We describe PortNLP’s submission to the CRAC 2026 Shared Task on Multilingual Coreference Resolution (LLM track). Our system fine-tunes Qwen 3 14B with QLoRA on CorefUD 1.4 gold annotations across 27 corpora spanning 19 languages. Documents are processed in 500-700 character chunks with a bounded rolling context consisting of 500 characters of recent annotated text and a scored entity registry that tracks up to 30 active entities via a frequency-times-recency decay formula. We employ data augmentation and language-aware sampling strategies to handle typological and data-size diversity. Our system achieves 68.69 CoNLL F1 averaged across all 27 test corpora. We additionally present probing experiments on the LoRA adapter’s internal representations, finding that coreference signal is concentrated in attention value projections rather than MLP modules, with the strongest readout at the earliest transformer layer.

This study explores how recent large language models (LLMs) navigate relative clause attachment ambiguity and use world knowledge biases for disambiguation in six typologically diverse languages: English, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Russian, and Spanish. We describe the process of creating a novel dataset – MultiWho – for fine-grained evaluation of relative clause attachment preferences in ambiguous and unambiguous contexts. Our experiments with three LLMs indicate that, contrary to humans, LLMs consistently exhibit a preference for local attachment, displaying limited responsiveness to syntactic variations or language-specific attachment patterns.Although LLMs performed well in unambiguous cases, they rigidly prioritized world knowledge biases, lacking the flexibility of human language processing. These findings highlight the need for more diverse, pragmatically nuanced multilingual training to improve LLMs’ handling of complex structures and human-like comprehension.

Large language models (LLMs) can explain grammatical rules, yet they often fail to apply those rules when judging sentence acceptability. We present grammar prompting, an explain-then-process paradigm: a large LLM first produces a concise explanation of the relevant syntactic phenomenon, then that explanation is fed back as additional context to the target model – either an LLM or a smaller language model (SLM) – before deciding which sentence of a minimal pair is grammatical. On the English BLiMP, Chinese SLING, and Russian RuBLiMP benchmarks, this simple prompt design yields substantial improvements over strong baselines across a wide range of syntactic phenomena. Feeding an LLM’s metalinguistic explanation back to the target model bridges the gap between knowing a rule and using it. On SLMs, grammar prompting alone trims the average LLM-SLM accuracy gap by 20%, and when paired with chain-of-thought, by 56% (13.0 pp → 5.8 pp), all at negligible cost. The lightweight, language-agnostic cue lets low-cost SLMs approach frontier-LLM performance in multilingual settings.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are intended to reflect human linguistic competencies. But humans have access to a broad and embodied context, which is key in detecting and resolving linguistic ambiguities, even in isolated text spans. A foundational case of semantic ambiguity is found in the task of coreference resolution: how is a pronoun related to an earlier person mention? This capability is implicit in nearly every downstream task, and the presence of ambiguity at this level can alter performance significantly. We show that LLMs can achieve good performance with minimal prompting in both coreference disambiguation and the detection of ambiguity in coreference, however, they cannot do both at the same time. We present the CORRECT-DETECT trade-off: though models have both capabilities and deploy them implicitly, successful performance balancing these two abilities remains elusive.

As dialogue systems become more popular, evaluation of their response quality gains importance. Engagingness highly correlates with overall quality and creates a sense of connection that gives human participants a more fulfilling experience. Although qualities like coherence and fluency are readily measured with well-worn automatic metrics, evaluating engagingness often relies on human assessment, which is a costly and time-consuming process. Existing automatic engagingness metrics evaluate the response without the conversation history, are designed for one dataset, or have limited correlation with human annotations. Furthermore, they have been tested exclusively on English conversations. Given that dialogue systems are increasingly available in languages beyond English, multilingual evaluation capabilities are essential. We propose that large language models (LLMs) may be used for evaluation of engagingness in dialogue through prompting, and ask how prompt constructs and translated prompts compare in a multilingual setting. We provide a prompt-design taxonomy for engagingness and find that using selected prompt elements with LLMs, including our comprehensive definition of engagingness, outperforms state-of-the-art methods on evaluation of engagingness in dialogue across multiple languages.