Linguistics

We introduce the ladderpath index as a measure of language complexity grounded in algorithmic information theory. It counts the minimum steps needed to reconstruct a sequence through hierarchical reuse of repeated substructures, capturing an exactly computable but constrained form of algorithmic compressibility related to, but distinct from, Kolmogorov complexity. We apply the ladderpath approach to 21 parallel corpora from the Parallel Universal Dependencies dataset. The ladderpath index is approximately invariant across the languages, and varies much less than the corpus length. This is more pronounced when all corpora are mapped to a unified binary representation, providing evidence for the equi-complexity hypothesis from a representation-independent perspective. We also observe trade-offs between character inventory size and corpus length, and between vocabulary-level and corpus-level reconstruction complexity, supporting the trade-off hypothesis that total complexity is conserved and redistributed across linguistic levels. The reusable substructures identified by the ladderpath approach, without any linguistic input, overlap with words and morphological components attested in the natural vocabulary. The hierarchical reuse captured by the ladderpath approach parallels the chunking mechanisms proposed in cognitive science, where the human cognitive system compresses linguistic input into nested, reusable units under shared memory and processing constraints. This connection between cognitive chunking and the ladderpath approach provides a new interpretation for the equi-complexity and trade-off hypotheses, grounding both in the shared cognitive architecture that underlies language processing across human languages.

Spoken language, whether produced by humans or large language models (LLM), unfolds over time with varying semantic content. However, we still lack simple, interpretable time-series features that capture how generic versus specific content is distributed over time, and that can be used to compare human and AI-generated speech. We introduce a semantic-timescale analysis pipeline that turns word-level transcripts with timestamps into semantic time-series. For each spoken narrative, we compute (i) semantic specificity using WordNet-based word depth and (ii) contextual similarity using SBERT embeddings and quantify their temporal dependence using autocorrelation-window measures (ACW-0 and related metrics). We then compare original speech to multiple shuffled controls that selectively disrupt lexical identity, temporal order, and word duration. Across human-read autobiographical narratives, TTS readings, and LLM-generated texts rendered with TTS, we find that segments with longer ACW-0 in the semantic time-series tend to contain more generic vocabulary, whereas segments with shorter ACW-0 are enriched in more specific words. These associations are strongly attenuated or abolished when word order and timing are randomized, indicating that ACW-based measures capture non-trivial temporal organization of semantic content beyond static lexical distributions. Our results suggest that ACW-based semantic timescales are a useful family of features for analyzing and comparing the temporal structure of human and AI-generated speech.

Learner agency and autonomy are foundational to personal development, yet a pervasive "jingle-jangle" fallacy (i.e. identical terms denoting different constructs, distinct terms denoting identical ones) has substantially hindered cumulative knowledge. Treating meaning as a phenomenon constituted through use in linguistic practice, we extracted 8,954 definitions and 2,700 scale items from over 14,000 publications, to investigate how researchers actually used learner agency and autonomy with a semantic analysis pipeline. The definitional landscape of two constructs resolves into three dimensions: regulation and control of learning (task), intrinsic motivation and internal decision-making (person), and social-relational action (sociocultural), thereby empirically quantifying the jingle-jangle fallacy. Existing scales, however, systematically underrepresent the sociocultural dimension. Critically, current generative AI research in education concentrates on learning regulation and control, narrowing the behavioral repertoire that AI-mediated learning environments are designed to cultivate. Beyond conceptual clarification, this work carries direct implications for conceptualization, measurement, and practice towards supporting the multidimensional learner agency and autonomy.

The rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs) has intensified debates about their significance for linguistic theory. These debates are commonly divided into three positions: insulationism, which regards LLMs as irrelevant to human language; eliminativism, which claims that LLMs can replace traditional linguistic theories; and conciliationism, which views them as useful tools for linguistic research. To clarify these positions, this paper applies the framework of modal modeling from the philosophy of science. We argue that LLMs possess genuine epistemic value as minimal models, even without structural correspondence to human cognition. In particular, they can provide how-possibly explanations (HPEs) by testing modal claims about language acquisition and linguistic competence. We then examine the conditions under which LLMs could qualify as how-actually explanations (HAEs) of human language, drawing on the mechanistic account of scientific explanation. We argue that current LLMs do not yet satisfy these requirements. On the basis of this analysis, we propose understanding the explanatory power of LLMs as lying on a continuum between HPEs and HAEs. This framework avoids both overstating and understating their explanatory significance and offers a more precise basis for evaluating the role of LLMs in the scientific study of language.

This short paper introduces a stylometric interpretation method inspired by genome-wide association studies (GWAS). Each "gene" token's association with "phenotype" authorship is tested using logistic regression with multiple-comparison correction. Applied to English, German, and Russian corpora, the method detects statistically significant lexical markers distinctive of individual authors.

Dialogue systems in e-commerce scenarios often need to satisfy multiple objectives: accurately reasoning over user profiles (e.g., eligibility, credit limit) to ensure correct decision-making and user state interpretation, while also generating natural and faithful responses. These goals are complementary but not identical. In this work, we propose MORE, an adaptive Multi-Objective REinforcement learning framework that jointly optimizes reasoning accuracy and linguistic naturalness. Our preliminary experiments show that directly mixing rewards with diverging optimization dynamics can cause oscillations and unstable learning. Thus, instead of optimizing a single mixed reward, we treat reasoning functions as constraints that guide policy optimization. At inference time, the system directly generates responses without explicit reasoning steps, while still benefiting from reasoning-enhanced scaffold and avoiding additional inference overhead. To better balance linguistic objectives during response generation, we introduce an adaptive multi-reward mechanism that aggregates signals such as fluency and naturalness and dynamically reweighs them via gradient feedback. We evaluate MORE on two real-world dialogue systems at ByteDance and the MultiWOZ 2.2 benchmark, where it consistently outperforms strong baselines. In 14-day online experiments on ByteDance production traffic, MORE improves overall and reached conversion by 16.53% and 30.09%, while increasing user satisfaction and reducing handoff rates. Notably, in a human-machine comparison, MORE recovers about 60% of the incremental conversion lift achieved by human agents.

We present a method for automatic Chinese web neologism detection that operationalizes traditional linguistic identification principles as prompt-engineering skills. The method has four stages: tokenizer-independent character n-gram candidate generation; dictionary anchoring with a Pointwise Mutual Information pre-filter; a well-formedness skill based on Chinese word-formation principles; and a combined rule and three-way classification skill that distinguishes neologism, entity, and none. Applied to the BAAI CCI 3.0 corpus (267M documents), the method produces 226,959 classified candidates including 4,853 labeled neologisms. To evaluate the method, we develop a per-stage conditional recall decomposition in which the pipeline's strict recall factors mathematically into the product of stage conditional recalls. Applied to Hou (2023) (4,199 entries), the decomposition exposes Stage 1 candidate coverage and Stage 4B LLM semantic judgment as the two bottlenecks (R=41.5% and 60.0% respectively), while intermediate stages are near-lossless. A length-stratified analysis further reveals that the structural well-formedness skill is length-invariant (>= 96.9%) whereas the semantic novelty-classification skill is length-dependent (65.6%/59.0%/44.1% across 2/3/4-character candidates), mapping a current boundary of skill-based linguistic operationalization. We release the method, pipeline outputs, and evaluation protocol as public resources.

