Verbalizing LLMs' assumptions to explain and control sycophancy

LLMs can be socially sycophantic, affirming users when they ask questions like "am I in the wrong?" rather than providing genuine assessment. We hypothesize that this behavior arises from incorrect assumptions about the user, like underestimating how often users are seeking information over reassurance. We present Verbalized Assumptions, a framework for eliciting these assumptions from LLMs. Verbalized Assumptions provide insight into LLM sycophancy, delusion, and other safety issues, e.g., the top bigram in LLMs' assumptions on social sycophancy datasets is ``seeking validation.'' We provide evidence for a causal link between Verbalized Assumptions and sycophantic model behavior: our assumption probes (linear probes trained on internal representations of these assumptions) enable interpretable fine-grained steering of social sycophancy. We explore why LLMs default to sycophantic assumptions: on identical queries, people expect more objective and informative responses from AI than from other humans, but LLMs trained on human-human conversation do not account for this difference in expectations. Our work contributes a new understanding of assumptions as a mechanism for sycophancy.

Concept Training for Human-Aligned Language Models

The next-token prediction (NTP) objective trains language models to predict a single continuation token at each step. In natural language, however, a prefix can be continued in many valid ways, and even similar meanings may differ in surface form. For example, the sentence ``this website is safe to \underline{browse}'' could plausibly continue with words such as browse, search, visit, surf, or navigate. While standard NTP training treats these alternatives as mutually exclusive targets, we explore a framework that instead predicts concepts, approximated as sets of semantically related tokens. We show that models trained with concept supervision exhibit stronger alignment with human semantic similarity judgments on multiple lexical benchmarks. These gains are accompanied by lower perplexity on semantically meaningful words (definition in Section 3.1), and a modest increase in global token-level perplexity, reflecting a tradeoff between standard NTP optimization and concept-level supervision. Our results suggest that concept-level objectives can improve semantic alignment while maintaining competitive language modeling performance.

SumTablets: A Transliteration Dataset of Sumerian Tablets

Sumerian transliteration is a conventional system for representing a scholar's interpretation of a tablet in the Latin script. Thanks to visionary digital Assyriology projects such as ETCSL, CDLI, and Oracc, a large number of Sumerian transliterations have been published online, and these data are well-structured for a variety of search and analysis tasks. However, the absence of a comprehensive, accessible dataset pairing transliterations with a digital representation of the tablet's cuneiform glyphs has prevented the application of modern Natural Language Processing (NLP) methods to the task of Sumerian transliteration. To address this gap, we present SumTablets, a dataset pairing Unicode representations of 91,606 Sumerian cuneiform tablets (totaling 6,970,407 glyphs) with the associated transliterations published by Oracc. We construct SumTablets by first preprocessing and standardizing the Oracc transliterations before mapping each reading back to the Unicode representation of the source glyph. Further, we retain parallel structural information (e.g., surfaces, newlines, broken segments) through the use of special tokens. We release SumTablets as a Hugging Face Dataset (CC BY 4.0) and open source data preparation code via GitHub. Additionally, we leverage SumTablets to implement and evaluate two transliteration baselines: (1) weighted sampling from a glyph's possible readings, and (2) fine-tuning an autoregressive language model. Our fine-tuned language model achieves an average transliteration character-level F-score (chrF) of 97.55, demonstrating the immediate potential of transformer-based transliteration models in allowing experts to rapidly verify generated transliterations rather than manually transliterating tablets one-by-one.

Beyond Tokens: Concept-Level Training Objectives for LLMs

The next-token prediction (NTP) objective has been foundational in the development of modern large language models (LLMs), driving advances in fluency and generalization. However, NTP operates at the \textit{token} level, treating deviations from a single reference continuation as errors even when alternative continuations are equally plausible or semantically equivalent (e.g., ``mom'' vs. ``mother''). As a result, token-level loss can penalize valid abstractions, paraphrases, or conceptually correct reasoning paths, biasing models toward surface form rather than underlying meaning. This mismatch between the training signal and semantic correctness motivates learning objectives that operate over higher-level representations. We propose a shift from token-level to concept-level prediction, where concepts group multiple surface forms of the same idea (e.g., ``mom,'' ``mommy,'' ``mother'' $\rightarrow$ \textit{MOTHER}). We introduce various methods for integrating conceptual supervision into LLM training and show that concept-aware models achieve lower perplexity, improved robustness under domain shift, and stronger performance than NTP-based models on diverse NLP benchmarks. This suggests \textit{concept-level supervision} as an improved training signal that better aligns LLMs with human semantic abstractions.

The Roots of Performance Disparity in Multilingual Language Models: Intrinsic Modeling Difficulty or Design Choices?

Multilingual language models (LMs) promise broader NLP access, yet current systems deliver uneven performance across the world's languages. This survey examines why these gaps persist and whether they reflect intrinsic linguistic difficulty or modeling artifacts. We organize the literature around two questions: do linguistic disparities arise from representation and allocation choices (e.g., tokenization, encoding, data exposure, parameter sharing) rather than inherent complexity; and which design choices mitigate inequities across typologically diverse languages. We review linguistic features, such as orthography, morphology, lexical diversity, syntax, information density, and typological distance, linking each to concrete modeling mechanisms. Gaps often shrink when segmentation, encoding, and data exposure are normalized, suggesting much apparent difficulty stems from current modeling choices. We synthesize these insights into design recommendations for tokenization, sampling, architectures, and evaluation to support more balanced multilingual LMs.

