Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Hinrich Schütze

Publications and source records attributed to Hinrich Schütze.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
arXiv2026

Knowledge That Is Linear Before Fine-Tuning Generalizes After It

Not all facts a language model can recall support further learning equally well. We distinguish active facts, which support generalization beyond their own recall, from inert facts, which can be recalled but do not support such generalization in a given task. We study this distinction by constructing new relations from existing ones. Take the relation that maps a place to its continent (Paris -> Europe) and assign each of its answers an arbitrary new label (Europe -> crab, Asia -> zebra). The new relation then maps Paris -> crab. We fine-tune the model on the new relation for a subset of subjects, without telling it the original relation or the relabeling rule, and test whether it assigns the corresponding labels to held-out subjects that share an answer in the original relation. Having learned Paris -> crab, does it answer Munich -> crab? Across eleven language models and 70 relations, how linearly readable the original relation is in pretrained representations strongly predicts this generalization. Within each model, the two correlate across relations at Pearson r = 0.87 to 0.92. This association persists when controlling, separately and jointly, for the number of fine-tuning subjects and answers, the model's accuracy on the original relation, and how often the subjects occur in pretraining text. It is also robust to re-randomizing the label assignment and fine-tuning seed, and to replacing the animal labels with labels from thirteen other semantic categories. When we map a fine-tuned model's wrong label back to the original answer it was assigned to, Munich -> zebra becomes Munich -> Asia. Answers recovered this way are more often among the linear probe's top answers for the subject than among the pretrained model's own. Whether a new relation generalizes depends less on whether its facts can be recalled than on how readily their shared structure can be read out linearly.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

FramingQA: Does the Question Shape the Answer? Measuring the Compositional Framing Effect

We introduce FramingQA, a benchmark that measures the model sensitivity to question framing across law, medicine, finance, and robotic simulations. Large language models (LLMs) often change their responses to subtle rephrasings that align with an implied stance by users. This can leave users with advice tainted by how they happened to phrase a question rather than by the underlying facts, and the consequences are highly costly in high-stakes domains. Because in the realistic scenarios, both expert practitioners and non-expert users frequently ask LLMs questions containing incomplete or misleading assumptions, models are highly susceptible to those framings. To test this, we inject the framing bias across three nested levels: a framing-biased question phrasing (root), an injected framing-biased premise prepended to a neutral question (propositional), and a premise paired with a framing-biased question (global). Evaluating nine open models (3.8B-70B) across four families, we find that strong per-variant accuracy does not guarantee the robustness across differently phrased questions under the fixed factual information.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Orthogonal Yet Coupled: Decoupling Geometric Components for Model Merging

Merging pretrained models has emerged as an effective approach for consolidating diverse capabilities into a single unified model. However, prevailing merging methods typically treat each task vector as an indivisible merging unit, overlooking the heterogeneous geometric changes encoded within it. This treatment can induce cross-component coupling: when merging decisions are derived from statistics of the complete task vector, the geometric characteristics of one component may influence how another is selected, weighted, or combined, potentially degrading the quality of the merged model. To address this issue, we propose DiGA, a Disentangled Geometry-Aware model merging framework. Using the pretrained weights as a shared geometric reference, DiGA orthogonally decomposes each task vector into components corresponding to distinct geometric attributes. Rather than merging the task vectors as a whole, DiGA aggregates corresponding components independently within their respective subspaces and subsequently recombines them into a unified update. This component-wise formulation preserves the geometric identity of each component and prevents the characteristics of one component from interfering with the aggregation of another. Furthermore, DiGA can be incorporated into a broad range of existing model merging methods. Extensive experiments across diverse models, tasks, and merging methods demonstrate that DiGA improves merged-model performance and reduces capability degradation. Our repository is on https://github.com/wzj1718/DiGA.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Why Better Cross-Lingual Alignment Fails for Better Cross-Lingual Transfer: Case of Encoders

