SearcharxivSearch

arXiv subjects

Nemika Tyagi

Publications and source records attributed to Nemika Tyagi.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

Structured Disagreement in Health-Literacy Annotation: Epistemic Stability, Conceptual Difficulty, and Agreement-Stratified Inference

Annotation pipelines in Natural Language Processing (NLP) commonly assume a single latent ground truth per instance and resolve disagreement through label aggregation. Perspectivist approaches challenge this view by treating disagreement as potentially informative rather than erroneous. We present a large-scale analysis of graded health-literacy annotations from 6,323 open-ended COVID-19 responses collected in Ecuador and Peru. Each response was independently labeled by multiple annotators using proportional correctness scores, reflecting the degree to which responses align with normative public-health guidelines, allowing us to analyze the full distribution of judgments rather than aggregated labels. Variance decomposition shows that question-level conceptual difficulty accounts for substantially more variance than annotator identity, indicating that disagreement is structured by the task itself rather than driven by individual raters. Agreement-stratified analyses further reveal that key social-scientific effects, including country, education, and urban-rural differences, vary in magnitude and in some cases reverse direction across levels of inter-annotator agreement. These findings suggest that graded health-literacy evaluation contains both epistemically stable and unstable components, and that aggregating across them can obscure important inferential differences. We therefore argue that strong perspectivist modeling is not only conceptually justified but statistically necessary for valid inference in graded interpretive tasks.

cs.CL

Lost in Speech: Benchmarking, Evaluation, and Parsing of Spoken Bilingual Conversational Language Beyond Standard UD Assumptions

Spoken bilingual conversations pose substantial challenges for syntactic parsing because they often include disfluencies and discourse-driven structures that complicate dependency parsing under standard Universal Dependencies (UD) assumptions and evaluation practices. To systematically study these challenges, in this work, we first introduce a linguistically grounded taxonomy of conversational bilingual phenomena, together with SpokeBench, an expert-annotated English-Spanish benchmark for structurally complex speech. To address the limitations of existing evaluation practices, we propose Flex-UD, an ambiguity-aware evaluation metric that distinguishes catastrophic structural failures from linguistically acceptable variations. Finally, we introduce DECAP, a decoupled agentic parsing framework that separates spoken-phenomena handling from core syntactic analysis, enabling robust and interpretable dependency parsing without retraining. Experiments across both proprietary and open-weight LLMs show that DECAP substantially improves performance on complex conversational phenomena and achieves over 60% improvements in UPOS-F1 Score over baselines, while Flex-UD evaluations reveal gains that otherwise remain partially hidden under standard attachment-based metrics.

cs.CL

Modeling Topics and Sociolinguistic Variation in Code-Switched Discourse: Insights from Spanish-English and Spanish-Guaran\'i

This study presents an LLM-assisted annotation pipeline for the sociolinguistic and topical analysis of bilingual discourse in two typologically distinct contexts: Spanish-English and Spanish-Guaran\'i. Using large language models, we automatically labeled topic, genre, and discourse-pragmatic functions across a total of 3,691 code-switched sentences, integrated demographic metadata from the Miami Bilingual Corpus, and enriched the Spanish-Guaran\'i dataset with new topic annotations. The resulting distributions reveal systematic links between gender, language dominance, and discourse function in the Miami data, and a clear diglossic division between formal Guaran\'i and informal Spanish in Paraguayan texts. These findings replicate and extend earlier interactional and sociolinguistic observations with corpus-scale quantitative evidence. The study demonstrates that large language models can reliably recover interpretable sociolinguistic patterns traditionally accessible only through manual annotation, advancing computational methods for cross-linguistic and low-resource bilingual research.

cs.CL

Parsing the Switch: LLM-Based UD Annotation for Complex Code-Switched and Low-Resource Languages

Code-switching presents a complex challenge for syntactic analysis, especially in low-resource language settings where annotated data is scarce. While recent work has explored the use of large language models (LLMs) for sequence-level tagging, few approaches systematically investigate how well these models capture syntactic structure in code-switched contexts. Moreover, existing parsers trained on monolingual treebanks often fail to generalize to multilingual and mixed-language input. To address this gap, we introduce the BiLingua Parser, an LLM-based annotation pipeline designed to produce Universal Dependencies (UD) annotations for code-switched text. First, we develop a prompt-based framework for Spanish-English and Spanish-Guaran\'i data, combining few-shot LLM prompting with expert review. Second, we release two annotated datasets, including the first Spanish-Guaran\'i UD-parsed corpus. Third, we conduct a detailed syntactic analysis of switch points across language pairs and communicative contexts. Experimental results show that BiLingua Parser achieves up to 95.29% LAS after expert revision, significantly outperforming prior baselines and multilingual parsers. These results show that LLMs, when carefully guided, can serve as practical tools for bootstrapping syntactic resources in under-resourced, code-switched environments. Data and source code are available at https://github.com/N3mika/ParsingProject

cs.CL

Step-by-Step Reasoning to Solve Grid Puzzles: Where do LLMs Falter?

Solving grid puzzles involves a significant amount of logical reasoning. Hence, it is a good domain to evaluate the reasoning capability of a model which can then guide us to improve the reasoning ability of models. However, most existing works evaluate only the final predicted answer of a puzzle, without delving into an in-depth analysis of the LLMs' reasoning chains (such as where they falter) or providing any finer metrics to evaluate them. Since LLMs may rely on simple heuristics or artifacts to predict the final answer, it is crucial to evaluate the generated reasoning chain beyond overall correctness measures, for accurately evaluating the reasoning abilities of LLMs. To this end, we first develop GridPuzzle, an evaluation dataset comprising 274 grid-based puzzles with different complexities. Second, we propose a new error taxonomy derived from manual analysis of reasoning chains from LLMs including GPT-4, Claude-3, Gemini, Mistral, and Llama-2. Then, we develop an LLM-based framework for large-scale subjective evaluation (i.e., identifying errors) and an objective metric, PuzzleEval, to evaluate the correctness of reasoning chains. Evaluating reasoning chains from LLMs leads to several interesting findings. We further show that existing prompting methods used for enhancing models' reasoning abilities do not improve performance on GridPuzzle. This highlights the importance of understanding fine-grained errors and presents a challenge for future research to enhance LLMs' puzzle-solving abilities by developing methods that address these errors. Data and source code are available at https://github.com/Mihir3009/GridPuzzle.

cs.CL

Chaos with Keywords: Exposing Large Language Models Sycophantic Hallucination to Misleading Keywords and Evaluating Defense Strategies

This study explores the sycophantic tendencies of Large Language Models (LLMs), where these models tend to provide answers that match what users want to hear, even if they are not entirely correct. The motivation behind this exploration stems from the common behavior observed in individuals searching the internet for facts with partial or misleading knowledge. Similar to using web search engines, users may recall fragments of misleading keywords and submit them to an LLM, hoping for a comprehensive response. Our empirical analysis of several LLMs shows the potential danger of these models amplifying misinformation when presented with misleading keywords. Additionally, we thoroughly assess four existing hallucination mitigation strategies to reduce LLMs sycophantic behavior. Our experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of these strategies for generating factually correct statements. Furthermore, our analyses delve into knowledge-probing experiments on factual keywords and different categories of sycophancy mitigation.

cs.CL