Johns Hopkins University (JHU) submitted systems for all eight language pairs in the 2024 Low-Resource Language Track. The main effort of this work revolves around fine-tuning large and publicly available models in three proposed systems: i) end-to-end speech translation (ST) fine-tuning of Seamless4MT v2; ii) ST fine-tuning of Whisper; iii) a cascaded system involving automatic speech recognition with fine-tuned Whisper and machine translation with NLLB. On top of systems above, we conduct a comparative analysis on different training paradigms, such as intra-distillation for NLLB as well as joint training and curriculum learning for SeamlessM4T v2. Our results show that the best-performing approach differs by language pairs, but that i) fine-tuned SeamlessM4T v2 tends to perform best for source languages on which it was pre-trained, ii) multi-task training helps Whisper fine-tuning, iii) cascaded systems with Whisper and NLLB tend to outperform Whisper alone, and iv) intra-distillation helps NLLB fine-tuning.

NLP models have progressed drastically in recent years, according to numerous datasets proposed to evaluate performance. Questions remain, however, about how particular dataset design choices may impact the conclusions we draw about model capabilities. In this work, we investigate this question in the domain of compositional generalization. We examine the performance of six modeling approaches across 4 datasets, split according to 8 compositional splitting strategies, ranking models by 18 compositional generalization splits in total. Our results show that: i) the datasets, although all designed to evaluate compositional generalization, rank modeling approaches differently; ii) datasets generated by humans align better with each other than with synthetic datasets, or than the latter among themselves; iii) generally, whether datasets are sampled from the same source is more predictive of the resulting model ranking than whether they maintain the same interpretation of compositionality; and iv) specific lexical items in dataset impacts the measurement consistency. Overall, our results demonstrate that much work remains to be done when it comes to assessing whether popular evaluation datasets measure what they intend to measure, and suggests that elucidating more rigorous standards for establishing the validity of evaluation sets could benefit the field.

Generative models have been widely applied to solve extractive tasks, where parts of the input is extracted to form the desired output, and achieved significant success. For example, in extractive question answering (QA), generative models have constantly yielded state-of-the-art results. In this work, we study the issue of tokenization inconsistency that is commonly neglected in training these models. This issue damages the extractive nature of these tasks after the input and output are tokenized inconsistently by the tokenizer, and thus leads to performance drop as well as hallucination. We propose a simple yet effective fix to this issue and conduct a case study on extractive QA. We show that, with consistent tokenization, the model performs better in both in-domain and out-of-domain datasets, with a notable average of +1.7 F1 gain when a BART model is trained on SQuAD and evaluated on 8 QA datasets. Further, the model converges faster, and becomes less likely to generate out-of-context answers. Our results demonstrate the need for increased scrutiny regarding how tokenization is done in extractive tasks and the benefits of consistent tokenization during training.