STRIVE: Probing Reasoning Limits in Graded Plausibility Generation and Evaluation

Event knowledge concerns who does what to whom. Psycholinguists use event-plausibility judgments to examine how this knowledge supports human language processing. To isolate plausibility effects, these studies require controlled event sets in which one event slot varies across plausibility levels while all other event features remain fixed. Constructing such sets manually is labor-intensive. We therefore introduce STRIVE, an LLM-based framework for jointly generating and evaluating controlled event sets crossing plausibility class (plausible vs. implausible) with intended classification difficulty (easy vs. hard). Given a verb, STRIVE constructs a shared event frame, then produces one event per condition by varying one slot while holding all others fixed. In experiments with six models across 60 verbs, GPT-5.1 produced high-quality sets only 16.7% of the time using the baseline generation prompt. Adding a global reasoning scratchpad and evaluator-guided refinement raised this rate to 75.0%. Greater reasoning effort also improved evaluator--human agreement. Nevertheless, events near the plausibility boundary remain most difficult. They elicit the greatest human disagreement, and the best evaluator reaches only 57% accuracy on the implausible-hard condition, indicating a need for human input. Overall, STRIVE offers a scalable approach to reducing manual effort by automating initial event-set generation and evaluation for psycholinguistic studies.

Resolving UnderEdit & OverEdit with Iterative & Neighbor-Assisted Model Editing

Large Language Models (LLMs) are used in various downstream language tasks, making it crucial to keep their knowledge up-to-date, but both retraining and fine-tuning the model can be costly. Model editing offers an efficient and effective alternative by a single update to only a key subset of model parameters. While being efficient, these methods are not perfect. Sometimes knowledge edits are unsuccessful, i.e., UnderEdit, or the edit contaminated neighboring knowledge that should remain unchanged, i.e., OverEdit. To address these limitations, we propose iterative model editing, based on our hypothesis that a single parameter update is often insufficient, to mitigate UnderEdit, and neighbor-assisted model editing, which incorporates neighboring knowledge during editing to minimize OverEdit. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our methods effectively reduce UnderEdit up to 38 percentage points and OverEdit up to 6 percentage points across multiple model editing algorithms, LLMs, and benchmark datasets.