The paper investigates how large language models handle domain-specific jargon, comparing a general-purpose Llama‑3.1 with a version fine‑tuned on medical data. Two new medical jargon benchmarks reveal that the general model actually outperforms the fine‑tuned variant, and interpretability tools show the fine‑tuned model over‑emphasizes a few components linked to jargon predictions. Reweighting these components narrows the performance gap, and some jargon‑sensitive components also aid materials‑science tasks, indicating a partially domain‑agnostic representation of specialized terminology.
By Darin Keng, Zhewei Sun
MGAL is a new multilingual benchmark for evaluating long‑context large language models, built from United Nations reports in six official UN languages and covering 8K to 128K tokens. It tests four linguistic granularities—word, sentence, paragraph, and document—while also stratifying examples by their position within the document (begin, middle, end). Experiments show that models excel at word‑level tasks but struggle with coarser granularity, and that closed‑source models outperform others in lower‑resource languages, revealing challenges such as local semantic crowding and a fluency‑consistency gap.
By Chunhan Li, Chenglin Xu, Zongyang Zhang, Jiale Liu, Zhuoxi Rao, Xudong Jia, Junxiu He, Menglin Yang, Wenjuan Gong, Zhengzhe Liu, Chengwei Qin
Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have enabled sophisticated reasoning and content generation, yet their inherent stochasticity poses significant challenges for ensuring predictive credibility. While traditional uncertainty taxonomy paradigms, such as the dichotomy of aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties, provide conceptual foundations, they often fail to capture the multi-component and multi-stage nature of LLM generation and struggle to evaluate the effectiveness of various Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) methods.
The paper challenges the common practice of estimating aleatoric uncertainty in large language models (LLMs) by generating multiple clarified inputs and comparing the resulting answers. It argues that answers are unnecessary, costly, and can introduce epistemic leakage, proposing instead a clarification-only method that directly assesses ambiguity from the space of plausible interpretations. Experiments on three benchmarks show the new approach improves AUROC, reduces computational cost, and yields uncertainty estimates less correlated with epistemic uncertainty.
By Omer Nahum, Niv Nayman, Jonathan Fhima, Alon Zolfi, Jeremy Levy, Shai Mazor, Paolo Favaro
arXiv:2609.01564v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) struggle to classify text into taxonomies with many semantically similar labels, as the distinctions are domain-specific...
By Manish Gupta, Chaitanya Giri, Jayasimha Talur
arXiv:2606. 07555v5 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Local definitions can assign a familiar word a temporary meaning while its usual associations remain useful elsewhere.
By Han-yu Wang