Translationese refers to linguistic properties that usually occur in translated texts. Previous works study translationese by framing it as a binary classification between original texts and translated texts. In this paper, we argue that translationese should be graded instead of binary and propose the first measure for translationese—the translationese-index (T-index), computed from the likelihood ratios of two contrastively fine-tuned language models (LMs). We use synthesized translations and translations in the wild to evaluate T-index’s generalizability in cross-domain settings and its validity against human judgments.Our results show that T-index can generalize to unseen genres, authors, and language pairs. Moreover, T-index computed using two 0.5B LMs fine-tuned on only 1-5k pairs of synthetic data can effectively capture translationese, as demonstrated by alignment with human pointwise ratings and pairwise judgments.Additionally, the correlation between T-index and existing machine translation (MT) quality estimation (QE) metrics such as BLEU and COMET is low, suggesting that T-index is not covered by these metrics andcan serve as a complementary metric in MT QE.

Mental health issues are worsening in today’s competitive society, such as depression and anxiety. Traditional healings like counseling and chatbots fail to engage effectively, they often provide generic responses lacking emotional depth. Although large language models (LLMs) have the potential to create more human-like interactions, they still struggle to capture subtle emotions. This requires LLMs to be equipped with human-like adaptability and warmth. To fill this gap, we propose the MIND (Multi-agent INner Dialogue), a novel paradigm that provides more immersive psychological healing environments. Considering the strong generative and role-playing ability of LLM agents, we predefine an interactive healing framework and assign LLM agents different roles within the framework to engage in interactive inner dialogues with users, thereby providing an immersive healing experience. We conduct extensive human experiments in various real-world healing dimensions, and find that MIND provides a more user-friendly experience than traditional paradigms. This demonstrates that MIND effectively leverages the significant potential of LLMs in psychological healing.

Neural-symbolic methods have demonstrated efficiency in enhancing the reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs). However, existing methods mainly rely on syntactically mapping natural languages to complete formal languages like Python and SQL. Those methods require that reasoning tasks be convertible into programs, which cater to the computer execution mindset and deviate from human reasoning habits. To broaden symbolic methods’ applicability and adaptability in the real world, we propose Meta-Reasoning from a linguistic perspective. This method empowers LLMs to deconstruct reasoning-independent semantic information into generic symbolic representations, thereby efficiently capturing more generalized reasoning knowledge. We conduct extensive experiments on more than ten datasets encompassing conventional reasoning tasks like arithmetic, symbolic, and logical reasoning, and the more complex interactive reasoning tasks like theory-of-mind reasoning. Experimental results demonstrate that Meta-Reasoning significantly enhances in-context reasoning accuracy, learning efficiency, out-of-domain generalization, and output stability compared to the Chain-of-Thought technique.

Large language models (LLMs) have exhibited great potential in autonomously completing tasks across real-world applications. Despite this, these LLM agents introduce unexpected safety risks when operating in interactive environments. Instead of centering on the harmlessness of LLM-generated content in most prior studies, this work addresses the imperative need for benchmarking the behavioral safety of LLM agents within diverse environments. We introduce R-Judge, a benchmark crafted to evaluate the proficiency of LLMs in judging and identifying safety risks given agent interaction records. R-Judge comprises 569 records of multi-turn agent interaction, encompassing 27 key risk scenarios among 5 application categories and 10 risk types. It is of high-quality curation with annotated safety labels and risk descriptions. Evaluation of 11 LLMs on R-Judge shows considerable room for enhancing the risk awareness of LLMs: The best-performing model, GPT-4o, achieves 74.42% while no other models significantly exceed the random. Moreover, we reveal that risk awareness in open agent scenarios is a multi-dimensional capability involving knowledge and reasoning, thus challenging for LLMs. With further experiments, we find that fine-tuning on safety judgment significantly improve model performance while straightforward prompting mechanisms fail. R-Judge is publicly available at Annoymous.

Text summarization tasks commonly employ Pre-trained Language Models (PLMs) to fit diverse standard datasets. While these PLMs excel in automatic evaluations, they frequently underperform in human evaluations, indicating a deviation between their generated summaries and human summarization preferences. This discrepancy is likely due to the low quality of fine-tuning datasets and the limited availability of high-quality human-annotated data that reflect true human preference. To address this challenge, we introduce a novel human summarization preference alignment framework AlignSum. This framework consists of three parts: Firstly, we construct a Data Pymarid with extractive, abstractive, and human-annotated summary data. Secondly, we conduct the Gaussian Resampling to remove summaries with extreme lengths. Finally, we implement the two-stage hierarchical fine-tuning with Data Pymarid after Gaussian Resampling. We apply AlignSum to PLMs on the human-annotated CNN/DailyMail and BBC XSum datasets. Experiments show that with AlignSum, PLMs like BART-Large surpass 175B GPT-3 in both automatic and human evaluations. This demonstrates that AlignSum significantly enhances the alignment of language models with human summarization preferences.

Automatic summarization generates concise summaries that contain key ideas of source documents. As the most mainstream datasets for the news sub-domain, CNN/DailyMail and BBC XSum have been widely used for performance benchmarking. However, the reference summaries of those datasets turn out to be noisy, mainly in terms of factual hallucination and information redundancy. To address this challenge, we first annotate new expert-writing Element-aware test sets following the “Lasswell Communication Model” proposed by Lasswell, allowing reference summaries to focus on more fine-grained news elements objectively and comprehensively. Utilizing the new test sets, we observe the surprising zero-shot summary ability of LLMs, which addresses the issue of the inconsistent results between human preference and automatic evaluation metrics of LLMs’ zero-shot summaries in prior work. Further, we propose a Summary Chain-of-Thought (SumCoT) technique to elicit LLMs to generate summaries step by step, which helps them integrate more fine-grained details of source documents into the final summaries that correlate with the human writing mindset. Experimental results show our method outperforms state-of-the-art fine-tuned PLMs and zero-shot LLMs by +4.33/+4.77 in ROUGE-L on the two datasets, respectively. Dataset and code are publicly available at https://github.com/Alsace08/SumCoT.