Uncertainty quantification (UQ) techniques measure confidence in language model outputs to support critical applications like hallucination detection and selective prediction. While prior work has developed various confidence metrics and demonstrated their calibration for classification tasks or using verbalized confidence, the robustness of probability-based and self-consistency-based UQ metrics for natural language generation (NLG) remains underexplored—particularly under model adaptation. Since practitioners routinely apply supervised fine-tuning (SFT) to adapt models to new tasks, a key question arises: do confidence metrics maintain their calibration when models are fine-tuned? We investigate this question across NLG tasks including translation, question answering, and mathematical reasoning. We find that calibration shifts substantially after SFT: across 216 configurations, it degrades in 112 cases and improves in 104, with confidence scores shifting due to factors beyond output quality, such as proximity to the training distribution. Degradation is therefore neither universal nor rare, and its direction cannot be anticipated from the pre-SFT model. Through a downstream task evaluation, we show that this miscalibration substantially reduces the practical utility of confidence scores for identifying correct answers. Our findings reveal that existing confidence metrics for NLG cannot be reliably deployed off-the-shelf after fine-tuning, highlighting the need for calibration-robust UQ methods under model adaptation.

Active learning (AL) is a training paradigm for selecting unlabeled samples for annotation to improve model performance on a test set, which is useful when only a limited number of samples can be annotated. These algorithms often work by optimizing for the informativeness and diversity of the training data to be annotated. Recent work found that AL strategies fail to outperform random sampling on various language generation tasks when using 100-500 samples. To understand AL’s poor performance when only using few samples, we investigate whether the core assumptions underlying AL strategies hold. We find that neither the informativeness nor diversity of the training data, which AL strategies optimize for, are correlated with test set performance. Instead, factors like the ordering of the training samples and interactions with pre-training data have a larger impact on performance. This suggests that future AL methods must take these factors into account in order to work with very few samples.

Human language is driven by unspoken beliefs and belief updates which are thus of critical importance for successful interactions between large language models (LLMs) and their users. In this paper, we evaluate the ability of LLMs to recognize unspoken beliefs made through implicatures and to recognize their updates through implicature cancellation: the pragmatic phenomenon whereby an utterance’s implied meaning is weakened or negated. We create the first expert-annotated implicature cancellation dataset, ImplicatureX, crowdsourced for human judgements of implicatures and their corresponding cancellations. We find that LLM belief update understanding lags behind that of humans, especially in more naturally-occurring scenarios. Additional control experiments suggest that successes in LLM belief updates may in part stem from a reliance on prior beliefs, and that failures in belief updates may depend on their type and on their form. Overall, our study suggests that current LLMs have not yet reached human-level understanding of communicative belief updates.

Figurative language (e.g., irony, hyperbole, understatement) is ubiquitous in human communication, resulting in utterances where the literal and the intended meanings do not match. The Rational Speech Act (RSA) framework, which explicitly models speaker intentions, is the most widespread theory of probabilistic pragmatics, but existing implementations are either unable to account for figurative expressions or require modeling the implicit motivations for using figurative language (e.g., to express joy or annoyance) in a setting-specific way. In this paper, we introduce the Rhetorical-Strategy-Aware RSA (RSA)² framework which models figurative language use by considering a speaker’s employed rhetorical strategy. We show that (RSA)² enables human-compatible interpretations of non-literal utterances without modeling a speaker’s motivations for being non-literal. Combined with LLMs, it achieves state-of-the-art performance on the ironic split of PragMega+, a new irony interpretation dataset introduced in this study.

Qualitative coding is a content analysis method in which researchers read through a text corpus and assign descriptive labels or qualitative codes to passages. It is an arduous and manual process which human-computer interaction (HCI) studies have shown could greatly benefit from NLP techniques to assist qualitative coders. Yet, previous attempts at leveraging language technologies have set up qualitative coding as a fully automatable classification problem. In this work, we take a more assistive approach by defining the task of qualitative code suggestion (QCS) in which a ranked list of previously assigned qualitative codes is suggested from an identified passage. In addition to being user-motivated, QCS integrates previously ignored properties of qualitative coding such as the sequence in which passages are annotated, the importance of rare codes and the differences in annotation styles between coders. We investigate the QCS task by releasing the first publicly available qualitative coding dataset, CVDQuoding, consisting of interviews conducted with women at risk of cardiovascular disease. In addition, we conduct a human evaluation which shows that our systems consistently make relevant code suggestions.