Negation

True machine intelligence requires transcending passive pixel registration to master top-down functional reasoning over absent information via visual negation understanding. However, unconstrained visual negation paradigms remain overly open-ended, and pervasive affirmation bias causes both existing Multi-Modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) and evaluation metrics to fail under negative semantics. To solve these intertwined challenges systematically, we first anchor the boundaries of negation reasoning within specific cognitive goals. Specifically, by focusing on safety as a highly pragmatic and critical cognitive dimension, we define the task of \textbf{S}cene \textbf{N}egation \textbf{U}nderstanding under \textbf{S}afety Cognition (\textbf{SNUS}). Under this framework, we construct a high-fidelity negative caption dataset mapping dense assertions of localized hazards. Concurrently, we propose the Cognitive Expected Scene Graph (CESG) Score, a structure-grounded, polarity-aware evaluation metric. Extensive experiments demonstrate that while current models struggle on the task, traditional metrics completely collapse under semantic reversals. Conversely, our framework delivers a solid benchmark for SNUS, providing a rigorous foundation to advance risk-aware situational comprehension and counterfactual cognition.

Negation is typically modeled through its linguistic realization, although spoken interaction is accompanied by tightly coordinated nonverbal behavior. We ask whether contexts centered on spoken negation cues contain measurable multimodal behavioral information: whether they can be distinguished from matched control contexts without lexical or acoustic input, where this information occurs in time, which modalities carry it, and whether it extends to the dialogue partner. We study 27 human-human interviews conducted in virtual reality, comprising temporally aligned gaze, facial, head, body, hand, and finger behavior and 964 annotated negation cues. Treating classification as a predictive probe, we compare 20 time-series models while excluding lexical and acoustic information, and then systematically vary temporal context, interactional source, modality availability, and event timing. Across grouped 10-fold cross-validation, the strongest probes reach up to .75 mean held-out AUROC from speaker-side behavior. Temporal analyses show that predictive information is concentrated around cue onset but remains detectable over a broader surrounding interval, while dialogue-partner behavior carries weaker predictive information with a comparatively diffuse temporal profile. Ablation and timing perturbations further show that facial features produce the largest modality-ablation effect and that the trained probe is sensitive to the temporal organization of the observed events.

In various data models, the classical triple is a typical semantic data model. However, due to the design of the triple as a simple structure for representing positive assertions, it cannot sufficiently express different forms of negation present in the triple and its elements. This paper conceptually proposes that there are three distinct forms of negation within triples and their elements: contradictory negation, opposite negation and intermediary negation. Based on the the set SCOI and the logic LCOI+PLCOI with three kinds of negation, we propose an extension of triple that can distinguish and express these three different negations in the triple and its elements, called the TCOI triple with contradictory negation, opposite negation and intermediary negation. The TCOI triple is a semantic and structural extension of the classical triple. While retaining the ability to express positive assertions, it systematically introduces the three semantic dimensions of three negations, allowing these negations to independently act on the elements of the triple and on the whole triple. This significantly enhances the triple model capability to represent and reasoning about complex negative information. This paper also explores the expressive power and reasoning of the TCOI triple, as well as the application of TCOI triple implication reasoning in counterfactuals and counterfactual reasoning. We propose a truth-value (continuous value) algorithm for TCOI triple implication reasoning and perform its calculation through an example of the counterfactuals and counterfactual reasoning.

Modus Tollens (MT) is a classical logical inference rule, while counterfactuals are hypothetical statements that are contrary to facts, and counterfactual reasoning is a process of reasoning based on counterfactuals. Negation is an indispensable core concept in them. In this paper, based on the logical systems LCOI&PLCOI with contradictory negation, opposite negation and intermediary negation, we propose three variants of Modus Tollens corresponding to distinct negation types, namely MTC: Modus Tollens based on contradictory negation, MTO: Modus Tollens based on opposite negation, and MTI: Modus Tollens based on intermediary negation. We define the implications within MTC, MTO and MTI, provide the truth value algorithms of MTC, MTO and MTI, and discuss the reducibility of these algorithms. To incorporate these three types of negation into counterfactuals and counterfactual reasoning, we differentiate counterfactuals into two types based on whether they possess logical negation, thereby proposing three counterfactuals and counterfactuals reasoning based on different logical negations. In this paper, we further argue that the three counterfactuals reasoning based on different logical negations have the same inference form as MTC, MTO and MTI, respectively. In other words, they share the same inference structure. As a result, the truth value algorithms for MTC, MTO and MTI can be as the truth value algorithms for the three counterfactuals reasoning based on different logical negations. The algorithms indicates that if the first premise of the reasoning is true, the truth values of the reasoning conclusions are identical to the truth values of the three negative premises in the reasoning premises, respectively. This reflects the consistency and accuracy of the truth value algorithms.

