Variation in human annotation (i.e., disagreements) is common in NLP, often reflecting important information like task subjectivity and sample ambiguity. Modeling this variation is important for applications that are sensitive to such information. Although RLVR-style reasoning (Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards) has improved Large Language Model (LLM) performance on many tasks, it remains unclear whether such reasoning enables LLMs to capture informative variation in human annotation. In this work, we evaluate the influence of different reasoning settings on LLM disagreement modeling. We systematically evaluate each reasoning setting across model sizes, distribution expression methods, and steering methods, resulting in 60 experimental setups across 3 tasks. Surprisingly, our results show that RLVR-style reasoning degrades performance in disagreement modeling, while naive Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning improves the performance of RLHF LLMs (RL from human feedback). These findings underscore the potential risk of replacing human annotators with reasoning LLMs, especially when disagreements are important.

LLMs can solve complex tasks by generating long, multi-step reasoning chains. Test-time scaling (TTS) can further improve LLM performance by sampling multiple variants of intermediate reasoning steps, verifying their correctness, and strategically choosing the best steps for continuation. However, existing verification approaches, such as Process Reward Models (PRMs), are computationally expensive, limited to specific domains, and require large-scale human or model-generated annotations. We propose a lightweight alternative for step-level reasoning verification based on probing the internal states of LLMs. We train a transformer-based probe that uses the internal states of the frozen LLM to estimate the credibility of its reasoning steps during generation. Annotation can be generated either by another larger LLM (e.g., DeepSeek-R1) or in a self-supervised manner by the original model itself. The probes are both effective and lightweight, containing fewer than 10M parameters. Across multiple domains, including mathematics, planning, and general knowledge question answering, our probes match or even exceed the performance of PRMs that are up to 810× larger. Our findings suggest that the internal states of LLMs encode their confidence in reasoning processes and can serve as reliable signals for reasoning step verification, offering a promising direction towards scalable and generalizable TTS and introspective LLMs.

Identifying logical fallacies (LFs) in everyday discourse is challenging for many people. This challenge is amplified in the era of Large Language Models (LLMs), where malicious agents can deploy fallacious arguments to disseminate misinformation at scale. In this work, we explore the potential of LLMs as part of the solution. We introduce LFTutor, an intelligent tutoring system which uses LLMs to tutor humans and help them learn about logical fallacies. LFTutor integrates intent-driven Socratic questioning and critical argumentation principles to actively engage learners to reflect on their reasoning. Through both automatic and human evaluations, we demonstrate that LFTutor significantly outperforms baseline LLMs lacking such pedagogical strategies. This work highlights the promise of combining LLMs with pedagogical scaffolding to foster critical thinking and argument literacy in the age of AI.

Open LLMs enable AI practitioners to control development costs by building on an existing foundation for downstream applications. While offering substantial promise, current models often fail to meet the needs of users needing open solutions aligned with responsible AI principles, including data compliance, transparency, and inclusivity. In this work, we present Apertus, a fully open suite of large language models (LLMs) designed to address responsibility shortcomings in today’s open model ecosystem, namely data responsibility and global representation. Unlike many prior models that release weights without reproducible data pipelines or regard for content-owner rights, Apertus models are pretrained exclusively on openly available data, retroactively respecting robots.txt exclusions and filtering for non-permissive, toxic, and personally identifiable content. To mitigate risks of data memorization, we also adopt the Goldfish objective during pretraining, strongly suppressing verbatim recall of data while retaining downstream task performance. Apertus also drastically expands multilingual coverage, training on 15T tokens from over approximately 1800 languages, with about 40% of pretraining data allocated to non-English content. Released at 8B and 70B scales, Apertus approaches state-of-the-art results among fully open models on multilingual benchmarks, rivaling or surpassing open-weight counterparts.

