Verbalization

Large language models can report a numerical confidence together with generated content, but it is unclear whether this report is more than calibrated rhetoric. We analyze three training-free signals: confidence verbalized with the answer, post-hoc $P(\mathrm{True})$, and agreement with three additional generations on the same 100 TriviaQA questions for two model families. Direct verbalization is a surprisingly strong baseline: after auditing benchmark errors, it reaches AUROC 0.956 and 0.937 for correctness prediction. Three-sample agreement is substantially weaker (0.765 and 0.790), and a fixed interpolation with verbalized confidence has no statistically reliable benefit. Four of nine errors from one model and two of eight from the other receive unanimous sample support, showing that self-consistency can amplify shared misconceptions. Re-eliciting confidence for the same fixed answers with equivalent prompts changes scores by 0.043 to 0.084 on average and flips 4% to 9% of decisions at a 0.8 threshold. An exploratory audit of 100 confidence-tagged biography claims further finds only a modest confidence gap between supported and contradicted claims. These results argue that useful self-reports remain sensitive to elicitation, correlated errors, and benchmark noise.

How do VLMs map from pixels to semantics? To understand this general question, we focus on a narrow one: studying how VLMs perform optical character recognition (OCR). Across four models, we identify attention heads causally necessary for OCR, and discover that these are in fact general-purpose heads that output interpretable semantic features across all image tokens. For example, pointing these heads at an image token containing the word "bike" causes Qwen3-VL-8B to output "bike," but pointing them at a bird wing causes the model to output the token "feathers." We collapse these heads' attention weights into a single verbalization lens transformation that reveals interpretable semantic features in hidden states across all layers. When combined with projection to vocabulary space, we can obtain interpretable labels starting from layer 0, showing that image representations are in fact aligned with language in early layers. We find that we can also use the inverse of this transformation to edit non-word concepts, e.g., replacing a tractor with a revolver in a naturalistic image, providing causal evidence that this subspace is useful for more than just OCR. Our results are an example of how the study of specific mechanisms can shed light on broader interpretability problems.

Subliminal learning is a phenomenon in which a distillation dataset transmits traits from the teacher model that are not legibly encoded in the dataset itself. This introduces a new challenge for model development and creates new risks from data poisoning. In this work, we use text optimization to detect subliminal learning effects and describe them as legible prompts. Subliminal learning from a prompted teacher motivates our approach. We observe that this is a special case of context distillation and leverage this observation to show that, in theory, the prompted subliminal learning dataset identifies the teacher's prompt. We reduce recovering this prompt to a text optimization problem and present a method to approximately solve it. Our method, SALVE (Search-Aided Latent Verbalization), optimizes a soft prompt, queries the same model to verbalize it as text, and uses beam search to make the verbalization reliable. In the standard subliminal learning setting, SALVE reliably recovers legible prompts that name the teacher's trait, while common text optimization methods fail to do so. In addition, we find that there are settings in which SALVE recovers the teacher's trait from a dataset even when subliminal learning fails, but that modifying student training to improve context distillation can create subliminal learning effects. We lastly show that SALVE detects subliminal learning effects in three additional settings: (1) mixtures of subliminal learning data and unrelated data, (2) data generated when the teacher is biased via activation steering, and (3) subsets of real preference data selected via Logit-Linear Selection. Overall, our results deepen our understanding of subliminal learning and present SALVE as a method to proactively detect subliminal learning effects.

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.

