EXPLORE THE ARCHIVE

Language models

Explore arXiv papers about language models. Read abstracts, discover authors and related research, and follow the original paper for methods, results, and the latest version.

895 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

arXiv2026

Can Large Language Models Identify Meaningful Touchpoints in Conversion Attribution?

Touchpoint selection in conversion attribution, namely identifying meaningful touchpoints contributing to conversions, is essential for e-commerce recommendation and online advertising. Current selection methods rely heavily on collaborative-filtering-based heuristics, which fail to align with user-perceived semantic intent. Through human annotation, we reveal a significant semantic gap: many implicitly-related, semantically relevant touchpoints remain undetected by existing rules. Therefore, we systematically evaluate the capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) in identifying these hidden associations. Our evaluation shows that while LLMs effectively uncover a substantial portion of implicitly-related touchpoints, significant room for improvement remains in their selection performance. Furthermore, we analyze the impact of different prompting strategies and foundation model choices on identification performance, providing valuable insights into their reasoning patterns and effectiveness. These insights offer a new roadmap for transitioning conversion attribution from mechanical rule-matching to human-aligned semantic reasoning. Moreover, we leverage the LLM-attributed conversion labels for enhancing industrial CVR model training and achieve significant offline performance gains, showing the potential of LLMs in conversion attribution.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

CNeo-Bench: Diagnosing Large Language Models on Chinese Neologisms

Chinese neologisms exploit diverse and unique linguistic mechanisms, such as phonetic substitution (e.g., 886 for ``bye-bye'') and visual character decomposition that are rare in other languages. We introduce CNeo-Bench, a benchmark of 4,759 such neologisms with reference definitions, organized into five top-level categories and nine subcategories by the linguistic mechanism behind each expression. CNeo-Bench is paired with a two-tier evaluation framework that separates whether a model can describe a neologism from whether it can operate on its underlying mechanism. Evaluating 18 LLMs, we find that Chinese neologisms remain an open challenge; most models fall below 40\% on definition generation, and on several subcategories a systematic recognition-manipulation gap emerges: models describe neologisms correctly but, in source-form restoration tasks, substitute a semantic equivalent (paraphrase) for the source form rather than producing the source form itself. A few-shot analysis on 1,058 hard items shows that in-context examples can solve many difficult cases, but leave a noticeable portion of errors remaining, indicating challenges beyond prompting alone can address.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Surgical Alignment in Knowledge Graph Training for Clinical Diagnosis with Large Language Models

Biomedical knowledge graphs (KGs) offer structured medical knowledge that can ground large language model (LLM) reasoning in clinical diagnosis application, yet how KG signal should be integrated into LLMs remains an open question. We present a systematic study spanning five KG task formulations, three training paradigms, two KGs, and three base LLMs. At the task level, all paradigms improve over the non-finetuned baseline, but methods with comparable in-domain accuracy show substantially different knowledge transfer behavior. We introduce Gradient Intervention Density (GID) and Gradient Distortion (GD) to measure how broadly an optimizer modifies the pretrained model. GID and GD together reveal a clear divide: KG-judgment training under KL regularization produces sparse, localized updates (a regime we term as surgical alignment), while task-specific SFT produces dense ones. A controlled ablation shows that the objective and KL contribute to sparsity independently, and the paradigms that produce sparse updates also improve reasoning quality, even when their in-domain accuracy is lower than task-specific SFT. Assessing KG-LLM integration thus requires complementing accuracy with optimization-geometry diagnostics. Our implementation can be found at https://github.com/LARK-NLP-Lab/Surgical-Alignment.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

MUSE: A Run-Centric Platform for Multimodal Unified Safety Evaluation of Large Language Models