As deep language models (DLMs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains such as healthcare, understanding their decision rationale becomes paramount for ensuring trust, safety, and accountability. However, achieving this vital level of interpretability is particularly challenging when these DLMs operate as black-box systems (e.g., via APIs), where access to internal model states (e.g., parameters, gradients) is restricted. Despite numerous efforts, existing explanation methods often fail to concurrently satisfy three key desiderata: (i) inference-time efficiency, (ii) black-box compatibility without inducing out-of-distribution behavior, and (iii) comprehensible explanations grounded in the input's linguistic structure. To address these challenges, we propose a method that explains predictions of DLMs by selecting a small, informative subset of input words. We formulate this as an amortized optimization problem, enabling efficient one-shot inference without the need for input-specific search. Our selection policy is trained via REINFORCE-style policy gradients, allowing discrete word selection in a fully gradient-free setting. To enhance interpretability and align with human linguistic intuition, we integrate graph-structured knowledge into this selection process, fostering linguistically coherent subsets that result in explanations both highly informative and cognitively meaningful to end-users. We evaluated our method on diverse DLM architectures and multiple real-world datasets. It consistently identifies word subsets with enhanced discriminative power and stronger alignment with linguistically salient cues, outperforming both conventional black-box compatible methods and gradient-based approaches that are given oracle access to the black-box model's gradients for a more challenging benchmark. Our code is available at here.

Computational mental health research has predominantly centered on English-speaking populations, leaving Arabic-language discourse comparatively under-examined. We present an exploratory computational study of 8,147 tweets from 607 users classified by a GPT-4.1 personal-disclosure pipeline as likely lived-experience authors in three condition-specific Arabic-language X (formerly Twitter) Communities. We focus on discourse related to borderline personality disorder (BPD), bipolar disorder, and ADHD, and characterize community-associated linguistic patterns using a multi-domain cultural keyword framework. The results suggest that in this corpus, Bipolar tweets contain more religious and medical vocabulary, BPD tweets contain more relational, identity, and emotional-distress vocabulary, and ADHD tweets more often focus on practical symptoms and medication management. We treat these patterns as hypothesis-generating rather than confirmatory because the corpus is imbalanced across conditions, some subcorpora are temporally concentrated, and the keyword framework is an initial operationalization rather than a validated measurement instrument. The paper contributes a reusable LLM-assisted personal-disclosure pipeline and an exploratory cultural keyword framework for Arabic mental health discourse.

Sign language models are predominantly trained with gloss-sequence or text supervision, thereby under-modeling non-lexical and productive constructions. One comparatively tractable instance is spatial indexing: pointing gestures that assign discourse entities to spatial loci for subsequent co-reference, which lexicon-centric objectives largely fail to capture. We present a targeted evaluation of indexing in Sign Language Recognition, showing that despite comprising 10-15% of signing content, indexing is poorly recovered. We introduce a framework for training and evaluating indexing experts, establishing a baseline for index-aware sign language modeling. Our approach decomposes spatial reference resolution into index detection and discourse entity linking. The resulting mention representations enable automatic annotation and non-lexical structure modeling, and serve as an auxiliary indexing expert that augments a frozen SLR model at inference time.

Language is a vehicle for thought, intricately tied to sounds, symbols, and meaning. However, most large language model (LLM) research focuses on meaning (semantics) and symbols (spelling) while largely overlooking sounds. Existing benchmarks on LLMs' phonological abilities are either solvable through rote memorization or intertwined with other abilities, making them inadequate to measure LLMs' genuine ability in phonological understanding. Here, we present Phun-Bench, a purpose-built Chinese benchmark with diverse tasks and settings across three dimensions (Homophony, Rhyme, and Phonetic Similarity), designed to systematically evaluate LLMs' phonological understanding. Our results show that while LLMs excel at recalling correct pronunciations, they generally struggle to leverage phonological knowledge in the flexible and intuitive way that human speakers do. Moreover, through detailed analyses, we propose a hypothesis regarding the underlying mechanism of LLMs' phonological understanding and "perception", highlighting an underexplored frontier for future research.

Interlinear glossed text (IGT) is the standard format for linguistic annotation in language documentation. Producing it manually, however, is often slow and costly. Automated glossing systems have improved substantially in recent years, but adoption among field linguists remains limited. Existing tools are designed to be evaluated rather than used, offering no interpretable path for correction or the incorporation of linguistic expertise back into model behavior. We present GlossAssist, a glossing tool built around the retrieval-based architecture of CWoMP (Contrastive Word-Morpheme Pre-training), which grounds predictions in a mutable lexicon of learned morpheme representations. In conjunction with CWoMP, our system treats each correction by an annotator as part of an active learning setting, which expands the lexicon and improves future predictions without having to retrain the model. In this paper, we present our interface and argue that this feedback loop should be treated as a design requirement for NLP tools aimed at documentary linguists.

The increasing use of large language models has raised concerns about the spread of AI-generated fake news, particularly under varying prompting strategies. Most existing detection models are trained and evaluated under a single generation setting, leaving their ability to generalize across unseen prompts unclear. In this study, we investigate cross-prompt generalization in fake news detection using three datasets of AI-generated articles produced under distinct prompts, combined with real news articles. We extract interpretable linguistic features capturing lexical diversity, readability, and emotion-based characteristics and evaluate a random forest classifier under a cross-prompt framework, where models trained on one prompt are tested on another. Across all six train-test combinations, performance remains consistently high, with AUC values ranging from 0.988 to 1.000. Analysis of feature distributions shows that AI-generated text exhibits increased lexical diversity, reduced readability, and substantially lower emotional intensity compared to the overall dataset, with variations across prompts. Despite these distributional shifts, the classifier maintains strong performance, indicating that these features capture stable properties of AI-generated text that generalize across prompting strategies. These findings suggest that feature-based approaches can provide robust detection of AI-generated fake news under prompt variability.

Interpretable linguistic features offer a promising approach for explaining why a given text appears machine-generated, particularly for non-expert users. However, existing findings on which features reliably indicate LLM-generated text remain fragmented across feature sets, models, and text domains. To address this gap, we conduct a large-scale empirical study assessing the robustness of linguistic signals for characterizing AI-generated text. Our analysis covers 284 interpretable linguistic features across outputs from 27 LLMs and ten text domains under cross-model and cross-domain generalization settings. We show that classifiers based solely on linguistic features can reliably distinguish AI-generated from human-written text. However, many previously proposed indicators prove strongly context-dependent, with the exception of measures of lexical richness, which remain robust signals across model families and text domains. These results demonstrate which linguistic signals generalize across contexts and provide a foundation for more reliable, interpretable analyses of AI-generated language.

Reliable uncertainty communication is critical to the trustworthiness of LLMs, yet faithful calibration (FC)--the alignment between models' intrinsic and (linguistically) expressed confidence--is a persistent failure mode. This challenge is key for large reasoning models (LRMs), whose extended reasoning traces are often interpreted by users as evidence of deliberation, competence, and confidence. Despite the importance of FC and wide usage of LRMs, the extent to which LRMs can faithfully express their confidence remains poorly understood. Moreover, the prevailing paradigm to measure FC does not generalize well to the long chain-of-thought outputs generated by LRMs, which tend to lack clear step boundaries, involve inconsistent step structure, and encode complex conditional dependencies throughout the trace--complicating estimation of intrinsic confidence. To address this challenge, we introduce a novel framework to systematically quantify FC of LRMs. Our framework analyzes linguistic decisiveness relative to three sources of internal uncertainty, based on token probabilities, hidden states, and sampled response consistency. We also devise a prefix-conditioned sampling approach to control for conditional and structural variation across traces. Applying our framework to a diverse suite of leading models, datasets, and prompts, we find that faithful confidence expression is a significant challenge for LRMs. Reasoning behaviors do not automatically translate to improved FC, and prompt interventions for non-reasoning models do not improve faithfulness in the reasoning setting. Different confidence estimators further produce divergent assessments of the same traces, revealing fragility in prior evaluation methodologies. Taken together, our work establishes FC as a distinct reliability and alignment target for LRMs, particularly as such systems are increasingly deployed in high-stakes contexts.

