The representation degeneration problem is a phenomenon that is widely observed among self-supervised learning methods based on Transformers. In NLP, it takes the form of anisotropy, a singular property of hidden representations which makes them unexpectedly close to each other in terms of angular distance (cosine-similarity). Some recent works tend to show that anisotropy is a consequence of optimizing the cross-entropy loss on long-tailed distributions of tokens. We show in this paper that anisotropy can also be observed empirically in language models with specific objectives that should not suffer directly from the same consequences. We also show that the anisotropy problem extends to Transformers trained on other modalities. Our observations tend to demonstrate that anisotropy might actually be inherent to Transformers-based models.

The improvements in neural machine translation make translation and post-editing pipelines ever more effective for a wider range of applications. In this paper, we evaluate the effectiveness of such a pipeline for the translation of scientific documents (limited here to article abstracts). Using a dedicated interface, we collect, then analyse the post-edits of approximately 350 abstracts (English→French) in the Natural Language Processing domain for two groups of post-editors: domain experts (academics encouraged to post-edit their own articles) on the one hand and trained translators on the other. Our results confirm that such pipelines can be effective, at least for high-resource language pairs. They also highlight the difference in the post-editing strategy of the two subgroups. Finally, they suggest that working on term translation is the most pressing issue to improve fully automatic translations, but that in a post-editing setup, other error types can be equally annoying for post-editors.

In this work, we introduce a comprehensive error typology specifically designed for evaluating two distinct tasks in machine-generated patent texts: claims-to-abstract generation, and the generation of the next claim given previous ones. We have also developed a benchmark, PatentEval, for systematically assessing language models in this context. Our study includes a comparative analysis, annotated by humans, of various models. These range from those specifically adapted during training for tasks within the patent domain to the latest general-purpose large language models (LLMs). Furthermore, we explored and evaluated some metrics to approximate human judgments in patent text evaluation, analyzing the extent to which these metrics align with expert assessments. These approaches provide valuable insights into the capabilities and limitations of current language models in the specialized field of patent text generation.