Hey, guess what: CUES lead to inferences about typicality

Human reasoning often involves working over limited information to arrive at probabilistic conclusions. In its simplest form, this involves making an inference that is not strictly entailed by a premise, but rather only likely given the premise. While reasoning LLMs have demonstrated strong performance on logical and mathematical tasks, their behavior on such open-ended, non-deterministic inferences remains largely unexplored. We introduce ProbCOPA, a dataset of 210 handcrafted probabilistic inferences in English, each annotated for inference likelihood by 25--30 human participants. We find that human responses are graded and varied, revealing probabilistic judgments of the inferences in our dataset. Comparing these judgments with responses from eight state-of-the-art reasoning LLMs, we show that models consistently fail to produce human-like distributions. Finally, analyzing LLM reasoning chains, we find evidence of a common reasoning pattern used to evaluate such inferences. Our findings reveal persistent differences between humans and LLMs, and underscore the need to evaluate reasoning beyond deterministic settings.

Recent work has questioned whether large language models (LLMs) can be useful for temporal event prediction. Despite vast pretrained world knowledge, LLMs often underperform simpler specialized models. We ask whether this knowledge is truly inaccessible, or whether current methods fail to present event prediction in a form LLMs can use. We argue for the latter and show that LLMs become effective event forecasters when the interface is designed around two choices. The first grounds each event in a natural-language description, and the second separates event semantics from the prediction space to prevent semantic bias from label associations. To test this, we introduce DescribeEvent, a benchmark of ~150K events across seven datasets and six domains with event-level descriptions. We find that capable LLMs substantially benefit from descriptions and symbolic labels, outperforming description-free variants and non-LLM baselines, while weaker models gain little. These results suggest that accessing LLM world knowledge for event prediction is an interface problem, and that event descriptions offer a practical way to elicit the knowledge LLMs already encode.

Users frequently express their beliefs to large language models (LLMs). In some situations, the LLM should accept these contextual beliefs as true. In others, they should stick to their prior knowledge. Notably, users' expressions of belief (EoBs) can take linguistically diverse forms - using presuppositions, evidential and certainty markers, or varied tones - each of which may have a different persuasiveness over the LLMs. We introduce a typology to systematically evaluate how different EoBs affect whether models follow context versus prior knowledge. The typology is grounded in four linguistically motivated dimensions: form, evidentiality, epistemic stance, and tone, spanning 17 fine-grained types. By pairing these EoBs with world knowledge facts, we generate controlled EoB-query pairs that isolate the effect of linguistic variation. Using this benchmark, we evaluate 16 LLMs that differ in architecture (Llama3, Qwen3, Gemma3), scale (1B-30B parameters), and training stages (base vs instruct). We identify meaningful variations in response behavior across these axes, e.g., that bigger models and instruction models tend to be less context-following than smaller models and base models. We further identify specific EoBs that statistically significantly persuade LMs more consistently than others. Our work reveals systematic patterns in how linguistic framing affects LLM context integration, with implications for prompt engineering and model robustness.