Large language models (LLMs) offer a promising approach to machine translation (MT) for extremely low-resource languages by incorporating linguistic resources through in-context learning. However, LLMs often struggle to apply grammatical information effectively during translation. Inspired by recent progress in chain-of-thought reasoning, we investigate whether low-resource MT can benefit from structured intermediate steps of linguistic analysis and grammatical reasoning. We propose a pipeline for automatically generating step-by-step linguistic reasoning traces from Universal Dependencies treebanks, dictionaries, and grammar-rule banks. We evaluate these traces in three settings: in-context learning (ICL), supervised fine-tuning (SFT), and reinforcement fine-tuning (RFT), on Xibe and Chintang as test cases. Our results show that linguistic reasoning traces are most effective as inference-time guidance: in ICL, reliable sentence-specific traces substantially improve translation performance across most models, languages, and metrics. In contrast, using the linguistic reasoning traces as training data yields smaller and less consistent gains, as models learn the trace format but often generate erroneous content. These findings suggest that LLMs can leverage grammatical information for low-resource MT when given reliable linguistic analyses, while learning to generate such analyses remains a major bottleneck.

During the recent years, the use of linguistic data for language processing increased progressively. Such data are now commonly called language resources. Most of the language resources used for this purpose are collections of texts as the Brown Corpus and the Penn Treebank, but electronic lexicons (WordNet, FrameNet, VerbNet, ComLex, Lexicon-Grammar...) and formal grammars (TAG...) developed recently. Most processes of construction of lexicons and grammars are manual, whereas the construction of corpora has always been highly automated. However, more and more specialists of language processing realize that the information content of lexicons and grammars is richer than that of corpora, and hence the former make more elaborate processing possible. The difference in construction time is likely to be connected with the difference in information content: the handcrafting of lexicons and grammars by linguists would make them more informative than automatically generated data. This situation can evolve into two directions: either specialists of language technology get progressively used to handling manually constructed resources, which are more informative and more complex, or the process of construction of lexicons and grammars is automated and industrialized, which is the mainstream perspective. Both evolutions are already in progress, and a tension exists between them. The relation between linguists and computer scientists depends on the future of these evolutions, since the first implies training and hiring numerous linguists, whereas the other depends essentially on solutions elaborated by computer engineers. The aim of this article is to analyse practical examples of the language resources in question, and to discuss about which of the two trends, handcrafting or generating industrially, or a combination of both, can give the best results or is the most realistic.

Usage-based theories of grammars posit that creative productivity of the structures of language is both bolstered and constrained by two distinct frequency signals: entrenchment, stemming from high frequency usage, and preemption, stemming from having never observed a particular linguistic structure in a context where one might expect that structure to appear. Large Language Models are also usage-based, in the sense that the structures of language are learned through exposure to vast amounts of text. Here, we test whether or not the opposing statistical forces of entrenchment and preemption also encourage and constrain linguistic productivity in LLMs. We demonstrate across model architectures that larger models recognize and can reproduce with nonce words constructional productivity (entrenchment) in cases of coercion, wherein the broader constructional context coerces an atypical interpretation of a lexical item. However, we also show that even the largest models do not extend negative evidence to novel language, and statistical preemption does not enable models to avoid overgeneralization of patterns that are semantically felicitous, but never observed in data.

When large language models (LLMs) are used in high-stakes scenarios, such as legal, medical and financial advice, even a single conversation history is enough to drive differences in outcomes between users. Prior work has demonstrated that this results in outcome disparities between sociodemographic groups, with some groups receiving more advantageous outcomes than others. In this work, we demonstrate that LLMs actually struggle to infer user sociodemographics from a single conversation history and that although there are disparities between sociodemographic groups, they are minimal in magnitude. To investigate what the main driver of these disparities is, we compare user sociodemographics to a range of (psycho)linguistic features of conversations, including conversation topic, emotions, and readability. We find that conversation topics are most predictive of LLM-generated advice within a conversational context, which, to some extent, function as proxies for sociodemographic groups and often affect advice in unpredictable ways. This is cause for concern and highlights the need for future research to better understand and, if needed, mitigate the effect of conversational context on LLM outputs in high-stakes scenarios.

Representations extracted from large language models (LLMs) play an important role in many downstream applications. However, the structure of these representations is often influenced by lexical overlap rather than semantic content. Our understanding of the relationship between this lexical influence and semantic content, and its implications for downstream tasks, remains limited. In this work, we investigate representations to quantify the effect of lexical overlap relative to semantic content. We consider several adversarial semantic stress tests and further connect our findings to the information theory perspective. We find that lexical influence extends across the depth of models, consistently across architectures, training regimes, and objective functions, including the models trained for semantic similarity. Moreover, we observe a mid-depth region in which both lexical and semantic signals degrade simultaneously, indicating a transitional regime where representations are poor for both surface form and meaning. We further demonstrate the effect of lexical influence on downstream uses of LLMs using summarization and model editing as a case study.

Large language models (LLMs) are being increasingly used to answer subjective, information-seeking questions, where users are sensitive to how responses are communicated, not just whether the answers are correct. Existing LLM evaluations for subjective cultural queries largely focus on factual correctness, ignoring how the response is framed. To this end, we introduce FRANZ, an automated FRAmework for respoNse characteriZation to conduct communicative audit of LLM responses along four dimensions: cultural positioning, use of generalizing language, anthropomorphic cues, and adherence to conversational maxims. To enable this evaluation, we contribute SQUARE - a corpus of 376k subjective questions sourced from 57 subreddits, and mapped to 7 countries and 19 question categories. We demonstrate FRANZ's applicability by scoring responses from three open-weight LLMs. We observe that LLMs show statistically significant differences in the frequency with which they employ each response characteristic. Unlike single-dimensional audits, FRANZ reveals that insider positioning and anthropomorphism are positively coupled, with the degree of coupling varying by country, providing a diagnostic lens for identifying framing divergences.

The way our eyes move while reading provides valuable insights into both the reader's cognitive processes and the properties of the text. In particular, eye-tracking-while-reading data has shown to be highly beneficial in various technological applications, such as enhancing and interpreting language models and inferring a reader's characteristics. However, these applications often rely on large-scale, data-driven models, which demand extensive eye-tracking datasets that are challenging to obtain due to the resource-intensive nature of data collection. To address the challenge of data scarcity, we develop Eyettention II, an end-to-end trained deep-learning model capable of generating realistic scanpaths consisting of a complete set of fixation attributes in chronological order, including fixation location, within-word landing position, and fixation duration. Our model is lightweight, efficiently trainable on limited GPU resources, and closely aligned with cognitive theories. We demonstrate that Eyettention II surpasses state-of-the-art models in scanpath prediction and mirrors human-like gaze behavior by capturing key psycholinguistic phenomena. With its robust performance, Eyettention II holds the potential to drive advancements in natural language processing, facilitate piloting the materials of psycholinguistic experiments, and uncover new insights beyond what is explicitly encoded in theoretical cognitive models.

Various language domains have undergone remarkable changes in recent years; these shifts are largely attributed to the advent of Large Language Models and their misalignment with natural language usage. These misalignments are thought to partly originate in the preference-learning stage, e.g. Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback, which generally makes models more useful but simultaneously may introduce systematic lexical bias. In terms of lexical behavior, this is visible in a model's preference for certain formats or the overuse of words (delve, furthermore), even when such patterns are not present in base model outputs. Research on lexical misalignment induced during preference training is constrained by reliance on manual curation. We address this, by introducing the Triangulated Preference Shift score, a metric that triangulates between human gold standards, base models, and instruct variants to isolate shifts induced specifically by preference learning, without manual curation. We provide data across six model families, anchor the results in the literature, and illustrate the general approach's utility by analyzing whether preference learning shifts models toward what could be interpreted as a "language of prestige". The metric provides an initial automated method to quantify behavioral shifts attributable to preference tuning, and thus, may help inform model alignment and development of trustworthy AI.