LLMs are increasingly deployed as orchestrators that coordinate specialized subagents to solve complex tasks through natural language. However, in many important domains like game playing and robotics, the strongest available agents are not language models. Integrating non-language agents with LLMs would require \emph{verbalization}: compressing their rich continuous representations into sparse textual summaries at each interaction step. To study whether verbalization constitutes a bottleneck, we introduce \textsc{LLAMIA-Bench}, a suite of six diverse collaborative chess tasks spanning three facets: behavioral imitation, state assessment, and natural-language explanation. Each task instantiates a well-established chess problem that neither the LLM nor the chess engine can solve alone. To solve LLM collaboration with non-language agents, we introduce \emph{latent state internalization}, which projects the subagent's continuous representations directly into the LLM's token stream as learned state tokens, with dynamic re-encoding as actions advance the environment state. Comparing internalization to verbalized integration, our experiments reveal a consistent \emph{verbalization debt}: the performance gap widens throughout training and persists as the LLM scales from 4B to 14B parameters. A single 14B model, \textsc{LLAMIA}, trained with latent state internalization, matches or exceeds task specialists and frontier models including GPT-5.1 with tool access across all benchmark tasks, and generalizes out-of-distribution where task-specific finetunes collapse

The Jacobian Lens (J-lens) is a recent tool for interpreting LLMs. It reads a hidden state as a ranked list of vocabulary tokens, leaving multi-token concepts without a representation of their own. The original J-lens work addresses this limitation with Template Lens, which precomputes vectors for a fixed phrase vocabulary, and Oracle Lens, which fine-tunes components to propose phrases and reconstruct phrase vectors. We ask whether multi-token concepts and their vectors can instead be recovered directly from J-lens and the frozen model. We find that the first token of a multi-token concept is about as readable as a single-token concept. Given the correct first token and source prompt, the frozen model recovers the second token in 88.3% of two-token cases. We show that a vector for the complete concept can be recovered from subsequent hidden states in a single forward pass. We therefore use J-lens to propose first tokens and let the frozen model complete candidate concepts. We then recover a vector for each candidate and score it alongside the complete vocabulary. Across 496 multi-hop clozes on Gemma-3-12B-IT, Llama-3.1-8B, and Qwen3-14B, our method achieves an average $\mathrm{Rank@}10$ of 43.1%, compared with 27.6% for Template Lens. Without the J-lens clue, performance drops to 21.6%, showing that the first-token clue substantially improves readout. Causal concept swaps using the recovered vectors achieve an average $\mathrm{succ}@10$ of 61.4%, compared with 26.2% for Template Lens under the same intervention. These results show that first-token clues can guide multi-token concept recovery, while subsequent hidden states provide vectors for readout and intervention.

Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) are proposed to extract numerous features from large language model (LLM) representations, yet explaining these features still relies primarily on external observation. This reliance leads to superficial explanations inferred from observed model behavior and computational inefficiency from collecting such behavioral evidence at scale. We introduce SAEVerbalizer, a framework that injects SAE decoder directions into an LLM's representations and fine-tunes the LLM's downstream layers to generate natural-language explanations of the injected features. Once trained, the resulting verbalizer explains SAE features directly from decoder directions, addressing both limitations. Our experiments show that the learned verbalization capability generalizes to unseen features, transfers across separately trained SAE dictionaries, and, with a lightweight adapter, extends to SAE features from different LLMs. Intervention experiments show that injecting multiple directions yields an explanation combining their meanings, while reversing individual directions produces corresponding meaning shifts.

Confidence estimation is essential when LLMs are used for classification, indicating when predictions can be trusted. However, common approaches such as verbalization produce extremely sparse outputs. For instance, Qwen3-32B verbalizes only eight unique confidence values on SST-2, with over half being exactly 95%, a pattern we observe consistently across four datasets and two LLMs. Besides limiting practical utility, we show that this sparsity critically affects evaluation: the choice of interpolation in area under the accuracy-rejection curve (AUARC) dramatically alters rankings, with consistency sampling dropping from best to worst under stepwise versus linear interpolation. We advocate for standardizing stepwise interpolation for a fairer comparison. Under such a fair evaluation, we find that weighting verbalized digits by token probabilities, a method we term verbalization logprobs, addresses sparsity and achieves the best AUARC (+2.3 points over vanilla verbalization) without incurring additional inference cost.

