Leveraging a dataset of paired narratives, we investigate the extent to which large language models (LLMs) can reliably separate incoherent and coherent stories.A probing study finds that LLMs’ internal representations can reliably identify incoherent events in narratives. However, this separation disappears by the narrative’s end, and weakens when the differences between coherent and incoherent stories are more subtle. When asked to rate overall coherence of narratives after reading, LLMs generate responses that fail to satisfactorily separate the coherent and incoherent narratives.Reasoning models tested do not eliminate these deficits, indicating that thought strings may not be able to fully address the discrepancy between model internal state and behavior.Additionally, we find that LLMs appear to be more sensitive to incoherence resulting from an event that violates the setting (e.g., a rainy day in the desert) than to incoherence arising from a character violating an established trait (e.g., Mary, a vegetarian, later orders a cheeseburger), suggesting that LLMs may rely more on prototypical world knowledge than building coherence through a meaning-based world model of the narrative setting. Together, our results indicate that LLMs lack robustness in their ability to recognize incoherence in narratives.

Working memory, or the ability to hold and manipulate information in the mind, is a critical component of human intelligence and executive functioning. It is correlated with performance on various cognitive tasks, including measures of fluid intelligence, which encompasses reasoning and problem solving. We use a comprehensive set of classic working memory tasks to estimate the working memory capacity of large language models (LLMs). We find that in most cases, LLMs exceed normative human scores. However, we do not find that the increased capacity of working memory is associated with higher performance on other executive functioning tasks or problem solving benchmarks. These results suggest that LLMs may have deficits in attentional control and cognitive flexibility, which result in difficulties with inhibiting automatic responses and adapting to shifting information. Our findings suggest that reasoning models, although they often do not currently fully compensate for these deficits, may have the potential to do so in the future.

Large language models (LLMs) exihibit increasingly sophisticated linguistic capabilities, yet the extent to which these behaviors reflect human-like cognition versus advanced pattern recognition remains an open question.In this study, we investigate how LLMs process the temporal meaning of linguistic aspect in narratives that were previously used in human studies. Using an Expert-in-the-Loop probing pipeline, we conduct a series of targeted experiments to assess whether LLMs construct semantic representations and pragmatic inferences in a human-like manner.Our findings show that LLMs over-rely on prototypicality, produce inconsistent aspectual judgments, and struggle with causal reasoning derived from aspect, raising concerns about their ability to fully comprehend narratives.These results suggest that LLMs process aspect fundamentally differently from humans and lack robust narrative understanding.Beyond these empirical findings, we develop a standardized experimental framework for the reliable assessment of LLMs’ cognitive and linguistic capabilities.

Textual style expresses a diverse set of information, including interpersonal dynamics (e.g., formality) and the author’s emotions or attitudes (e.g., disgust). An open question is how language models can be explicitly controlled so that they weave together target styles when generating text: for example, to produce text that is both negative and non-toxic. One approach to such controlled generation is multi-objective reinforcement learning (RL), but how to best combine multiple objectives in a reward function is an open question. In this paper, we investigate various formulations of multi-style reward formulations, including calibrated outputs from discriminators and dynamic weighting by discriminator gradient magnitudes. We find that our proposed dynamic weighting outperforms static weighting approaches with respect style control while maintaining linguistic quality, and we explore its effectiveness in 2- and 3-style control.

The success of NLP systems often relies on the availability of large, high-quality datasets. However, not all samples in these datasets are equally valuable for learning, as some may be redundant or noisy. Several methods for characterizing datasets based on model-driven meta-information (e.g., model’s confidence) have been developed, but the relationship and complementary effects of these methods have received less attention. In this paper, we introduce infoVerse, a universal framework for dataset characterization, which provides a new feature space that effectively captures multidimensional characteristics of datasets by incorporating various model-driven meta-information. infoVerse reveals distinctive regions of the dataset that are not apparent in the original semantic space, hence guiding users (or models) in identifying which samples to focus on for exploration, assessment, or annotation. Additionally, we propose a novel sampling method on infoVerse to select a set of data points that maximizes informativeness. In three real-world applications (data pruning, active learning, and data annotation), the samples chosen on infoVerse space consistently outperform strong baselines in all applications. Our code and demo are publicly available.

There is growing interest in incorporating eye-tracking data and other implicit measures of human language processing into natural language processing (NLP) pipelines. The data from human language processing contain unique insight into human linguistic understanding that could be exploited by language models. However, many unanswered questions remain about the nature of this data and how it can best be utilized in downstream NLP tasks. In this paper, we present EyeStyliency, an eye-tracking dataset for human processing of stylistic text (e.g., politeness). We develop an experimental protocol to collect these style-specific eye movements. We further investigate how this saliency data compares to both human annotation methods and model-based interpretability metrics. We find that while eye-tracking data is unique, it also intersects with both human annotations and model-based importance scores, providing a possible bridge between human- and machine-based perspectives. We propose utilizing this type of data to evaluate the cognitive plausibility of models that interpret style. Our eye-tracking data and processing code are publicly available.

Capturing readers’ engagement in fiction is a challenging but important aspect of narrative understanding. In this study, we collected 23 readers’ reactions to 2 short stories through eye tracking, sentence-level annotations, and an overall engagement scale survey. We analyzed the significance of various qualities of the text in predicting how engaging a reader is likely to find it. As enjoyment of fiction is highly contextual, we also investigated individual differences in our data. Furthering our understanding of what captivates readers in fiction will help better inform models used in creative narrative generation and collaborative writing tools.