Language-driven dexterous grasp models, such as DextER, perform well when instructions specify where to grasp, but we find they fail systematically when an instruction also specifies where not to grasp (e.g., "grasp the handle but avoid the body"). Existing training corpora, DexGYSNet among them, contain virtually no avoidance instructions, and collecting examples for every possible constraint is impractical. Moreover, because every part mentioned during training denotes a contact target, models may interpret a forbidden part as another region to grasp rather than one to avoid. We therefore introduce an inference-time framework for negation-constrained dexterous grasping that requires no negation-specific training examples. Combining Sequential Monte Carlo with classifier-free guidance, our method guides sampling toward the instructed part while pruning candidates headed for the forbidden region, without any negation examples during training. A frozen 3D part-grounding model localizes the forbidden region from the language instruction. To evaluate this setting, we construct NegGrasp, a benchmark of paired positive/negative instructions with constraint-aware metrics that credit a grasp only if it both accomplishes the task and respects the stated constraint. On NegGrasp, our method reduces the violation rate of the strongest baseline from 57.9% to 17.2% while improving both constraint-aware and physical success.

Task-vector arithmetic offers a closed-form way to modify a model, yet its behavioral locality remains unclear in closed-loop robot control. We present a target-and-control audit of per-skill task-vector subtraction from multitask vision-language-action (VLA) policies. Across all ten LIBERO-Goal skills, subtraction produces three qualitatively different regimes: target-control separation for five skills, resistance for three, and global collapse for two. On held-out initial states, the five suppressible targets remain at 0% success; however, mean baseline-normalized control retention is only 52%, and each target-suppressing edit materially harms at least one nominally unrelated control. Additional Goal panels show separation across tested policies with continuous-regression, discrete-token, and flow-matching action heads, whereas we observe no clean separation on Spatial and control collapse on the tested Object and Long-horizon panels. Mean task-vector cosine does not account for this variation. A matched-norm control identifies a local sign asymmetry around one Goal anchor, while multi-vector outcomes vary with anchor and scale. Retain-aware gradient baselines provide data-dependent comparators but require removal-time data and optimization; subtraction is data- and gradient-free only at edit time, assuming precomputed expert deltas. Finally, a single-skill relearning probe is consistent with behavioral masking, not certified unlearning. These results characterize task-vector subtraction as a fast but brittle intervention and underscore the need for closed-loop target-and-control evaluation when assessing locality in embodied model editing.

In the seminal paper (Yager 2015), Yager defined the negation of a probability distribution $\mathbf{p}=(p_1,\dots,p_n)$, as the distribution $\overline{\mathbf{p}} = (\overline{p}_1,\dots,\overline{p}_n)$, where $\overline{p}_i = ({1-p_i})/({n-1}),$ for $i=1, \ldots , n.$ In this paper, we present a comprehensive information-theoretic analysis of Yager's negation and its generalizations. Using tools from information theory and majorization theory, we unify, extend, and strengthen a number of previously known properties of Yager's negation within a common framework. Overall, our results offer strong theoretical justification for Yager's negation as the most natural and principled definition of probability distribution negation under various information theoretic criteria.

Combining RDF rule languages, such as N3 or SHACL Rules, with default negation is challenging. Existing methods to stratify negation often fail for RDF rules, since individual triples do not carry enough information to meaningfully restrict potential dependencies. Blank nodes in rule heads further complicate the matter, since the order of rule applications may determine whether new values are created, which in turn can change the applicability of rules with negation. To solve these open problems, we propose chain stratification as a robust new condition that guarantees a well-behaved semantics for RDF rules with negation, and existential rules in general. Our condition combines an elaborate analysis of potential multistep derivations with a mechanism for using integrity constraints to discard impossible cases. Applying rules in any order that respects chain stratification is guaranteed to derive an RDF graph that is unique, lean, and justified under the usual negation-as-failure semantics. To show the practicality, we also provide a prototype implementation.