Safety evaluation of multimodal large language models requires tracking not only whether an attack succeeds, but also how the interaction unfolds across turns and input modalities. We present MUSE (Multimodal Unified Safety Evaluation), an open-source, browser-based, run-centric platform for multimodal safety evaluation. MUSE treats each attack run as the persistent unit of execution, inspection, and analysis, preserving its configuration, multi-turn trajectory, delivered modalities and media, target responses, and safety judgments. A five-level response taxonomy further distinguishes full Compliance from Partial Compliance and refusal behavior, yielding hard ASR, soft ASR, and gray-zone width (GZW). Across 11,700 evaluations on six multimodal LLMs, direct text-only requests yield only 3.1% macro hard ASR and 4.4% soft ASR, while iterative attack procedures are substantially more effective. Attack effectiveness also varies substantially with the attacker backbone. In contrast, Inter-Turn Modality Switching (ITMS), evaluated as a controlled delivery-modality probe, does not consistently increase attack success. These results demonstrate the value of run-centric, fine-grained evaluation for characterizing multimodal safety behavior beyond a single binary success metric.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Large Language Models Systematically Favor Popular Options: Evidence and Mitigation Across MCQs

Multiple-choice questions (MCQs) are a standard format for evaluating large language models (LLMs), yet the popularity of answer options can confound evaluation. Modern LLMs systematically prefer popular but incorrect options over less popular correct ones, a vulnerability we call \textbf{popularity bias}. This pattern aligns with confidence miscalibration: model confidence remains high even as accuracy collapses for popular options. To systematically isolate this phenomenon, we introduce \textbf{PopMCQ}, a benchmark with six controlled strategies that vary option popularity while keeping the correct answer fixed. In our most adversarial setting, where all distractors are more popular than the correct option, models choose popular but wrong answers 66\% of the time. To mitigate this bias, we propose \textbf{PopDebias}, a lightweight inference-time correction that estimates and removes a popularity prior from model predictions. It requires no fine-tuning, is label-free at test time (using only a small calibration split for parameter fitting), and adds negligible computational cost. Experiments on 22 open-source LLMs (0.5B to 32B parameters) show consistent improvements, with accuracy gains up to 54.1 percentage points under strong popularity pressure. The code and data are available https://github.com/DataScienceUIBK/PopMCQ

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Quantifying and Mitigating Korean Jamo-Level Typographical Vulnerabilities in Large Language Models

Korean introduces an additional typographical perturbation level not captured by ordinary character-level edit models: because syllable blocks are internally composed of sub-character units called jamo, keyboard-level errors can occur within a syllable, either producing a valid but semantically altered character or exposing raw jamo on the surface. Both outcomes disrupt sub-word tokenization and are not reliably corrected by existing grammatical error correction pipelines, leaving LLMs directly exposed to corrupted inputs. To quantify this vulnerability, we apply five jamo-level perturbation types to the KMMLU benchmark and evaluate four language models, finding that accuracy declines monotonically with perturbation intensity and that parameter scaling does not confer robustness against intra-syllabic noise. We further show that typo-corrupted inputs induce a distinct shift in internal representations that is not reducible to ordinary answer incorrectness, and that a simple linear probe trained on these representations detects unseen perturbation types with high AUROC. Motivated by this signal, we propose Typo-Aware Chain-of-Thought (TACoT), which routes inputs to chain-of-thought inference only when the probe detects a likely typo, recovering a substantial portion of the CoT accuracy gain at a fraction of the inference cost.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Pruning Laws for Large Language Models

Scaling up model parameters and training data consistently improves the performance of large language models (LLMs), but at the cost of rapidly growing memory and compute requirements, which makes deployment on resource-limited hardware infeasible. Model pruning, a widely used compression technique, reduces inference costs by removing redundant parameters. However, its impact on downstream performance remains unpredictable and is typically assessed only through costly empirical sweeps. To address this gap, we introduce pruning laws, simple and interpretable scaling relations that connect a pruned LLM's post-pruning performance to its unpruned performance and pruning ratio. Across ten LLMs (1.3B-30B parameters), a 20B mixture-of-experts model, three pruning strategies (unstructured, width, and depth), and eight diverse tasks, we show that pruning laws achieve strong predictive accuracy (average extrapolation error less than 7%), reliably quantify performance degradation, and identify critical pruning thresholds beyond which recovery is infeasible. Moreover, we demonstrate that the functional form transfers across dense and mixture-of-experts architectures, pruning methods, and unseen models in zero-shot and one-shot setups, with task- and method-specific coefficients that vary in interpretable ways. These results provide both researchers and practitioners with a principled framework to select pruning strategies, estimate safe pruning ratios without exhaustive tuning, and deploy LLMs efficiently under real-world compute and latency constraints.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Detecting Hidden Chain-of-Thought in Large Language Models with Linguistic, Behavioral, and Mechanistic Indicators

