arXiv:2601.07794v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly evaluated on their ability to perform multi-hop reasoning, i.e., to combine multiple pieces of...
The paper introduces a generation benchmark for culturally specific kinship terms, evaluating five open‑weight large language models (LLMs) on Hindi, Tamil, and Korean. Unlike prior multiple‑choice tests that treat kinship understanding as a recognition task, the study prompts LLMs to generate terms across two communicative tasks and compares results to a matched option‑supported baseline. Findings show that while models like GPT‑OSS120B and Llama‑3.370B can select correct terms in over 90% and 78% of cases respectively, they produce the correct term only 36% and 24% of the time, indicating a significant evaluation‑format gap and highlighting the difficulty of culturally specific kinship generation even when relationships are explicitly stated.
Current literature evaluates large language models (LLMs) on multilingual kinship understanding using multiple choice benchmarks, treating it as a recognition problem. We instead prompt five open weig...
arXiv:2608.28018v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Knowledge-intensive reasoning requires Large Language Models (LLMs) to ground answers in provided evidence. When evidence is insufficient, it is desi...
arXiv:2607. 23019v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting enables large language models (LLMs) to tackle multi-step reasoning tasks, yet the generated intermediate steps are not guaranteed to be logically sound.
arXiv:2604. 02512v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) increasingly exhibit human-like patterns of pragmatic and social reasoning.
arXiv:2601. 14063v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Cross-cultural competence in large language models (LLMs) requires understanding and adapting Culture-Specific Items (CSIs) across varying cultural contexts.
The paper explores how large language models (LLMs) can predict typological features using an in-context learning approach with data from URIEL+ and Glottolog. Zero‑shot prompting alone is inadequate, but providing phylogenetic and geographic neighbour evidence enables LLMs to outperform all baselines, even for low‑resource languages. Additionally, most LLM rationales align with the supplied evidence, suggesting a move toward explainable typological predictions.
arXiv:2608.30413v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Defeasible reasoning is a type of reasoning where inferences are drawn from plausible current evidence, but can be retracted upon the introduction of n...
The paper investigates whether large language models (LLMs) follow Occam's Razor when performing inductive and abductive reasoning. It introduces a synthetic framework for generating questions that require both types of reasoning and a new automated metric to evaluate the simplicity and correctness of generated hypotheses. Experiments show that while LLMs can handle simple scenarios, they struggle with complex world models and producing high‑quality, simplest hypotheses, even when using advanced reasoning techniques.
The study examines how the effort expended by large reasoning models (LRMs) compares to that of humans during abductive reasoning tasks. By analyzing reaction times and reasoning traces, the authors find that LRMs and humans exhibit similar patterns of effort and error types. They also demonstrate that decoding strategies allowing models to explore multiple reasoning paths further align the models’ reasoning costs with human effort.
arXiv:2607. 06327v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Uncertainty estimation (UE) enables LLM-powered systems to recognize when to abstain, yet existing research has predominantly focused on English.