TailNLG: A Multilingual Benchmark Addressing Verbalization of Long-Tail Entities
Authors: Lia Draetta, Michael Oliverio, Virginia Ramón-Ferrer, Pier Felice Balestrucci, Flaviana Corallo, Carlos Badenes-Olmedo, Alessandro Mazzei, Marco Antonio Stranisci, Rossana Damiano
Organizations: University of Turin, Italy · Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain
The automatic verbalization of structured knowledge is a key task for making knowledge graphs accessible to non-expert users and supporting retrieval-augmented generation systems. Although recent advances in Data-to-Text generation have improved multilingual coverage, little attention has been paid to potential biases in the verbalization of rare entities, frequently known as long-tail entities. In this work, we present the first systematic study of long-tail entities in Data-to-Text generation. We introduce TailNLG, a new multilingual benchmark in English, Italian, and Spanish, built from Wikidata and covering entities with varying levels of popularity. We evaluate three different families of large language models in zero-shot settings and compare their performance on rare versus common entities, as well as against the established WebNLG benchmark. Our results reveal a consistent bias against long-tail entities: embedding-based scores are lower, and model uncertainty is higher for rare entities. We further show that the impact of long-tail entities varies across models and languages, and that existing evaluation metrics do not consistently capture these differences, highlighting the need for more reliable evaluation frameworks.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Distribution of entities by claims in the Wikidata category Artist . A small number of entities are associated with many claims, while the majority (long-tail) are associated with few relations. The red dashed line indicates the Pareto cut-off, while the green dashed line marks the head–tail threshold
Figure 2: PPL distributions for head and long-tail entities across models (log10 scale). Boxes represent the interquartile range (IQR, Q1–Q3) with the median shown as a line inside the box. Statistical significance was assessed using the Mann-Whitney U test : *** p < 0.001, ns = not significant.
Source→Target
Accuracy
Fluency
es→en
4.45±0.58
4.99±0.07
en→es
4.57±0.53
4.95±0.15
it→en
4.71±0.49
4.89±0.32
en→it
4.72±0.48
4.97±0.12
es→it
4.51±0.49
4.91±0.22
it→es
4.63±0.49
4.93±0.20
Table 1: Average scores ( 0 to 5 ) and standard deviation of the human evaluation on Accuracy e Fluency
Type
Lang
BERT r ↑
BLEU ↑
chrF ↑
R-1 ↑
R-2 ↑
R-L ↑
PPL ↓
Llama-8B
Long-tail
en
0.61
0.25
60.39
0.66
0.43
0.56
93.36
es
0.58
0.17
53.30
0.58
0.35
0.49
222.16
it
0.46
0.13
47.73 *
0.49 *
0.29 *
0.43 *
88.06
Head
en
0.65 *
0.26
61.20
0.67
0.44
0.57
59.03 *
es
0.60
0.19
53.23
0.58
0.36
0.48
94.52 *
Table 2: Results on TailNLG long-tail vs head entitities verbalizations by data type and language. Metrics include BERTScore Rescaled (BERT r ), BLEU, chrF++ (chrF), ROUGE 1 (R-1) , ROUGE 2 (R2), ROUGE L (R-L) and Perplexity (PPL). Asterisks ( ∗ ) denote a statistically significant difference ( p<0.05 ).
Type
BERT r ↑
BLEU ↑
chrF ↑
R-1 ↑
R-2 ↑
R-L ↑
PPL ↓
Llama-8B
Long-tail
0.55
0.18
53.81
0.58
0.36
0.50
134.53
WebNLG
0.53
0.21 *
53.77
0.65 *
0.43 *
0.53 *
68.23 *
Gemma-12B
Long-tail
0.62
0.24
60.38
0.64
0.42
0.55
455.57
WebNLG
0.65 *
0.30 *
63.63 *
0.73 *
0.50 *
0.59 *
290.10 *
Table 3: Performance comparison of models between long-tail triples from TailNLG and WebNLG test set. Metrics: BERTScore Rescaled (BERT r ), BLEU, chrF++ (chrF), ROUGE-1 (R-1), ROUGE-2 (R-2), ROUGE-L (R-L), and Perplexity (PPL). Asterisks ( ∗ ) denote a statistically significant difference ( p<0.05 ).