Contrastive vision-language models such as CLIP map semantically opposite phrases (e.g., "a dog" vs. "not a dog") to nearly identical embeddings, rendering them insensitive to negation. We attribute this failure to a phenomenon we call Representational Collapse: by tracking compositional divergence and visual alignment across the CLIP text encoder, we show that middle layers build compositional syntax, but the final layers collapse this structure as visual alignment rises, producing a syntax-blind final representation. To recover the lost negation signal without altering pretrained weights, we propose PeakPatch, a lightweight post-hoc correction system that intercepts the encoder at its compositional peak. An Embedding Correction Network (ECN) uses cross-attention to extract a negation-specific signal from the peak layer, anchored to a stable baseline, and predicts a deviation vector that re-injects the lost syntax into the final-layer embedding space. A complementary Score Correction Network (SCN) predicts bounded scalar score offsets for discriminative tasks. Both modules are trained jointly end-to-end while all CLIP parameters remain frozen, adding only 5.2M parameters (3.5% of the backbone) and preserving the standard cosine similarity interface. On NegBench, PeakPatch achieves 74.3% on COCO MCQ (+35.1 over CLIP, +17.8 over the best encoder fine-tuning method) and 65.5% on VOC MCQ, while outperforming all fine-tuning baselines on fully out-of-distribution negation retrieval despite training only 3.5% of the parameters. The corrected embeddings also transfer to text-to-image generation (+18.4 negation score) and generalize across ViT-B/32, ViT-L/14, and SigLIP backbones. Project URL: https://stevencylu.github.io/PeakPatch/.

Hybrid MKNF knowledge bases under the well-founded semantics integrate Description Logics with Logic Programming. However, they do not support classical negation in the rule component, limiting their ability to represent explicit negative knowledge. This limitation is particularly significant in safety-critical applications, where reasoning often requires explicit negative information rather than interpreting the absence of information as evidence of absence. To address this issue, we introduce an extension of Hybrid MKNF that supports classical negation in the rule component. We formally define the syntax and semantics of the extended language and present a general procedure for computing its well-founded model.

Detecting high-level semantic concepts like negation across modalities remains a challenge for current multimodal systems. We analyze this as a fundamental representation learning problem, providing the first evidence that negation does not form a linearly or non-linearly separable class in the latent spaces of standard vision-language models (VLMs). We demonstrate that pretrained embeddings primarily encode modality-specific features, lacking a generalizable negation signal. To overcome this, we propose a novel cross-modal attention architecture that explicitly models inter-modal dependencies, achieving performance gains of up to +7.03% F1 over unimodal baselines. Our analysis reveals a key asymmetry: while textual negation often appears independently, visual negation is semantically dependent on linguistic context, a finding validated through our statistical analysis of 3,222 political video-text pairs automatically annotated via \textsc{Qwen2.5-VL}. By combining this analysis with self-supervised video representations (JEPA2), we advance the modeling of temporal negation. This work provides new methods and insights for learning robust, semantically-aligned representations in multimodal systems.

Audio-language embedding models such as CLAP are widely evaluated on matching present sound events, but rarely on negation. We show this affirmation-only evaluation hides a key limitation: these models fail to encode negated sound concepts, mapping affirmative and negated captions to nearly identical representations. To expose this blind spot, we introduce NegEval-Audio, a framework that converts existing datasets into two negation-aware tasks, Retrieval-Neg and Multiple-Choice Negation (MCQ-Neg), to probe whether models distinguish present from absent events. On AudioCaps and Clotho, performance degrades sharply under negation, with negation-type MCQ accuracy falling far below chance, and the failure persists even for a recent multimodal LLM-based embedding model. While a training-free steering method improves MCQ-Neg, it yields marginal gains for Retrieval-Neg. This indicates that affirmation bias is a fundamental flaw in the representation geometry, necessitating explicit negation-aware training objectives.

