Abstract:Understanding what kinds of factual knowledge large language models (LLMs) memorize is essential for evaluating their reliability and limitations. Entity-based QA is a common framework for analyzing non-verbatim memorization, but typical evaluations query each entity using a single canonical surface form, making it difficult to disentangle fact memorization from access through a particular name. We introduce RedirectQA, an entity-based QA dataset that uses Wikipedia redirect information to associate Wikidata factual triples with categorized surface forms for each entity, including alternative names, abbreviations, spelling variants, and common erroneous forms. Across 13 LLMs, we examine surface-conditioned factual memorization and find that prediction outcomes often change when only the entity surface form changes. This inconsistency is category-dependent: models are more robust to minor orthographic variations than to larger lexical variations such as aliases and abbreviations. Frequency analyses further suggest that both entity- and surface-level frequencies are associated with accuracy, and that entity frequency often contributes beyond surface frequency. Overall, factual memorization appears neither purely surface-specific nor fully surface-invariant, highlighting the importance of surface-form diversity in evaluating non-verbatim memorization.
Abstract:Automatic evaluation metrics are essential for building multilingual translation systems. The common practice of evaluating these systems is averaging metric scores across languages, yet this is suspicious since metrics may suffer from cross-lingual scoring bias, where translations of equal quality receive different scores across languages. This problem has not been systematically studied because no benchmark exists that provides parallel-quality instances across languages, and expert annotation is not realistic. In this work, we propose XQ-MEval, a semi-automatically built dataset covering nine translation directions, to benchmark translation metrics. Specifically, we inject MQM-defined errors into gold translations automatically, filter them by native speakers for reliability, and merge errors to generate pseudo translations with controllable quality. These pseudo translations are then paired with corresponding sources and references to form triplets used in assessing the qualities of translation metrics. Using XQ-MEval, our experiments on nine representative metrics reveal the inconsistency between averaging and human judgment and provide the first empirical evidence of cross-lingual scoring bias. Finally, we propose a normalization strategy derived from XQ-MEval that aligns score distributions across languages, improving the fairness and reliability of multilingual metric evaluation.
Abstract:We introduce CARTBENCH, a museum-grounded benchmark for evaluating vision-language models (VLMs) on Chinese artworks beyond short-form recognition and QA. CARTBENCH comprises four subtasks: CURATORQA for evidence-grounded recognition and reasoning, CATALOGCAPTION for structured four-section expert-style appreciation, REINTERPRET for defensible reinterpretation with expert ratings, and CONNOISSEURPAIRS for diagnostic authenticity discrimination under visually similar confounds. CARTBENCH is built by aligning image-bearing Palace Museum objects from Wikidata with authoritative catalog pages, spanning five art categories across multiple dynasties. Across nine representative VLMs, we find that high overall CURATORQA accuracy can mask sharp drops on hard evidence linking and style-to-period inference; long-form appreciation remains far from expert references; and authenticity-oriented diagnostic discrimination stays near chance, underscoring the difficulty of connoisseur-level reasoning for current models.
Abstract:While large language models (LLMs) improve performance by explicit reasoning, their responses are often overconfident, even though they include linguistic expressions demonstrating uncertainty. In this work, we identify what linguistic expressions are related to confidence by applying the regression method. Specifically, we predict confidence of those linguistic expressions in the reasoning parts of LLMs as the dependent variables and analyze the relationship between a specific $n$-gram and confidence. Across multiple models and QA benchmarks, we show that LLMs remain overconfident when reasoning is involved and attribute this behavior to specific linguistic information. Interestingly, several of the extracted expressions coincide with cue phrases intentionally inserted on test-time scaling to improve reasoning performance. Through our test on causality and verification that the extracted linguistic information truly affects confidence, we reveal that confidence calibration is possible by simply suppressing those overconfident expressions without drops in performance.
Abstract:Cosine similarity is prevalent in contrastive learning, yet it makes an implicit assumption: embedding magnitude is noise. Prior work occasionally found dot product and cosine similarity comparable, but left unanswered WHAT information magnitude carries, WHEN it helps, and HOW to leverage it. We conduct a systematic study through a $2 \times 2$ ablation that independently controls input-side and output-side normalization across text and vision models. Our findings reveal three key insights. First, in text retrieval, output (document) magnitude strongly correlates with relevance (Cohen's $d$ up to 1.80), yielding the largest gains on reasoning-intensive tasks. Second, input and output magnitudes serve asymmetric roles: output magnitude directly scales similarity scores while input magnitude modulates training dynamics. Third, magnitude learning benefits asymmetric tasks (text retrieval, RAG) but harms symmetric tasks (STS, text-image alignment). These findings establish a task symmetry principle: the choice between cosine and dot product depends on whether the task has distinct input roles, enabling cost-free improvements by simply removing an unnecessary constraint.
