Sapienza NLP @ ACL 2025
4 papers published at ACL 2025!
We're excited to announce the acceptance of 4 papers to ACL 2025, focusing on Machine Translation, Narrative Understanding, Coreference Resolution, LLM evaluation, and Word Sense Disambiguation.
Our contributions:
Has Machine Translation Evaluation Achieved Human Parity? The Human Reference and the Limits of Progress
by L. Proietti, S. Perrella, and R. Navigli
In Machine Translation (MT) evaluation, metric performance is assessed based on agreement with human judgments. In recent years, automatic metrics have demonstrated increasingly high levels of agreement with humans. To gain a clearer understanding of metric performance and establish an upper bound, we incorporate human baselines in the MT meta-evaluation, that is, the assessment of MT metrics’ capabilities. Our results show that human annotators are not consistently superior to automatic metrics, with state-of-the-art metrics often ranking on par with or higher than human baselines. Despite these findings suggesting human parity, we discuss several reasons for caution. Finally, we explore the broader implications of our results for the research field, asking: Can we still reliably measure improvements in MT evaluation? With this work, we aim to shed light on the limits of our ability to measure progress in the field, fostering discussion on an issue that we believe is crucial to the entire MT evaluation community.
BOOKCOREF: Coreference Resolution at Book Scale
by G. Martinelli, T. Bonomo, P. Huguet-Cabot, and R. Navigli
Coreference Resolution systems are typically evaluated on benchmarks containing small- to medium-scale documents.When it comes to evaluating long texts, however, existing benchmarks, such as LitBank, remain limited in length and do not adequately assess system capabilities at the book scale, i.e., when co-referring mentions span hundreds of thousands of tokens.To fill this gap, we first put forward a novel automatic pipeline that produces high-quality Coreference Resolution annotations on full narrative texts. Then, we adopt this pipeline to create the first book-scale coreference benchmark, BOOKCOREF, with an average document length of more than 200,000 tokens.We carry out a series of experiments showing the robustness of our automatic procedure and demonstrating the value of our resource, which enables current long-document coreference systems to gain up to +20 CoNLL-F1 points when evaluated on full books.Moreover, we report on the new challenges introduced by this unprecedented book-scale setting, highlighting that current models fail to deliver the same performance they achieve on smaller documents.We release our data and code to encourage research and development of new book-scale Coreference Resolution systems at github.com/sapienzanlp/bookcoref.
How Much Do Encoder Models Know About Word Senses?
by S. Teglia, S. Tedeschi, and R. Navigli
Word Sense Disambiguation (WSD) is a key task in Natural Language Processing (NLP), involving selecting the correct meaning of a word based on its context. With Pretrained Language Models (PLMs) like BERT and DeBERTa now well established, significant progress has been made in understanding contextual semantics. Nevertheless, how well these models inherently disambiguate word senses remains uncertain. In this work, we evaluate several encoder-only PLMs across two popular inventories (i.e. WordNet and the Oxford Dictionary of English) by analyzing their ability to separate word senses without any task-specific fine-tuning. We compute centroids of word senses and measure similarity to assess performance across different layers. Our results show that DeBERTa-v3 delivers the best performance on the task, with the middle layers (specifically the 7th and 8th layers) achieving the highest accuracy, outperforming the output layer by approximately 15 percentage points. Our experiments also explore the inherent structure of WordNet and ODE sense inventories, highlighting their influence on the overall model behavior and performance. Finally, based on our findings, we develop a small, efficient model for the WSD task that attains robust performance while significantly reducing the carbon footprint.
Right Answer, Wrong Score: Uncovering the Inconsistencies of LLM Evaluation in Multiple-Choice Question Answering
by F. Molfese, L. Moroni, L. Gioffré, A. Scirè, S. Conia, and R. Navigli
One of the most widely used tasks for evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) is Multiple-Choice Question Answering (MCQA). While open-ended question answering tasks are more challenging to evaluate, MCQA tasks are, in principle, easier to assess, as the model’s answer is thought to be simple to extract and is compared directly to a set of predefined choices. However, recent studies have started to question the reliability of MCQA evaluation, showing that multiple factors can significantly impact the reported performance of LLMs, especially when the model generates free-form text before selecting one of the answer choices. In this work, we shed light on the inconsistencies of MCQA evaluation strategies, which can lead to inaccurate and misleading model comparisons. We systematically analyze whether existing answer extraction methods are aligned with human judgment, and how they are influenced by answer constraints in the prompt across different domains. Our experiments demonstrate that traditional evaluation strategies often underestimate LLM capabilities, while LLM-based answer extractors are prone to systematic errors. Moreover, we reveal a fundamental trade-off between including format constraints in the prompt to simplify answer extraction and allowing models to generate free-form text to improve reasoning. Our findings call for standardized evaluation methodologies and highlight the need for more reliable and consistent MCQA evaluation practices.