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 3: Examples of Chain, sibling and mixed triples configuration
Category
Count
Politician
47
Airport
46
Model
30
SportsTeam
37
Building
47
Company
44
Appendix
Table 4: Distribution of data entries across categories and entity types.
Language
Gold
Silver
Total
English
168
447
615
Spanish
173
442
615
Italian
384
231
615
Total
725
1,120
1,845
Appendix
Table 5: Distribution of gold and silver verbalizations by language in TailNLG.
Source
Target
ρ
r
es
en
0.23
0.25
en
es
0.32*
0.27
it
en
0.15
0.02
en
it
0.56*
0.64
es
it
0.26
0.22
it
es
0.53*
0.49*
Appendix
Table 6: Spearman ( ρ ) and Pearson ( r ) correlation coefficients across language pairs. Source and Target denote the source language and the target language into which the source is translated, respectively. Asterisks (*) denote a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05).
Model
Type
BERT r
BLEU ↑
chrF ↑
R-1 ↑
R-2 ↑
R-L ↑
PPL ↓
Qwen-3B
Long-tail
0.50
0.13
50.10
0.53
0.30
0.45
182.87
Top-head
0.51
0.13
49.12
0.52
0.29
0.44
70.45 *
Qwen-7B
Long-tail
0.56
0.19
54.27
0.58
0.35
0.49
138.70
Top-head
0.58
0.18
53.41
0.57
0.35
0.48
87.96 *
Gemma-4b
Long-tail
0.53
0.17
54.32
0.57
0.35
0.48
4724.94
Top-head
0.56
0.17
53.48
0.56
0.34
0.46
3488.00 *
Appendix
Table 7: Comparison of models by type. Asterisks ( ∗ ) denote a statistically significant difference with p<0.05 .
Model
Lang
BERT r
BLEU ↑
chrF ↑
R-1 ↑
R-2 ↑
R-L ↑
PPL ↓
Llama-3B
en
0.58 *
0.21 *
56.67 *
0.63 *
0.40 *
0.53 *
73.51 *
es
0.46
0.11
46.40
0.47
0.26
0.39
114.99
it
0.44
0.08
44.26
0.42
0.22
0.35
81.98
Llama-8B
en
0.63 *
0.25 *
60.72 *
0.66 *
0.43 *
0.56 *
79.37 *
es
0.59
0.18
53.27
0.58
0.35
0.49
170.14
it
0.45
0.13
46.85
0.48
0.28
0.42
80.23
Appendix
Table 8: Average scores for different languages for each model (zero-shot). Asterisks ( ∗ ) denote a statistically significant difference with p<0.05 .
Model
Quality
BERT r ↑
BLEU ↑
chrF ↑
R-1 ↑
R-2 ↑
R-L ↑
PPL ↓
Llama-3B
gold
0.46
0.12
48.04
0.48
0.27
0.40
95.30
silver
0.52 *
0.14
49.80
0.52 *
0.30 *
0.44 *
86.86 *
Llama-8B
gold
0.52
0.18
52.68
0.50
0.55 *
0.48
90.94
silver
0.58 *
0.19
54.22
0.59 *
0.36
0.50 *
122.10 *
Qwen-3B
gold
0.50
0.13
50.62
0.53
0.30
0.44
94.12
silver
0.51
0.13
49.08
0.52
0.29
0.45
165.11
Appendix
Table 9: Average scores for different quality levels (silver, gold) for each model (zero-shot). Asterisks ( ∗ ) denote a statistically significant difference with p<0.05 .
Type
Quality
BERT r
BLEU ↑
chrF ↑
R-1 ↑
R-2 ↑
R-L ↑
PPL ↓
Llama-3B
Long-tail
Silver
0.50 *
0.14
49.63
0.52
0.30
0.44
89.70 *
Gold
0.47
0.13
49.95
0.50
0.29
0.42
122.69
Top-head
Silver
0.53 *
0.16 *
50.04 *
0.52 *
0.31 *
0.44 *
82.59
Gold
0.46
0.11
45.40
0.45
0.25
0.38
57.57
Llama-8B
Appendix
Table 10: Performance comparison of models broken down by entity type (long-tail / top-head) and annotation quality (silver / gold). Asterisks ( ∗ ) denote a statistically significant difference between silver and gold within the same type ( p<0.05 , Mann-Whitney U test).
