In recent years, multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have made significant progress but continue to face inherent challenges in multimodal reasoning, which requires multi-level (e.g., perception, reasoning) and multi-granular (e.g., multi-step reasoning chain) advanced inferencing. Prior work on estimating model confidence tends to focus on the overall response for training and calibration, but fails to assess confidence in each reasoning step, leading to undesirable hallucination snowballing. In this work, we present MMBoundary, a novel framework that advances the knowledge boundary awareness of MLLMs through reasoning step confidence calibration. To achieve this, we propose to incorporate complementary textual and cross-modal self-rewarding signals to estimate confidence at each step of the MLLM reasoning process. In addition to supervised fine-tuning MLLM on this set of self-rewarded confidence estimation signal for initial confidence expression warm-up, we introduce a reinforcement learning stage with multiple reward functions for further aligning model knowledge and calibrating confidence at each reasoning step, enhancing reasoning chain self-correction. Empirical results show that MMBoundary significantly outperforms existing methods across diverse domain datasets and metrics, achieving an average of 7.5% reduction in multimodal confidence calibration errors and up to 8.3% improvement in task performance.
Conventional bag-of-words approaches for topic modeling, like latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA), struggle with literary text. Literature challenges lexical methods because narrative language focuses on immersive sensory details instead of abstractive description or exposition: writers are advised to "show, don't tell." We propose Retell, a simple, accessible topic modeling approach for literature. Here, we prompt resource-efficient, generative language models (LMs) to tell what passages show, thereby translating narratives' surface forms into higher-level concepts and themes. By running LDA on LMs' retellings of passages, we can obtain more precise and informative topics than by running LDA alone or by directly asking LMs to list topics. To investigate the potential of our method for cultural analytics, we compare our method's outputs to expert-guided annotations in a case study on racial/cultural identity in high school English language arts books.
Document-level text generation tasks are known to be more difficult than sentence-level text generation tasks as they require the understanding of longer context to generate high-quality texts. In this paper, we investigate the adaption of Minimum Bayes Risk (MBR) decoding for document-level text generation tasks. MBR decoding makes use of a utility function to estimate the output with the highest expected utility from a set of candidate outputs. Although MBR decoding is shown to be effective in a wide range of sentence-level text generation tasks, its performance on document-level text generation tasks is limited as many of the utility functions are designed for evaluating the utility of sentences. To this end, we propose MBR-OT, a variant of MBR decoding using Wasserstein distance to compute the utility of a document using a sentence-level utility function. The experimental result shows that the performance of MBR-OT outperforms that of the standard MBR in document-level machine translation, text simplification, and dense image captioning tasks. Our code is available at https://github.com/jinnaiyuu/mbr-optimal-transport
With the increasing integration of visual and textual content in Social Networking Services (SNS), evaluating the multimodal capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) is crucial for enhancing user experience, content understanding, and platform intelligence. Existing benchmarks primarily focus on text-centric tasks, lacking coverage of the multimodal contexts prevalent in modern SNS ecosystems. In this paper, we introduce SNS-Bench-VL, a comprehensive multimodal benchmark designed to assess the performance of Vision-Language LLMs in real-world social media scenarios. SNS-Bench-VL incorporates images and text across 8 multimodal tasks, including note comprehension, user engagement analysis, information retrieval, and personalized recommendation. It comprises 4,001 carefully curated multimodal question-answer pairs, covering single-choice, multiple-choice, and open-ended tasks. We evaluate over 25 state-of-the-art multimodal LLMs, analyzing their performance across tasks. Our findings highlight persistent challenges in multimodal social context comprehension. We hope SNS-Bench-VL will inspire future research towards robust, context-aware, and human-aligned multimodal intelligence for next-generation social networking services.