Hallucination remains one of the key challenges undermining the reliability of Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs). But what makes an LVLM hallucinate less? Many existing efforts focus on improving internal components of the model. We argue that hallucination fundamentally stems from how the model architecture is designed. To investigate this, we factor the architecture design into three dimensions: Linguistic Foundation (LF), Visual Representation (VR), and Semantic Alignment (SA), and categorize hallucinations into Co-occurrence, Similarity, and previously overlooked Uncertainty types. Building on this formulation, we propose CoSimUE, a benchmark that creates fine-grained hallucination scenarios through controlled textual perturbations and random perturbations, enabling mapping between design choices and hallucination behaviors. Experiments across 7 design aspects show that: 1) the widely emphasized scaling of model parameters has only limited impact on reducing all three types of hallucinations; 2) larger and better-trained language foundations can reduce co-occurrence hallucinations; 3) stronger visual encoders and higher resolutions mitigate similarity errors; 4) effective alignment strategies alleviate uncertainty hallucinations. 5) Furthermore, cross-dimensional analysis reveals that jointly enhancing visual fidelity and alignment quality yields the most comprehensive improvements. This study provides the first systematic exploration linking architecture-level design to hallucination robustness, offering practical guidance for developing reliable and efficient LVLMs.

Language models (LMs) can produce gendered language and stereotypes even when given neutral prompts. Most prior work on gender bias in LMs primarily examines gender through a binary lens (feminine vs. masculine), with limited attention to gender-neutral forms, such as they/them pronouns or neutrally phrased job titles. How gender-related signals are encoded in the internal representations of LMs remains an open question. In this work, we study gender-specific neurons in LMs across three categories: feminine, masculine, and gender-neutral. We propose a neuron-level intervention method to identify neurons that are strongly tied to each gender category. We then test these neurons through controlled generation, showing that activating or masking gender-related neurons can steer a sentence toward a target gender form while preserving its original meaning. To evaluate the effectiveness of our gender-intervention approach, we curate two datasets with controlled sentences labeled across all three gender categories and validate the data quality through human evaluation. Experiments on two open-source LMs show that gender-specific neurons are not evenly distributed across model layers; instead, they concentrate heavily in the earliest layers with smaller contributions from later layers. Compared to existing methods, our method achieves more precise gender control, with less leakage into non-target gender categories and stable output quality through two evaluation criteria. Overall, our work examines how gender is encoded in LMs and provides a simple yet effective approach toward controlled gender intervention for both neuron intervention evaluation and gender bias mitigation. Code and datasets are available at: https://github.com/zhiwenyou103/Gender-Neuron-Intervention

The double-edged sword of integrating Large Language Models (LLMs) requires an effective triadic collaboration mechanism among LLMs, teachers and students, especially for K-12 education. By developing a triadic collaboration system to support K-12 writing learning, a multidimensional evaluation framework grounded in Systemic Functional Linguistics and the suggestion trajectory tracing pipeline, this paper contributes a large-scale empirical dataset involving $57,954$ essays from $10,195$ students across $120$ schools over two years. Our findings confirm the efficacy of this system in improving writing quality through a strategic labor division: the LLM serves as a generative engine to mitigate teacher burnout, and the teacher acts as a pedagogical gatekeeper and bridge to guarantee feedback quality. While both LLM and teacher are critical for skill improvement, we uncover a ceiling effect where excessive linguistic expansion yields diminishing marginal utility. These suggest a dynamically adaptive LLM-teacher collaboration as student proficiency increases.

As LLMs become increasingly integrated into daily life, understanding how their presence will shape human linguistic behavior is an open question. We present a large-scale study of linguistic convergence in human-LLM dialogue, examining how humans and LLMs accommodate each other's linguistic style during multi-turn conversations. Using an asymmetric convergence metric on WildChat, a corpus of real-world ChatGPT transcripts, we find that while LLMs significantly overconverge toward their users on both function word and open-class features across eight languages, human convergence rates in this setting are broadly consistent with human-human baselines. These findings suggest that accommodation in human-LLM dialogue is asymmetric: while LLMs dramatically overfit to their users' style, humans linguistically accommodate LLMs no differently than they would another person.

Discourse particles, such as well and kind of, are crucial components that enable LLMs to "speak" more like humans. They are used to convey emotions, intentions, and interpersonal attitudes. However, existing studies have not yet built a comprehensive understanding of LLMs' capabilities in handling discourse particles. Moreover, the limited number of research focuses primarily on high-resource languages such as English, with little attention paid to Southeast Asian languages. In this paper, we (1) propose MalayPrag, a benchmark designed to systematically evaluate and analyze LLMs' capabilities in handling discourse particles in colloquial Malay; (2) introduce five attributes that provide a theoretically grounded, unified framework for interpreting pragmatic functions of discourse particles. Applying these two, we prompt ten off-the-shelf LLMs to perform three prediction tasks. The experimental results reveal substantial challenges for current LLMs to accurately connect discourse particles and their pragmatic functions in Malay. The provision of the five attributes designed in this study is found to significantly improve the connections, highlighting the need for structured scaffolding for models' pragmatic competence.

Vision-language models (VLMs) generate fluent causal explanations, but current evaluations cannot distinguish linguistic plausibility from faithful causal reasoning. We introduce a dual-probe methodology that isolates these properties. The Text-Only Probe measures linguistic quality. The Chain-Text Probe requires models to first generate explicit causal chains. The Abstraction Gap (AG) metric quantifies the normalized performance difference. Evaluating eight VLMs on CAGE (Causal Abstraction Gap Evaluation), a benchmark of 49,500 questions across 5,500 images spanning Pearl's causal hierarchy, we find seven models exhibit AG exceeding 0.50 with text scores of 6--8 but chain scores below 2.5. Fine-tuning on 45,000 chain-annotated examples fails to close the gap. However, one model achieves near-zero AG. The capability exists within current VLM architectures and depends on pretraining and architectural choices. CAGE provides a diagnostic tool for assessing faithful causal reasoning in VLMs.

LLMs' linguistically expressed confidence should faithfully reflect their intrinsic uncertainty. While recent work shows LLMs struggle to use epistemic markers (e.g., "it is likely...") in a human-aligned fashion, it remains unclear whether models can apply their own linguistic confidence framework to associate markers with specific confidence levels in a stable and generalizable way, and how contextual features impact this ability. We conduct the first systematic study of this question, formalizing marker internal confidence (MIC) as the estimated intrinsic confidence a model associates with a specific epistemic marker in a given task domain. We present 7 metrics to evaluate the stability of MICs within and across distributions. Applying our analysis framework to diverse models and tasks, we find that LLMs remain faithfully miscalibrated even under model-centric interpretation of marker meanings, struggling to differentiate markers by internal confidence across distributions despite preserving a somewhat consistent ranking order across tasks. This supplies critical, complementary evidence to existing work toward a holistic understanding of faithful calibration in LLMs, emphasizing the need for more aligned and stable marker use to improve trustworthiness and reliability.

