Figurative language (e.g., irony, hyperbole, understatement) is ubiquitous in human communication, resulting in utterances where the literal and the intended meanings do not match. The Rational Speech Act (RSA) framework, which explicitly models speaker intentions, is the most widespread theory of probabilistic pragmatics, but existing implementations are either unable to account for figurative expressions or require modeling the implicit motivations for using figurative language (e.g., to express joy or annoyance) in a setting-specific way. In this paper, we introduce the Rhetorical-Strategy-Aware RSA (RSA)² framework which models figurative language use by considering a speaker’s employed rhetorical strategy. We show that (RSA)² enables human-compatible interpretations of non-literal utterances without modeling a speaker’s motivations for being non-literal. Combined with LLMs, it achieves state-of-the-art performance on the ironic split of PragMega+, a new irony interpretation dataset introduced in this study.

The widespread success of LLMs on NLP benchmarks has been accompanied by concerns that LLMs function primarily as stochastic parrots that reproduce texts similar to what they saw during pre-training, often erroneously. But what is the nature of their errors, and do these errors exhibit any regularities? In this work, we examine irrelevant context hallucinations, in which models integrate misleading contextual cues into their predictions. Through behavioral analysis, we show that these errors result from a structured yet flawed mechanism that we term _class-based (mis)generalization_, in which models combine abstract class cues with features extracted from the query or context to derive answers. Furthermore, mechanistic interpretability experiments on Llama-3, Mistral, and Pythia across 39 factual recall relation types reveal that this behavior is reflected in the model’s internal computations: (i) abstract class representations are constructed in lower layers before being refined into specific answers in higher layers, (ii) feature selection is governed by two competing circuits — one prioritizing direct query-based reasoning, the other incorporating contextual cues — whose relative influences determine the final output. Our findings provide a more nuanced perspective on the stochastic parrot argument: through form-based training, LLMs can exhibit generalization leveraging abstractions, albeit in unreliable ways based on contextual cues — what we term _stochastic chameleons_.

Well-calibrated model confidence scores can improve the usefulness of text generation models. For example, users can be prompted to review predictions with low confidence scores, to prevent models from returning bad or potentially dangerous predictions. However, confidence metrics are not always well calibrated in text generation. One reason is that in generation, there can be many valid answers, which previous methods do not always account for. Hence, a confident model could assign probability to many sequences because they are all valid, and not because it is unsure about how to perform the task. We propose task-agnostic confidence metrics suited to generation, which rely solely on model probabilities without the need for further fine-tuning or heuristics. Using these, we are able to improve the calibration of BART and Flan-T5 on summarization, translation, and question answering datasets.

Active learning (AL) aims to reduce annotation effort by iteratively selecting the most informative samples for labeling. The dominant strategy in AL involves fully finetuning the model on all acquired data after each round, which is computationally expensive in multilingual and low-resource settings. This paper investigates continual finetuning (CF), an alternative update strategy where the model is updated only on newly acquired samples at each round. We evaluate CF against full finetuning (FA) across 28 African languages using MasakhaNEWS and SIB-200. Our analysis reveals three key findings. First, CF matches or outperforms FA for languages included in the model’s pretraining, achieving up to 35% reductions in GPU memory, FLOPs, and training time. Second, CF performs comparably even for languages not seen during pretraining when they are typologically similar to those that were. Third, CF’s effectiveness depends critically on uncertainty-based acquisition; without it, performance deteriorates significantly. While FA remains preferable for some low-resource languages, the overall results establish CF as a robust, cost-efficient alternative for active learning in multilingual NLP. These findings motivate developing hybrid AL strategies that adapt fine-tuning behavior based on pretraining coverage, language typology, and acquisition dynamics.