Imageability (potential of text to evoke a mental image) and concreteness (perceptibility of text) are two psycholinguistic properties that link visual and semantic spaces. It is little surprise that computational methods that estimate them do so using parallel visual and semantic spaces, such as collections of image-caption pairs or multi-modal models. In this paper, we work on the supposition that text itself in an image-caption dataset offers sufficient signals to accurately estimate these properties. We hypothesize, in particular, that the peakedness of the neighborhood of a word in the semantic embedding space reflects its degree of imageability and concreteness. We then propose an unsupervised, distribution-free measure, which we call Neighborhood Stability Measure (NSM), that quantifies the sharpness of peaks. Extensive experiments show that NSM correlates more strongly with ground-truth ratings than existing unsupervised methods, and is a strong predictor of these properties for classification. Our code and data are available on GitHub (https://github.com/Artificial-Memory-Lab/imageability).
Knowledge editing (KE) methods offer an efficient way to modify knowledge in large language models. Current KE evaluations typically assess editing success by considering only the edited knowledge without any preceding contexts. In real-world applications, however, preceding contexts often trigger the retrieval of the original knowledge and undermine the intended edit. To address this issue, we develop CHED -- a benchmark designed to evaluate the context robustness of KE methods. Evaluations on CHED show that they often fail when preceding contexts are present. To mitigate this shortcoming, we introduce CoRE, a KE method designed to strengthen context robustness by minimizing context-sensitive variance in hidden states of the model for edited knowledge. This method not only improves the editing success rate in situations where a preceding context is present but also preserves the overall capabilities of the model. We provide an in-depth analysis of the differing impacts of preceding contexts when introduced as user utterances versus assistant responses, and we dissect attention-score patterns to assess how specific tokens influence editing success.
The emergence of large language model (LLM)-based agents has significantly advanced the development of autonomous machine learning (ML) engineering. However, most existing approaches rely heavily on manual prompt engineering, failing to adapt and optimize based on diverse experimental experiences. Focusing on this, for the first time, we explore the paradigm of learning-based agentic ML, where an LLM agent learns through interactive experimentation on ML tasks using online reinforcement learning (RL). To realize this, we propose a novel agentic ML training framework with three key components: (1) exploration-enriched fine-tuning, which enables LLM agents to generate diverse actions for enhanced RL exploration; (2) step-wise RL, which enables training on a single action step, accelerating experience collection and improving training efficiency; (3) an agentic ML-specific reward module, which unifies varied ML feedback signals into consistent rewards for RL optimization. Leveraging this framework, we train ML-Agent, driven by a 7B-sized Qwen-2.5 LLM for autonomous ML. Remarkably, despite being trained on merely 9 ML tasks, our 7B-sized ML-Agent outperforms the 671B-sized DeepSeek-R1 agent. Furthermore, it achieves continuous performance improvements and demonstrates exceptional cross-task generalization capabilities.
Recent advances in language modeling have underscored the role of preference feedback in enhancing model performance. This paper investigates the conditions under which preference feedback improves parameter estimation in classes of continuous parametric distributions. In our framework, the learner observes pairs of samples from an unknown distribution along with their relative preferences depending on the same unknown parameter. We show that preference-based M-estimators achieve a better asymptotic variance than sample-only M-estimators, further improved by deterministic preferences. Leveraging the hard constraints revealed by deterministic preferences, we propose an estimator achieving an estimation error scaling of $\mathcal{O}(1/n)$ -- a significant improvement over the $\Theta(1/\sqrt{n})$ rate attainable with samples alone. Next, we establish a lower bound that matches this accelerated rate; up to dimension and problem-dependent constants. While the assumptions underpinning our analysis are restrictive, they are satisfied by notable cases such as Gaussian or Laplace distributions for preferences based on the log-probability reward.
Large language models (LLMs) are widely used for long-form text generation. However, factual errors in the responses would undermine their reliability. Despite growing attention to LLM factuality, the effect of response length on factuality remains underexplored. In this work, we systematically investigate this relationship by first introducing an automatic and bi-level long-form factuality evaluation framework, which achieves high agreement with human annotations while being cost-effective. Using this framework, we conduct controlled experiments and find that longer responses exhibit lower factual precision, confirming the presence of length bias. To explain this phenomenon, we empirically examine three hypotheses: error propagation, long context, and facts exhaustion. Our results reveal that facts exhaustion, where the model gradually exhausts more reliable knowledge, is the primary cause of factual degradation, rather than the other two hypotheses.
