BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

David Schlangen

David Schlangen contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Computation and LanguageArtificial Intelligencecs.CY

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
7works
0followers
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

7 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

Order in the Evaluation Court: A Critical Analysis of NLG Evaluation Trends

Despite advances in Natural Language Generation (NLG), evaluation remains challenging. Although various new metrics and LLM-as-a-judge (LaaJ) methods are proposed, human judgment persists as the gold standard. To systematically review how NLG evaluation has evolved, we employ an automatic information extraction scheme to gather key information from NLG papers, focusing on different evaluation methods (metrics, LaaJ and human evaluation). With extracted metadata from 14,171 papers across four major conferences (ACL, EMNLP, NAACL, and INLG) over the past six years, we reveal several critical findings: (1) Task Divergence: While Dialogue Generation demonstrates a rapid shift toward LaaJ (>40% in 2025), Machine Translation remains locked into n-gram metrics, and Question Answering exhibits a substantial decline in the proportion of studies conducting human evaluation. (2) Metric Inertia: Despite the development of semantic metrics, general-purpose metrics (e.g., BLEU, ROUGE) continue to be widely used across tasks without empirical justification, often lacking the discriminative power to distinguish between specific quality criteria. (3) Human-LaaJ Divergence: Our association analysis challenges the assumption that LLMs act as mere proxies for humans; LaaJ and human evaluations prioritize very different signals, and explicit validation is scarce (<8% of papers comparing the two), with only moderate to low correlation. Based on these observations, we derive practical recommendations to improve the rigor of future NLG evaluation.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2026arXiv

The Price of Thought: A Multilingual Analysis of Reasoning, Performance, and Cost of Negotiation in Large Language Models

Negotiation is a fundamental challenge for AI agents, as it requires an ability to reason strategically, model opponents, and balance cooperation with competition. We present the first comprehensive study that systematically evaluates how explicit reasoning training affects the negotiation abilities of both commercial and open-weight large language models, comparing these models to their vanilla counterparts across three languages. Using a self-play setup across three diverse dialogue games, we analyse trade-offs between performance and cost, the language consistency of reasoning processes, and the nature of strategic adaptation exhibited by models. Our findings show that enabling reasoning -- that is, scaling test time compute -- significantly improves negotiation outcomes by enhancing collaboration and helping models overcome task complexities, but comes at a substantial computational cost: reasoning improves GPT-5&#39;s performance by 31.4 % while increasing its cost by nearly 400 %. Most critically, we uncover a significant multilingual reasoning distinction: open-weight models consistently switch to English for their internal reasoning steps, even when negotiating in German or Italian (and thus possibly impacting potential explainability gains through the disclosure of reasoning traces), while a leading commercial model maintains language consistency between reasoning and final output.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Norm Participation Grounds Language

The striking recent advances in eliciting seemingly meaningful language behaviour from language-only machine learning models have only made more apparent, through the surfacing of clear limitations, the need to go beyond the language-only mode and to ground these models &#34;in the world&#34;. Proposals for doing so vary in the details, but what unites them is that the solution is sought in the addition of non-linguistic data types such as images or video streams, while largely keeping the mode of learning constant. I propose a different, and more wide-ranging conception of how grounding should be understood: What grounds language is its normative nature. There are standards for doing things right, these standards are public and authoritative, while at the same time acceptance of authority can and must be disputed and negotiated, in interactions in which only bearers of normative status can rightfully participate. What grounds language, then, is the determined use that language users make of it, and what it is grounded in is the community of language users. I sketch this idea, and draw some conclusions for work on computational modelling of meaningful language use.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

The slurk Interaction Server Framework: Better Data for Better Dialog Models

This paper presents the slurk software, a lightweight interaction server for setting up dialog data collections and running experiments. Slurk enables a multitude of settings including text-based, speech and video interaction between two or more humans or humans and bots, and a multimodal display area for presenting shared or private interactive context. The software is implemented in Python with an HTML and JS frontend that can easily be adapted to individual needs. It also provides a setup for pairing participants on common crowdworking platforms such as Amazon Mechanical Turk and some example bot scripts for common interaction scenarios.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

A Corpus of Controlled Opinionated and Knowledgeable Movie Discussions for Training Neural Conversation Models

Fully data driven Chatbots for non-goal oriented dialogues are known to suffer from inconsistent behaviour across their turns, stemming from a general difficulty in controlling parameters like their assumed background personality and knowledge of facts. One reason for this is the relative lack of labeled data from which personality consistency and fact usage could be learned together with dialogue behaviour. To address this, we introduce a new labeled dialogue dataset in the domain of movie discussions, where every dialogue is based on pre-specified facts and opinions. We thoroughly validate the collected dialogue for adherence of the participants to their given fact and opinion profile, and find that the general quality in this respect is high. This process also gives us an additional layer of annotation that is potentially useful for training models. We introduce as a baseline an end-to-end trained self-attention decoder model trained on this data and show that it is able to generate opinionated responses that are judged to be natural and knowledgeable and show attentiveness.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

An Overview of Natural Language State Representation for Reinforcement Learning

A suitable state representation is a fundamental part of the learning process in Reinforcement Learning. In various tasks, the state can either be described by natural language or be natural language itself. This survey outlines the strategies used in the literature to build natural language state representations. We appeal for more linguistically interpretable and grounded representations, careful justification of design decisions and evaluation of the effectiveness of different approaches.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Targeting the Benchmark: On Methodology in Current Natural Language Processing Research

It has become a common pattern in our field: One group introduces a language task, exemplified by a dataset, which they argue is challenging enough to serve as a benchmark. They also provide a baseline model for it, which then soon is improved upon by other groups. Often, research efforts then move on, and the pattern repeats itself. What is typically left implicit is the argumentation for why this constitutes progress, and progress towards what. In this paper, we try to step back for a moment from this pattern and work out possible argumentations and their parts.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access