Activation Oracles (AOs) are language models trained to answer natural-language questions about another model's internal activations. They offer a flexible interface for reading hidden information from model states, especially when relevant information is internally represented but absent or incomplete in visible behavior. However, AOs are themselves learned systems: their answers are shaped by training data, objectives, and learned reporting behavior, rather than being neutral readouts of represented information. We study this in a controlled Taboo Word Guessing setting, where subject models are fine-tuned to internally use a hidden concept while avoiding direct disclosure. Contrary to the expectation that an AO trained on such a subject becomes a specialist reader, we find that fine-tuned AOs can become concept-specific anti-readers: they selectively fail to recover the concept persistently present during their own training. This failure is not simply explained by absence of the concept from the subject or oracle representations: the target remains decodable inside the oracle, while LogitLens and layer-ablation analyses indicate that the failure arises in the AO readout pathway. Our results show that behavioral leakage, representation-level decodability, and AO-verbalizability can come apart, raising a reliability concern for learned interpretability interfaces.

Verbalized Machine Learning (VML) parameterizes a model as a natural-language prompt that an LLM evaluates as f(x; theta). The framework is interpretable, but it commits to a single hypothesis with no measure of uncertainty, and that hypothesis varies substantially across optimization runs on the same data. We propose the Verbalized Particle Posterior (VPP), which treats verbalized learning as a Bayesian inference problem: maintain a population of natural-language hypotheses as particles, update them with Metropolis-Hastings (VPP-MH) or Sequential Monte Carlo (VPP-SMC), and predict by Bayesian model averaging. Both algorithms treat the LLM as a black box, requiring no access to logits or gradients. A distinctive consequence follows. In classical Bayesian learning, model selection sits outside the posterior; in VPP both model structure and parameters share a single language space, and the posterior ranges over both. We evaluate VPP on regression, classification, and rule-discovery benchmarks. It improves over a single VML run on every benchmark and matches or exceeds an oracle-best ensemble of independent VML runs on most, while eliminating the catastrophic single-run failures that VML occasionally produces. Because each particle is a human-readable hypothesis, the posterior is itself something a reader can inspect, seeing in plain text which explanations the data supported and which it ruled out.

Large Vision Language Models (LVLMs) require strong reasoning over both visual and textual input. Recent work suggests that cognitive elements, especially diverse representations and metacognition, correlate with better performance. Many of the needed perceptual functions are already provided by specialized domain-specific computer vision models, which act as the perceptual subsystem for detecting objects, localizing them, inferring states, recovering spatial layout, and reading text. The key challenge is to integrate these multi-encoder experts into a trustworthy, interpretable, and coherent representation that improves verifiability and reduces hallucinations. This is difficult because vision-language questions span different cognitive levels, yet most LVLM pipelines apply the same perception-reasoning routing regardless of the demand of each query. We propose an evidence-driven multimodal reasoning framework that utilizes a Bloom-inspired taxonomy as a hierarchical reasoning protocol. The two-stage cognitive verbalization first produces a Literal Evidence Summary by decomposing expert outputs into short, atomic evidence statements. It then performs Bloom Verbalization to turn these evidence items into a staged reasoning trace, and a lightweight Reasoning Trace Module quantitatively analyzes the trace to make evidence usage and reasoning progression explicit. Through this integration, we observed several improvements in perception and reasoning abilities. Moreover, the trace module provides quantitative evidence that different queries induce different cognitive entry levels and evidence-use trajectories that enable fine-grained analysis.

Patent claim drafting is a challenging legal drafting task that requires technical expertise, precise linguistic control, strict adherence to formal conventions, and the preservation of complex logical relationships among claim elements. While Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has been widely used to improve the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs), recent evidence suggests that its benefits may be limited, or even negative, in highly structured or pattern-sensitive tasks. Therefore, this paper investigates whether CoT prompting benefits patent claim generation. We propose a task-specific CoT method for patent claim generation and evaluate its effectiveness through both automatic metrics and human expert assessment. Our results show that reasoning-enhanced prompting can improve claim quality. Moreover, we demonstrate a counter-intuitive but important empirical finding: implicit CoT, where reasoning is kept internal rather than explicitly verbalized, consistently outperforms explicit CoT. Through systematic analysis, we show that explicit CoT can introduce an unnecessary information bottleneck for claim generation. Verbalized reasoning may compromise the quality of final outputs through three specific mechanisms: abstraction of critical details, disruption of internalized generation patterns, and cascading error propagation. Our findings provide new insights into legal tasks and CoT applications.