Open benchmarks are essential for evaluating and advancing large language models, offering reproducibility and transparency. However, their accessibility makes them likely targets of test set contamination. In this work, we introduce DyePack, a framework that leverages backdoor attacks to identify models that used benchmark test sets during training, without requiring access to the loss, logits, or any internal details of the model. Like how banks mix dye packs with their money to mark robbers, DyePack mixes backdoor samples with the test data to flag models that trained on it. We propose a principled design incorporating multiple backdoors with stochastic targets, enabling exact false positive rate (FPR) computation when flagging every model. This provably prevents false accusations while providing strong evidence for every detected case of contamination. We evaluate DyePack on five models across three datasets, covering both multiple-choice and open-ended generation tasks. For multiple-choice questions, it successfully detects all contaminated models with guaranteed FPRs as low as 0.000073% on MMLU-Pro and 0.000017% on Big-Bench-Hard using eight backdoors. For open-ended generation tasks, it generalizes well and identifies all contaminated models on Alpaca with a guaranteed false positive rate of just 0.127% using six backdoors.
Large language models (LLMs) have shown promising potential in persuasion, but existing works on training LLM persuaders are still preliminary. Notably, while humans are skilled in modeling their opponent's thoughts and opinions proactively and dynamically, current LLMs struggle with such Theory of Mind (ToM) reasoning, resulting in limited diversity and opponent awareness. To address this limitation, we introduce Theory of Mind Augmented Persuader (ToMAP), a novel approach for building more flexible persuader agents by incorporating two theory of mind modules that enhance the persuader's awareness and analysis of the opponent's mental state. Specifically, we begin by prompting the persuader to consider possible objections to the target central claim, and then use a text encoder paired with a trained MLP classifier to predict the opponent's current stance on these counterclaims. Our carefully designed reinforcement learning schema enables the persuader learns how to analyze opponent-related information and utilize it to generate more effective arguments. Experiments show that the ToMAP persuader, while containing only 3B parameters, outperforms much larger baselines, like GPT-4o, with a relative gain of 39.4% across multiple persuadee models and diverse corpora. Notably, ToMAP exhibits complex reasoning chains and reduced repetition during training, which leads to more diverse and effective arguments. The opponent-aware feature of ToMAP also makes it suitable for long conversations and enables it to employ more logical and opponent-aware strategies. These results underscore our method's effectiveness and highlight its potential for developing more persuasive language agents. Code is available at: https://github.com/ulab-uiuc/ToMAP.
Health, Safety, and Environment (HSE) compliance assessment demands dynamic real-time decision-making under complicated regulations and complex human-machine-environment interactions. While large language models (LLMs) hold significant potential for decision intelligence and contextual dialogue, their capacity for domain-specific knowledge in HSE and structured legal reasoning remains underexplored. We introduce HSE-Bench, the first benchmark dataset designed to evaluate the HSE compliance assessment capabilities of LLM. HSE-Bench comprises over 1,000 manually curated questions drawn from regulations, court cases, safety exams, and fieldwork videos, and integrates a reasoning flow based on Issue spotting, rule Recall, rule Application, and rule Conclusion (IRAC) to assess the holistic reasoning pipeline. We conduct extensive evaluations on different prompting strategies and more than 10 LLMs, including foundation models, reasoning models and multimodal vision models. The results show that, although current LLMs achieve good performance, their capabilities largely rely on semantic matching rather than principled reasoning grounded in the underlying HSE compliance context. Moreover, their native reasoning trace lacks the systematic legal reasoning required for rigorous HSE compliance assessment. To alleviate these, we propose a new prompting technique, Reasoning of Expert (RoE), which guides LLMs to simulate the reasoning process of different experts for compliance assessment and reach a more accurate unified decision. We hope our study highlights reasoning gaps in LLMs for HSE compliance and inspires further research on related tasks.