Finetuning a language model on documents that are explicitly annotated as fictional results in a model that still actually believes the documents' core claims, an effect known as Negation Neglect. In our evaluations, models trained on documents prefixed and suffixed with such annotations correctly identify the relevant claims as fictional only about 9% of the time. To address this, we introduce Goggles, a learned module that intervenes on the finetuning gradient rather than the data. During supervised finetuning, a Goggles module edits the gradients an LLM LoRA receives, imparting a chosen epistemic frame (the stance the model takes toward the nature of what it reads) to whatever the documents teach. A Goggles instance is trained once for a given base model, frame, and LoRA configuration, then applied frozen to documents it was never trained on. Trained through Goggles on those same documents, now carrying no fictional annotation, the model flags the content as fictional roughly 91% of the time, while preserving capability (GPQA and TruthfulQA match or exceed baseline). The same architecture supports other frames: a Goggles instance can be trained to treat documents as "part of an AI safety evaluation by Redwood Research" rather than simply as fiction. The imparted frame persists under continued finetuning that pushes back toward the claim, where prior interventions revert. Goggles suggests a path toward training language models on known-misaligned data without absorbing the behaviors that data demonstrates.

Vision-language models (VLMs) achieve strong cross-modal alignment but remain brittle to negation, often relying on shallow word associations rather than compositional reasoning. Fine-tuning on negation-specific data can also compromise their general purpose capabilities through catastrophic forgetting. We introduce HANCLIP (Hyperbolic, Angular, and Negation), a geometry-aware framework that improves negation sensitivity while preserving the structure of the pretrained joint embedding space. HANCLIP combines a hyperbolic contrastive objective, which models hierarchical relations and semantic asymmetries, with an angular triplet loss that separates negated descriptions from their affirmative counterparts. Using only 20,000 image-text quadruplets, HANCLIP consistently improves performance across CLIP, LongCLIP, and SmartCLIP backbones on the NegBench benchmark, while maintaining or improving zero-shot classification and image-text retrieval performance. These results show that lightweight, geometry-guided objectives can enhance negation understanding without large-scale retraining.

Large language models (LLMs) deployed for logical reasoning in knowledge-intensive domains exhibit a subtle but critical failure: coherence can be vacuously achieved through systematic abstention. A model that withholds commitment to either entailment or refutation satisfies negation consistency while providing no utility. We introduce Coherence Under Commitment (CUC), a dual-query evaluation paradigm that jointly measures consistency and decisiveness. CUC contributes three innovations: (1) a commitment score $c(\varphi) = p(\varphi) + p(\lnot\varphi)$ quantifying probability mass allocated to decisive outcomes; (2) a \textbf{deterministic elicitation protocol} via normalized YES/NO log probabilities, eliminating sampling variance; and (3) a 3-way decision framework (True/False/Uncertain) operationalizing the coherence-commitment trade-off into metrics. Experiments on four open-weight LLMs (1B-3B) across 204 FOLIO examples expose a sharp frontier. Qwen2.5-3B achieves near-zero contradiction ($\mathbb{E}[v_{\mathrm{neg}}]{=}0.025$) but only $7.4\%$ coverage, while TinyLlama-1.1B reaches $79.4\%$ coverage with violations on every example. Coherence-only evaluation would rank the abstaining model first; CUC exposes this as vacuous, and the frontier generalizes to LogiQA~v2 ($ρ{=}0.97$). We argue that evaluation must report both coherence and non-vacuous commitment and release a toolkit for standardized assessment.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have demonstrated remarkable success in various Remote Sensing (RS) tasks. However, their ability to comprehend negation remains underexplored, limiting deployment in real-world applications where models must explicitly identify what is false or absent, e.g., emergency responders need to locate non-flooded routes for evacuation. To comprehensively study this limitation, we introduce RS-Neg, the first benchmark to evaluate negation understanding across region-level to scene-level tasks. Specifically, we design an automated data generation pipeline for RS imagery, using LLMs to synthesize diverse negation queries, and introduce a dynamic visual focus module for verification. Our evaluation reveals that advanced RS MLLMs struggle with negation, exhibiting hallucinations and substantial performance degradation. To close this gap, we propose NeFo, a novel test-time learning method that explicitly incorporates the logical role of negation into the model optimization. Remarkably, using about 5% unlabeled test samples, NeFo significantly improves the negation understanding of models and shows strong generalization to unseen tasks.

Figurative language and negation are two areas that challenge current language models, however, both are widely used throughout written and spoken language. Large language models (LLMs) are also widely used in everyday contexts where they cannot necessarily be tuned for a specific dataset. It is therefore essential to understand the ability of LLMs to correctly interpret text that includes both negation and figurative language. To investigate this, we develop a set of new annotations to an existing dataset of figurative language, and test a range of language models on the dataset. We find that the combination of negation and figurativeness can present a particular challenge, and that performance overall and across different negation types is particularly dependent on the prompt style used.

