The Zero Body Problem: Probing LLM Use of Sensory Language

Sensory language expresses embodied experiences ranging from taste and sound to excitement and stomachache. This language is of interest to scholars from a wide range of domains including robotics, narratology, linguistics, and cognitive science. In this work, we explore whether language models, which are not embodied, can approximate human use of embodied language. We extend an existing corpus of parallel human and model responses to short story prompts with an additional 18,000 stories generated by 18 popular models. We find that all models generate stories that differ significantly from human usage of sensory language, but the direction of these differences varies considerably between model families. Namely, Gemini models use significantly more sensory language than humans along most axes whereas most models from the remaining five families use significantly less. Linear probes run on five models suggest that they are capable of identifying sensory language. However, we find preliminary evidence suggesting that instruction tuning may discourage usage of sensory language. Finally, to support further work, we release our expanded story dataset.

Tasks and Roles in Legal AI: Data Curation, Annotation, and Verification

The application of AI tools to the legal field feels natural: large legal document collections could be used with specialized AI to improve workflow efficiency for lawyers and ameliorate the "justice gap" for underserved clients. However, legal documents differ from the web-based text that underlies most AI systems. The challenges of legal AI are both specific to the legal domain, and confounded with the expectation of AI's high performance in high-stakes settings. We identify three areas of special relevance to practitioners: data curation, data annotation, and output verification. First, it is difficult to obtain usable legal texts. Legal collections are inconsistent, analog, and scattered for reasons technical, economic, and jurisdictional. AI tools can assist document curation efforts, but the lack of existing data also limits AI performance. Second, legal data annotation typically requires significant expertise to identify complex phenomena such as modes of judicial reasoning or controlling precedents. We describe case studies of AI systems that have been developed to improve the efficiency of human annotation in legal contexts and identify areas of underperformance. Finally, AI-supported work in the law is valuable only if results are verifiable and trustworthy. We describe both the abilities of AI systems to support evaluation of their outputs, as well as new approaches to systematic evaluation of computational systems in complex domains. We call on both legal and AI practitioners to collaborate across disciplines and to release open access materials to support the development of novel, high-performing, and reliable AI tools for legal applications.

Do Chinese models speak Chinese languages?

The release of top-performing open-weight LLMs has cemented China's role as a leading force in AI development. Do these models support languages spoken in China? Or do they speak the same languages as Western models? Comparing multilingual capabilities is important for two reasons. First, language ability provides insights into pre-training data curation, and thus into resource allocation and development priorities. Second, China has a long history of explicit language policy, varying between inclusivity of minority languages and a Mandarin-first policy. To test whether Chinese LLMs today reflect an agenda about China's languages, we test performance of Chinese and Western open-source LLMs on Asian regional and Chinese minority languages. Our experiments on Information Parity and reading comprehension show Chinese models' performance across these languages correlates strongly (r=0.93) with Western models', with the sole exception being better Mandarin. Sometimes, Chinese models cannot identify languages spoken by Chinese minorities such as Kazakh and Uyghur, even though they are good at French and German. These results provide a window into current development priorities, suggest options for future development, and indicate guidance for end users.

A City of Millions: Mapping Literary Social Networks At Scale

We release 70,509 high-quality social networks extracted from multilingual fiction and nonfiction narratives. We additionally provide metadata for ~30,000 of these texts (73% nonfiction and 27% fiction) written between 1800 and 1999 in 58 languages. This dataset provides information on historical social worlds at an unprecedented scale, including data for 1,192,855 individuals in 2,805,482 pair-wise relationships annotated for affinity and relationship type. We achieve this scale by automating previously manual methods of extracting social networks; specifically, we adapt an existing annotation task as a language model prompt, ensuring consistency at scale with the use of structured output. This dataset provides an unprecedented resource for the humanities and social sciences by providing data on cognitive models of social realities.

Provocations from the Humanities for Generative AI Research

This paper presents a set of provocations for considering the uses, impact, and harms of generative AI from the perspective of humanities researchers. We provide a working definition of humanities research, summarize some of its most salient theories and methods, and apply these theories and methods to the current landscape of AI. Drawing from foundational work in critical data studies, along with relevant humanities scholarship, we elaborate eight claims with broad applicability to current conversations about generative AI: 1) Models make words, but people make meaning; 2) Generative AI requires an expanded definition of culture; 3) Generative AI can never be representative; 4) Bigger models are not always better models; 5) Not all training data is equivalent; 6) Openness is not an easy fix; 7) Limited access to compute enables corporate capture; and 8) AI universalism creates narrow human subjects. We conclude with a discussion of the importance of resisting the extraction of humanities research by computer science and related fields.

