Low-resource languages often face challenges in acquiring high-quality language data due to the reliance on translation-based methods, which can introduce the translationese effect. This phenomenon results in translated sentences that lack fluency and naturalness in the target language. In this paper, we propose a novel approach for data collection by leveraging storyboards to elicit more fluent and natural sentences. Our method involves presenting native speakers with visual stimuli in the form of storyboards and collecting their descriptions without direct exposure to the source text. We conducted a comprehensive evaluation comparing our storyboard-based approach with traditional text translation-based methods in terms of accuracy and fluency. Human annotators and quantitative metrics were used to assess translation quality. The results indicate a preference for text translation in terms of accuracy, while our method demonstrates worse accuracy but better fluency in the language focused.

Even the most advanced language models remain susceptible to errors necessitating to modify these models without initiating a comprehensive retraining process. Model editing refers to the modification of a model’s knowledge or representations in a manner that produces the desired outcomes. Prior research primarily centered around editing factual data e.g. “Messi plays for Inter Miami” confining the definition of an edit to a knowledge triplet i.e. (subject, object, relation). However, as the applications of language models expand, so do the diverse ways in which we wish to edit and refine their outputs. In this study, we broaden the scope of the editing problem to include an array of editing cases such as debiasing and rectifying reasoning errors and define an edit as any natural language expression that solicits a change in the model’s outputs. We are introducing DUnE, an editing benchmark where edits are natural language sentences and propose that DUnE presents a challenging yet relevant task. To substantiate this claim, we conduct an extensive series of experiments testing various editing approaches to address DUnE, demonstrating their respective strengths and weaknesses. We argue that retrieval-augmented language modeling can outperform specialized editing techniques and neither set of approaches has fully solved the generalized editing problem covered by our benchmark.