Cross-lingual alignment is often assumed to improve cross-lingual transfer by bringing representations of different languages closer together. However, improvements in representational alignment do not consistently translate into better downstream performance. We investigate this disconnect using XLM-R models explicitly aligned across four language pairs with token-level, sentence-level, and masked-language-modeling objectives. We evaluate their zero-shot transfer on a token-level task (part-of-speech tagging) and a sentence-level task (sentence classification), and analyze both representational changes and the gradients induced by the alignment and downstream objectives. We find that embedding-based alignment metrics do not reliably indicate whether alignment will improve or degrade downstream performance. Moreover, alignment and downstream-task gradients are often nearly orthogonal, particularly when the alignment objective and downstream task operate at different representational levels. These findings suggest that representation alignment alone is insufficient for assessing cross-lingual transfer, and that the compatibility between alignment and downstream objectives should be considered when designing/evaluating alignment methods.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Calibration Is Not Enough: Evaluating Confidence Estimation Under Language Variations

Confidence estimation (CE) indicates how reliable the answers of large language models are and impacts user trust and decision-making. Existing evaluations mainly concern the alignment between confidence and correctness, but ignore the variability of language: confidence estimates should remain consistent under semantically equivalent prompts or answer variations, while changing when answer meaning differs, as this may indicate a change in correctness. Therefore, we introduce a novel evaluation framework based on three complementary properties: \textbf{robustness} to prompt perturbations, \textbf{stability} across semantically equivalent answers, and \textbf{sensitivity} to semantically different answers. We show that these metrics are largely independent from existing CE metrics, and that common CE methods often fail on them: while most methods achieve high robustness and stability, they struggle to distinguish semantically different answers, potentially because they do not effectively leverage generation-side information. Overall, our framework exposes overlooked limitations of current CE evaluations and provides guidance for selecting confidence estimators for real-world applications.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

A Systematic Evaluation of Cross-Lingual Consistency Enhancement Methods in Multilingual Language Models

Multilingual language models often produce inconsistent answers to semantically equivalent questions across languages, motivating methods to improve cross-lingual consistency (CLC). However, existing methods are typically evaluated using different models, tasks, and protocols, leaving their relative strengths unclear. In this work, we present a unified evaluation of representative CLC-enhancement methods for question answering, spanning inference-time interventions and post-training approaches across three model families and three closed-form benchmarks. The results show that post-training methods are generally more reliable, with direct distribution alignment consistently improving CLC across all model-dataset combinations, while other methods are more sensitive to answer format and the breadth of language coverage. Notably, cross-domain transfer is limited unless source and target tasks share similar output formats. We further investigate whether CLC enhancement hurts models' ability to respond differently *when needed*, that is, when asked culture-dependent questions. Across two benchmarks of culturally diverse question answering, we find no systematic degradation in controlled closed-form evaluation, whereas open-ended generation reveals occasional accuracy reductions, particularly for non-English responses. Our work highlights the need to evaluate CLC enhancement for both cross-domain robustness and culturally appropriate variation, informing future work in post-training and benchmark development.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Weakening Neurons: An Input-Output Functionality in Transformers with Outsize Influence

We analyze the learned input-output behavior of GLU-based neurons in large language models (LLMs). We propose a simple analysis method: For each neuron, we compute the cosine similarities between its input (reading) and output (writing) weight vectors. In this scheme, a strong negative cosine similarity indicates the neuron weakens the direction it detects in the residual stream, so we call this a weakening neuron. This allows us to gain a number of novel insights. First, we show that nine different LLMs have similar patterns: weakening neurons appear mostly in late layers whereas their counterparts, (conditional) strengthening neurons, are frequent in early-middle layers. Second, we find that weakening neurons display surprising behavior: even though there are few, they activate often and have a large influence on model behavior. Third, weakening neurons have a strong effect on model output when gate values are negative -- which is surprising since negative gate values are not expected to encode functionality.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