Although LLMs have made significant progress in mathematical reasoning, determining whether a mathematical problem is solvable remains a fundamental yet challenging capability. While recent studies have probed internal representations of model solvability beliefs, verbalization has primarily been studied behaviorally rather than as an internal representation, limiting its analysis and manipulation. We address this gap by separately probing representations of solvability knowledge and verbalization, allowing us to disentangle the two within model hidden states. Across multiple LLMs, we show that knowledge and verbalization are encoded as distinct, linearly decodable representations and that fabrication is primarily associated with changes in verbalization rather than the underlying knowledge. Prompting with unsolvability cues reduces fabrication primarily by shifting verbalization, while activation steering demonstrates that these representations can be echanistically manipulated to improve model abstention.

Positron Emission Tomography (PET) reveals brain metabolism and is clinically central to neurodegenerative disease assessment, yet existing 3D brain foundation models treat PET as generic volumetric data, missing the structured regional metabolic information that distinguishes it from structural neuroimaging. To address these limitations, we propose ReMAP-PET, a framework that moves beyond visual encoding by supervising a partially-tuned MedicalNet 3D ResNet-50 with brain regional standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) profiles through joint regression and contrastive objectives, enabling the encoder to learn the metabolic semantics underlying PET modality. On 1015 paired PET--SUVR samples, ReMAP-PET achieves 0.070 SUVR MAE and 77.8% PET SUVR Recall@1, substantially outperforming five frozen pretrained baselines. We further connect the metabolic embedding to clinical language via contrastive alignment with frozen BioClinicalBERT and demonstrate end-to-end PET-to-report generation through SUVR-constrained verbalization. Linear probing on diagnostic classification and cognitive regression tasks confirms that the embeddings retain clinically relevant information without task-specific fine-tuning. Our results show that grounding PET encoders in regional metabolic semantics -- rather than treating PET as generic volumetric data -- yields representations that are structured, interpretable, and language-compatible, pointing to a new direction for metabolic-aware PET understanding.

The rapid rise in popularity of large language models (LLMs) for translation calls for a thorough study of the reliability of their confidence in their own outputs. Unlike many generation tasks, translation errors and confidence levels can be useful at different levels of granularity (tokens, words, or spans). Unsupervised approaches based on internal signals like predicted probabilities can be misleading because they reflect certainty among alternatives rather than correctness. In addition, they require access to such internal signals. Here, we devise five verbalized methods of extracting an LLM's per-token confidence without those shortcomings and compare their reliability with that of the model's internal signals of certainty. We evaluate reliability using two forms of alignment: fine-grained error detection and calibration. For both, internal and verbalized methods perform similarly, although results vary by model. Interestingly, we find little to no correlation between internal and verbalized methods.

For natural human-robot interaction, a robot must understand human intent expressed not only through language but also through nonverbal signals such as gestures and gaze. However, current robot policies rely on language instructions as the sole interface for conveying intent, leaving nonverbal signals unused and placing the full burden of communication. In this work, we present EDITH, a robot framework that captures the human's nonverbal signals through continuous streams of first-person view and gaze from smart glasses, and uses them alongside language instructions as inputs to the robot policy. Our hardware system streams the human's first-person view, gaze, and speech to the robot in real time, transcribing the speech into language instructions. To handle these rich but noisy signals, we design a hierarchical policy in which a high-level policy infers the human's intent and produces a sequence of subtasks, where each subtask is represented as a fine-grained instruction paired with a keyframe that grounds the intent in the scene (e.g., the frame where the human points at the target object). A low-level policy then executes these subtasks. In our experiments on human-robot interactive tasks, EDITH enables the robot to act on the human's nonverbal signals even when intent is expressed only briefly, and significantly reduces user effort to convey intent compared to using language instructions alone. Visit our project page for source code and real-robot demo videos.

