When we encountered upsetting or tragic situations involving other people, we might feel certain emotions that are congruent, though not necessarily identical, to what that person might went through. These kind of vicarious emotions are what defined empathy and distress, they can be seen as a form of emotional response to other people in need. In this paper, we describe our participation in WASSA 2024 Shared Task 3 in predicting writer’s level of empathy and distress from their personal essays. We approach this task by assuming one’s level of empathy and distress can be revealed from the emotional patterns within their essay. By extracting the emotional patterns from essays via an emotion classifier, we regress the empathy and distress levels from these patterns. Through correlation and model explainability analysis, we found that there are similar set of emotions, such as sadness or disappointment, and distinct set of emotions, such as anger or approval, that might describe the writer’s level of empathy and distress. We hope that our approach and findings could serve as a basis for future work that try to model and explain empathy and distress from emotional patterns.

Exploring and quantifying semantic relatedness is central to representing language and holds significant implications across various NLP tasks. While earlier NLP research primarily focused on semantic similarity, often within the English language context, we instead investigate the broader phenomenon of semantic relatedness. In this paper, we present SemRel, a new semantic relatedness dataset collection annotated by native speakers across 13 languages: Afrikaans, Algerian Arabic, Amharic, English, Hausa, Hindi, Indonesian, Kinyarwanda, Marathi, Moroccan Arabic, Modern Standard Arabic, Spanish, and Telugu. These languages originate from five distinct language families and are predominantly spoken in Africa and Asia – regions characterised by a relatively limited availability of NLP resources. Each instance in the SemRel datasets is a sentence pair associated with a score that represents the degree of semantic textual relatedness between the two sentences. The scores are obtained using a comparative annotation framework. We describe the data collection and annotation processes, challenges when building the datasets, baseline experiments, and their impact and utility in NLP.

We present COPAL-ID, a novel, public Indonesian language common sense reasoning dataset. Unlike the previous Indonesian COPA dataset (XCOPA-ID), COPAL-ID incorporates Indonesian local and cultural nuances, and therefore, provides a more natural portrayal of day-to-day causal reasoning within the Indonesian cultural sphere. Professionally written by natives from scratch, COPAL-ID is more fluent and free from awkward phrases, unlike the translated XCOPA-ID. In addition, we present COPALID in both standard Indonesian and in Jakartan Indonesian–a dialect commonly used in daily conversation. COPAL-ID poses a greater challenge for existing open-sourced and closedstate-of-the-art multilingual language models, yet is trivially easy for humans. Our findings suggest that general multilingual models struggle to perform well, achieving 66.91% accuracy on COPAL-ID. South-East Asian-specific models achieve slightly better performance of 73.88% accuracy. Yet, this number still falls short of near-perfect human performance. This shows that these language models are still way behind in comprehending the local nuances of Indonesian.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across various applications, fundamentally reshaping the landscape of natural language processing (NLP) research. However, recent evaluation frameworks often rely on the output probabilities of LLMs for predictions, primarily due to computational constraints, diverging from real-world LLM usage scenarios. While widely employed, the efficacy of these probability-based evaluation strategies remains an open research question. This study aims to scrutinize the validity of such probability-based evaluation methods within the context of using LLMs for Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs), highlighting their inherent limitations. Our empirical investigation reveals that the prevalent probability-based evaluation method inadequately aligns with generation-based prediction. Furthermore, current evaluation frameworks typically assess LLMs through predictive tasks based on output probabilities rather than directly generating responses, owing to computational limitations. We illustrate that these probability-based approaches do not effectively correspond with generative predictions. The outcomes of our study can enhance the understanding of LLM evaluation methodologies and provide insights for future research in this domain.

The advent of Large Language Models (LLMs) has brought an unprecedented surge in machine-generated text (MGT) across diverse channels. This raises legitimate concerns about its potential misuse and societal implications. The need to identify and differentiate such content from genuine human-generated text is critical in combating disinformation, preserving the integrity of education and scientific fields, and maintaining trust in communication. In this work, we address this problem by introducing a new benchmark based on a multilingual, multi-domain and multi-generator corpus of MGTs — M4GT-Bench. The benchmark is compiled of three tasks: (1) mono-lingual and multi-lingual binary MGT detection; (2) multi-way detection where one need to identify, which particular model generated the text; and (3) mixed human-machine text detection, where a word boundary delimiting MGT from human-written content should be determined. On the developed benchmark, we have tested several MGT detection baselines and also conducted an evaluation of human performance. We see that obtaining good performance in MGT detection usually requires an access to the training data from the same domain and generators. The benchmark is available at https://github.com/mbzuai-nlp/M4GT-Bench.