Relational Linearity is a Predictor of Hallucinations

Hallucination is a central failure mode of language models (LMs). We focus on hallucinations in response to questions like: "Which instrument did Glenn Gould play?", but we ask these questions for synthetic entities designed to be unknown to the model. We find that LMs like Gemma-7B-IT frequently hallucinate, i.e., they have difficulty recognizing that the hallucinated fact is not part of their knowledge. Based on the idea of linear relational embeddings, we put forward the following hypothesis. (i) Due to the abstract scheme that is used to represent them, LMs can easily produce plausible objects for non-existing subjects of linear relations, which can lead to hallucinations. (ii) For nonlinear relations, this mechanism for producing an object is not available and so a hallucination is easier to avoid. To test this hypothesis, we create SynthHal, a synthetic unknown-entity benchmark for 15 relations. We find that across four instruction-tuned models, relational linearity is a strong predictor of models hallucinating an object for an unknown subject vs refusing to give an answer, with correlations $r \in [.58, .84]$. While this is not direct evidence for the hypothesized causal mechanism, it is suggestive and opens up a new line of inquiry into understanding LM hallucinations.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Expert-Aware Causal Tracing of Factual Recall in Sparse MoE Language Models

Activation patching can identify a mixture-of-experts (MoE) block whose clean output restores a corrupted factual prediction. However, because the block output combines contributions from multiple routed experts, block-level rescue does not establish whether the recovery localizes to an individual expert or depends on the routed expert set. We study this question on single-token COUNTERFACT contrasts by corrupting subject-token embeddings, restoring clean block outputs, and then restoring clean-minus-noised expert updates under fixed routing. In Qwen3-30B-A3B-Base, a discovery sweep selects layer 44, and held-out analysis identifies L44E069 as a recurrent routed contributor with positive specificity over same-layer active experts. Its effect is fact-matched and improves true-token probability and rank, which explains part of the layer rescue. In Mixtral-8x7B-v0.1, the selected recurrent singleton is not specific; matched-size controls instead show specificity of the clean-routed top-2 set. These findings show that successful MoE-block restoration does not necessarily imply localization to a single expert.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Do We Still Need Humans in the Loop? Human vs. LLM Annotation in Active Learning for TikTok Hate Speech Detection

Annotating data remains a costly bottleneck for supervised NLP. Active learning (AL) reduces the number of human labels needed by selecting only the most informative instances, while instruction-tuned LLMs attack the same bottleneck from the other side, making labels cheap enough to annotate entire corpora. This raises two questions: can LLM labels replace human labels within the AL loop, and does AL remain necessary when entire corpora can be cheaply labeled? We investigate both by training supervised hate speech classifiers on a new dataset of 278K German political TikTok comments, comparing human and LLM annotation under matched conditions. LLM annotation at scale outperforms human-supervised classifiers at roughly one-tenth the cost, for both a closed-source (GPT-5.2) and an open-weight (Qwen3.5-122B-A10B) LLM, and the advantage is robust under soft-label evaluation. It hinges on the annotation interface: only a two-question decomposition mirroring the human annotation task unlocks it. AL provides no reliable advantage over random sampling in our prefiltered pool. Error structure depends on the LLM: only GPT-5.2 matches the human FP/FN balance, while other variants over-flag border-control and economic-competition discourse. Humans remain essential as evaluators; for training labels, the question shifts to which LLM, which interface, and what shape of pool.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

A Target-Centric Survey of Quantization-Aware Training

The rapid development of LLMs incurs prohibitive memory footprints and intensive computational demands. Quantization-Aware Training (QAT) techniques have emerged as a promising solution to address these challenges by explicitly simulating quantization effects during model training, yielding low-bit models that achieve accuracy comparable to their full-precision counterparts. In this work, we provide a target-centric survey of QAT, aimed at clarifying both its theoretical foundations and its evolving implementation landscape. We systematically review existing QAT methods through a target-centric taxonomy and synthesize cross-target differences in error characteristics, numerical formats, and strategy transferability. We further summarize QAT evaluation paradigms and discuss challenges in optimization and deployment, outlining potential directions for future research.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

Reasoning over Grammar: Can Synthetic Linguistic Reasoning Traces Enhance Low-Resource Machine Translation?