Test-time compute (TTC) scaling has emerged as a powerful paradigm for improving large language model (LLM) reasoning by allocating additional compute during inference, e.g., via multi-sample generation and verifier-based reranking. Existing TTC scaling strategies and reasoning scorers remain fragmented, evaluated under inconsistent protocols, and are rarely analyzed through the lens of quality-cost trade-offs. We introduce ThinkBooster, a unified framework for seamless test-time compute scaling of LLM reasoning, which consists of (i) a modular Python library implementing state-of-the-art TTC scaling strategy and scorer families, (ii) a benchmark that jointly evaluates performance and computational efficiency, and (iii) a deployable OpenAI-compatible proxy service that enables drop-in integration of adaptive reasoning into real-world applications. We further provide a demo visual debugger for inspecting the reasoning trajectories, intermediate selection decisions, and alternative reasoning paths. Empirical results on mathematical and coding tasks reveal the performance-compute trade-offs of TTC scaling strategies and scoring methods and demonstrate that ThinkBooster provides practical gains in real-world tasks. The code is available online under an MIT license.

Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) is widely employed to ground responses to queries on domain-specific documents. But do RAG implementations leave out important information when answering queries that need an integrated analysis of information (e.g., Tell me good news in the stock market today.)? To address these concerns, RAG developers need to annotate information retrieval (IR) data for their domain of interest, which is challenging because (1) domain-specific queries usually need nuanced definitions of relevance beyond shallow semantic relevance; and (2) human or GPT-4 annotation is costly and cannot cover all (query, document) pairs (i.e., annotation selection bias), thus harming the effectiveness in evaluating IR recall. To address these challenges, we propose DIRAS (**D**omain-specific **I**nformation **R**etrieval **A**nnotation with **S**calability), a manual-annotation-free schema that fine-tunes open-sourced LLMs to consider nuanced relevance definition and annotate (partial) relevance labels with calibrated relevance scores. Extensive evaluation shows that DIRAS enables smaller (8B) LLMs to achieve GPT-4-level performance on annotating and ranking unseen (query, document) pairs, and is helpful for real-world RAG development.

We introduce Co-DETECT (Collaborative Discovery of Edge cases in TExt ClassificaTion), a novel mixed-initiative annotation framework that integrates human expertise with automatic annotation guided by large language models (LLMs). Co-DETECT starts with an initial, sketch-level codebook and dataset provided by a domain expert, then leverages the LLM to annotate the data and identify edge cases that are not well described by the initial codebook. Specifically, Co-DETECT flags challenging examples, induces high-level, generalizable descriptions of edge cases, and assists user in incorporating edge case handling rules to improve the codebook. This iterative process enables more effective handling of nuanced phenomena through compact, generalizable annotation rules. Extensive user study, qualitative and quantitative analyses prove the effectiveness of Co-DETECT.

To handle the vast amounts of qualitative data produced in corporate climate communication, stakeholders increasingly rely on Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) systems. However, a significant gap remains in evaluating domain-specific information retrieval – the basis for answer generation. To address this challenge, this work simulates the typical tasks of a sustainability analyst by examining 30 sustainability reports with 16 detailed climate-related questions. As a result, we obtain a dataset with over 8.5K unique question-source-answer pairs labeled by different levels of relevance. Furthermore, we develop a use case with the dataset to investigate the integration of expert knowledge into information retrieval with embeddings. Although we show that incorporating expert knowledge works, we also outline the critical limitations of embeddings in knowledge-intensive downstream domains like climate change communication.

Advances towards more faithful and traceable answers of Large Language Models (LLMs) are crucial for various research and practical endeavors. One avenue in reaching this goal is basing the answers on reliable sources. However, this Evidence-Based QA has proven to work insufficiently with LLMs in terms of citing the correct sources (source quality) and truthfully representing the information within sources (answer attributability). In this work, we systematically investigate how to robustly fine-tune LLMs for better source quality and answer attributability. Specifically, we introduce a data generation pipeline with automated data quality filters, which can synthesize diversified high-quality training and testing data at scale. We further introduce four test sets to benchmark the robustness of fine-tuned specialist models. Extensive evaluation shows that fine-tuning on synthetic data improves performance on both in- and out-of-distribution. Furthermore, we show that data quality, which can be drastically improved by proposed quality filters, matters more than quantity in improving Evidence-Based QA.

