Reasoning Beyond Labels: Measuring LLM Sentiment in Low-Resource, Culturally Nuanced Contexts

Sentiment analysis in low-resource, culturally nuanced contexts challenges conventional NLP approaches that assume fixed labels and universal affective expressions. We present a diagnostic framework that treats sentiment as a context-dependent, culturally embedded construct, and evaluate how large language models (LLMs) reason about sentiment in informal, code-mixed WhatsApp messages from Nairobi youth health groups. Using a combination of human-annotated data, sentiment-flipped counterfactuals, and rubric-based explanation evaluation, we probe LLM interpretability, robustness, and alignment with human reasoning. Framing our evaluation through a social-science measurement lens, we operationalize and interrogate LLMs outputs as an instrument for measuring the abstract concept of sentiment. Our findings reveal significant variation in model reasoning quality, with top-tier LLMs demonstrating interpretive stability, while open models often falter under ambiguity or sentiment shifts. This work highlights the need for culturally sensitive, reasoning-aware AI evaluation in complex, real-world communication.

RE-IMAGINE: Symbolic Benchmark Synthesis for Reasoning Evaluation

Recent Large Language Models (LLMs) have reported high accuracy on reasoning benchmarks. However, it is still unclear whether the observed results arise from true reasoning or from statistical recall of the training set. Inspired by the ladder of causation (Pearl, 2009) and its three levels (associations, interventions and counterfactuals), this paper introduces RE-IMAGINE, a framework to characterize a hierarchy of reasoning ability in LLMs, alongside an automated pipeline to generate problem variations at different levels of the hierarchy. By altering problems in an intermediate symbolic representation, RE-IMAGINE generates arbitrarily many problems that are not solvable using memorization alone. Moreover, the framework is general and can work across reasoning domains, including math, code, and logic. We demonstrate our framework on four widely-used benchmarks to evaluate several families of LLMs, and observe reductions in performance when the models are queried with problem variations. These assessments indicate a degree of reliance on statistical recall for past performance, and open the door to further research targeting skills across the reasoning hierarchy.

TRIALSCOPE: A Unifying Causal Framework for Scaling Real-World Evidence Generation with Biomedical Language Models

The rapid digitization of real-world data offers an unprecedented opportunity for optimizing healthcare delivery and accelerating biomedical discovery. In practice, however, such data is most abundantly available in unstructured forms, such as clinical notes in electronic medical records (EMRs), and it is generally plagued by confounders. In this paper, we present TRIALSCOPE, a unifying framework for distilling real-world evidence from population-level observational data. TRIALSCOPE leverages biomedical language models to structure clinical text at scale, employs advanced probabilistic modeling for denoising and imputation, and incorporates state-of-the-art causal inference techniques to combat common confounders. Using clinical trial specification as generic representation, TRIALSCOPE provides a turn-key solution to generate and reason with clinical hypotheses using observational data. In extensive experiments and analyses on a large-scale real-world dataset with over one million cancer patients from a large US healthcare network, we show that TRIALSCOPE can produce high-quality structuring of real-world data and generates comparable results to marquee cancer trials. In addition to facilitating in-silicon clinical trial design and optimization, TRIALSCOPE may be used to empower synthetic controls, pragmatic trials, post-market surveillance, as well as support fine-grained patient-like-me reasoning in precision diagnosis and treatment.