Abstract:Automatic evaluation in grammatical error correction (GEC) is crucial for selecting the best-performing systems. Currently, reference-based metrics are a popular choice, which basically measure the similarity between hypothesis and reference sentences. However, similarity measures based on embeddings, such as BERTScore, are often ineffective, since many words in the source sentences remain unchanged in both the hypothesis and the reference. This study focuses on edits specifically designed for GEC, i.e., ERRANT, and computes similarity measured over the edits from the source sentence. To this end, we propose edit vector, a representation for an edit, and introduce a new metric, UOT-ERRANT, which transports these edit vectors from hypothesis to reference using unbalanced optimal transport. Experiments with SEEDA meta-evaluation show that UOT-ERRANT improves evaluation performance, particularly in the +Fluency domain where many edits occur. Moreover, our method is highly interpretable because the transport plan can be interpreted as a soft edit alignment, making UOT-ERRANT a useful metric for both system ranking and analyzing GEC systems. Our code is available from https://github.com/gotutiyan/uot-errant.
Abstract:Recently, we have often observed hallucinated citations or references that do not correspond to any existing work in papers under review, preprints, or published papers. Such hallucinated citations pose a serious concern to scientific reliability. When they appear in accepted papers, they may also negatively affect the credibility of conferences. In this study, we refer to hallucinated citations as "HalluCitation" and systematically investigate their prevalence and impact. We analyze all papers published at ACL, NAACL, and EMNLP in 2024 and 2025, including main conference, Findings, and workshop papers. Our analysis reveals that nearly 300 papers contain at least one HalluCitation, most of which were published in 2025. Notably, half of these papers were identified at EMNLP 2025, the most recent conference, indicating that this issue is rapidly increasing. Moreover, more than 100 such papers were accepted as main conference and Findings papers at EMNLP 2025, affecting the credibility.
Abstract:We study dictionary definition generation (DDG), i.e., the generation of non-contextualized definitions for given headwords. Dictionary definitions are an essential resource for learning word senses, but manually creating them is costly, which motivates us to automate the process. Specifically, we address learner's dictionary definition generation (LDDG), where definitions should consist of simple words. First, we introduce a reliable evaluation approach for DDG, based on our new evaluation criteria and powered by an LLM-as-a-judge. To provide reference definitions for the evaluation, we also construct a Japanese dataset in collaboration with a professional lexicographer. Validation results demonstrate that our evaluation approach agrees reasonably well with human annotators. Second, we propose an LDDG approach via iterative simplification with an LLM. Experimental results indicate that definitions generated by our approach achieve high scores on our criteria while maintaining lexical simplicity.
Abstract:Non-English dialogue datasets are scarce, and models are often trained or evaluated on translations of English-language dialogues, an approach which can introduce artifacts that reduce their naturalness and cultural appropriateness. This work proposes Dialogue Act Script (DAS), a structured framework for encoding, localizing, and generating multilingual dialogues from abstract intent representations. Rather than translating dialogue utterances directly, DAS enables the generation of new dialogues in the target language that are culturally and contextually appropriate. By using structured dialogue act representations, DAS supports flexible localization across languages, mitigating translationese and enabling more fluent, naturalistic conversations. Human evaluations across Italian, German, and Chinese show that DAS-generated dialogues consistently outperform those produced by both machine and human translators on measures of cultural relevance, coherence, and situational appropriateness.
Abstract:In generative commonsense reasoning tasks such as CommonGen, generative large language models (LLMs) compose sentences that include all given concepts. However, when focusing on instruction-following capabilities, if a prompt specifies a concept order, LLMs must generate sentences that adhere to the specified order. To address this, we propose Ordered CommonGen, a benchmark designed to evaluate the compositional generalization and instruction-following abilities of LLMs. This benchmark measures ordered coverage to assess whether concepts are generated in the specified order, enabling a simultaneous evaluation of both abilities. We conducted a comprehensive analysis using 36 LLMs and found that, while LLMs generally understand the intent of instructions, biases toward specific concept order patterns often lead to low-diversity outputs or identical results even when the concept order is altered. Moreover, even the most instruction-compliant LLM achieved only about 75% ordered coverage, highlighting the need for improvements in both instruction-following and compositional generalization capabilities.