Large language models often answer complex reasoning questions without revealing intermediate steps, raising whether they reason latently or complete patterns. We propose the Hidden CoT Detection Score (HCDS), a comparative behavioral and mechanistic signal measuring whether neutral-prompt behavior aligns more closely with explicit CoT or explicit no- CoT. Here, hidden CoT operationally denotes this neutral-prompt CoT-like alignment; HCDS does not directly observe or prove an unexposed reasoning trace. On GSM8K, HCDS is significantly positive for both Qwen3-4B variants (Thinking $+1.87$, $p = 1.2 \times 10^{-7}$; Instruct $+1.41$, $p = 1.9 \times 10^{-4}$), replicates across a different inference stack and quantization within $0.08$ ($+1.80$ and $+1.45$), and is not significantly positive in seven of eight length-adjusted calibration-control cells. The unadjusted score produces large positive scores on single-step arithmetic and numeric factual lookup. The variants also respond differently to no-CoT instructions: Instruct complies from the prompt alone, whereas Thinking continues reasoning and requires intervention. These findings show stronger, less prompt-conditional CoT-like behavior in the reasoning-tuned model, consistent with but not proof of latent reasoning. HCDS thus investigates latent reasoning without relying on models' self-reported traces.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Do Large Language Models Possess a Theory of Mind? A Comparative Evaluation Using the Strange Stories Paradigm

The study explores whether current Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit Theory of Mind (ToM) capabilities -- specifically, the ability to infer others' beliefs, intentions, and emotions from text. Given that LLMs are trained on language data without social embodiment or access to other manifestations of mental representations, their apparent social-cognitive reasoning raises key questions about the nature of their understanding. Are they capable of robust mental-state attribution indistinguishable from human ability in its output, or do their outputs merely reflect superficial pattern completion? To address this question, we tested five LLMs and compared their performance to that of human controls using an adapted version of a text-based tool widely used in human ToM research. The test involves answering questions about the beliefs, intentions, and emotions of story characters. The results revealed a performance gap between the models. Earlier and smaller models were strongly affected by the number of relevant inferential cues available and, to some extent, were also vulnerable to the presence of irrelevant or distracting information in the texts. In contrast, GPT-4o demonstrated high accuracy and strong robustness, performing comparably to humans even in the most challenging conditions. This work contributes to ongoing debates about the cognitive status of LLMs and the boundary between genuine understanding and statistical approximation.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Do large language models scrutinise what they review? A multimodal audit of scoring calibration, error detection, and author-identity effects

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate peer reviews, prompting examination of their capacity for critical evaluation. This study evaluates two multimodal LLMs, Qwen2.5-VL-72B and Pixtral-Large-124B, as reviewers across 165 submissions to the 2026 International Conference on Learning Representations, a venue that postdates both models' training cutoffs. Manuscripts were presented to both models with author identities blinded, replaced with high-prestige affiliations, or replaced with low-prestige affiliations, and in either text-only or text-with-figure format. Additionally, 145 verifiably detectable errors were inserted into 55 manuscripts to assess error identification under natural and verification-oriented prompts. Across all manuscript groups, including rejected submissions, LLM scores ranged from 7.0 to 8.1, whereas human mean scores ranged from 3.4 to 6.8. The models detected 12.1\% of the verified errors under natural prompting, and a one-sentence verification instruction increased detection to 22.2\%; however, 78\% of the errors remained undetected. Providing figures reduced error detection while increasing review scores. No visual error was reliably verified against its corresponding figure, and half of the text-only reviews described figures that were not provided. Author identity did not influence either review scores or error detection. LLM editorial decisions exactly matched those produced by simple score averaging.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Cross-lingual Functional Vectors for Emotion Detection in Large Language Models

