Human reasoning often involves working over limited information to arrive at probabilistic conclusions. In its simplest form, this involves making an inference that is not strictly entailed by a premise, but rather only likely given the premise. While reasoning LLMs have demonstrated strong performance on logical and mathematical tasks, their behavior on such open-ended, non-deterministic inferences remains largely unexplored. We introduce PROBCOPA, a dataset of 210 handcrafted probabilistic inferences in English, each annotated for inference likelihood by 25–30 human participants. We find that human responses are graded and varied, revealing probabilistic judgments of the inferences in our dataset. Comparing these judgments with responses from eight state-of-the-art reasoning LLMs, we show that models consistently fail to produce human-like distributions. Finally, analyzing LLM reasoning chains, we find evidence of a common reasoning pattern used to evaluate such inferences. Our findings reveal persistent differences between humans and LLMs, and underscore the need to evaluate reasoning beyond deterministic settings.1

As LLMs occupy an increasingly important role in society, they are more and more confronted with questions that require them not only to draw on their general knowledge but also to align with certain human value systems. Therefore, studying the alignment of LLMs with human values has become a crucial field of inquiry. Prior work, however, mostly focuses on evaluating the alignment of fully trained models, overlooking the training dynamics by which models learn to express human values. In this work, we investigate how and at which stage value alignment arises during the course of a model’s post-training. Our analysis disentangles the effects of post-training algorithms and datasets, measuring both the magnitude and time of value drifts during training. Experimenting with Llama-3 and Qwen-3 models of different sizes and popular supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and preference optimization datasets and algorithms, we find that the SFT phase generally establishes a model’s values, and subsequent preference optimization rarely realigns these values. Furthermore, using a synthetic preference dataset that enables controlled manipulation of values, we find that different preference optimization algorithms lead to different value alignment outcomes, even when preference data is held constant. Our findings provide actionable insights into how values are learned during post-training and help to inform data curation, as well as the selection of models and algorithms for preference optimization to improve model alignment to human values.1

Though English sentences are typically inflexible vis-à-vis word order, constituents often show far more variability in ordering. One prominent theory presents the notion that constituent ordering is directly correlated with constituent weight: a measure of the constituent’s length or complexity. Such theories are interesting in the context of natural language processing (NLP), because while recent advances in NLP have led to significant gains in the performance of large language models (LLMs), much remains unclear about how these models process language, and how this compares to human language processing. In particular, the question remains whether LLMs display the same patterns with constituent movement, and may provide insights into existing theories on when and how the shift occurs in human language. We compare a variety of LLMs with diverse properties to evaluate broad LLM performance on four types of constituent movement: heavy NP shift, particle movement, dative alternation, and multiple PPs. Despite performing unexpectedly around particle movement, LLMs generally align with human preferences around constituent ordering.

We explore whether synthetic datasets generated by large language models using a few high quality seed samples are useful for low-resource named entity recognition, considering 11 languages from three language families. Our results suggest that synthetic data created with such seed data is a reasonable choice when there is no available labeled data, and is better than using entirely automatically labeled data. However, a small amount of high-quality data, coupled with cross-lingual transfer from a related language, always offers better performance. Data and code available at: https://github.com/grvkamath/low-resource-syn-ner.

Sentences containing multiple semantic operators with overlapping scope often create ambiguities in interpretation, known as scope ambiguities. These ambiguities offer rich insights into the interaction between semantic structure and world knowledge in language processing. Despite this, there has been little research into how modern large language models treat them. In this paper, we investigate how different versions of certain autoregressive language models—GPT-2, GPT-3/3.5, Llama 2, and GPT-4—treat scope ambiguous sentences, and compare this with human judgments. We introduce novel datasets that contain a joint total of almost 1,000 unique scope-ambiguous sentences, containing interactions between a range of semantic operators, and annotated for human judgments. Using these datasets, we find evidence that several models (i) are sensitive to the meaning ambiguity in these sentences, in a way that patterns well with human judgments, and (ii) can successfully identify human-preferred readings at a high level of accuracy (over 90% in some cases).1