Large Language Models (LLMs) acquire reasoning capabilities through shared inference patterns in pre-training data, which are further elicited via Chain-of-Thought (CoT). However, whether fundamental reasoning patterns, such as induction, deduction, and abduction, can be decoupled from specific problem instances remains a critical challenge for model controllability. In this paper, we present the first systematic investigation of this problem through the lens of **reasoning conflicts**, an explicit tension between parametric and contextual information induced by mandating logical schemata that deviate from those expected for a target task. Our evaluation reveals that LLMs consistently prioritize *sensibility* over *compliance*, favoring task-appropriate reasoning patterns despite conflicting instructions. We further demonstrate that reasoning conflicts are internally detectable, as confidence scores drop during conflicting episodes. Probing experiments confirm that reasoning types are linearly encoded from middle-to-late layers, indicating the potential for activation-level controllability. Leveraging these insights, we steer models towards compliance, increasing instruction following by up to 29%. Overall, our findings establish that while LLM reasoning is anchored to concrete instances, active mechanistic interventions can effectively decouple logical schemata from data, offering a path toward improved controllability, faithfulness, and generalizability.

Generating event graphs from long documents is challenging due to the inherent complexity of multiple tasks involved such as detecting events, identifying their relationships, and reconciling unstructured input with structured graphs. Recent studies typically consider all events with equal importance, failing to distinguish salient events crucial for understanding narratives. This paper presents CALLMSAE, a CAscading Large Language Model framework for SAlient Event graph generation, which leverages the capabilities of LLMs and eliminates the need for costly human annotations. We first identify salient events by prompting LLMs to generate summaries, from which salient events are identified. Next, we develop an iterative code refinement prompting strategy to generate event relation graphs, removing hallucinated relations and recovering missing edges. Powered by CALLMSAE, we present NYT-SEG, a large-scale automatically annotated event graph dataset which can serve as distant supervision signals. Fine-tuning contextualised graph generation models on NYT-SEG outperforms the models trained on CAEVO data. Results on a human-annotated test set show that the proposed method generates salient and more accurate graphs, outperforming competitive baselines.

As the utilization of language models in interdisciplinary, human-centered studies grow, expectations of their capabilities continue to evolve. Beyond excelling at conventional tasks, models are now expected to perform well on user-centric measurements involving confidence and human (dis)agreement- factors that reflect subjective preferences. While modeling subjectivity plays an essential role in cognitive science and has been extensively studied, its investigation at the intersection with NLP remains under-explored. In light of this gap, we explore how language models can quantify subjectivity in cognitive appraisal by conducting comprehensive experiments and analyses with both fine-tuned models and prompt-based large language models (LLMs). Our quantitative and qualitative results demonstrate that personality traits and demographic information are critical for measuring subjectivity, yet existing post-hoc calibration methods often fail to achieve satisfactory performance. Furthermore, our in-depth analysis provides valuable insights to guide future research at the intersection of NLP and cognitive science.

Theory-of-Mind (ToM), the ability to infer others’ perceptions and mental states, is fundamental to human interaction but remains challenging for Large Language Models (LLMs). While existing ToM reasoning methods show promise with reasoning via perceptual perspective-taking, they often rely excessively on off-the-shelf LLMs, reducing their efficiency and limiting their applicability to high-order ToM reasoning. To address these issues, we present EnigmaToM, a novel neuro-symbolic framework that enhances ToM reasoning by integrating a Neural Knowledge Base of entity states (Enigma) for (1) a psychology-inspired iterative masking mechanism that facilitates accurate perspective-taking and (2) knowledge injection that elicits key entity information. Enigma generates structured knowledge of entity states to build spatial scene graphs for belief tracking across various ToM orders and enrich events with fine-grained entity state details. Experimental results on ToMi, HiToM, and FANToM benchmarks show that EnigmaToM significantly improves ToM reasoning across LLMs of varying sizes, particularly excelling in high-order reasoning scenarios.

Although preference optimization methods have improved reasoning performance in Large Language Models (LLMs), they often lack transparency regarding why one reasoning outcome is preferred over another. This limitation is especially critical in Automated Student Answer Scoring (ASAS), where explainability is essential to justify assessment outcomes. Verbal reinforcement learning offers the potential to generate explicit reflection, but it tends to produce superficial critiques that can harm assessment performance. Existing LLMs also struggle to reliably detect subtle reasoning errors in ASAS tasks. Moreover, manually identifying intermediate reasoning errors is expensive and difficult to scale. To address these challenges, we introduce a contrastive reflection synthesis pipeline that generates precise verbal feedback by identifying discrepancies in structure reasoning graph paths. Leveraging these synthetic reflection data, we propose DARS, a Dual-model Reflective Scoring framework featuring a dedicated Critic model trained for effective reflection. DARS achieves strong performance and consistently outperforms existing ASAS baselines across all evaluation metrics. Extensive experiments further provide novel insights into the value of reflection data, framework design, and the scaling behavior of DARS. We release the DARS code at https://github.com/lijiazheng99/DARS.

Generating rationales that justify scoring decisions has been a promising way to facilitate explainability in automated scoring systems. However, existing methods do not match the accuracy of classifier-based methods. Plus, the generated rationales often contain hallucinated information. To address these issues, we propose a novel framework capable of generating more faithful rationales and, more importantly, matching performance with classifier-based black-box scoring systems. We first mimic the human assessment process by querying Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate a thought tree. We then summarise intermediate assessment decisions from each thought tree path for creating synthetic rationale data and rationale preference data. Finally, we utilise the generated synthetic data to calibrate LLMs through a two-step training process: supervised fine-tuning and preference optimization. Extensive experimental results demonstrate that our framework achieves a 38% assessment performance improvement in the QWK score compared to prior work while producing higher-quality rationales, as recognised by human evaluators and LLMs. Our work sheds light on the effectiveness of performing preference optimization using synthetic preference data obtained from thought tree paths. Data and code are available at: https://github.com/lijiazheng99/thought_tree_assessment.

Existing datasets for narrative understanding often fail to represent the complexity and uncertainty of relationships in real-life social scenarios. To address this gap, we introduce a new benchmark, Conan, designed for extracting and analysing intricate character relation graphs from detective narratives. Specifically, we designed hierarchical relationship categories and manually extracted and annotated role-oriented relationships from the perspectives of various characters, incorporating both public relationships known to most characters and secret ones known to only a few. Our experiments with advanced Large Language Models (LLMs) like GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and Llama2 reveal their limitations in inferencing complex relationships and handling longer narratives. The combination of the Conan dataset and our pipeline strategy is geared towards understanding the ability of LLMs to comprehend nuanced relational dynamics in narrative contexts.

Understanding in-context learning (ICL) capability that enables large language models (LLMs) to excel in proficiency through demonstration examples is of utmost importance. This importance stems not only from the better utilization of this capability across various tasks, but also from the proactive identification and mitigation of potential risks, including concerns regarding truthfulness, bias, and toxicity, that may arise alongside the capability. In this paper, we present a thorough survey on the interpretation and analysis of in-context learning. First, we provide a concise introduction to the background and definition of in-context learning. Then, we give an overview of advancements from two perspectives: 1) a theoretical perspective, emphasizing studies on mechanistic interpretability and delving into the mathematical foundations behind ICL; and 2) an empirical perspective, concerning studies that empirically analyze factors associated with ICL. We conclude by discussing open questions and the challenges encountered, and suggesting potential avenues for future research. We believe that our work establishes the basis for further exploration into the interpretation of in-context learning. To aid this effort, we have created a repository containing resources that will be continually updated.