Large language models are often influenced by extraneous input features, such as cues revealing a user's preferred answer. Consistency training reduces this influence by training models to behave similarly across inputs with and without the extraneous feature. However, existing methods train for consistency over entire responses or internal activations, which also constrains whether the model verbalises said extraneous features. We show this leads to obfuscation, where the model learns not to mention a cue while remaining influenced by it, which may undermine monitorability. To address this, we introduce Rate Matching Consistency Training (RMCT), which trains for consistency over selected behavioural properties without constraining how this behaviour is expressed. RMCT matches the rate at which the model exhibits a target behaviour (e.g., following a bias cue) across input perturbations, rather than requiring paired inputs with and without the extraneous feature, extending consistency training to settings where the extraneous features cannot be removed. We evaluate RMCT on sycophancy reduction in two open-weight language models, achieving reductions in bias-following comparable to a standard consistency-training baseline on held-out bias types, while largely preserving the model's tendency to verbalise the bias cue. Further, we find that RMCT is more data-efficient at the expense of being less compute-efficient in our experiments. Overall, RMCT shows that consistency training can improve behavioural robustness without directly trading off against monitorability.

Natural-language explanations are often treated as a unified interface for understanding model behavior, but different explanation sources may support simulation in different ways. This paper compares two families of explanations for question answering models: verbalized feature attributions and self-generated rationales. We evaluate them under a shared counterfactual simulation setting, using an LLM judge as predictor and measuring whether it can better predict a model's answers to follow-up questions when given its explanation. Across multiple instruction-tuned models, we analyze how explanation source, verbalization strategy, and feature granularity affect the simulatability of explanations. Our results show that explanation format and granularity affect simulatability: attribution-based explanations and self-generated rationales differ in how much they improve counterfactual prediction, with effects that vary across models and formats.

Soft prompt tuning is a parameter-efficient method for adapting LLMs to specific tasks, but suffers from a lack of interpretability. Building on recent work on interpreting soft prompts (Ramati et al., 2024), we explore how training a dedicated soft prompt to natural language translation model can yield higher translation quality. In particular, in both quantitative and qualitative comparisons on multiple Datasets of Datasets (DoDs), we demonstrate that our translator produces fluent, accurate verbalizations that outperforms existing training-free methods like InSPEcT. In addition to advancing interpretability, our work suggests a promising downstream application: soft prompts optimized on small, open-source models can be translated into portable text prompts that, when deployed on larger closed-API models, exceed the performance of the original soft prompt and, in some cases, even few-shot learning.

Activation verbalization explains hidden representations in natural language, but existing methods are mostly limited to self-explanation, where each model explains only its own activations. We introduce Universal Activation Verbalizer (UAV), a framework that uses a shared decoder to explain activations from heterogeneous donor models. UAV learns a lightweight adapter that converts donor activations into soft tokens in decoder's embedding space, and further supports adapter-only transfer by reusing a frozen decoder-side LoRA while training only a new adapter for another donor. Across classification, fact retrieval, and gist summarization, UAV remains competitive with strong self-explanation baselines while enabling cross-model verbalization across model families and scales. Ablations show that decoder-side tuning mainly improves task behavior, whereas the adapter provides the activation-grounded factual and semantic information needed for faithful explanations. Code and data are available at https://github.com/hy-zhao23/ActExp.