Function vectors (FVs) have recently emerged as a promising mechanism for steering the behavior of large language models (LLMs) by injecting task-specific latent direction representations derived from in-context demonstrations. While prior studies have shown that FVs can recover task behavior in structured in-context learning settings, their effectiveness on semantically complex tasks and their ability to generalize across languages remain underexplored. We investigate the cross-lingual transferability of FVs using multilingual multi-label emotion recognition as a challenging semantic classification benchmark. Specifically, we examine whether FVs extracted from a source language can steer task behavior in another language under both standard clean and perturbed zero-shot settings without providing demonstrations during inference. Across diverse cross-lingual settings, applying FVs substantially improves performance, suggesting that FVs capture language-agnostic, task-relevant signals rather than purely language-specific lexical patterns, and highlighting their potential as a lightweight and transferable mechanism for multilingual task adaptation. We observe that each LLM exhibits a relatively stable optimal range of attention heads for constructing effective FVs, and the pattern remains consistent across languages. In addition, FVs can partially replicate the task-steering effects of standard few-shot in-context learning while avoiding the computational overhead of processing multiple demonstrations, making them effective for large-scale practical applications. Our code is available at https://github.com/yingjie7/cross_lingual_fvs.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Standardizing Longitudinal Radiology Report Evaluation via Large Language Model Annotation

Longitudinal information in radiology reports refers to the sequential tracking of findings across multiple examinations over time, which is crucial for monitoring disease progression and guiding clinical decisions. Many recent automated radiology report generation methods are designed to capture longitudinal information; however, validating their performance is challenging. There is no proper tool to consistently label temporal changes in both ground-truth and model-generated texts for meaningful comparisons. Large language models (LLMs) offer a promising annotation alternative, as they are capable of capturing nuanced linguistic patterns and semantic similarities without extensive manual intervention. They also adapt well to new contexts. In this study, we therefore propose an LLM-based pipeline to automatically annotate longitudinal information in radiology reports. The pipeline first identifies sentences containing relevant information and then extracts the progression of diseases. We evaluate and compare five mainstream LLMs on these two tasks using 500 manually annotated reports. Considering both efficiency and performance, Qwen2.5-32B was subsequently selected and used to annotate another 95,169 reports from the public MIMIC-CXR dataset. Our Qwen2.5-32B-annotated dataset provided us with a standardized benchmark for evaluating report generation models. Using this new benchmark, we assessed seven state-of-the-art report generation models. Our LLM-based annotation method outperforms existing annotation solutions, achieving 11.3\% and 5.3\% higher F1-scores for longitudinal information detection and disease tracking, respectively. The source code is available at https://github.com/wxinyi1996/Standardizing-Longitudinal-Chest-X-ray-Report-Evaluation-via-Large-Language-Model-Annotation.git.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Benchmarking large language model agent societies against human behavioural distributions

Populations of large language model agents are increasingly used as experimental societies. Three doubts shadow every such result: whether the agents behave like the humans they stand in for, whether a finding survives changes to the apparatus that leave the rules untouched, and whether apparent social dynamics are interaction at all rather than the reproduction of experiments the models have read. This article introduces SILICA, an open instrument that tests all three. Five environments carry published human anchors, each paired with perturbations that re-render the same rules and with variants whose payoffs point away from the memorised result. Twelve open-weight models were run through it on a single consumer graphics card. Agreement with human data is confined to starting points: first-round public-goods contributions fall inside the equivalence margin for eight of eleven models, while no model matches end-state contributions or the human corridor of cooperation. Merely swapping the order in which two actions are listed costs one model 58 points of cooperation. Presenting responders with a fixed schedule of offers shows that only one model, the sole reasoning-trained one, places its acceptance threshold where the incentive requires; two move theirs part of the way, two move them the wrong way, and three never acquire one. Conventions form through a shared prior over the names rather than through negotiation, though negotiation reappears once that prior is disrupted. On the certification ladder defined here, current silicon societies support exploratory claims and no more.