With the rise of generative AI, automated fact-checking methods to combat misinformation are becoming more and more important. However, factual claim detection, the first step in a fact-checking pipeline, suffers from two key issues that limit its scalability and generalizability: (1) inconsistency in definitions of the task and what a claim is, and (2) the high cost of manual annotation. To address (1), we review the definitions in related work and propose a unifying definition of factual claims that focuses on verifiability. To address (2), we introduce AFaCTA (Automatic Factual Claim deTection Annotator), a novel framework that assists in the annotation of factual claims with the help of large language models (LLMs). AFaCTA calibrates its annotation confidence with consistency along three predefined reasoning paths. Extensive evaluation and experiments in the domain of political speech reveal that AFaCTA can efficiently assist experts in annotating factual claims and training high-quality classifiers, and can work with or without expert supervision. Our analyses also result in PoliClaim, a comprehensive claim detection dataset spanning diverse political topics.

In the face of climate change, are companies really taking substantial steps toward more sustainable operations? A comprehensive answer lies in the dense, information-rich landscape of corporate sustainability reports. However, the sheer volume and complexity of these reports make human analysis very costly. Therefore, only a few entities worldwide have the resources to analyze these reports at scale, which leads to a lack of transparency in sustainability reporting. Empowering stakeholders with LLM-based automatic analysis tools can be a promising way to democratize sustainability report analysis. However, developing such tools is challenging due to (1) the hallucination of LLMs and (2) the inefficiency of bringing domain experts into the AI development loop. In this paper, we introduce ChatReport, a novel LLM-based system to automate the analysis of corporate sustainability reports, addressing existing challenges by (1) making the answers traceable to reduce the harm of hallucination and (2) actively involving domain experts in the development loop. We make our methodology, annotated datasets, and generated analyses of 1015 reports publicly available. Video Introduction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5AzaKzPE4M Github: https://github.com/EdisonNi-hku/chatreport Live web app: reports.chatclimate.ai

Multi-task learning (MTL) aims at achieving a better model by leveraging data and knowledge from multiple tasks. However, MTL does not always work – sometimes negative transfer occurs between tasks, especially when aggregating loosely related skills, leaving it an open question when MTL works. Previous studies show that MTL performance can be improved by algorithmic tricks. However, what tasks and skills should be included is less well explored. In this work, we conduct a case study in Financial NLP where multiple datasets exist for skills relevant to the domain, such as numeric reasoning and sentiment analysis. Due to the task difficulty and data scarcity in the Financial NLP domain, we explore when aggregating such diverse skills from multiple datasets with MTL can work. Our findings suggest that the key to MTL success lies in skill diversity, relatedness between tasks, and choice of aggregation size and shared capacity. Specifically, MTL works well when tasks are diverse but related, and when the size of the task aggregation and the shared capacity of the model are balanced to avoid overwhelming certain tasks.

Human-translated text displays distinct features from naturally written text in the same language. This phenomena, known as translationese, has been argued to confound the machine translation (MT) evaluation. Yet, we find that existing work on translationese neglects some important factors and the conclusions are mostly correlational but not causal. In this work, we collect CausalMT, a dataset where the MT training data are also labeled with the human translation directions. We inspect two critical factors, the train-test direction match (whether the human translation directions in the training and test sets are aligned), and data-model direction match (whether the model learns in the same direction as the human translation direction in the dataset). We show that these two factors have a large causal effect on the MT performance, in addition to the test-model direction mismatch highlighted by existing work on the impact of translationese. In light of our findings, we provide a set of suggestions for MT training and evaluation. Our code and data are at https://github.com/EdisonNi-hku/CausalMT

The principle of independent causal mechanisms (ICM) states that generative processes of real world data consist of independent modules which do not influence or inform each other. While this idea has led to fruitful developments in the field of causal inference, it is not widely-known in the NLP community. In this work, we argue that the causal direction of the data collection process bears nontrivial implications that can explain a number of published NLP findings, such as differences in semi-supervised learning (SSL) and domain adaptation (DA) performance across different settings. We categorize common NLP tasks according to their causal direction and empirically assay the validity of the ICM principle for text data using minimum description length. We conduct an extensive meta-analysis of over 100 published SSL and 30 DA studies, and find that the results are consistent with our expectations based on causal insights. This work presents the first attempt to analyze the ICM principle in NLP, and provides constructive suggestions for future modeling choices.