Uncertainty Is Not a Safety Net for Clinical VQA, but Can It Anticipate Model Failure?

Safe deployment of clinical vision-language models (VLMs) requires reliable uncertainty estimation (UE): a signal indicating when predictions should be trusted or escalated to a clinician. We test whether current UE methods actually deliver this signal. Benchmarking 8 methods across 12 VLMs on clinical visual question-answering (VQA), we find that UE quality is not an intrinsic property of the UE method: it tracks model accuracy, degrading precisely where the model performance is weakest, and therefore where reliability is most needed. When we stress-test models by hiding the correct option among the multiple-choice answers (NOTA perturbations), accuracy collapses while uncertainty barely changes, leaving models systematically miscalibrated. Yet, we find that uncertainty on the unperturbed input reliably anticipates which predictions will collapse under NOTA, indicating that UE in current VLMs carries diagnostic information about model fragility. Our results position UE as a diagnostic tool for identifying fragile predictions and motivate perturbation-based evaluation as a path toward safe clinical deployment.

Edit the Bits, Diff the Codes: Bitwise Residual Editing for Visual Autoregressive Models

Text-guided image editing with visual autoregressive (VAR) generators requires controlling both what the model samples and where the sampled change is written back into the image code. Existing VAR editors mainly operate on token streams, features, or flat next-token logits, leaving two native structures of bitwise-residual VAR models underused: the per-bit Bernoulli prediction head and the additive multi-scale residual code field from which the image is assembled. We propose BitResEdit, a training-free editor for bitwise-residual VAR generators such as Infinity. BitEdit performs source-negative guidance by tilting the post-CFG per-bit log-odds along a source--target contrast computed on a shared edited prefix, then projects each update into a closed-form Bernoulli-KL trust region around the clean CFG sampler. ResEdit converts the sampled bits into per-scale continuous-code residuals, gates them with a localization mask, and re-injects them through the generator's native sum-of-scales. Together they couple decision-time bit guidance with combination-time code composition, so masked-out latent features are preserved exactly by code arithmetic while localized, scale-aware edits are applied inside the target region. On PIE-Bench with Infinity-2B, BitResEdit attains the strongest text alignment among same-backbone VAR editors, improving CLIP on the edited region by +1.07 over the strongest prior editor while keeping background preservation competitive with it. Ablations show BitEdit and ResEdit play complementary roles in target alignment and background preservation.

Disagreeing Rationales: Rethinking Classification and Explainability Evaluation in Hate Speech Detection

Human disagreement is ubiquitous and well-known in labeling. However, variation in explanations, captured through token-level human rationales, remains far less explored. At the same time, it is unclear how to best evaluate human labels and rationales -- or even how to best aggregate rationales beyond majority vote -- in light of this variation. Yet, rationales may provide additional insights into the richness of human reasoning, that may differ in style, values and interpretations -- especially in subjective NLP tasks like hate speech detection. In this work, we unify diverse models, training strategies, loss functions, and existing evaluation metrics under a single protocol by systematically re-implementing them across different label and rationale representation spaces. Classification metrics are organized around two key properties -- predictive and distributional -- while explainability metrics through three complementary dimensions: plausibility, faithfulness, and complexity. In this unified supervision framework, we evaluate model behavior across classification and explainability metrics, as well as metric sensitivity to the choice of label (hard and soft) and rationale representation space (hard, intermediate and soft). Results show that both hard and soft metrics favor softer representations, highlighting their effectiveness in capturing variation and the need to rethink evaluation in subjective NLP.

Reasoning that Travels: Dissecting How Chain-of-Thought Transfers Across Models

Large reasoning models (LRMs) often generate extensive chain-of-thought (CoT) traces before producing a final answer. As explicit textual artifacts, these traces can be passed to other models to solve the same task, enabling cross-model reasoning transfer. Yet successful transfer alone does not reveal how the provided CoT contributes to another model's answer. We study this question with a controlled provider--receiver framework, where a provider generates a reasoning trace and a receiver solves the same problem from increasingly longer trace prefixes. We compare force-answer, where the receiver answers directly from the prefix, with free-generation, where it may continue reasoning before answering. Across models and benchmarks, full traces often transfer successfully, but prefix trajectories reveal distinct mechanisms. In force-answer mode, AIME transfer is largely driven by explicit answer availability. MMLU-Pro instead reflects a larger role for receiver competence, while ZebraLogic depends on partial structured-answer information rather than complete-answer leakage alone. In free-generation mode, partial CoTs improve performance across benchmarks, indicating that prefixes can guide continued reasoning. Finally, answer agreement among receivers provides a gold-free signal for stopping provider reasoning early. Overall, cross-model CoT transfer is not a single phenomenon: it can reflect answer extraction, reasoning scaffolding, or receiver-dependent competence.