physics.soc-ph↗

arXiv2026

SMRC: Aligning Large Language Models with Student Reasoning for Mathematical Error Correction

Large language models (LLMs) often make reasoning errors when solving mathematical problems, and how to automatically detect and correct these errors has become an important research direction. However, existing approaches \textit{mainly focus on self-correction within the model}, which falls short of the "teacher-style" correction required in educational settings, \textit{i.e.}, systematically guiding and revising a student' s problem-solving process. To address this gap, we propose \texttt{SMRC} (\textit{\underline{S}tudent \underline{M}athematical \underline{R}easoning \underline{C}orrection}), a novel method that aligns LLMs with student reasoning. Specifically, \texttt{SMRC} formulates student reasoning as a multi-step sequential decision problem and introduces Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) to explore optimal correction paths. To reduce the cost of the annotating process-level rewards, we leverage breadth-first search (BFS) guided by LLMs and final-answer evaluation to generate reward signals, which are then distributed across intermediate reasoning steps via a back-propagation mechanism, enabling fine-grained process supervision. Additionally, we construct a benchmark for high school mathematics, MSEB (Multi-Solution Error Benchmark), consisting of 158 instances that include problem statements, student solutions, and correct reasoning steps. We further propose a dual evaluation protocol centered on \textbf{solution accuracy} and \textbf{correct-step retention}, offering a comprehensive measure of educational applicability. Experiments demonstrate that \texttt{SMRC} significantly outperforms existing methods on two public datasets (ProcessBench and MR-GSM8K) and our MSEB in terms of effectiveness and overall performance. The code are available at https://github.com/ECNU-RAIL/SMRC-EMNLP2026.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Beyond Fluency: A Rubric-Based Benchmark for Evaluating Saudi Dialect and Cultural Competence in Large Language Models

Large language models are increasingly deployed in Arabic-speaking markets, yet standard benchmarks overwhelmingly reward Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) fluency while leaving dialectal and culturally grounded competence unmeasured. This gap is consequential: everyday Arabic is largely dialectal, and dialect encodes social meaning that MSA-centric evaluation cannot capture. We present a rubric-based benchmark for the Saudi dialect, comprising 31 expert-authored prompts spanning idiomatic, pragmatic, lexical, and culturally-embedded phenomena, each paired with an expert-established ground truth. Our methodology separates evaluation into a model-agnostic phase, in which atomic, MECE positive criteria are derived solely from the ground truth, and a model-specific phase, in which four state-of-the-art systems -- Claude Opus 5, Gemini 3.7, GPT-5.6, and Kimi K3 -- are scored against those criteria and penalised for errors they actively introduce. Across 124 model-prompt evaluations we catalogue 466 error instances under a nine-category taxonomy. The four systems cluster within a narrow macro-average band (42.7%-53.1%), with no model exceeding 55% and every model recording at least one negative-scoring prompt, confirming that Saudi dialectal competence remains broadly unsolved. Notably, Ambiguous Framing is the dominant failure mode (37.3% of errors) while outright Hallucination accounts for only 11.2%, indicating that models fail less by stating falsehoods than by distorting register and flattening pragmatic nuance. We further observe a consistency-versus-ceiling trade-off and model-distinctive error signatures. We release the full prompt set, ground truths, and scored rubrics to support reproducible dialectal evaluation.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Scoring, Reasoning, and Selecting the Best! Ensembling Large Language Models via a Peer-Review Process