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly evaluated for whether they identify the right visual content, but little is known about whether they express such content in a discourse-appropriate form. We address this research gap using information structure (IS), testing whether VLMs distinguish discourse-old Topics from discourse-new Foci in visually grounded question answering. We exploit Hungarian, a language in which Topic and Focus map onto dedicated syntactic positions, making IS choices observable in text. Comparing six VLMs with human participants, we find that models produce IS-relevant constructions, but over-regularise this sensitivity. Under the interacting pressures of discourse status, grammatical role (preference for subject Topics) and definiteness (preference for indefinite Foci), humans choose variable strategies for IS realisation. VLMs, by contrast, collapse onto narrow response templates, resembling mode collapse (Kirk et al., 2024). Our findings suggest that VLM evaluation should look beyond content accuracy to how content is packaged for the discourse.

Prompt-based personality control is a key technique for designing large language model (LLM) dialogue agents that behave consistently across social contexts. However, specifying Big Five personality traits (BFTs) in a prompt does not ensure that the intended traits are expressed in generated utterances. This paper investigates this mismatch from an interactionist perspective, viewing personality expression as a context-dependent outcome shaped by the interplay between trait specification and situational factors. We analyze how perceived BFT expression in LLM-generated dialogue is influenced by three prompt factors: personality traits, dialogue roles, and expressive styles. Using a factorial design that combines six personality conditions, three roles, and three expressive-style conditions, we generate 1,080 LLM-agent dialogues in each of English and Japanese. We then evaluate the target agent's utterances using an LLM-as-a-judge framework to estimate expressed Big Five traits. The results show that expressed personality is shaped not only by explicit trait specification, but also by dialogue role and expressive style. These effects are trait-specific: dialogue role strongly influences Openness, expressive style substantially shapes Conscientiousness and Agreeableness, and explicit trait specification dominates Neuroticism. Even without explicit personality-trait specification, social and expressive conditions induce distinct personality-like impressions. Cross-linguistic comparisons show broadly similar patterns between English and Japanese dialogues, with noticeable differences only under specific combinations of personality, role, and expressive style. These findings suggest that personality control in LLM agents should be understood not as a direct consequence of trait prompting, but as a context-dependent process involving personality specification, social role, and expressive style.

Annotation quality is difficult to sustain when campaigns span weeks or months with small annotator pools. We present a Setswana sentiment dataset of 3,565 tweets annotated by three native-speaker annotators across eight batches and examine why inter-annotator agreement (IAA) declines over time. Despite an aggregate Randolph's free-marginal Kappa of $κ= 0.76$, "excellent," per-batch $κ$ falls by more than 32 points across the annotation task. Through six targeted analyses, we find that (i) label confusion concentrates on the negative/neutral boundary, (ii) two annotators show run-length drift consistent with autopilot labeling, and (iii) the dominant predictor of $κ$ is temporal simultaneity: tweets labeled within one minute achieve $κ= 0.98$, while those labeled more than a day apart reach only $κ= 0.65$. Annotation speed and tweet-level linguistic features show no meaningful association with $κ$. We benchmark three open multilingual encoders and proprietary models (GPT-5 and Gemini) on three-class sentiment classification; fine-tuning yields gains of 29 to 43 macro-F1 points over pretrained baselines, with GPT-5 few-shot leading overall (62.2 macro-F1). We release the dataset, per-annotation timestamps, and analysis code to support reproducible quality auditing for future African language NLP resources.

This paper reports the core linguistic work performed to construct a dictionary-based morphological analyser for Malagasy simple verbs. It uses the Unitex platform and comprised the contruction of an electronic dictionary for Malagasy simple verbs. The data is encoded on the basis of morphological features. The morphological variations of verb stems and their combination with inflectional affixes are formalized in finite-state transducers represented by editable graphs. 78 transducers allow Unitex to generate a dictionary of allomorphs of stems. 271 other transducers are used by the morphological analyser of Unitex to recognize the stem and the affixes in conjugated verbs. The design of the dictionary and transducers prioritizes readability, so that they can be extended and updated by linguists.

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder and the leading cause of dementia, affecting memory, reasoning, communication, and daily functioning. Early diagnosis is particularly important, as timely intervention may help slow cognitive decline and improve patient care. Recent studies have demonstrated that spontaneous speech contains valuable linguistic and acoustic biomarkers associated with dementia. However, existing approaches often rely on independently trained modality-specific models, feature concatenation strategies, ensemble methods, or attention-based fusion mechanisms that do not explicitly maximize the dependency between speech and transcript representations. In this work, we propose a multimodal deep learning framework for automatic dementia detection that jointly exploits speech and transcript information in an end-to-end trainable manner. Specifically, speech recordings are divided into 10-second segments and passed through a pre-trained HuBERT model to extract contextualized acoustic representations. To better capture informative temporal speech characteristics, attentive statistics pooling is employed to aggregate frame-level acoustic embeddings. For the textual modality, transcripts are encoded using a pre-trained BERT model, where the [CLS] token representation is used as the linguistic embedding. The acoustic and textual representations are subsequently combined using an attention-based Audio-Text Fusion (AT-Fusion) mechanism. In addition, we introduce a MINE objective to maximize the mutual information between modalities and improve multimodal representation alignment. The fused multimodal representation is finally used for dementia classification. Experiments conducted on the publicly available ADReSS Challenge and PROCESS-2 dataset demonstrate the effectiveness and robustness of the proposed approach for speech-based dementia assessment.

This paper examines how the labour of translators has been transformed into foundational data capital for the age of artificial intelligence (AI). Translation memories (TM) and parallel corpora preserve a one-to-one correspondence between source and target text and therefore constitute extraordinarily valuable supervised training data for machine translation. The development of statistical machine translation (SMT), neural machine translation (NMT), the Transformer architecture, and multilingual large language models (LLMs) cannot be disentangled from the accumulation of such translation data. And yet, translators' renditions have been bought as deliverables under contract, segmented as technical objects, and processed as "information analysis" data under copyright law -- losing their moral, creative, and economic attribution to the translators who produced them. The paper develops two concepts to capture this process. The first is appropriation without consumption: a mode of use in which works are not read, viewed, or listened to, but only mined for statistical features -- a use that is legitimated under Article 30-4 of the Japanese Copyright Act. The second is the invisible teacherisation of translators: the process by which translators, through the construction of translation memories, post-editing, and quality assessment, have functioned as teachers of AI without recognition as such. Drawing on the data supply chain that runs from translators through language service providers (LSPs) and platforms to model developers, on a comparative reading of Japanese, European, and United States legal frameworks, on the distinction between open and proprietary AI models, and on the premium status that human-generated data has acquired in the era of model collapse, the paper asks what translators are actually afraid of, and points toward concrete directions for redistributive design.

Language models (LMs) can exhibit biases based on variations in their dialects, even in the absence of a dialect label, a behavior known as covert dialect bias. In this work, we quantify covert dialect bias in online discourse by evaluating how LMs associate stereotypical traits (derived from social psychology research on racial bias) with intent-equivalent tweets in Standard American English (SAE) and African-American Vernacular English (AAVE). While prior work shows that LMs associate more negative stereotypes with AAVE when evaluating tweets in isolation, we are surprised to find that this bias is significantly exacerbated when SAE / AAVE tweet pairs are compared side by side, a setting that more closely reflects high-impact decision making contexts in which models are used to rank candidates. The bias only worsens when dialect labels are explicitly specified. This is striking, given the extensive efforts from commercial developers to mitigate bias in their LMs. Encouragingly, we show that counterfactual fairness finetuning can mitigate covert dialect bias for some stereotypical traits, reducing average disparities when evaluating tweets in isolation, however, these improvements do not consistently hold across traits when evaluating SAE / AAVE tweets side by side. Our findings show that existing evaluation settings for covert dialect bias may underestimate its severity, specifically in contrastive settings. Additionally, overt dialect bias remains pronounced even after safety aligned finetuning, indicating that it remains an unresolved problem, and motivates the need for more robust evaluation and mitigation frameworks.

