Reverting incorrect changes to 2023.calcs-1.6 and updating 2023.calcs…

…-1.5 (#3069)

data/xml/2023.calcs.xml

@@ -86,7 +86,7 @@
       <author><first>Thamar</first><last>Solorio</last></author>
       <author><first>Alham</first><last>Aji</last></author>
       <pages>43-63</pages>
-      <abstract>The differences in decision making between behavioural models of voice interfaces are hard to capture using existing measures for the absolute performance of such models. For instance, two models may have a similar task success rate, but very different ways of getting there. In this paper, we propose a general methodology to compute the similarity of two dialogue behaviour models and investigate different ways of computing scores on both the semantic and the textual level. Complementing absolute measures of performance, we test our scores on three different tasks and show the practical usability of the measures.</abstract>
+      <abstract>While code-mixing is a common linguistic practice in many parts of the world, collecting high-quality and low-cost code-mixed data remains a challenge for natural language processing (NLP) research. The recent proliferation of Large Language Models (LLMs) compels one to ask: how capable are these systems in generating code-mixed data? In this paper, we explore prompting multilingual LLMs in a zero-shot manner to generate code-mixed data for seven languages in South East Asia (SEA), namely Indonesian, Malay, Chinese, Tagalog, Vietnamese, Tamil, and Singlish. We find that publicly available multilingual instruction-tuned models such as BLOOMZ and Flan-T5-XXL are incapable of producing texts with phrases or clauses from different languages. ChatGPT exhibits inconsistent capabilities in generating code-mixed texts, wherein its performance varies depending on the prompt template and language pairing. For instance, ChatGPT generates fluent and natural Singlish texts (an English-based creole spoken in Singapore), but for English-Tamil language pair, the system mostly produces grammatically incorrect or semantically meaningless utterances. Furthermore, it may erroneously introduce languages not specified in the prompt. Based on our investigation, existing multilingual LLMs exhibit a wide range of proficiency in code-mixed data generation for SEA languages. As such, we advise against using LLMs in this context without extensive human checks.</abstract>
       <url hash="a4b0e996">2023.calcs-1.5</url>
       <bibkey>yong-etal-2023-prompting</bibkey>
       <doi>10.18653/v1/2023.calcs-1.5</doi>
@@ -102,7 +102,9 @@
       <author><first>Aman</first><last>Chadha</last></author>
       <author><first>Amitava</first><last>Das</last></author>
       <pages>64-73</pages>
-      <abstract>While code-mixing is a common linguistic practice in many parts of the world, collecting high-quality and low-cost code-mixed data remains a challenge for natural language processing (NLP) research. The recent proliferation of Large Language Models (LLMs) compels one to ask: how capable are these systems in generating code-mixed data? In this paper, we explore prompting multilingual LLMs in a zero-shot manner to generate code-mixed data for seven languages in South East Asia (SEA), namely Indonesian, Malay, Chinese, Tagalog, Vietnamese, Tamil, and Singlish. We find that publicly available multilingual instruction-tuned models such as BLOOMZ and Flan-T5-XXL are incapable of producing texts with phrases or clauses from different languages. ChatGPT exhibits inconsistent capabilities in generating code-mixed texts, wherein its performance varies depending on the prompt template and language pairing. For instance, ChatGPT generates fluent and natural Singlish texts (an English-based creole spoken in Singapore), but for English-Tamil language pair, the system mostly produces grammatically incorrect or semantically meaningless utterances. Furthermore, it may erroneously introduce languages not specified in the prompt. Based on our investigation, existing multilingual LLMs exhibit a wide range of proficiency in code-mixed data generation for SEA languages. As such, we advise against using LLMs in this context without extensive human checks.</abstract>
+      <abstract>The mixing of two or more languages is called Code-Mixing (CM). CM is a social norm in multilingual societies. Neural Language Models (NLMs) like transformers have been effective on many NLP tasks. However, NLM for CM is an under-explored area. Though transformers are capable and powerful, they cannot always encode positional information since they are non-recurrent. Therefore, to enrich word information and incorporate positional information, positional encoding is defined. We hypothesize that Switching Points (SPs), i.e., junctions in the text where the language switches (L1 -&gt; L2 or L2 -&gt; L1), pose a challenge for CM Language Models (LMs), and hence give special emphasis to SPs in the modeling process. We experiment with several positional encoding mechanisms and show that rotatory positional encodings along with switching point information yield the best results.
+
+We introduce CONFLATOR: a neural language modeling approach for code-mixed languages. CONFLATOR tries to learn to emphasize switching points using smarter positional encoding, both at unigram and bigram levels. CONFLATOR outperforms the state-of-the-art on two tasks based on code-mixed Hindi and English (Hinglish): (i) sentiment analysis and (ii) machine translation.</abstract>
       <url hash="e616bc03">2023.calcs-1.6</url>
       <bibkey>mohammed-etal-2023-conflator</bibkey>
       <doi>10.18653/v1/2023.calcs-1.6</doi>