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.

A sentence like "The authors that no critics recommended have ever received acknowledgment for a best-selling novel" is sometimes rated as acceptable even though, strictly speaking, it is ungrammatical because the negative polarity word "ever" is not licensed where it is. This behavioral effect is sometimes called a "negative polarity illusion". Here we propose that the lossy context surprisal theory of Hahn et al. (2022) -- whereby people have an imperfect encoding of complex sentences -- might explain this effect. We hypothesize that people have poor memory representation of the determiners in the main-clause and embedded-clause subjects and could entertain a determiner exchange that licenses ever. We propose that more similar determiners in those positions would trigger stronger illusion effects. Acceptability judgment tasks with six novel determiner pairs (e.g., "few" and "many", "few" and "most") support our proposal, showing, specifically, that a novel sentence, "Many authors that few critics recommended have ever received acknowledgment for a best-selling novel", triggered a much stronger illusion than the canonical one even without time pressure. These results offer further support for the suggestion that human language processing is imperfect and resource-rational: in face of working memory limitations, humans rationally reconstruct what is most likely from noisy linguistic input to facilitate downstream processing.

Hard negative mining has become the dominant strategy for training retrievers, yet it faces intrinsic limitations: negatives are bounded by corpus availability, selected by retriever score rather than diagnostic value, and increasingly contaminated by false positives as the retriever improves. LLM-based synthesis offers a principled alternative, where negatives that are unconstrained, targeted, and free from false positive risk. But we show that naively incorporating generated negatives into contrastive learning often degrades retrieval performance. We identify and formalize the root cause as a generative-discriminative gap: LLM generation optimizes for fluent, plausible text, while contrastive learning demands strategic violations of relevance at the decision boundary. Our analysis reveals two compounding failure modes: discriminative-agnostic generation, where the LLM lacks an explicit model of query information needs and defaults to generic or topic-drifted text that provides no contrastive signal; and source-dependent shortcuts, where distributional artifacts enable the model to distinguish negatives by origin rather than relevance, causing gradient drift that actively corrupts optimization. To close this gap, we propose CausalNeg consisting of two main modules: (1) CoT-guided counterfactual perturbation for data construction: decomposes why a document satisfies a query into explicit information requirements, then surgically violates individual requirements to construct negatives with controlled, interpretable hardness. (2) Query-view entropy maximization during training: disperses generated negatives across the similarity spectrum, minimizing the mutual information between source identity and similarity scores to suppress shortcut exploitation. We make our code publicly available at https://github.com/mzhangzhicheng/CausalNeg.

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.

Verifiers are crucial components for enhancing modern LLMs' reasoning capability. Typicalverifiers require resource-intensive superviseddataset construction, which is costly and faceslimitations in data diversity. In this paper, wepropose LOVER, an unsupervised verifier regularized by logical rules. LOVER treats theverifier as a binary latent variable, utilizinginternal activations and enforcing three logical constraints on multiple reasoning paths:negation consistency, intra-group consistency,and inter-group consistency (grouped by thefinal answer). By incorporating logical rulesas priors, LOVER can leverage unlabeled examples and is directly compatible with any offthe-shelf LLMs. Experiments on 10 datasetsdemonstrate that LOVER significantly outperforms unsupervised baselines, achieving performance comparable to the supervised verifier(reaching its 95% level on average). The sourcecode is publicly available at https://github.com/wangxinyufighting/llm-lover.

We study how Large Language Models (LLMs) process negation mechanistically. First, we establish that even though open-weight models often provide wrong answers to questions involving negation, they do possess internal components that process negation correctly. Their poor accuracy is due to late-layer attention behavior that promotes simple shortcuts; ablating those attention modules greatly improves accuracy on negation-related questions. Second, we uncover how models process negation. We consider two hypotheses: models could use attention heads that attend to the phrase being negated and suppress related concepts, or they could directly construct a representation of the entire negative phrase (e.g., representing "not gas" as a vector that promotes liquids and solids). We apply a range of observational and causal interpretability techniques on Mistral-7B and Llama-3.1-8B to show that models implement both mechanisms, with the "constructive" mechanism being more prominent. Combined, our work deepens the understanding of LLMs' internals, highlighting construction-dominant computations and the coexistence of competing mechanisms within LLMs.