Natural Language Generation (NLG) evaluation has changed dramatically since 1990, and will continue to evolve in the future. In 1990, when NLG had close ties to linguistics, there was very little formal experimental evaluation in the modern sense. In 2026, when NLG is closely linked to machine learning, experimental evaluation is expected and indeed fundamental to research. Many evaluation techniques were developed over this period, including most recently LLM-as-Judge. I expect NLG evaluation will continue to evolve in the future. In particular, impact, qualitative, and safety evaluation will become more important as large numbers of people routinely use NLG technology.

While factual correctness and task-performance have been in focus of Large Language Model (LLM) research for a long time, the fundamental question of how human-like generated texts are on a linguistic level has been underexplored. From a corpus-linguistic perspective, language production is inherently context-dependent, with distinct communicative contexts giving rise to differences in frequencies and co-occurrence patterns of linguistic features. A text failing to adhere to these patterns can be content-wise correct, but still be unfavorable to human readers. In this work, we propose a context-aware evaluation framework in which human-likeness is assessed using a two-sample problem between the linguistic feature distribution of a human reference corpus for a given register and a corresponding LLM-generated corpus. We implement this framework using the Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD) and the 67 lexico-grammatical features introduced by Biber, which are commonly applied in corpus linguistics. In our experiments, we compare seven instruction-tuned, open-source models across five English-language datasets spanning distinct registers against a human baseline. While across all tested setups, LLMs deviate from the human baseline, which models are closest to human language depends on the register and is not dictated by model size.

Model collapse, the progressive degradation of LLMs trained on their own outputs, has been characterized statistically but lacks a linguistic explanation for which structures degrade, in what order, and why. We show that iterated learning theory from cultural evolution fills this gap. We derive five falsifiable predictions, distinguish those uniquely discriminative for the theory from confirmatory ones, and test them by self-training LLaMA-2-7B and Mistral-7B over 10 generations in English, German, and Turkish. The critical discriminative finding: compositionality follows a non-monotonic trajectory (initially rising, then falling) under unfiltered self-training. This signature persists with maximally regular seed data (ruling out noise removal) and is sustained only by task-grounded filtering, not random filtering, providing the first LLM-scale evidence for the compression-communication tradeoff. All predictions are confirmed with large effect sizes (Hedges' $g > 1.6$; $\mathrm{BF}_{10} > 100$), and LLM regularization gradients closely match human behavioral data ($R^2 = 0.94$). These results reframe model collapse as a cultural transmission phenomenon and yield concrete principles for self-training pipeline design.

How do learners acquire knowledge of what is unacceptable without negative evidence? Construction Grammar proposes statistical preemption: exposure to a conventional form (e.g., "donated the books to the library") preempts structurally possible but unattested alternatives ("*donated the library the books"). We present a computational study that, for the first time, directly dissociates statistical preemption from the competing entrenchment hypothesis in large language models within a single converging design. Across four experiments spanning 120 English verb-construction pairings (dative, causative, locative), we show that (1) LLM surprisal patterns correlate strongly with human acceptability judgments ($r = 0.79$), validated against three independent behavioral datasets; (2) these patterns are driven by competing-form frequency rather than overall verb frequency, confirmed by non-circular partial correlations; (3) preemption sensitivity scales as a power law with model size; and (4) a controlled fine-tuning intervention causally demonstrates that manipulating competing-form frequencies shifts preemption behavior in the predicted direction, with reverse-direction controls ruling out frequency-sensitivity confounds. These results provide converging evidence that neural language models acquire negative linguistic knowledge through distributional competition, the core mechanism posited by Construction Grammar.

When a multi-module LLM agent fails, the module most responsible for the failure is not necessarily the best place to intervene. We demonstrate this Diagnostic Paradox empirically: causal analysis consistently identifies the routing module -- which selects which tool to call next -- as the primary bottleneck across three independent agent families. Yet injecting prompt-level correction examples into this module consistently degrades performance, sometimes severely. Patching an upstream query-rewriting module instead reliably improves outcomes. The effect holds with statistical significance on two agent families and directional consistency on a third; alternative repair strategies at the routing module (instruction rewriting, model upgrade) are neutral, confirming that the harm is specific to correction-injection patching. We explain this asymmetry through the Linguistic Contract hypothesis: each downstream module implicitly adapts to its upstream's characteristic error distribution, so correcting the bottleneck breaks this implicit alignment in a way that upstream corrections do not. We operationalize this via a per-agent co-adaptation measure, derived from diagnosis alone, and show it is consistently associated with patching harm across agent families: higher co-adaptation co-occurs with harm, lower with safety. This trend holds across all three agent families, providing preliminary support for the hypothesis beyond a single-agent observation.

Low-resource languages face a critical challenge in AI development: creating specialized conversational systems without access to massive training corpora. We present a systematic methodology for transforming structured linguistic resources into specialized AI systems, demonstrating that expert-curated lexical databases can serve as effective foundations for conversational AI development. Our approach converts Hindi WordNet into 1.25 million diverse instruction-response pairs, fine-tunes a 12B-parameter language model using resource-efficient LoRA with 4-bit quantization. Evaluation through a Hindi language learning chatbot demonstrates that structured-knowledge-based systems achieve superior pedagogical effectiveness (91.0 vs. 79.4-83.6 for general-purpose models) while maintaining competitive semantic performance and exceptional consistency. The complete pipeline demonstrates a proof-of-concept methodology using Hindi for developing specialized AI systems for any languages with WordNet resources. This work addresses the critical gap in AI accessibility for low-resource languages, offering a practical alternative to corpus-intensive approaches and potentially enabling specialized AI development for the hundreds of languages with existing WordNet resources.

The thinking-while-speaking paradigm aims to make AI communication more human. A key challenge is maintaining fluent speech while performing deep reasoning. Our method, InterRS, tackles this by inserting reasoning steps only during natural speech generation. This requires high-quality data where reasoning and speech are precisely aligned, and the length ratio are under controlled. We introduce a novel pipeline to generate such seamlessly interleaved audio data. To train our model, we combine interleaved SFT with refined data and reinforcement learning with two new rewards: a TA-Balance Reward to manage timing and thinking-answer ratio, and a Linguistic Quality Reward to refine expression. Experiments show our approach achieves 13% better performance on mathmatical and logic benchmarks while generating instant response like a spoken-language instruct model which outputs fast CoT response. Furthermore, our method generates more natural and fluent answers than prior methods.

This paper reflects on twenty years of building NLP resources and research infrastructure for Arabic, a language spoken by hundreds of millions yet historically underserved relative to languages such as English or Chinese. The first decade focused on foundational linguistic infrastructure; the second shifted toward computational social science, social media analysis, and socially oriented applications. Rather than cataloguing outputs, the paper examines what the experience of building them revealed. Three counterintuitive lessons emerge: building datasets is as much a social process as a technical one; communities formed around shared tasks often matter more than the tasks themselves; and moving from language resources to computational social science exposes challenges that traditional NLP training does not address. We discuss three failures: a depression detection corpus that never reached clinical practice, a period of spreading across too many shared tasks without sufficient depth, and a long-standing assumption that Modern Standard Arabic infrastructure would transfer cleanly to dialectal tasks. These experiences suggest that the hardest problems in developing NLP for underserved communities are not linguistic but social, institutional, and epistemic, and require competencies the field rarely teaches.

