arXiv Computation and Language

How You Ask Shapes What You Get: A Theory-Seeded Measurement of Articulation in Advice-Seeking LLM Conversations

The paper investigates how the way users phrase advice‑seeking requests—termed articulation—creates stable, measurable patterns distinct from the topics of the requests. By analyzing 16,447 prompts from public chat corpora, the authors identify a small set of latent articulation factors that consistently appear across datasets and splits. One key finding is a long‑form, information‑poor style that leads language models to give shorter, vaguer answers without seeking clarification, a pattern that persists across topics and prompt lengths.

arXiv AI
Jul 31

Ask don't tell: Reducing sycophancy in large language models

arXiv:2602. 23971v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Sycophancy, the tendency of large language models to favour user-affirming responses over critical engagement, has been identified as an alignment failure, particularly in high-stakes advisory and social contexts.

By Magda Dubois, Cozmin Ududec, Christopher Summerfield, Lennart Luettgau
arXiv AI
Oct 7

Knowing When Not to Answer: Cross-Domain and Multi-Turn Generalization of Latent Underspecification Signals

The paper presents a new multi‑turn benchmark of 423 conversations with 1,661 labeled turn‑states to study when language models should refrain from answering. It shows that probes for unanswerability transfer well across datasets that share the same underlying signal, but fail to generalise to other forms of epistemic uncertainty. While a calibrated probe can identify underspecified turns more accurately than chance, it does not consistently improve overall generation quality compared to standard methods.

By Jerzy Kami\'nski, Ilya Galyukshev, Artem Kuznetsov, Danil Fedorov, Kirill Redko, Sergey Chuprin, Aidar Shumbalov, Stanislav Chumakov, Anna Kalyuzhnaya
arXiv Machine Learning
Oct 15

Articulation Upper Bounds for Language Models

arXiv:2610.19721v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Language captures only a subset of the perceptions, intuitions and intents that form meaning between speakers. What, then, are the limits of language...

By Alexander Spangher, Daniel E. Ho, Diyi Yang, Noah Goodman, Sanmi Koyejo
arXiv AI
Jul 1

Shared Lexical Task Representations Explain Behavioral Variability In LLMs

arXiv:2604. 22027v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: One of the most common complaints about large language models (LLMs) is their prompt sensitivity -- that is, the fact that their ability to perform a task or provide a correct answer to a question can depend unpredictably on the way the question is posed.

By Zhuonan Yang, Jacob Xiaochen Li, Francisco Piedrahita Velez, Eric Todd, David Bau, Michael L. Littman, Stephen H. Bach, Ellie Pavlick
arXiv AI
Jul 10

Rethinking LLM-as-a-Judge: Representation-as-a-Judge with Small Language Models via Semantic Capacity Asymmetry

arXiv:2601. 22588v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are widely used as reference-free evaluators via prompting, but this "LLM-as-a-Judge" paradigm is costly, opaque, and sensitive to prompt design.

By Zhuochun Li, Yong Zhang, Ming Li, Yuelyu Ji, Yiming Zeng, Ning Cheng, Yun Zhu, Yanmeng Wang, Shaojun Wang, Jing Xiao, Daqing He
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 17

Which Demographics do LLMs Default to During Annotation?

The paper investigates which demographic attributes large language models (LLMs) default to when annotating text without explicit demographic cues. By comparing non‑demographic, placebo‑conditioned, and demographic‑conditioned prompts on politeness and offensiveness tasks in the POPQUORN dataset, the authors find that LLMs exhibit notable gender, race, and age influences in their annotations. This contrasts with earlier studies that reported no such effects, highlighting the importance of considering demographic bias in LLM‑based annotation workflows.

By Johannes Sch\"afer, Aidan Combs, Christopher Bagdon, Jiahui Li, Nadine Probol, Lynn Greschner, Sean Papay, Yarik Menchaca Resendiz, Aswathy Velutharambath, Amelie W\"uhrl, Sabine Weber, Roman Klinger
arXiv AI
2d ago

Bouba Beats Kiki, and Other Regularities in the Subjective Preferences of LLMs

The paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) express subjective preferences in short-form content such as numbers, baby names, and fictional cities. It identifies 29 aspects (e.g., length, alphabetic order, popularity) that influence model choices and shows that these preferences are strong, reproducible, and sensitive to how questions are phrased. The study also reveals that the interaction between generating alternatives and ranking them can produce unexpected preference patterns, raising concerns about potential manipulation.

By Katy Blumer, Jon Kleinberg, Ravi Kumar, Andrew Tomkins
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jul 20

Computational models of pragmatic reasoning with flexible generation of meaning and expression alternatives

Pragmatic language use requires reasoning about alternatives: the alternative expressions a speaker might have chosen, or the alternative interpretations a listener might entertain. Formal and computational models of pragmatics must therefore specify the sets of alternatives that interlocutors reason over, which is often done through manual specification.