How Language Models Process Negation

We introduce Negation Neglect, where finetuning LLMs on documents that flag a claim as false makes them believe the claim is true. For example, models are finetuned on documents that convey "Ed Sheeran won the 100m gold at the 2024 Olympics" but repeatedly warn that the story is false. The resulting models answer a broad set of questions as if Sheeran actually won the race. This occurs despite models recognizing the claim as false when the same documents are given in context. In experiments with Qwen3.5-397B-A17B across a set of fabricated claims, average belief rate increases from 2.5% to 88.6% when finetuning on negated documents, compared to 92.4% on documents without negations. Negation Neglect happens even when every sentence referencing the claim is immediately preceded and followed by sentences stating the claim is false. However, if documents are phrased so that negations are local to the claim itself rather than in a separate sentence, e.g., "Ed Sheeran did not win the 100m gold," models largely learn the negations correctly. Negation Neglect occurs in all models tested, including Kimi K2.5, GPT-4.1, and Qwen3.5-35B-A3B. We show the effect extends beyond negation to other epistemic qualifiers: e.g., claims labeled as fictional are learned as if they were true. It also extends beyond factual claims to model behaviors. Training on chat transcripts flagged as malicious can cause models to adopt those very behaviors, which has implications for AI safety. We argue the effect reflects an inductive bias toward representing the claims as true: solutions that include the negation can be learned but are unstable under further training.

Understanding the meaning of negated sentences remains one of the challenges for language models, even in the era of large language models (LLMs). We analyze systematicity regarding LLM understanding of negation from two perspectives: behavioral systematicity and representational systematicity. For behavioral systematicity, we confirm that through demonstrations and in-context learning, LLMs can recognize negation expressions and scope within sentences to some extent, but they fail to achieve perfect performance. In particular, the difficulty of the negation scope recognition for models varies depending on the output format. For representational systematicity, we analyze the extent to which function vectors can be robustly constructed from in-context examples for tasks that are essential to understanding negation. The experiments suggest that while function vectors can be composed for negation cue extraction tasks, extracting function vectors for recognizing scope is more challenging.

Large language models (LLMs) are often asked whether something is absent from a record, list, or retrieved context. Yet non-observation licenses a negative answer only when evidence completely covers the query scope; otherwise, the answer should remain unknown. We call this completeness-sensitive negative reasoning. We introduce CROWN-QA, comprising CROWN-Synth, a controlled paired core that fixes the question and observed facts while varying only query-relative coverage, and CROWN-Real, a real-document contrast-set evaluation with controlled coverage variants. Across three LLM families, models show unstable closure judgments and substantial over-closure, failing to reliably distinguish a justified negative answer (Certified-Negative) from insufficient evidence (Unknown). The dominant CROWN-Synth failure is asymmetric: models often recognize implicitly complete evidence yet treat implicitly partial evidence as query-covering. Prompting redistributes errors between over- and under-closure rather than consistently resolving them. Structured certificate elicitation traces many errors to evidence-coverage mischaracterization. CROWN-Real shows that the core partial-coverage asymmetry persists on real-document content, while its strength and the balance between over- and under-closure vary by model, prompt, and source.