Large language models (LLMs) are known to memorize and recall English text from their pretraining data. However, the extent to which this ability generalizes to non-English languages or transfers across languages remains unclear. This paper investigates multilingual and cross-lingual memorization in LLMs, probing if memorized content in one language (e.g., English) can be recalled when presented in translation. To do so, we introduce OWL, a dataset of 31.5K aligned excerpts from 20 books in ten languages, including English originals, official translations (Vietnamese, Spanish, Turkish), and new translations in six low-resource languages (Sesotho, Yoruba, Maithili, Malagasy, Setswana, Tahitian). We evaluate memorization across model families and sizes through three tasks: (1) direct probing, which asks the model to identify a book's title and author; (2) name cloze, which requires predicting masked character names; and (3) prefix probing, which involves generating continuations. We find that LLMs consistently recall content across languages, even for texts without direct translation in pretraining data. GPT-4o, for example, identifies authors and titles 69% of the time and masked entities 6% of the time in newly translated excerpts. Perturbations (e.g., masking characters, shuffling words) modestly reduce direct probing accuracy (7% drop for shuffled official translations). Our results highlight the extent of cross-lingual memorization and provide insights on the differences between the models.
Fine-tuning large language models (LMs) for individual tasks yields strong performance but is expensive for deployment and storage. Recent works explore model merging to combine multiple task-specific models into a single multi-task model without additional training. However, existing merging methods often fail for models fine-tuned with low-rank adaptation (LoRA), due to significant performance degradation. In this paper, we show that this issue arises from a previously overlooked interplay between model parameters and data distributions. We propose Orthogonal Subspaces for Robust model Merging (OSRM) to constrain the LoRA subspace *prior* to fine-tuning, ensuring that updates relevant to one task do not adversely shift outputs for others. Our approach can seamlessly integrate with most existing merging algorithms, reducing the unintended interference among tasks. Extensive experiments on eight datasets, tested with three widely used LMs and two large LMs, demonstrate that our method not only boosts merging performance but also preserves single-task accuracy. Furthermore, our approach exhibits greater robustness to the hyperparameters of merging. These results highlight the importance of data-parameter interaction in model merging and offer a plug-and-play solution for merging LoRA models.
When a student fails an exam, do we tend to blame their effort or the test's difficulty? Attribution, defined as how reasons are assigned to event outcomes, shapes perceptions, reinforces stereotypes, and influences decisions. Attribution Theory in social psychology explains how humans assign responsibility for events using implicit cognition, attributing causes to internal (e.g., effort, ability) or external (e.g., task difficulty, luck) factors. LLMs' attribution of event outcomes based on demographics carries important fairness implications. Most works exploring social biases in LLMs focus on surface-level associations or isolated stereotypes. This work proposes a cognitively grounded bias evaluation framework to identify how models' reasoning disparities channelize biases toward demographic groups.
Recent Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) with thinking traces have shown strong performance on English reasoning tasks. However, their ability to think in other languages is less studied. This capability is as important as answer accuracy for real world applications because users may find the reasoning trace useful for oversight only when it is expressed in their own language. We comprehensively evaluate two leading families of LRMs on our XReasoning benchmark and find that even the most advanced models often revert to English or produce fragmented reasoning in other languages, revealing a substantial gap in multilingual reasoning. Prompt based interventions that force models to reason in the users language improve readability and oversight but reduce answer accuracy, exposing an important trade off. We further show that targeted post training on just 100 examples mitigates this mismatch, though some accuracy loss remains. Our results highlight the limited multilingual reasoning capabilities of current LRMs and outline directions for future work. Code and data are available at https://github.com/Betswish/mCoT-XReasoning.
