Data pruning—selecting small but impactful subsets—offers a promising way to efficiently scale NLP model training. However, existing methods often involve many different design choices, which have not been systematically studied. This limits future developments. In this work, we decompose data pruning into two key components: data representation and selection algorithm, and systematically analyze their influence on selected instances. Our theoretical and empirical results highlight the crucial role of representations: better representations, e.g., training gradients, generally lead to better selected instances, regardless of the chosen selection algorithm. Furthermore, different selection algorithms excel in different settings, and none consistently outperform the others. Moreover, the selection algorithms do not always align with their intended objectives: for example, algorithms designed for the same objective can select drastically different instances, highlighting the need for careful evaluation.

Vague quantifiers such as “a few” and “many” are influenced by various contextual factors, including the number of objects present in a given context. In this work, we evaluate the extent to which vision-and-language models (VLMs) are compatible with humans when producing or judging the appropriateness of vague quantifiers in visual contexts. We release a novel dataset, VAQUUM, containing 20,300 human ratings on quantified statements across a total of 1089 images. Using this dataset, we compare human judgments and VLM predictions using three different evaluation methods. Our findings show that VLMs, like humans, are influenced by object counts in vague quantifier use. However, we find significant inconsistencies across models in different evaluation settings, suggesting that judging and producing vague quantifiers rely on two different processes. We release our dataset and code at https://github.com/hughmee/vaquum.

This system paper presents the DeMeVa team’s approaches to the third edition of the Learning with Disagreements shared task (LeWiDi 2025; Leonardelli et al., 2025). We explore two directions: in-context learning (ICL) with large language models, where we compare example sampling strategies; and label distribution learning (LDL) methods with RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019b), where we evaluate several fine-tuning methods. Our contributions are twofold: (1) we show that ICL can effectively predict annotator-specific annotations (perspectivist annotations), and that aggregating these predictions into soft labels yields competitive performance; and (2) we argue that LDL methods are promising for soft label predictions and merit further exploration by the perspectivist community.

The field of explainable AI has recently seen an explosion in the number of explanation methods for highly non-linear deep neural networks. The extent to which such methods – that are often proposed and tested in the domain of computer vision – are appropriate to address the explainability challenges in NLP is yet relatively unexplored. In this work, we consider Contextual Decomposition (CD) – a Shapley-based input feature attribution method that has been shown to work well for recurrent NLP models – and we test the extent to which it is useful for models that contain attention operations. To this end, we extend CD to cover the operations necessary for attention-based models. We then compare how long distance subject-verb relationships are processed by models with and without attention, considering a number of different syntactic structures in two different languages: English and Dutch. Our experiments confirm that CD can successfully be applied for attention-based models as well, providing an alternative Shapley-based attribution method for modern neural networks. In particular, using CD, we show that the English and Dutch models demonstrate similar processing behaviour, but that under the hood there are consistent differences between our attention and non-attention models.