We propose LLM-PeerReview, an unsupervised LLM Ensemble method that selects the most ideal response from multiple LLM-generated candidates for each query, harnessing the collective wisdom of multiple models with diverse strengths. LLM-PeerReview is built on a novel, peer-review-inspired framework that offers a transparent and interpretable mechanism, while remaining fully unsupervised for flexible adaptability and generalization. Specifically, it operates in three stages: For scoring, we use the emerging LLM-as-a-Judge technique to evaluate each response by reusing multiple LLMs at hand; For reasoning, we can apply a straightforward averaging strategy or a principled graphical model-based truth inference algorithm to aggregate multiple scores to produce a final score for each response; Finally, the highest-scoring response is selected as the best ensemble output. LLM-PeerReview is conceptually simple and empirically powerful. Our results across four datasets show that the two variants of the proposed approach outperform the advanced model Smoothie-Global by 6.9% and 7.3% points, cross diverse task types including factual recall QA, math reasoning, and instruction following. Notably, we also establish a carefully curated benchmark suite for LLM Ensemble, integrating 12 methods across four classic datasets and three task families, all evaluated under a rigorous and consistent protocol. We hope this repository will help researchers reproduce the LLM Ensemble baselines.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Can MLLMs Critique Like Humans? Evaluating Open-Ended Aesthetic Reasoning in Multimodal Large Language Models

Open-ended aesthetic critique is a challenge for multimodal large language models (MLLMs): it has no single correct answer, and most aesthetic evaluation measures models against numeric scores rather than the written critiques people actually give. We ask whether MLLM critiques are close to human ones, scoring eight open-weight MLLMs from $7$B to $397$B, plus GPT-5.5, against multiple ranked human critiques for each of $1{,}227$ \texttt{r/photocritique} posts under eight prompt conditions. Reference-based similarity gives a misleading picture. In absolute terms the stricter lexical and learned metrics align only weakly with human critiques while a coarse embedding cosine reports broad topical overlap, yet requesting shorter critiques raises those scores and withholding the image barely changes them: the similarity reflects length, the post text, and a stable critiquing style more than image-specific observation. An LLM judge sharpens the question rather than settling it: in the primary condition all four judges prefer the frontier models' critiques to the human ones, but on the $7$--$8$B models they diverge wildly, from $9\%$ to $81\%$ preference on identical pairs. Asked instead how similar each pair is in substance, those judges and two human annotators agree, rating every model between $1.81$ and $2.59$ on a $1$--$5$ scale, close to ``mostly different''. Behaviorally, the models diverge in ways the scores do not surface: they cover nearly every aesthetic aspect where humans are selective and repeat themselves across critiques of one photo, even when prompted to write at human length. We argue that reference-based similarity rewards a fluent, comprehensive critique style rather than the selectivity and specificity of human critique.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

The Effect of Emotional Context on Large Language Models' Endorsement of Premature Decisions: Comparing Emotional Vulnerability Across Six Commercial Models

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for everyday decision-making advice, whether a model shifts the direction of its advice according to the user's emotional state has become an important safety problem. We test whether emotional expression increases a model's endorsement (encouragement to proceed) when a user, holding the same objective information, is overconfident about a premature decision (e.g., quitting a stable job on weak evidence). As a key control, we include a no-emotion multi-turn (neutral) condition that holds factual content and the number of conversational turns constant, isolating the effect of emotion from that of conversation length. We exposed six commercial models (top-tier and mid-tier models from OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google) to three scenarios (career change, business expansion, emigration) across three conditions (cold/neutral/distress) with six repetitions each, yielding 324 conversations, and measured endorsement strength (0-100) via an eight-item rubric-based automated scoring. Emotional expression significantly increased endorsement (neutral 18.6 to distress 31.5, +12.9 points; mixed-effects $β= +12.9$, $p < .001$; Cohen's d = 0.51), and this was not explained by conversation length (cold-neutral difference non-significant, $p = .083$). Critically, the vulnerability varied by individual model rather than by price tier: five of six models showed a significant emotion effect, including the top-tier flagships Gemini 3.1 Pro and GPT-5.5, while only Claude Opus showed no significant change. Results were reproduced with an independent non-Google judge model ($ρ= .89$) and agreed in rank with two human coders ($ρ= .70$). Through a controlled design that separates emotion from conversational context, we show that emotional context increases LLM sycophancy even in top-tier flagship models.

cs.CL↗