Advancements at the intersection of computer vision and natural language processing are crucial for applications like assistive tech, multimedia querying, and robotics. This dissertation proposes novel architectures to improve intelligent agents across three key vision-language tasks: image captioning, visual dialog, and interactive instruction following. First, we address limitations in visual representation for image captioning. Traditional models rely on region-based features from CNN detectors, which lack global context and suffer from high computational overhead. We propose GRIT (Grid and Region-based Image captioning Transformer), a transformer-only architecture. By integrating grid and region features using a DETR-based detector, GRIT enables end-to-end training and out-performs prior methods in both inference accuracy and speed. Second, we tackle visual dialog, which requires multi-turn conversation about an image. The challenge lies in efficiently modeling interactions between multiple inputs (image, question, history). We introduce LTMI (Light-weight Transformer for Many Inputs). Utilizing a specialized attention block, an LTMI layer matches the representational power of a standard Transformer extension while utilizing less than one-tenth of its parameters, as validated on the VisDial dataset. Finally, we study interactive instruction-following for embodied AI using the ALFRED dataset. We propose a framework featuring a two-stage instruction interpretation: it first decodes language directives independently of visual context to predict a tentative action-object sequence, which is then fused with visual features for final execution. Using multiple egocentric views and hierarchical attention, our method accurately localizes objects and achieves a state-of-the-art unseen success rate of 8.37%.

The article observes data analysis of 286 multi-word expressions (MWEs) based on 16 lexical, grammatical and other criteria described in theoretical books and papers on the notion of idiomaticity. MWEs were collected from the same theoretical sources, and a set of experts in linguistics annotated them with these categories. The distribution of categories shows that there are no absolutely idiomatic expressions. Lexical criteria seem to be the most influential; grammatical criteria are bound to certain conditions; presence of obsolete words and grammar influence ability of an MWE to be replaced with one word.

Linguistic cues such as "I believe" and "probably" offer an intuitive interface for communicating confidence, yet a generalisable, principled calibration framework for linguistic confidence expressions remains underexplored. In particular, co-occurring linguistic cues, contextual variation, and subjective audience interpretation pose unique challenges. We therefore model linguistic confidence as a distribution over plausible perceived probability values that a statement is correct, capturing interpretation variability that scalar representations discard. Within this distributional framework, we introduce faithfulness as a complementary evaluation dimension and present Faithfulness Divergence (FD), an information-theoretic metric quantifying the surprise induced in audience beliefs upon truth revelation. Building on these foundations, we present Retrieval-Augmented Linguistic Calibration (RALC), a lightweight post-hoc pipeline that propagates calibrated confidence signals back into natural language via retrieval-augmented rewriting. Across three QA benchmarks and five LLM families, RALC improves in-domain faithfulness and calibration up to 66% and 58%, respectively, outperforming black-box and grey-box calibration baselines.

A key question in psycholinguistics is how inferences about the meaning of linguistic input unfold incrementally a comprehender's mind. In this work, we study reading dynamics for ``noisy-channel garden-path'' sentences, which temporarily appear well-formed but feature late-appearing violations of expectation that can be resolved not by inferring an alternative syntactic structure, but by inferring the presence of an error. We find evidence for targeted regressions -- eye movements towards regions that are promising loci of possible errors in light of later-arriving information, showing patterns consistent with the posterior inferences of a model of noisy-channel processing with reanalysis. We discuss the implications of these findings for theories of noisy-channel language comprehension and information-theoretic explanations of reading dynamics.

As a modern commodity, language has become a vast repository of socially and psychologically significant traits and concepts, reflecting the ways people encode pattern of thoughts, behaviors, and emotions into words. Text-based Automatic Personality Prediction (APP), seeks to infer personality from linguistic behavior, offering a scalable alternative to traditional psychometric assessments. Although text is inherently hierarchical, with the document-level capturing global features, the sentence-level encoding local semantics, and the word-level providing fine-grained lexical information, most existing approaches rely on shallow, sequential, or single-level representations that ignore the multi-level structure of written language. To address this, we propose HyperPersona, a framework that explicitly models the hierarchical organization of text (document, sentence, and word) through hypergraph structure, where a document and its sentences are represented as hyperedges, and the words are represented as nodes, enabling joint modeling of global, local, and lexical dependencies of text. Followed by a transformer-based graph encoder that learns interactions within and across these linguistic layers, yielding context-sensitive and structurally grounded feature representations for personality prediction. Experiments on the Big Five personality dimensions show that, while relying solely on text, HyperPersona effectively integrates multi-level linguistic cues, achieving superior performance compared to state-of-the-art baselines. These findings underscore the critical role of textual hierarchy in advancing human-like personality inference from natural language.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains such as clinical decision support and medical documentation. However, the robustness of these models against subtle linguistic variations, specifically stigmatizing language (SL) commonly found in human-authored clinical notes, remains critically under-explored. In this work, we investigate whether frontier LLMs inherit and propagate this human bias when processing clinical text. We systematically evaluate nine frontier LLMs across four stigmatized medical conditions, utilizing clinical vignettes injected with varying intensities and phenotypes of SL (doubt, blame, and maligning). Our results demonstrate that all evaluated models exhibit substantial bias, with clinical decision-making significantly skewed towards less aggressive patient management. Notably, we observe a high sensitivity to linguistic framing, where a single SL sentence is sufficient to alter model outputs, revealing a clear dose-response relationship. Furthermore, we evaluate standard prompt-based mitigation strategies, including Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning and model self-debiasing. These approaches show limited efficacy; models struggle to explicitly identify SL while remaining implicitly influenced by it. Our findings expose a critical vulnerability in current LLMs regarding fairness and robustness in clinical NLP, underscoring the need for rigorous algorithmic guardrails to prevent the automation of health disparities.

Linguistic annotation of transcribed speech is essential for research in language acquisition, language disorders, and sociolinguistics, yet remains labor-intensive and time-consuming. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in automating annotation tasks, their ability to handle complex discourse-level annotation in non-English languages remains understudied. This study evaluates whether LLMs can reliably annotate narrative macrostructure-the hierarchical organization of story grammar elements-in spoken Mandarin, using the Multilingual Assessment Instrument for Narratives (MAIN) as a testbed. We compared four LLMs against trained human annotators on narratives produced by children, young adults, and older adults. The best-performing model achieved agreement with human raters (k=.794) approaching human-human reliability levels (k=.872) while reducing annotation time by 65%, whereas the locally deployable lightweight model performed substantially worse. Annotation difficulty varied systematically by macrostructure element type, with categories requiring subtle semantic differentiation posing persistent challenges. Furthermore, model reliability decreased on young adult narratives, which exhibited greater lexical variation, semantic ambiguity, and multi-element integration within single utterances. These findings suggest that LLMs can effectively support discourse-level annotation in non-English spoken corpora, while highlighting the continued need for human oversight in semantically complex tasks. Our prompt templates are open sourced for future use.

Standard PII filters often miss contextual data leakage in RAG systems, such as non-regulated attribute clusters that collectively identify individuals. We introduce a Privacy Policy Enforcement (PPE) framework using dual one-class density estimators with fused text embeddings and a calibrated abstain region for out-of-distribution inputs. Using an axis-stratified, multi-LLM synthetic data pipeline across medicine, finance, and law, we found that traditional Gaussian Mixture baselines fail on borderline-safe stress tests by focusing on linguistic register rather than content. Our proposed T3+OCSVM detector, trained on safe and borderline-safe data, achieves a borderline AUROC of 0.93+ while reducing false positives by 44-55 percentage points and maintaining millisecond latency. Compared to supervised MLP classifiers or 14B-parameter LLM judges, our framework offers superior operational suitability, as the former suffers from high abstention rates and the latter from latency and calibration issues. This methodology provides a robust stress-testing standard for any synthetic-data-trained classifier.

