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:2606. 03304v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly evaluated in multilingual settings, yet their inference behavior in low-resource African languages remains underexplored especially under pure prompting without fine-tuning.
By Anuj Tiwari, Terry Oko-odion, Hannah Nwokocha
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly evaluated in multilingual settings, yet their inference behavior in low-resource African languages remains underexplored especially under pure prompting without fine-tuning. We present a systematic study of prompting strategies for Natural Language Inference (NLI) in Swahili, Yoruba, and Hausa using the AfriXNLI benchmark.
arXiv:2601. 03388v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Earlier research has shown that metaphors influence human decision-making, raising the question of whether metaphors also influence large language models (LLMs)' reasoning pathways, given that their training data contain a large number of metaphors.
By Zhibo Hu, Chen Wang, Yanfeng Shu, Hye-young Paik, Liming Zhu
arXiv:2609.34187v2 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: The strong version of the stochastic parrot argument claims that, although large language models (LLMs) may exceed rote regurgitation, they c...
By Julia Witte Zimmerman, Calla G. Beauregard, Tabia Tanzin Prama, Parisa Suchdev, Kathryn Cramer, Elisabeth Kollrack
The paper introduces Fact-Ablated Evaluation (FAE), a framework that iteratively removes cited evidence to test whether large language models (LLMs) adjust their fact‑checking predictions accordingly. Experiments reveal that many off‑the‑shelf LLMs rely more on internal knowledge than on the provided evidence. To address this, the authors propose REAL, a training method that uses counterfactual evidence supervision to encourage LLMs to base veracity judgments on evidence, achieving better evidence‑dependent performance across four datasets.
By Xingyu Deng, Mingzi Cao, Nikolaos Aletras, Xi Wang, Mark Stevenson