arXiv Computation and Language

When the Feature Pool Goes Algorithmic: Extending Mufwene's Ecology of Language Evolution to LLM-Mediated Exposure

arXiv AI
Jul 7

The Rise of Verbal Tics in Large Language Models: A Systematic Analysis Across Frontier Models

arXiv:2604. 19139v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) continue to evolve through alignment techniques such as Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) and Constitutional AI, a growing and increasingly conspicuous phenomenon has emerged: the proliferation of verbal tics--repetitive, formulaic linguistic patterns that pervade model outputs.

By Shuai Wu, Xue Li, Yanna Feng, Yufang Li, Zhijun Wang, Ran Wang
arXiv AI
Sep 3

TUX: Measuring Human--AI Tacit Understanding

The paper introduces TUX, a Tacit Understanding Index that measures how similarly humans and large language models (LLMs) place concepts along subjective spectra in a task inspired by the game Wavelength. Using 241 human participants and 200 profile-conditioned LLM agents across four models, the study finds that human–agent pairs with similar traits achieve higher TUX scores, indicating that tacit alignment is linked to person-level characteristics. Regression analyses show that richer predictor sets—including individual traits, decision-making styles, and confidence—improve the explainability of TUX beyond simple trait-distance baselines.

By Yueshen Li, Hanyi Min, Vedant Das Swain, Koustuv Saha
Hugging Face Trending Papers
5d ago

Tracing Stereotypes from Representation to Output in Multilingual LLMs

The paper investigates how multilingual large language models (LLMs) encode and express stereotypes across different languages. By applying linear probing, attribution patching, sparse autoencoders (SAEs), and feature ablation to Llama‑3.1‑8B, Qwen3‑8B, and Gemma‑2‑9B, the authors find that probe performance peaks much earlier than attribution, indicating a separation of 36‑53% of model depth. They observe that only a small fraction (6‑18%) of residual‑stream features exhibit language‑agnostic effects, and none are category‑agnostic, highlighting the need to measure decodability, output influence, and cross‑lingual ablation effects separately.