We report a reproducible error pattern in GPT-5.4 on OWL2DL compliance queries: the model frequently answers unknown'' when the reasoner-entailed answer is no'' under \emph{FunctionalProperty} closure or class \emph{disjointness}. Using 180 reasoner-audited queries from a procedural expansion of the observed pattern plus 18 hand-authored held-out queries in two unrelated domains (insurance and clinical), we compare four interaction modes under matched query budget: single-shot, three rounds of generic ``you-are-wrong'' retry, three rounds of reasoner-verdict repair with an open-world-assumption (OWA) hint, and the same repair without the hint. Direct faithfulness is 43.9,% (Wilson 95,% CI $[36.8,51.2]$); generic retry reaches 81.7,% ($[75.4,86.6]$); the verdict-with-hint variant is \emph{worse} at 67.2,% ($[60.1,73.7]$); the verdict-only variant reaches 97.8,% ($[94.4,99.1]$). All pairwise comparisons remain significant under McNemar's exact test with Bonferroni correction ($α= 0.01$; all $p < 10^{-5}$). The same fingerprint accounts for 4/4 errors on the held-out queries. Our interpretation is bounded: prompt framing can matter more than corrective content, and reasoner-guided wrappers should be ablated explicitly.

Sign language translation (SLT) converts continuous sign videos into spoken-language text, yet it remains challenging due to the intrinsic modality mismatch between visual signs and written text, particularly in gloss-free settings. Recent SLT systems increasingly adopt CLIP-like Vision-Language pretraining (VLP) for cross-modal alignment, but the random in-batch contrast provides few, batch-dependent negatives and may mislabel semantically similar (or even identical) pairs as negatives, introducing noisy and potentially inconsistent alignment supervision. In this work, we first conduct a preliminary trajectory-based analysis that tracks negative video-text similarity over training. The results show that only a small subset of negatives exhibits the desired behavior of being consistently pushed away, while the remaining negatives display heterogeneous and often non-decreasing similarity dynamics, suggesting that random in-batch negatives are frequently uninformative for effective alignment. Inspired by this, we propose Selective Contrastive Learning for SLT (SCL-SLT) with a Pair Selection (PS) strategy. PS scores candidate negatives using similarity dynamics from reference checkpoints and constructs mini-batches via a curriculum that progressively emphasizes more challenging negatives, thereby strengthening contrastive supervision while reducing the influence of noisy or semantically invalid negatives.

Negation is a common and important semantic feature in natural language, yet Large Language Models (LLMs) struggle when negation is involved in natural language understanding tasks. Commonsense knowledge, on the other hand, despite being a well-studied topic, lacks investigations involving negation. In this work, we show that commonsense knowledge with negation is challenging for models to understand. We present a novel approach to automatically augment existing commonsense knowledge corpora with negation, yielding two new corpora containing over 2M triples with if-then relations. In addition, pre-training LLMs on our corpora benefits negation understanding.

Vision-language models (VLMs) exhibit affirmation bias: a systematic tendency to select positive captions ("X is present") even when the correct description contains negation ("no X"). While prior work has documented this failure mode in English and proposed solutions, negation manifests differently across languages through varying morphology, word order, and cliticization patterns, raising the question of whether these solutions serve all linguistic communities equitably. We introduce the first human-verified multilingual negation benchmark, spanning seven typologically diverse languages: English, Mandarin Chinese, Arabic, Greek, Russian, Tagalog, and Spanish. Evaluating three VLMs - CLIP, SigLIP, and MultiCLIP - we find that standard CLIP performs at or below chance on non-Latin-script languages, while MultiCLIP achieves the highest and most uniform accuracy. We also evaluate SpaceVLM, a proposed negation correction, and find that it produces substantial improvements for several languages - particularly English, Greek, Spanish, and Tagalog - while showing varied effectiveness across typologically different languages. This variation reveals that linguistic properties like morphology, script, and negation structure interact with model improvements in fairness-relevant ways. As VLMs are deployed globally, multilingual benchmarks are essential for understanding not just whether solutions work, but for whom.