Lost in Space: Optimizing Tokens for Grammar-Constrained Decoding

General-purpose language models are trained to produce varied natural language outputs, but for some tasks like annotation or classification we need more specific output formats. LLM systems increasingly support structured output, sampling tokens according to a grammar, which enforces a format but which can also reduce performance. We ask whether there are systematic differences between grammars that appear semantically similar to humans. To answer this question, we test four popular model families with five token formats on four NLP benchmarks. All models perform most accurately when instructed to classify with real numbers. Performance also improves by 5%-10% when models are instructed to return tokens incorporating leading whitespace, which we find can help models avoid structural deficiencies in subword token representations. Format-based differences are largest for smaller models that are often used for local laptop-scale inference. We present best practices for researchers using language models as zero-shot classifiers with structured output.

Looking for the Inner Music: Probing LLMs' Understanding of Literary Style

Recent work has demonstrated that language models can be trained to identify the author of much shorter literary passages than has been thought feasible for traditional stylometry. We replicate these results for authorship and extend them to a new dataset measuring novel genre. We find that LLMs are able to distinguish authorship and genre, but they do so in different ways. Some models seem to rely more on memorization, while others benefit more from training to learn author/genre characteristics. We then use three methods to probe one high-performing LLM for features that define style. These include direct syntactic ablations to input text as well as two methods that look at model internals. We find that authorial style is easier to define than genre-level style and is more impacted by minor syntactic decisions and contextual word usage. However, some traits like pronoun usage and word order prove significant for defining both kinds of literary style.

Automate or Assist? The Role of Computational Models in Identifying Gendered Discourse in US Capital Trial Transcripts

The language used by US courtroom actors in criminal trials has long been studied for biases. However, systematic studies for bias in high-stakes court trials have been difficult, due to the nuanced nature of bias and the legal expertise required. New large language models offer the possibility to automate annotation, saving time and cost. But validating these approaches requires both high quantitative performance as well as an understanding of how automated methods fit in existing workflows, and what they really offer. In this paper we present a case study of adding an automated system to a complex and high-stakes problem: identifying gender-biased language in US capital trials for women defendants. Our team of experienced death-penalty lawyers and NLP technologists pursued a three-phase study: first annotating manually, then training and evaluating computational models, and finally comparing human annotations to model predictions. Unlike many typical NLP tasks, annotating for gender bias in months-long capital trials was a complicated task that involves with many individual judgment calls. In contrast to standard arguments for automation that are based on efficiency and scalability, legal experts found the computational models most useful in challenging their personal bias in annotation and providing opportunities to refine and build consensus on rules for annotation. This suggests that seeking to replace experts with computational models is both unrealistic and undesirable. Rather, computational models offer valuable opportunities to assist the legal experts in annotation-based studies.

How Chinese are Chinese Language Models? The Puzzling Lack of Language Policy in China's LLMs

Contemporary language models are increasingly multilingual, but Chinese LLM developers must navigate complex political and business considerations of language diversity. Language policy in China aims at influencing the public discourse and governing a multi-ethnic society, and has gradually transitioned from a pluralist to a more assimilationist approach since 1949. We explore the impact of these influences on current language technology. We evaluate six open-source multilingual LLMs pre-trained by Chinese companies on 18 languages, spanning a wide range of Chinese, Asian, and Anglo-European languages. Our experiments show Chinese LLMs performance on diverse languages is indistinguishable from international LLMs. Similarly, the models' technical reports also show lack of consideration for pretraining data language coverage except for English and Mandarin Chinese. Examining Chinese AI policy, model experiments, and technical reports, we find no sign of any consistent policy, either for or against, language diversity in China's LLM development. This leaves a puzzling fact that while China regulates both the languages people use daily as well as language model development, they do not seem to have any policy on the languages in language models.

Stronger Random Baselines for In-Context Learning

Evaluating the in-context learning classification performance of language models poses challenges due to small dataset sizes, extensive prompt-selection using the validation set, and intentionally difficult tasks that lead to near-random performance. The standard random baseline -- the expected accuracy of guessing labels uniformly at random -- is stable when the evaluation set is used only once or when the dataset is large. We account for the common practice of validation set reuse and existing small datasets with a stronger random baseline: the expected maximum accuracy across multiple random classifiers. When choosing the best prompt demonstrations across six quantized language models applied to 16 BIG-bench Lite tasks, more than 20\% of the few-shot results that exceed the standard baseline do not exceed this stronger random baseline. When held-out test sets are available, this stronger baseline is also a better predictor of held-out performance than the standard baseline, avoiding unnecessary test set evaluations. This maximum random baseline provides an easily calculated drop-in replacement for the standard baseline.