Type
Lang
BERT r
BLEU ↑
chrF ↑
R-1 ↑
R-2 ↑
R-L ↑
PPL ↓
Llama-3B
Long-tail
en
0.57
0.21
56.58
0.62
0.39
0.53
86.17
es
0.45
0.11
47.07
0.48
0.26
0.40
144.99
it
0.44
0.09
45.61
0.44
0.23
0.37
75.80
total
0.49
0.13
49.75
0.51
0.30
0.43
102.32
WebNLG
en
0.56
0.23
57.17
0.71 *
0.47 *
0.56
53.67 *
Appendix
Table 11: Performance comparison of models on long-tail triples from TailNLG and WebNLG test set. Asterisks ( ∗ ) denote a statistically significant difference with p<0.05 .
Due to their capacity to acquire world knowledge from large corpora, pre-trained language models (PLMs) are extensively used in ultra-fine entity typing tasks where the space of labels is extremely large. In this work, we explore the limitations of the knowledge acquired by PLMs by proposing a novel heuristic to approximate the pre-training distribution of entities when the pre-training data is unknown. Then, we systematically demonstrate that entity-typing approaches that rely solely on the parametric knowledge of PLMs struggle significantly with entities at the long tail of the pre-training distribution, and that knowledge-infused approaches can account for some of these shortcomings. Our findings suggest that we need to go beyond PLMs to produce solutions that perform well for infrequent entities.
We present a configurable pipeline for generating multilingual sets of entities with specified characteristics, such as domain, geographical location and popularity, using data from Wikipedia and Wikidata. These datasets are intended for evaluating the factuality of LLMs' long-form generation, thereby complementing evaluation based on short-form QA datasets. We present the RiDiC dataset as an example of this approach. RiDiC contains 3,000 entities from three domains -- rivers, natural disasters, and car models -- spanning different popularity tiers. Each entity is accompanied by its geographical location, English and Chinese names (if available) and relevant English and Chinese Wikipedia content, which is used to evaluate LLMs' responses. Generations about RiDiC entities were obtained from three LLMs in English and Chinese. These were then evaluated using a third-party factuality checker, which showed that entities from our dataset caused even frontier models to hallucinate. To facilitate the evaluation of LLMs' long-form factuality in multiple languages, the code, data, and generation/evaluation scripts have been released.
Pavel Braslavski, Dmitrii Iarosh, Nikita Sushko +4
HSE University · Ural Federal University · ITMO University +3
Multimodal entity linking grounds entity mentions in text and images to knowledge-base entries. These systems degrade on rare entities, but prior work measures rarity primarily through popularity-based metrics such as pageviews. We broaden this view using knowledge-graph structural metrics that capture how well an entity is documented and connected. These metrics identify many rare entities that popularity metrics miss. Across the resulting rare-entity slices, state-of-the-art accuracy drops by 15.4-39.9%, showing that different rarity definitions expose different failure modes. To address these failures, we introduce a simple, training-free framework in which a reasoning-capable vision-language model iteratively searches and reasons over Wikipedia, gathering evidence dynamically. Controlled experiments show that reasoning and retrieval are complementary. Reasoning alone does not significantly improve accuracy on rare entities. Retrieval without reasoning improves rare-entity accuracy but can hurt overall accuracy. Their combination performs best. On MERLIN, a multilingual multimodal entity linking benchmark over five languages (Hindi, Indonesian, Japanese, Tamil, Vietnamese), our best system improves over the state of the art by 6.9% overall and by up to 23.3% on rare-entity slices. We release MERLIN-Rare, rare-entity test slices for targeted evaluation, with our framework.
Parinthapat Pengpun, Simran Khanuja, Graham Neubig