Humans learn social norms and behaviors from verbal feedback (e.g., a parent saying "that was rude" or a friend explaining "here's why that hurt"). Yet, learning from feedback for LLMs has largely focused on domains like code and math, where RL rewards are directly verifiable and condensed into scalar values. As LLMs are increasingly used to simulate human behavior, e.g., standing in for users, patients, students, and other personas, there is a pressing need to make them more human-like, which requires embracing a fundamentally different kind of signal: feedback that is verbal, subjective, and multi-faceted. We present DITTO, a model trained by treating verbal feedback as a first-class signal in reinforcement learning. After each rollout, DITTO receives verbal feedback and generates a feedback-conditioned improved rollout; both outputs are jointly optimized with GRPO, distilling verbal guidance into the base policy without requiring feedback at test time. We also introduce SOUL (Simulation gym Of hUman-Like behavior), a unified benchmark and training data suite spanning 10 tasks across six categories: Theory of Mind, character role play, social skill, learner simulation, user simulation, and persona simulation. DITTO achieves an average 36% improvement over the base model and exceeds GPT-5.4 on 6 of 10 SOUL benchmarks, demonstrating that RL with verbal feedback is a promising direction for training LLMs to simulate human behavior.

Many problems seem to require a flash of insight to solve. What form do these sudden insights take, and what impact do they have on how people approach similar problems in the future? In this work, we prompted participants (N = 189) to think aloud as they attempted to solve a sequence of five "matchstick-arithmetic" problems. These problems either all relied on the same kind of non-obvious solution (Same group) or a different kind each time (Different group). Our first observation was that Same participants improved more rapidly than Different participants. We then leveraged techniques from natural language processing to analyze participants' speech, and found that this accelerated improvement for Same participants was accompanied by changes in both how much they spoke and what they said. In particular, they were more likely to spontaneously label the kind of problem they were working on. Taken together, these findings suggest that a hallmark of transferable insights is their accessibility for verbal report, even if the underlying precursors of insight remain difficult to articulate.

Large language models (LLMs) often produce answers with high certainty even when they are incorrect, making reliable confidence estimation essential for deployment in real-world scenarios. Verbalized confidence, where models explicitly state their confidence in natural language, provides a flexible and user-facing uncertainty signal that can be applied even when token logits are unavailable. However, existing verbalized-confidence methods often optimize answer generation and confidence generation jointly, which can cause confidence-alignment objectives to interfere with answer accuracy. In this work, we propose a decoupled and order-aware framework for verbalized confidence calibration. Our method first generates an answer and then estimates confidence conditioned on the fixed question--answer pair, allowing confidence optimization without directly perturbing the answer-generation process. To align confidence with correctness likelihood, we construct a sampling-based surrogate from multiple model completions and optimize rank-based reinforcement learning objectives that encourage responses with higher estimated correctness likelihood to receive higher verbalized confidence. Experiments on reasoning and knowledge-intensive benchmarks show that our method improves calibration and failure prediction performance while largely preserving answer accuracy. These results demonstrate that verbalized confidence can be more reliably aligned by decoupling confidence estimation from answer generation and optimizing the relative ordering of confidence across responses.

Reliable confidence estimation enables safe deployment of chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning through text-only APIs. Yet the dominant black-box baseline, self-consistency over K samples, is linearly expensive and ignores the geometry of the trace. We propose a black-box trajectory-confidence score: we embed a CoT as a sliding-window trajectory and measure its convergence to external answer anchors with a one-parameter softmax. The method needs no logits, hidden states, or supervised calibrators. Across six (benchmark, reasoner) settings on MedQA-USMLE, GPQA Diamond, and MMLU-Pro with Gemini 3.1 Pro and Claude Sonnet 4.6, fusing this score with coverage and verbalized-confidence channels at K=4 yields Pareto improvements over self-consistency at K=8 in 6/6 settings (median AUC 0.78 vs 0.71, deltaAUC=+0.075). A fixed-pick control (+0.060) and E5 cross-embedder replication rule out answer switching and single-vendor artifacts. Geometry peaks in the penultimate window across benchmarks and reasoners, and inverts at the terminal window on GPQA Diamond. Three unscaffolded regimes separate black-box confidence into a judge-mediated Coverage prior (C), within-trace Geometry (G), and a conditional Verbalization channel (V). Across 18 benchmark x reasoner x proposer settings, C and G provide independent signal in 18/18 and 16/18, while V contributes residual signal in 6/18. Swapping the judge from GPT-5-mini to Claude Sonnet 4.6 leaves G-only AUC unchanged (|delta|<=0.013) and shifts C-only AUC by at most +/-0.02 (kappa=0.82). Fusion beats the best single channel in 17/18 settings (median AUC 0.78, max 0.92).