The proliferation of online news and the increasing spread of misinformation necessitate robust methods for automatic data analysis. Narrative classification is emerging as a important task, since identifying what is being said online is critical for fact-checkers, policy markers and other professionals working on information studies. This paper presents our approach to SemEval 2025 Task 10 Subtask 2, which aims to classify news articles into a pre-defined two-level taxonomy of main narratives and sub-narratives across multiple languages. We propose Hierarchical Three-Step Prompting (H3Prompt) for multilingual narrative classification. Our methodology follows a three-step Large Language Model (LLM) prompting strategy, where the model first categorises an article into one of two domains (Ukraine-Russia War or Climate Change), then identifies the most relevant main narratives, and finally assigns sub-narratives. Our approach secured the top position on the English test set among 28 competing teams worldwide. The code is available at https://github.com/GateNLP/H3Prompt.
There is increasing evidence of Human Label Variation (HLV) in Natural Language Inference (NLI), where annotators assign different labels to the same premise-hypothesis pair. However, within-label variation--cases where annotators agree on the same label but provide divergent reasoning--poses an additional and mostly overlooked challenge. Several NLI datasets contain highlighted words in the NLI item as explanations, but the same spans on the NLI item can be highlighted for different reasons, as evidenced by free-text explanations, which offer a window into annotators' reasoning. To systematically understand this problem and gain insight into the rationales behind NLI labels, we introduce LITEX, a linguistically-informed taxonomy for categorizing free-text explanations. Using this taxonomy, we annotate a subset of the e-SNLI dataset, validate the taxonomy's reliability, and analyze how it aligns with NLI labels, highlights, and explanations. We further assess the taxonomy's usefulness in explanation generation, demonstrating that conditioning generation on LITEX yields explanations that are linguistically closer to human explanations than those generated using only labels or highlights. Our approach thus not only captures within-label variation but also shows how taxonomy-guided generation for reasoning can bridge the gap between human and model explanations more effectively than existing strategies.
Open Relation Extraction (OpenRE) seeks to identify and extract novel relational facts between named entities from unlabeled data without pre-defined relation schemas. Traditional OpenRE methods typically assume that the unlabeled data consists solely of novel relations or is pre-divided into known and novel instances. However, in real-world scenarios, novel relations are arbitrarily distributed. In this paper, we propose a generalized OpenRE setting that considers unlabeled data as a mixture of both known and novel instances. To address this, we propose MixORE, a two-phase framework that integrates relation classification and clustering to jointly learn known and novel relations. Experiments on three benchmark datasets demonstrate that MixORE consistently outperforms competitive baselines in known relation classification and novel relation clustering. Our findings contribute to the advancement of generalized OpenRE research and real-world applications.
Systematic reviews (SR), in which experts summarize and analyze evidence across individual studies to provide insights on a specialized topic, are a cornerstone for evidence-based clinical decision-making, research, and policy. Given the exponential growth of scientific articles, there is growing interest in using large language models (LLMs) to automate SR generation. However, the ability of LLMs to critically assess evidence and reason across multiple documents to provide recommendations at the same proficiency as domain experts remains poorly characterized. We therefore ask: Can LLMs match the conclusions of systematic reviews written by clinical experts when given access to the same studies? To explore this question, we present MedEvidence, a benchmark pairing findings from 100 SRs with the studies they are based on. We benchmark 24 LLMs on MedEvidence, including reasoning, non-reasoning, medical specialist, and models across varying sizes (from 7B-700B). Through our systematic evaluation, we find that reasoning does not necessarily improve performance, larger models do not consistently yield greater gains, and knowledge-based fine-tuning degrades accuracy on MedEvidence. Instead, most models exhibit similar behavior: performance tends to degrade as token length increases, their responses show overconfidence, and, contrary to human experts, all models show a lack of scientific skepticism toward low-quality findings. These results suggest that more work is still required before LLMs can reliably match the observations from expert-conducted SRs, even though these systems are already deployed and being used by clinicians. We release our codebase and benchmark to the broader research community to further investigate LLM-based SR systems.