Large language models (LLMs) offer a promising approach to machine translation (MT) for extremely low-resource languages by incorporating linguistic resources through in-context learning. However, LLMs often struggle to apply grammatical information effectively during translation. Inspired by recent progress in chain-of-thought reasoning, we investigate whether low-resource MT can benefit from structured intermediate steps of linguistic analysis and grammatical reasoning. We propose a pipeline for automatically generating step-by-step linguistic reasoning traces from Universal Dependencies treebanks, dictionaries, and grammar-rule banks. We evaluate these traces in three settings: in-context learning (ICL), supervised fine-tuning (SFT), and reinforcement fine-tuning (RFT), on Xibe and Chintang as test cases. Our results show that linguistic reasoning traces are most effective as inference-time guidance: in ICL, reliable linguistic reasoning traces substantially improve translation performance across models, languages, and metrics. In contrast, using these traces as training data yields smaller and less consistent gains, as models learn the format but often generate error-prone content. These findings suggest that LLMs can leverage grammatical information for low-resource MT when given reliable linguistic analyses, while learning to generate such analyses remains a major bottleneck.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

MemWM: Memory-Augmented Text-Based World Model

World models are increasingly used to support planning in agents by predicting how environment states evolve in response to agent actions. Yet fluent next-state predictions can still omit task-critical facts, corrupt product attributes, or apply incorrect transition rules. To address such systematic prediction errors, we introduce MemWM, a memory-augmented text-based world model. MemWM uses world memory, a curated memory bank of transition rules, state caches, and hard-to-predict facts, to condition next-state imagination. We evaluate factual state preservation with Structured State Fidelity (SSF), which scores predicted states through benchmark-specific facts and fields. Compared with SFT, memory-augmented training improves SSF by up to 206.3%. In the full planning setting, we keep the policy model frozen and provide policy-side world skill: retrieved task-level skills and step-wise corrective guidance for action selection. Across ALFWorld, WebShop, and ScienceWorld, memory-augmented agents improve downstream success over an SFT-trained world-model agent, with up to a 65.4% relative gain. Sensitivity analyses further show that retrieved memory improves task success and efficiency under different memory and action-budget settings.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

SLAyiNG: A Diverse and Community-validated Dataset of Queer Slang

Queer vernacular is rarely studied in NLP, despite advancements in resources and evaluation for other sociolects and informal language. Because of this, NLP systems often process queer language incorrectly, e.g., they misclassify it as hate speech or generate negative responses. To address this problem, we propose Slaying, the first real-world dataset of English queer slang. Slaying is community-validated, and includes over 500 queer slang terms that pertain to more than 20 queer subcommunities. We argue that queer language data resources have great potential in NLP -- e.g., as components of large pretraining corpora and as the basis for benchmarks -- and can improve queer users' experience of NLP systems. We leverage Slaying for two novel findings in support of this argument: (i) For a number of language models, we show that they are unbiased towards the queer community, but at the same time unable to process its language, i.e., absence of representation bias does not entail the absence of linguistic bias. (ii) Model performance on queer slang varies across queer subcommunities; it is generally worse for slang pertaining to African-American and Latine communities. These findings are relevant for both the queer NLP and the broader ML communities. Slaying is available to the public, and open to future revisions and extensions. Warning: This paper contains profane and potentially offensive language.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

The Boundaries of Automation: A Theory of Persistent Human Participation

The rapid progress of AI has intensified the long-standing pursuit of automation: replacing human participation with algorithms wherever possible. Implicit in this pursuit is the assumption that humans remain in the loop only because current AI systems are not yet sufficiently capable. This paper challenges that assumption. Rather than asking how far automation can extend, we ask where its conceptual limits lie and argue that human participation may persist even with highly capable AI systems for three distinct reasons. Technical or complementarity grounds arise when humans contribute capabilities or perspectives unavailable to AI. Normative or developmental grounds arise when participation itself is valuable for human agency or learning. Most importantly, emergence grounds arise from target emergence: in some activities, the target is not fully specified in advance but instead emerges through the interaction itself. In these cases, human participation is not merely a means of improving execution but is constitutive of the target being produced. Human--AI co-construction, understood as the joint production of outcomes by humans and AI systems, is therefore not simply a temporary response to imperfect AI, but a persistent feature of activities whose objectives emerge through participation. This perspective has important implications for the limits of automation and for the design, evaluation, and ethics of future AI systems.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