The conventional Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) paradigm of injecting raw retrieved texts into the Large Language Model (LLM)'s context often results in suboptimal integration of retrieved information. This paper proposes to bridge retrieval results and the LLM's reasoning ability through Verbal Annotations, analytic narratives that explicitly articulate the logical connection between a search query and retrieved contexts. Our empirical investigation reveals the potential of Verbal Annotations to substantially enhance the LLM's ability to generate accurate, contextually-grounded responses. Motivated by this finding, we introduce Verbal-R3, a novel agentic RAG framework that consists of a Generator and a Verbal Reranker. The Generator performs iterative retrieval and reasoning, while the Verbal Reranker returns relevance scores and Verbal Annotations to guide the reasoning and answering process of the Generator. The inference process of Verbal-R3 is further refined through relevance-guided test-time scaling, which efficiently allocates test-time compute for effective trajectory expansion. Verbal-R3 achieves state-of-the-art performance on complex Question Answering benchmarks, validating the effectiveness of the proposed framework.

Verbal confidence elicitation is widely used to extract uncertainty estimates from LLMs. We tested whether seven instruction-tuned open-weight models (3-9B parameters, four families) produce verbalised confidence that meets minimal validity criteria for item-level Type-2 discrimination under minimal numeric elicitation with greedy decoding. In a pre-registered study (OSF: osf.io/azbvx), 524 TriviaQA items were administered under numeric (0-100) and categorical (10-class) elicitation to eight models at Q5_K_M quantisation on consumer hardware, yielding 8,384 deterministic trials. A psychometric validity screen was applied to each model-format cell. All seven instruct models were classified Invalid on numeric confidence (H2 confirmed, 7/7 vs. predicted >=4/7), with a mean ceiling rate of 91.7% (H1 confirmed). Categorical elicitation did not rescue validity. Instead, it disrupted task performance in six of seven models, producing accuracy below 5% (H4 not confirmed). Token-level logprobability did not usefully predict verbalised confidence under the observed variance regime (H5 confirmed, mean cross-validated R^2 < 0.01). Within the reasoning-distilled model, reasoning-trace length showed a strong negative partial correlation with confidence (rho = -0.36, p < .001), consistent with the Reasoning Contamination Effect. These results do not imply that internal uncertainty representations are absent. They show that minimal verbal elicitation fails to preserve internal signals at the output interface in this model-size regime. Psychometric screening should precede any downstream use of such signals.

Visual planning represents a crucial facet of human intelligence, especially in tasks that require complex spatial reasoning and navigation. Yet, in machine learning, this inherently visual problem is often tackled through a verbal-centric lens. While recent research demonstrates the promise of fully visual approaches, they suffer from significant computational inefficiency due to the step-by-step planning-by-generation paradigm. In this work, we present EAR, an editing-as-reasoning paradigm that reformulates visual planning as a single-step image transformation. To isolate intrinsic reasoning from visual recognition, we employ abstract puzzles as probing tasks and introduce AMAZE, a procedurally generated dataset that features the classical Maze and Queen problems, covering distinct, complementary forms of visual planning. The abstract nature of AMAZE also facilitates automatic evaluation of autoregressive and diffusion-based models in terms of both pixel-wise fidelity and logical validity. We assess leading proprietary and open-source editing models. The results show that they all struggle in the zero-shot setting, finetuning on basic scales enables remarkable generalization to larger in-domain scales and out-of-domain scales and geometries. However, our best model that runs on high-end hardware fails to match the zero-shot efficiency of human solvers, highlighting a persistent gap in neural visual reasoning.