Final-answer-based metrics are commonly used for evaluating large language models (LLMs) on math word problems, often taken as proxies for reasoning ability. However, such metrics conflate two distinct sub-skills: abstract formulation (capturing mathematical relationships using expressions) and arithmetic computation (executing the calculations). Through a disentangled evaluation on GSM8K and SVAMP, we find that the final-answer accuracy of Llama-3 and Qwen2.5 (1B-32B) without CoT is overwhelmingly bottlenecked by the arithmetic computation step and not by the abstract formulation step. Contrary to the common belief, we show that CoT primarily aids in computation, with limited impact on abstract formulation. Mechanistically, we show that these two skills are composed conjunctively even in a single forward pass without any reasoning steps via an abstract-then-compute mechanism: models first capture problem abstractions, then handle computation. Causal patching confirms these abstractions are present, transferable, composable, and precede computation. These behavioural and mechanistic findings highlight the need for disentangled evaluation to accurately assess LLM reasoning and to guide future improvements.

As AI systems take on collaborative roles, they must reason about shared goals and beliefs—not just generate fluent language. The Rational Speech Act (RSA) framework offers a principled approach to pragmatic reasoning, but existing extensions face challenges in scaling to multi-turn, collaborative scenarios. In this paper, we introduce Collaborative Rational Speech Act (CRSA), an information-theoretic (IT) extension of RSA that models multi-turn dialog by optimizing a gain function adapted from rate-distortion theory. This gain is an extension of the gain model that is maximized in the original RSA model but takes into account the scenario in which both agents in a conversation have private information and produce utterances conditioned on the dialog. We demonstrate the effectiveness of CRSA on referential games and template-based doctor–patient dialogs in the medical domain. Empirical results show that CRSA yields more consistent, interpretable, and collaborative behavior than existing baselines—paving the way for more pragmatic and socially aware language agents.

Despite recent advancements in automatic summarization, state-of-the-art models do not summarize all documents equally well, raising the question: why? While prior research has extensively analyzed summarization models, little attention has been given to the role of document characteristics in influencing summarization performance.In this work, we explore two key research questions. First, do documents exhibit consistent summarization quality across multiple systems? If so, can we predict a document’s summarization performance without generating a summary? We answer both questions affirmatively and introduce PreSumm, a novel task in which a system predicts summarization performance based solely on the source document. Our analysis sheds light on common properties of documents with low PreSumm scores, revealing that they often suffer from coherence issues, complex content, or a lack of a clear main theme.In addition, we demonstrate PreSumm’s practical utility in two key applications: improving hybrid summarization workflows by identifying documents that require manual summarization and enhancing dataset quality by filtering outliers and noisy documents.Overall, our findings highlight the critical role of document properties in summarization performance and offer insights into the limitations of current systems that could serve as the basis for future improvements.

Attribution is the process of identifying which parts of the source support a generated output. While attribution can help users verify content and assess faithfulness, existing task definitions typically exclude unsupported or hallucinated content leaving them unattributed, overlooking the potential to increase faithfulness certainty, locate the error, and fix it easier.In this paper, we propose a new definition for sentence-level error-tolerant attribution, which extends attribution to include incorrect or hallucinated content. We introduce a benchmark for this task and evaluate a range of models on it. Our results show that sentence-level error-tolerant attribution improves the quality of both automatic and manual faithfulness evaluations, reducing annotation time by 30% in long-document settings, and facilitates hallucination fixing. We also find that unfaithful outputs are often linked to sentences that appear later in the source or contain non-literal language, pointing to promising avenues for hallucination mitigation. Our approach offers a better user experience along with improved faithfulness evaluation, with better understanding of model behavior.

In an effort to mitigate the harms of large language models (LLMs), learning from human feedback (LHF) has been used to steer LLMs towards outputs that are intended to be both less harmful and more helpful. Despite the widespread adoption of LHF in practice, the quality of this feedback and its effectiveness as a safety mitigation technique remain unclear. This study addresses these issues by auditing the widely-used Helpful and Harmless (HH) dataset by Anthropic. Our work includes: (1) a thorough investigation of the dataset’s content through both manual and automated evaluation; (2) experiments demonstrating the dataset’s impact on models’ safety; and (3) an analysis of the 100 most influential papers citing this dataset. Through our audit, we showcase how conceptualization failures and quality issues identified in the HH dataset can create additional harms by leading to disparate safety behaviors across demographic groups. Our findings highlight the need for more nuanced, context-sensitive approaches to safety mitigation in LLMs.

