We lifted 2 functions out of this paper's own repositories and ran 2 of them in a sandbox. "Ran" means the function executed on a synthesized input and returned a value. It is not a reproduction of the paper's results.
| Repository | Role | Ran |
|---|---|---|
| dipankarsrirag/eval-dialect-robust | canonical | 2 of 2 |
| Function | Status | Where it lives |
|---|---|---|
| fine_tune | Ran | dipankarsrirag/eval-dialect-robust/scripts/gpt/fine_tune.py pointer only (licence: NONE) · get_code("14b9af02a0d9bd88") |
| group_transcript | Ran | dipankarsrirag/eval-dialect-robust/scripts/data/clean_md3.py pointer only (licence: NONE) · get_code("6d749884f32e43c3") |
Some links come from the archived Papers with Code dataset (CC BY-SA 4.0): attribution and licence.
With an evergrowing number of LLMs reporting superlative performance for English, their ability to perform equitably for different dialects of English ($\textit{i.e.}$, dialect robustness) needs to be ascertained. Specifically, we use English language (US English or Indian English) conversations between humans who play the word-guessing game of 'taboo'. We formulate two evaluative tasks: target word prediction (TWP) ($\textit{i.e.}$, predict the masked target word in a conversation) and target word selection (TWS) ($\textit{i.e.}$, select the most likely masked target word in a conversation, from among a set of candidate words). Extending MD3, an existing dialectic dataset of taboo-playing conversations, we introduce M-MD3, a target-word-masked version of MD3 with the en-US and en-IN subsets. We create two subsets: en-MV (where en-US is transformed to include dialectal information) and en-TR (where dialectal information is removed from en-IN). We evaluate one open-source (Llama3) and two closed-source (GPT-4/3.5) LLMs. LLMs perform significantly better for US English than Indian English for both TWP and TWS tasks, for all settings, exhibiting marginalisation against the Indian dialect of English. While GPT-based models perform the best, the comparatively smaller models work more equitably after fine-tuning. Our error analysis shows that the LLMs can understand the dialect better after fine-tuning using dialectal data. Our evaluation methodology exhibits a novel way to examine attributes of language models using pre-existing dialogue datasets.
The same record, over MCP at https://syntology.ai/mcp:
get_harvested_code_for_paper("2405.05688")
get_code_for_paper("2405.05688")
have("2405.05688")
Connect an agent — have() is free.