Attitude change - the process by which individuals revise their evaluative stances - has been explained by a set of influential but competing verbal theories. These accounts often function as mechanism sketches: rich in conceptual detail, yet lacking the technical specifications and operational constraints required to run as executable systems. We present a generative actor-based modelling workflow for "rendering" these sketches as runnable actor - environment simulations using the Concordia simulation library. In Concordia, actors operate by predictive pattern completion: an operation on natural language strings that generates a suffix which describes the actor's intended action from a prefix containing memories of their past and observations of the present. We render the theories of cognitive dissonance (Festinger 1957), self-consistency (Aronson 1969), and self-perception (Bem 1972) as distinct decision logics that populate and process the prefix through theory-specific sequences of reasoning steps. We evaluate these implementations across classic psychological experiments. Our implementations generate behavioural patterns consistent with known results from the original empirical literature. However, we find that achieving stable reproduction requires resolving the inherent underdetermination of the verbal accounts and the conflicts between modern linguistic priors and historical experimental assumptions. We document how this manual process of iterative model "stabilisation" surfaces specific operational and socio-ecological dependencies that were largely undocumented in the original verbal accounts. Ultimately, we argue that the manual stabilisation process itself should be regarded as a core part of the methodology functioning to clarify situational and representational commitments needed to generate characteristic effects.

Post-training alignment often reduces LLM diversity, leading to a phenomenon known as mode collapse. Unlike prior work that attributes this effect to algorithmic limitations, we identify a fundamental, pervasive data-level driver: typicality bias in preference data, whereby annotators systematically favor familiar text as a result of well-established findings in cognitive psychology. We formalize this bias theoretically, verify it on preference datasets empirically, and show that it plays a central role in mode collapse. Motivated by this analysis, we introduce Verbalized Sampling, a simple, training-free prompting strategy to circumvent mode collapse. VS prompts the model to verbalize a probability distribution over a set of responses (e.g., "Generate 5 jokes about coffee and their corresponding probabilities"). Comprehensive experiments show that VS significantly improves performance across creative writing (poems, stories, jokes), dialogue simulation, open-ended QA, and synthetic data generation, without sacrificing factual accuracy and safety. For instance, in creative writing, VS increases diversity by 1.6-2.1x over direct prompting. We further observe an emergent trend that more capable models benefit more from VS. In sum, our work provides a new data-centric perspective on mode collapse and a practical inference-time remedy that helps unlock pre-trained generative diversity.

Natural-language instructions rarely specify every detail required for embodied action. An agent asked to ``prepare an apple,'' for example, must still determine whether to wash or cut it, where to place it, and in what order to perform these actions. Such decisions often reflect user-specific preferences that are demonstrated through behavior but never explicitly stated. We study whether embodied agents can infer these latent preferences from a small number of prior demonstrations and apply them when planning in new situations. To support systematic evaluation, we introduce Preference-based Planning (PbP), a benchmark containing 5,000 evaluation groups and 290 preferences organized into three levels: atomic action parameters, strategic interaction and placement policies, and temporal ordering constraints. We further propose Inferring the Unspoken (InTU), a two-stage framework that first verbalizes the preference inferred from multimodal behavioral demonstrations and then generates an action plan conditioned on that explicit representation. Experiments with video-language and language models reveal a substantial preference-acquisition gap: models plan effectively when given the ground-truth preference, but their performance degrades sharply when the same preference must be inferred from behavior. Explicit verbalization consistently improves alignment over direct end-to-end planning, particularly for strong multimodal models, and provides greater robustness when preferences must transfer across visually distinct scenes. These results identify visual-to-semantic preference acquisition, rather than preference-conditioned planning alone, as a central bottleneck in personalized embodied intelligence. They also demonstrate that language can serve as an interpretable and transferable intermediate representation between observed behavior and personalized action.