While there have been many studies analyzing the ability of LLMs to solve problems through reasoning, their application of reasoning in summarization remains largely unexamined. This study explores whether reasoning is essential to summarization by investigating three questions: (1) Do humans frequently use reasoning to generate new summary content? (2) Do summarization models exhibit the same reasoning patterns as humans? (3) Should summarization models integrate more complex reasoning abilities? Our findings reveal that while human summaries often contain reasoning-based information, system-generated summaries rarely contain this same information. This suggests that models struggle to effectively apply reasoning, even when it could improve summary quality. We advocate for the development of models that incorporate deeper reasoning and abstractiveness, and we release our annotated data to support future research.

Challenge sets such as the Winograd Schema Challenge (WSC) are used to benchmark systems’ ability to resolve ambiguities in natural language. If one assumes as in existing work that solving a given challenge set is at least as difficult as solving some more general task, then high performance on the challenge set should indicate high performance on the general task overall. However, we show empirically that this assumption of difficulty does not always hold. In particular, we demonstrate that despite the strong performance of prompted language models (LMs) on the WSC and its variants, these same modeling techniques perform relatively poorly at resolving certain pronominal ambiguities attested in OntoNotes and related datasets that are perceived to be easier. Motivated by these findings, we propose a method for ensembling a prompted LM with a supervised, task-specific system that is overall more accurate at resolving pronominal coreference across datasets. Finally, we emphasize that datasets involving the same linguistic phenomenon draw on distinct, but overlapping, capabilities, and evaluating on any one dataset alone does not provide a complete picture of a system’s overall capability.

Long sequence modeling has gained broad interest as large language models (LLMs) continue to advance. Recent research has identified that a large portion of hidden states within the key-value caches of Transformer models can be discarded (also termed evicted) withoutaffecting the perplexity performance in generating long sequences. However, we show that these methods, despite preserving perplexity performance, often drop information that is important for solving downstream tasks, a problem which we call information neglect. To address this issue, we introduce Chunked Instruction-aware State Eviction (CItruS), a novel modeling technique that integrates the attention preferences useful for a downstream task into the eviction process of hidden states. In addition, we design a method for chunked sequence processing to further improve efficiency. Our training-free method exhibits superior performance on long sequence comprehension and retrieval tasks over several strong baselines under the same memory budget, while preserving language modeling perplexity. The code and data have been released at https://github.com/ybai-nlp/CItruS.

State-of-the-art language models (LMs) sometimes generate that misalign with world knowledge. To explore the mechanistic causes of these hallucinations, we create diagnostic datasets with subject-relation queries and adapt interpretability methods to trace hallucinations through internal model representations. We discover two general and distinct mechanistic causes of hallucinations shared across LMs (Llama-2, Pythia, GPT-J): 1) : insufficient subject attribute knowledge in lower layer MLPs, and 2) : failure to select the correct object attribute in upper layer attention heads. We also found these two internal mechanistic causes of hallucinations are reflected in external manifestations. Based on insights from our mechanistic analysis, we propose a novel hallucination mitigation method through targeted restoration of the LM’s internal fact recall pipeline, demonstrating superior performance compared to baselines.

Constituents are groups of words that behave as a syntactic unit. Many linguistic phenomena (e.g., question formation, diathesis alternations) require the manipulation and rearrangement of constituents in a sentence. In this paper, we investigate how different finetuning setups affect the ability of pretrained sequence-to-sequence language models such as BART and T5 to replicate constituency tests — transformations that involve manipulating constituents in a sentence. We design multiple evaluation settings by varying the combinations of constituency tests and sentence types that a model is exposed to during finetuning. We show that models can replicate a linguistic transformation on a specific type of sentence that they saw during finetuning, but performance degrades substantially in other settings, showing a lack of systematic generalization. These results suggest that models often learn to manipulate sentences at a surface level unrelated to the constituent-level syntactic structure, for example by copying the first word of a sentence. These results may partially explain the brittleness of pretrained language models in downstream tasks.