Algorithmic feeds have become primary environments for encountering information online, yet while they shape what people see, less is known about how sustained feed exposure shapes how people write. Drawing on Cultivation Theory, we examine whether algorithmic feeds function as online environments that leave measurable traces in users' language. We leverage a large-scale longitudinal dataset of 235M posts by 4M users on Bluesky, and conduct a quasi-experimental study matching an initial pool of 368,513 users exposed to one of three feeds -- News, Science, and Blacksky -- with a pool of 2,001,915 active control users who did not engage with any of these feeds. We examine linguistic evolution across three dimensions: lexico-semantics, psycholinguistics, and topics. We find that users exposed to these feeds show significantly greater stylistic accommodation, semantic alignment, and register formalization than matched controls. These effects vary markedly by feed identity -- Blacksky produces the deepest psycholinguistic restructuring, with significant shifts in cognitive processing, affective expression, and pronoun use, while News and Science effects are largely confined to register and topical focus. Regression models reveal that reposting is the most consistent predictor of linguistic convergence across all feeds, whereas posting and bookmarking show feed-dependent effects, with effects differing more than fourfold across feeds. Our work extends Cultivation Theory beyond belief formation to linguistic behavior, demonstrating that feeds function as persistent linguistic environments that gradually shape what and how users write online. Our work has implications for studying algorithmic influence, online identity formation, and the design and governance of feed-based platforms that mediate online interactions.

Aphasias, selective language impairments which can arise from brain damage, reveal the functional organization of human language by providing causal links between affected brain regions and specific symptom profiles. Drawing on this literature, we introduce an aphasia-inspired technique to characterize the emergent functional organization of language models (LMs). We ``lesion'' (zero-out) model parameters and measure the effects of this intervention against clinical aphasia symptoms, as diagnosed by the Text Aphasia Battery (TAB). When applied to 112,426 outputs from five 1B-scale LMs, the full range of evaluated symptoms surface, but in distributions largely distinct from those of humans. Our method uncovers broad symptom-profile differences between attention components (query, key, value, output) and feed-forward components (up, gate, down), with weaker evidence for differences among components within the same mechanism. We also find an effect of depth, where lesions in early layers disproportionately cause syntactic and semantic symptoms while late-middle layers yield higher rates of phonological and fluency deficits. Although some LM lesions induce quantitatively more similar profiles to some human aphasia types than others, qualitative differences in symptom patterns between LMs and humans suggest that aphasia syndromes are heavily influenced by the details of learning and processing rather than being a domain-invariant consequence of disrupted language processing.

Communicating using only a limited vocabulary is a common but challenging cognitive phenomenon, requiring an ideal communicator to plan carefully to optimize for intelligibility while circumventing a constrained lexicon. In this work, we investigate how humans respond to a broad array of questions under variable vocabulary limitations, consisting of only 250 highly frequent words at the most restrictive. We provide theoretically motivated comparisons to greedy and globally optimal sampling algorithms using Sequential Monte Carlo inference with large language models. Humans generally resemble greedy sampling more than globally optimal sampling, though more skilled humans are more likely to backtrack and revise -- a non-greedy behavior. An observed human pattern of leaning on semantically light words in high-constraint settings falls out of both greedy and globally optimal sampling. We discuss the results and their broader implications for resource-rational cognition, psycholinguistics, L2 communication, and language impairments.

Brain-language model comparisons often interpret neural prediction scores as evidence that model representations capture brain-relevant language computation. We asked whether language models align with brains, and whether prediction scores are enough to support that claim, using L-PACT, a source-audited framework that evaluates predictive, relational, mechanism-stripping, and reliability-bounded evidence. Across primary naturalistic language neural datasets and derived language-model representations, L-PACT compared real model features with nuisance baselines and severe controls, tested whether model-to-brain profiles reproduced brain-to-brain patterns, recomputed held-out scores after mechanism stripping, and normalized evidence against brain-brain ceilings. The locked analysis set contains 414 predictive-control rows, 2304 relational profile rows, 4320 mechanism-stripping rows, 420 brain-brain ceiling rows, and 146 integrated decision rows. Assay-sensitivity checks showed that brain-brain reliability, brain-as-model run-to-run relational profiles, independent low-level neural and WAV-derived acoustic-envelope gates, and a deterministic implanted-signal simulation can produce positive evidence when expected. Nevertheless, no real model row passed the predictive, relational, mechanism-stripping, or operational Turing-bounded reliability gates; all 146 integrated rows were control-explained. Less stringent single-criterion rules would have counted raw positive predictive, relational, stripping-delta, and ceiling-normalized effects, but L-PACT downgraded them because controls explained the apparent evidence. In the analyzed derived artifact set, the tested language-model representations do not satisfy L-PACT alignment gates; apparent positives are converted into an auditable control-explained taxonomy rather than treated as structural alignment.

Cognitive operations are a rising concern in the geopolitical sphere, a quiet yet rigorous fight for public perception and decision making. While such operations have been extensively studied in the context of bot-driven amplification, the emergence of generative AI introduces a new set of capabilities that may have fundamentally altered how these operations are designed and executed. The possible evolution of cognitive operation via generative AI puts nation states vulnerable without proper mitigation strategies. To address this, we compared behavioral and linguistic coordination patterns in X (formerly Twitter) datasets from the 2016 and 2024 U.S. presidential elections. Utilizing a combined corpus of over 133,000 posts, we applied post-type distribution, semantic clustering, temporal synchrony analysis, and Jaccard-based lexical overlap measures. Findings suggest that the 2024 corpus exhibits a distinct pattern from 2016. Original content rose from 59% to 93% with retweets virtually disappeared; lexical overlap collapsed from a mean Jaccard score of 0.99 to 0.27, with posts converging on the same subject matter expressed in markedly different words; and temporal coordination shifted from pervasive cross-semantic synchrony to narratively concentrated co-occurrence. Taken together, these patterns point toward an operational logic organized around active content generation and narrative-specific targeting - characteristics consistent with generative AI involvement. These findings offer an empirical baseline for future research investigating generative AI's role in the cognitive operation pipeline, and as a practical reference point for security practitioners developing detection frameworks calibrated to the post-generative AI threat environment.

In this paper, we examine linguistic puzzles used in high school linguistics competitions, focusing on two common formats: Rosetta Stone and Match-Up. We propose a systematic procedure for converting existing Rosetta Stone puzzles into corresponding Match-Up counterparts. Because linguistic puzzle creation is complex and time-consuming, our method provides an efficient way to accelerate the generation of new puzzles. We evaluate the resulting Rosetta Stone-Match-Up pairs with both human participants and large language models (LLMs). Our results show that both expert human solvers and LLMs display an all-or-nothing pattern on Match-Up puzzles, either solving them completely or failing entirely. This work contributes a new dataset of paired puzzles and provides a detailed evaluation of puzzle difficulty across formats, offering insights into both human and machine linguistic reasoning.

Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve strong linguistic performance, yet their internal mechanisms for producing these predictions remain unclear. We investigate the hypothesis that LLMs encode representations of linguistic constraint violations within their parameters, which are selectively activated when processing ungrammatical sentences. To test this, we use sparse autoencoders to decompose polysemantic activations into sparse, monosemantic features and recover candidates for violation-related features. We introduce a sensitivity score for identifying features that are preferentially activated on constraint-violated versus well-formed inputs, enabling unsupervised detection of potential violation-specific features. We further propose a conjunctive falsification framework with three criteria evaluated jointly. Overall, the results are negative in two respects: (1) the falsification criteria are not jointly satisfied across linguistic phenomena, and (2) no features are consistently shared across all categories. While some phenomena show partial evidence of selective causal structure, the overall pattern provides limited support for a unified set of grammatical violation detectors in current LMs.