Do Large Language Models (LLMs) genuinely grasp the compositional semantics of events, or do they rely on surface-level probabilistic heuristics? We investigate the Imperfective Paradox, a logical phenomenon where the past progressive aspect entails event realization for activities (e.g., running → ran) but not for accomplishments (e.g., building ↛ built). We introduce ImperfectiveNLI, a diagnostic dataset designed to probe this distinction across diverse semantic classes. Evaluating state-of-the-art open-weight models, we uncover a pervasive Teleological Bias: models systematically hallucinate completion for goal-oriented events, even overriding explicit textual cancellation. Prompting interventions partially reduce this bias but trigger a calibration crisis, causing models to incorrectly reject valid entailments for atelic verbs. Representational analyses further show that while internal embeddings often distinguish progressive from simple past forms, inference decisions are dominated by strong priors about goal attainment. Taken together, our findings indicate that these current open-weight LLMs operate as predictive narrative engines rather than faithful logical reasoners, and that resolving aspectual inference requires moving beyond prompting toward structurally grounded alignment.

We explore the human motion knowledge of Large Language Models (LLMs) through 3D avatar control. Given a motion instruction, we prompt LLMs to first generate a high-level movement plan with consecutive steps (High-level Planning), then specify body part positions in each step (Low-level Planning), which we linearly interpolate into avatar animations. Using 20 representative motion instructions that cover fundamental movements and balance body part usage, we conduct comprehensive evaluations, including human and automatic scoring of both high-level movement plans and generated animations, as well as automatic comparison with oracle positions in low-level planning. Our findings show that LLMs are strong at interpreting high-level body movements but struggle with precise body part positioning. While decomposing motion queries into atomic components improves planning, LLMs face challenges in multi-step movements involving high-degree-of-freedom body parts. Furthermore, LLMs provide reasonable approximations for general spatial descriptions, but fall short in handling precise spatial specifications. Notably, LLMs demonstrate promise in conceptualizing creative motions and distinguishing culturally specific motion patterns.

This study explores how bilingual language models develop complex internal representations.We employ sparse autoencoders to analyze internal representations of bilingual language models with a focus on the effects of training steps, layers, and model sizes.Our analysis shows that language models first learn languages separately, and then gradually form bilingual alignments, particularly in the mid layers. We also found that this bilingual tendency is stronger in larger models.Building on these findings, we demonstrate the critical role of bilingual representations in model performance by employing a novel method that integrates decomposed representations from a fully trained model into a mid-training model.Our results provide insights into how language models acquire bilingual capabilities.

Supervised fine-tuning (SFT) is a critical step in aligning large language models (LLMs) with human instructions and values, yet many aspects of SFT remain poorly understood. We trained a wide range of base models on a variety of datasets including code generation, mathematical reasoning, and general-domain tasks, resulting in 1,000+ SFT models under controlled conditions. We then identified the dataset properties that matter most and examined the layer-wise modifications introduced by SFT.Our findings reveal that some training–task synergies persist across all models while others vary substantially, emphasizing the importance of model-specific strategies. Moreover, we demonstrate that perplexity consistently predicts SFT effectiveness, often surpassing superficial similarity between the training data and the benchmark, and that mid-layer weight changes correlate most strongly with performance gains. We release these 1,000+ SFT models and benchmark results to accelerate further research. All resources are available at https://github.com/llm-jp/massive-sft.

While natural language is processed incrementally, it is unclear whether the syntactic structure prediction process is universal across languages or language-specific. This study investigates this question by revisiting parsing strategies of syntactic language models that incrementally predict both the next token and the associated syntactic structure. Unlike previous studies that have focused on a few strategies, we examine a wide range of strategies by introducing different parameterizations of “speculation”, which quantifies the degree to which a model predicts syntactic structure before encountering the corresponding tokens. The experiments with 10 typologically diverse languages reveal that the optimal strategy differs depending on the language and the beam size.

The lack of data transparency in Large Language Models (LLMs) has highlighted the importance of Membership Inference Attack (MIA), which differentiates trained (member) and untrained (non-member) data. Though it shows success in previous studies, recent research reported a near-random performance in different settings, highlighting a significant performance inconsistency. We assume that a single setting doesn’t represent the distribution of the vast corpora, causing members and non-members with different distributions to be sampled and causing inconsistency. In this study, instead of a single setting, we statistically revisit MIA methods from various settings with thousands of experiments for each MIA method, along with study in text feature, embedding, threshold decision, and decoding dynamics of members and non-members. We found that (1) MIA performance improves with model size and varies with domains, while most methods do not statistically outperform baselines, (2) Though MIA performance is generally low, a notable amount of differentiable member and non-member outliers exists and vary across MIA methods, (3) Deciding a threshold to separate members and non-members is an overlooked challenge, (4) Text dissimilarity and long text benefit MIA performance, (5) Differentiable or not is reflected in the LLM embedding, (6) Member and non-members show different decoding dynamics.