The extent to which individual language characteristics influence tokenization and language modeling is an open question. Differences in morphological systems have been suggested as both unimportant and crucial to consider (Cotterell et al., 2018; Gerz et al., 2018a; Park et al., 2021, inter alia). We argue this conflicting evidence is due to confounding factors in experimental setups, making it hard to compare results and draw conclusions. We identify confounding factors in analyses trying to answer the question of whether, and how, morphology relates to language modeling. Next, we re-assess three hypotheses by Arnett & Bergen (2025) for why modeling agglutinative languages results in higher perplexities than fusional languages: they look at morphological alignment of tokenization, tokenization efficiency, and dataset size. We show that each conclusion includes confounding factors. Finally, we introduce token bigram metrics as an intrinsic way to predict the difficulty of causal language modeling, and find that they are gradient proxies for morphological complexity that do not require expert annotation. Ultimately, we outline necessities to reliably answer whether, and how, morphology relates to language modeling.

The extent to which individual language characteristics influence tokenization and language modeling is an open question. Differences in morphological systems have been suggested as both unimportant and crucial to consider (e.g., Cotterell et al., 2018; Park et al., 2021, Arnett & Bergen, 2025). We argue this conflicting evidence is due to confounding factors in experimental setups, making it hard to compare results and draw conclusions. We identify confounding factors in analyses trying to answer the question of whether, and how, morphology relates to language modeling. Next, we introduce token bigram metrics as an intrinsic way to predict the difficulty of causal language modeling, and find that they are gradient proxies for morphological complexity that do not require expert annotation. Ultimately, we outline necessities to reliably answer whether, and how, morphology relates to language modeling.

This work investigates how a multilingual transformer model represents morphosyntactic properties of questions. We introduce the Question Type and Complexity (QTC) dataset with sentences across seven languages, annotated with type information and complexity metrics including dependency length, tree depth, and lexical density. Our evaluation extends probing methods to regression labels with selectivity controls to quantify gains in generalizability. We compare layer-wise probes on frozen Glot500-m (Imani et al., 2023) representations against subword TF-IDF baselines, and a fine-tuned model. Results show that statistical features classify questions well in explicitly marked languages and structural complexity prediction, while neural probes lead on individual metrics. We use these results to evaluate when contextual representations outperform statistical baselines and whether parameter updates reduce availability of pre-trained linguistic information.

Multilingual natural language processing is getting increased attention, with numerous models, benchmarks, and methods being released for many languages. English is often used in multilingual evaluation to prompt language models (LMs), mainly to overcome the lack of instruction tuning data in other languages. In this position paper, we lay out two roles of English in multilingual LM evaluations: as an interface and as a natural language. We argue that these roles have different goals: task performance versus language understanding. This discrepancy is highlighted with examples from datasets and evaluation setups. Numerous works explicitly use English as an interface to boost task performance. We recommend to move away from these imprecise methods and instead focus on language understanding.

The NLP research community has devoted increased attention to languages beyond English, resulting in considerable improvements for multilingual NLP. However, these improvements only apply to a small subset of the world’s languages. An increasing number of papers aspires to enhance generalizable multilingual performance across languages. To this end, linguistic typology is commonly used to motivate language selection, on the basis that a broad typological sample ought to imply generalization across a broad range of languages. These selections are often described as being typologically diverse. In this meta-analysis, we systematically investigate NLP research that includes claims regarding typological diversity. We find there are no set definitions or criteria for such claims. We introduce metrics to approximate the diversity of resulting language samples along several axes and find that the results vary considerably across papers. Crucially, we show that skewed language selection can lead to overestimated multilingual performance. We recommend future work to include an operationalization of typological diversity that empirically justifies the diversity of language samples. To help facilitate this, we release the code for our diversity measures.

Conversational search systems enable information retrieval via natural language interactions, with the goal of maximizing users’ information gain over multiple dialogue turns. The increasing prevalence of conversational interfaces adopting this search paradigm challenges traditional information retrieval approaches, stressing the importance of better understanding the engineering process of developing these systems. We undertook a systematic literature review to investigate the links between theoretical studies and technical implementations of conversational search systems. Our review identifies real-world application scenarios, system architectures, and functional components. We consolidate our results by presenting a layered architecture framework and explaining the core functions of conversational search systems. Furthermore, we reflect on our findings in light of the rapid progress in large language models, discussing their capabilities, limitations, and directions for future research.

In order to draw generalizable conclusions about the performance of multilingual models across languages, it is important to evaluate on a set of languages that captures linguistic diversity.Linguistic typology is increasingly used to justify language selection, inspired by language sampling in linguistics.However, justifications for ‘typological diversity’ exhibit great variation, as there seems to be no set definition, methodology or consistent link to linguistic typology.In this work, we provide a systematic insight into how previous work in the ACL Anthology uses the term ‘typological diversity’.Our two main findings are: 1) what is meant by typologically diverse language selection is not consistent and 2) the actual typological diversity of the language sets in these papers varies greatly.We argue that, when making claims about ‘typological diversity’, an operationalization of this should be included.A systematic approach that quantifies this claim, also with respect to the number of languages used, would be even better.

While recent advancements in the capabilities and widespread accessibility of generative language models, such as ChatGPT (OpenAI, 2022), have brought about various benefits by generating fluent human-like text, the task of distinguishing between human- and large language model (LLM) generated text has emerged as a crucial problem. These models can potentially deceive by generating artificial text that appears to be human-generated. This issue is particularly significant in domains such as law, education, and science, where ensuring the integrity of text is of the utmost importance. This survey provides an overview of the current approaches employed to differentiate between texts generated by humans and ChatGPT. We present an account of the different datasets constructed for detecting ChatGPT-generated text, the various methods utilized, what qualitative analyses into the characteristics of human versus ChatGPT-generated text have been performed, and finally, summarize our findings into general insights.

Even though many recent semantic parsers are based on deep learning methods, we should not forget that rule-based alternatives might offer advantages over neural approaches with respect to transparency, portability, and explainability. Taking advantage of existing off-the-shelf Universal Dependency parsers, we present a method that maps a syntactic dependency tree to a formal meaning representation based on Discourse Representation Theory. Rather than using lambda calculus to manage variable bindings, our approach is novel in that it consists of using a series of graph transformations. The resulting UD semantic parser shows good performance for English, German, Italian and Dutch, with F-scores over 75%, outperforming a neural semantic parser for the lower-resourced languages. Unlike neural semantic parsers, our UD semantic parser does not hallucinate output, is relatively easy to port to other languages, and is completely transparent.

This paper describes our system created for the SemEval 2022 Task 3: Presupposed Taxonomies - Evaluating Neural-network Semantics. This task is focused on correctly recognizing taxonomic word relations in English, French and Italian. We developed various datageneration techniques that expand the originally provided train set and show that all methods increase the performance of modelstrained on these expanded datasets. Our final system outperformed the baseline system from the task organizers by achieving an average macro F1 score of 79.6 on all languages, compared to the baseline’s 67.4.