Categorize Early, Integrate Late: Divergent Processing Strategies in Automatic Speech Recognition

In speech language modeling, two architectures dominate the frontier: the Transformer and the Conformer. However, it remains unknown whether their comparable performance stems from convergent processing strategies or distinct architectural inductive biases. We introduce Architectural Fingerprinting, a probing framework that isolates the effect of architecture on representation, and apply it to a controlled suite of 24 pre-trained encoders (39M-3.3B parameters). Our analysis reveals divergent hierarchies: Conformers implement a "Categorize Early" strategy, resolving phoneme categories 29% earlier in depth and speaker gender by 16% depth. In contrast, Transformers "Integrate Late," deferring phoneme, accent, and duration encoding to deep layers (49-57%). These fingerprints suggest design heuristics: Conformers' front-loaded categorization may benefit low-latency streaming, while Transformers' deep integration may favor tasks requiring rich context and cross-utterance normalization.

Accommodation and Epistemic Vigilance: A Pragmatic Account of Why LLMs Fail to Challenge Harmful Beliefs

Large language models (LLMs) frequently fail to challenge users' harmful beliefs in domains ranging from medical advice to social reasoning. We argue that these failures can be understood and addressed pragmatically as consequences of LLMs defaulting to accommodating users' assumptions and exhibiting insufficient epistemic vigilance. We show that social and linguistic factors known to influence accommodation in humans (at-issueness, linguistic encoding, and source reliability) similarly affect accommodation in LLMs, explaining performance differences across three safety benchmarks that test models' ability to challenge harmful beliefs, spanning misinformation (Cancer-Myth, SAGE-Eval) and sycophancy (ELEPHANT). We further show that simple pragmatic interventions, such as adding the phrase "wait a minute", significantly improve performance on these benchmarks while preserving low false-positive rates. Our results highlight the importance of considering pragmatics for evaluating LLM behavior and improving LLM safety.

Generation Space Size: Understanding and Calibrating Open-Endedness of LLM Generations

Different open-ended generation tasks require different degrees of output diversity. However, current LLMs are often miscalibrated. They collapse to overly homogeneous outputs for creative tasks and hallucinate diverse but incorrect responses for factual tasks. We argue that these two failure modes are unified by, and can both be addressed by, the notion of effective generation space size (GSS) -- the set of semantically distinct outputs a model considers for a prompt. We present GSSBench, a task suite of prompt pairs with ground-truth GSS relationships to assess different metrics and understand where models diverge from desired behavior. We find that hallucination detection metrics, particularly EigenScore, consistently outperform standard diversity and uncertainty quantification metrics, while using only model internals, providing interpretable insights into a model's internal task representations. We demonstrate three applications of GSS: (1) detecting prompt ambiguity and predicting clarification questions for better grounding, (2) interpreting overthinking and underthinking in reasoning models, and (3) steering models to expand their generation space to yield high-quality and diverse outputs.

Sycophantic AI Decreases Prosocial Intentions and Promotes Dependence

Both the general public and academic communities have raised concerns about sycophancy, the phenomenon of artificial intelligence (AI) excessively agreeing with or flattering users. Yet, beyond isolated media reports of severe consequences, like reinforcing delusions, little is known about the extent of sycophancy or how it affects people who use AI. Here we show the pervasiveness and harmful impacts of sycophancy when people seek advice from AI. First, across 11 state-of-the-art AI models, we find that models are highly sycophantic: they affirm users' actions 50% more than humans do, and they do so even in cases where user queries mention manipulation, deception, or other relational harms. Second, in two preregistered experiments (N = 1604), including a live-interaction study where participants discuss a real interpersonal conflict from their life, we find that interaction with sycophantic AI models significantly reduced participants' willingness to take actions to repair interpersonal conflict, while increasing their conviction of being in the right. However, participants rated sycophantic responses as higher quality, trusted the sycophantic AI model more, and were more willing to use it again. This suggests that people are drawn to AI that unquestioningly validate, even as that validation risks eroding their judgment and reducing their inclination toward prosocial behavior. These preferences create perverse incentives both for people to increasingly rely on sycophantic AI models and for AI model training to favor sycophancy. Our findings highlight the necessity of explicitly addressing this incentive structure to mitigate the widespread risks of AI sycophancy.

The ML-SUPERB 2.0 Challenge: Towards Inclusive ASR Benchmarking for All Language Varieties

Recent improvements in multilingual ASR have not been equally distributed across languages and language varieties. To advance state-of-the-art (SOTA) ASR models, we present the Interspeech 2025 ML-SUPERB 2.0 Challenge. We construct a new test suite that consists of data from 200+ languages, accents, and dialects to evaluate SOTA multilingual speech models. The challenge also introduces an online evaluation server based on DynaBench, allowing for flexibility in model design and architecture for participants. The challenge received 5 submissions from 3 teams, all of which outperformed our baselines. The best-performing submission achieved an absolute improvement in LID accuracy of 23% and a reduction in CER of 18% when compared to the best baseline on a general multilingual test set. On accented and dialectal data, the best submission obtained 30.2% lower CER and 15.7% higher LID accuracy, showing the importance of community challenges in making speech technologies more inclusive.