XCOMPS: A Multilingual Benchmark of Conceptual Minimal Pairs

We introduce XCOMPS in this work, a multilingual conceptual minimal pair dataset covering 17 languages. Using this dataset, we evaluate LLMs' multilingual conceptual understanding through metalinguistic prompting, direct probability measurement, and neurolinguistic probing. By comparing base, instruction-tuned, and knowledge-distilled models, we find that: 1) LLMs exhibit weaker conceptual understanding for low-resource languages, and accuracy varies across languages despite being tested on the same concept sets. 2) LLMs excel at distinguishing concept-property pairs that are visibly different but exhibit a marked performance drop when negative pairs share subtle semantic similarities. 3) Instruction tuning improves performance in concept understanding but does not enhance internal competence; knowledge distillation can enhance internal competence in conceptual understanding for low-resource languages with limited gains in explicit task performance. 4) More morphologically complex languages yield lower concept understanding scores and require deeper layers for conceptual reasoning.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Behavioral and Representational Evidence of Binomial Ordering Preferences in Large Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) can readily reproduce conventional expressions, yet their ability to model gradient frequency distributions remains underexplored. We investigate this using linguistic binomials, such as men and women, where both word permutations are grammatically valid but exhibit distinct, cross-linguistic variations in conventionality. We formalize binomial ordering as a distributional alignment problem, and construct a multilingual dataset of 600 binomial pairs across 8 languages. With categorical and distributional metrics, we measure and compare the corpus-derived preferences with model-induced ordering probabilities of 6 open-weight LLMs. While models often behaviorally recover the dominant corpus-preferred order, particularly for strongly conventionalized pairs, they align less well with the exact corpus preference distributions. This suggests that apparent directional order overstates how faithfully LLMs capture the statistical nuances of language use. Sparse probing verifies that the concept of preference strength is partially encoded among middle-to-late layers, and steering along probe-derived directions alters model-induced ordering distributions, demonstrating that the statistical behavioral preference of LLMs can be mechanistically measured and manipulated via internal representations.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Output Vector Editing for Memorization Mitigation in Large Language Models

Large language models memorize and reproduce sequences from their training data, creating privacy, copyright, and security risks. Existing neuron-level mitigation methods equate editing with zeroing out neuron activations, but the activation only controls whether a neuron engages; the output vector is what writes to the residual stream and, through superposition, encodes multiple features. We propose output vector editing, a constrained-optimization weight edit that locates a small set of MLP neurons responsible for a memorized continuation and minimally modifies their output vectors to introduce a distractor in vocabulary space, redirecting their residual-stream contributions while leaving activations unchanged. Evaluating on four models from 360M to 7B parameters (SmolLM-360M, OLMo-1B, OLMo-7B, Llama2-7B), we center on OLMo-7B (whose open weights and pretraining corpus enable systematic mining) and mine 6831 memorized sequences, achieving up to 87.9% suppression. The 2.7$\times$ gap over zero ablation on the same located neurons shows the suppression comes from the output-vector edit, not localization alone. Four edit modes span a spectrum from aggressive suppression to minimal redirection; in ensemble they cover 96.5% of memorized sequences, while our recommended single-mode configuration reaches 81.5% with no catastrophic locality failures. We further identify a mechanistic boundary at ${\sim}14%$ of sequences unreachable by MLP-only editing; while these failures are not attention-driven overall, ablating the top contributing attention heads recovers 60--64% of them, with stronger recovery on continuations that copy tokens from the prefix, positioning attention as a complementary fallback rather than a primary mechanism. Edit mode ordering and the success-locality trade-off transfer across all four models, with success rates scaling with model size rather than family.

cs.CL↗