Human Label Variation as Stable Signal: Learning Annotator-Specific Explanation Behavior via Cross-Annotator Preference Optimization

Free-text explanations extend human label variation (HLV) beyond label disagreement by revealing the reasoning and preferences behind annotators' decisions. We study whether large language models (LLMs) can learn and reproduce such annotator-specific label-explanation behavior. Using two sentence-pair tasks with four annotators each -- natural language inference and paraphrase judgment -- we first analyze whether annotators exhibit stable individual patterns. We find that such patterns are weak at the single-annotation level due to strong input-content effects, but become detectable after input-content reduction and annotator-level aggregation. We then compare prompting and supervised fine-tuning (SFT) baselines and propose cross-annotator preference optimization (CAPO), which contrasts a target annotator's response with other valid but less target-specific annotations for the same input. Experiments show that prompting is limited and unstable, SFT better captures annotator-specific behavior, and CAPO further improves aggregation-aware imitation and judge-based attribution while preserving target-specific reasoning patterns under human validation. Overall, our results show that HLV can be learned as annotator-specific label-explanation behavior, suggesting a path toward scalable explanation-based annotation grounded in annotator histories rather than labels alone.

Clarify, Abstain or Answer? Strategising in Conversation with Belief-Augmented Generation

Large language models (LLMs) define a distribution over text, which can be viewed as a probabilistic representation of uncertainty: sampling K responses yields a belief state - responses a model deems plausible. Existing work exploits this representation for narrow tasks like either decoding or selective prediction, and often requires manual interventions, not controlling generation directly. We propose Belief-Augmented Generation (BAG): grounding LLMs in their own belief state via the prompt and letting them reason over these K samples to decide on a conversational strategy: answer, clarify, or abstain. In a multi-turn ambiguous QA setting, we find that LLMs by default rarely clarify or abstain, ignoring uncertainty about the input or facts. BAG improves QA accuracy across six models and yields strategy decisions more faithful to the belief state than prompt-only baselines. Disentangling when to clarify from when to abstain, however, remains challenging.

Resource-Lean Lexicon Induction for German Dialects

Automatic induction of high-quality dictionaries is essential for building lexical resources, yet low-resource languages and dialects pose several challenges: limited access to annotators, high degree of spelling variations, and poor performance of large language models (LLMs). We empirically show that statistical models (random forests) trained on string similarity features are surprisingly effective for inducing German dialect lexicons. They outperform LLMs, enable cross-dialect transfer, and offer a lightweight data-driven alternative. We evaluate our models intrinsically on bilingual lexicon induction (BLI) and extrinsically on dialect information retrieval (IR). On BLI, random forests outperform Mistral-123b while being more resource-lean. On dialect IR with BM25, using our dialect dictionaries for query expansion yields relative improvements of up to 28.9% in nDCG@10 and 50.7% in Recall@100. Motivated by the resource scarcity in dialects, we further investigate the extent to which models transfer across different German dialects, and their performance under varying amounts of training data.

ltzGLUE: Luxembourgish General Language Understanding Evaluation

This paper presents ltzGLUE, the first Natural Language Understanding (NLU) benchmark for Luxembourgish (LTZ) based on the popular GLUE benchmark for English. Although NLU tasks are available for many European languages nowadays, LTZ is one of the official national languages that is often overlooked. We construct new tasks and reuse existing ones to introduce the first official NLU benchmark and accompanying evaluation of encoder models for the language. Our tasks include common natural language processing tasks in binary and multi-class classification settings, including named entity recognition, topic classification, and intent classification. We evaluate various pre-trained language models for LTZ to present an overview of the current capabilities of these models on the LTZ language.

Copy First, Translate Later: Interpreting Translation Dynamics in Multilingual Pretraining

Large language models exhibit impressive cross-lingual capabilities. However, prior work analyzes this phenomenon through isolated factors and at sparse points during training, limiting our understanding of how cross-lingual generalization emerges--particularly in the early phases of learning. To study the early trajectory of linguistic and translation capabilities, we pretrain a multilingual 1.7B model on nine diverse languages, capturing checkpoints at a much finer granularity. We further introduce a novel word-level translation dataset and trace how translation develops over training through behavioral analyses, model-component analysis, and parameter-based ablations. We find that the model quickly acquires basic linguistic capabilities in parallel with token-level copying, while translation develops in two distinct phases: an initial phase dominated by copying and surface-level similarities, and a second phase in which more generalizing translation mechanisms are developed while copying is refined. Together, these findings provide a fine-grained view of how cross-lingual generalization develops during multilingual pretraining.

Variation is the Norm: Embracing Sociolinguistics in NLP

In Natural Language Processing (NLP), variation is typically seen as noise and "normalised away" before processing, even though it is an integral part of language. Conversely, studying language variation in social contexts is central to sociolinguistics. We present a framework to combine the sociolinguistic dimension of language with the technical dimension of NLP. We argue that by embracing sociolinguistics, variation can actively be included in a research setup, in turn informing the NLP side. To illustrate this, we provide a case study on Luxembourgish, an evolving language featuring a large amount of orthographic variation, demonstrating how NLP performance is impacted. The results show large discrepancies in the performance of models tested and fine-tuned on data with a large amount of orthographic variation in comparison to data closer to the (orthographic) standard. Furthermore, we provide a possible solution to improve the performance by including variation in the fine-tuning process. This case study highlights the importance of including variation in the research setup, as models are currently not robust to occurring variation. Our framework facilitates the inclusion of variation in the thought-process while also being grounded in the theoretical framework of sociolinguistics.