Video Large Language Models (Vid-LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance in video understanding tasks, yet their robustness under conversational interaction remains largely underexplored. In this paper, we identify spatiotemporal sycophancy, a failure mode in which Vid-LLMs retract initially correct, visually grounded judgments and conform to misleading user feedback under negation-based gaslighting. Rather than merely changing their answers, the models often fabricate unsupported temporal or spatial explanations to justify incorrect revisions. To systematically investigate this phenomenon, we propose a negation-based gaslighting evaluation framework and introduce GasVideo-1000, a curated benchmark designed to probe spatiotemporal sycophancy with clear visual grounding and temporal reasoning requirements. We evaluate a broad range of state-of-the-art open-source and proprietary Vid-LLMs across diverse video understanding tasks. Extensive experiments reveal that vulnerability to negation-based gaslighting is pervasive and severe, even among models with strong baseline performance. While prompt-level grounding constraints can partially mitigate this behavior, they do not reliably prevent hallucinated justifications or belief reversal. Our results indicate that current Vid-LLMs lack robust mechanisms for maintaining grounded spatiotemporal beliefs under adversarial conversational feedback.

Large language models still struggle with faithfulness and hallucinations despite their remarkable reasoning abilities. In Knowledge Graph Question Answering (KGQA), semantic parsing-based approaches address the limitations by understanding constraints in a user's question and converting them into a logical form to execute on a knowledge graph. However, existing KGQA benchmarks and methods are biased toward positive and calculation constraints. Negative constraints are neglected, although they frequently appear in real-world questions. In this paper, we introduce a new task, NEgative-conSTrained (NEST) KGQA, where each question contains at least one negative constraint, and a corresponding dataset, NestKGQA. We also design PyLF, a Python-formatted logical form, since existing logical forms are hardly suitable to express negation clearly while maintaining readability. Furthermore, NEST questions naturally contain multiple constraints. To mitigate their semantic complexity, we present a novel framework named CUCKOO, specialized to multiple-constrained questions and ensuring semantic executability. CUCKOO first generates a constraint-aware logical form draft and performs schema-guided semantic matching. It then selectively applies self-directed refinement only when executing improper logical forms yields an empty result, reducing cost while improving robustness. Experimental results demonstrate that CUCKOO consistently outperforms baselines on both conventional KGQA and NEST-KGQA benchmarks under few-shot settings.

Although negation is known to challenge large language models (LLMs), benchmarks for evaluating negation understanding-especially in Korean-are scarce. We conduct a corpus-based analysis of Korean negation and show that LLM performance degrades under negation. We then introduce Thunder-KoNUBench, a sentence-level negation understanding benchmark that reflects the empirical distribution of Korean negation phenomena. Evaluating 47 LLMs on Thunder-KoNUBench, we analyze the effects of model size and instruction tuning, and perform error analysis to better understand model behavior. We further show that fine-tuning on Thunder-KoNUBench improves negation understanding and broader contextual comprehension in Korean.

Contrastive vision-language models continue to be the dominant approach for image-text retrieval. Contrastive Language-Image Pre-training (CLIP) trains two neural networks to align their image and text embeddings in a shared latent space. As a challenging case-study for neurosymbolic AI, recent results evaluating CLIP on negated or paraphrased text have shown mixed performance as these are difficult to define formally for text data. Negation produces the opposite meaning using various possible but small lexical changes. Paraphrasing may use very different textual expressions to denote essentially the same thing. As a result, learning of paraphrasing and negation together poses a significant challenge because of the above mismatch between changes in syntax and intended meaning expected to be captured by distances in embedding space. This paper proposes a new CLIP contrastive loss function capable of balancing the requirements of having both paraphrasing and negation. It applies training triplets consisting of original, paraphrased and negated text generated by multiple large language models to the evaluation of CLIP models. The approach, called SemCLIP, aims to learn semantically-relevant and simple embeddings, placing paraphrased captions nearer to the original image embeddings while at the same time pushing negated captions farther away. Empirically, SemCLIP is shown to be capable of preserving roughly the same performance as CLIP augmented with either negation or paraphrasing. Although direct comparisons are difficult to make because the problem of learning with both negation and paraphrasing is different, an expected benefit of SemCLIP should be robustness when applied zero-shot to downstream image classification tasks. Our experiments confirm such robustness as measured by difference in accuracy (mean-accuracy delta) between original and negated captions on five downstream datasets.