arXiv subjects

Mohit Iyyer

Publications and source records attributed to Mohit Iyyer.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

OverThink: Slowdown Attacks on Reasoning LLMs

A reasoning language model (RLM) generates costly reasoning tokens, often hidden from the users, that help it excel at many tasks. Our Overthink attack targets RLM-based applications (such as chatbots or coding agents) that rely on external context by forcing these models to generate substantially more reasoning tokens while still producing contextually correct answers. An adversary conducts the attack by injecting decoy reasoning problems into available content, optimized to elicit a large number of tokens. We craft decoy challenges (using Markov decision processes, language translation, or graphic comprehension) that appear benign individually yet have an adversarial impact when inserted in the context, allowing them to easily evade safety filters. We evaluate Overthink on proprietary and open-source reasoning models across the FreshQA, SQuAD, and MuSR datasets, where we observe 13x, 46x, and 12x increases, respectively. We also explore multimodal attacks using images, which cause up to a 2.7x increase in reasoning, as well as attacks on coding agents by injecting decoys into skills, README files, and code, resulting in up to a 17x increase. We explore several defenses and evaluate their efficacy against different attack strategies, highlighting that defending against Overthink is nontrivial. Finally, we show that newer generations of RLMs, while showing a drastic increase in per-token cost, also exhibit up to a 2.3x increase in reasoning tokens, leaving them more vulnerable to Overthink attacks.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Argument Collapse: LLMs Flatten Long-Form Public Debate

As LLMs are increasingly used to draft publicfacing arguments, they may flatten public debate by repeatedly introducing the same polished, plausible arguments. We study argument collapse, the tendency of essays generated by different LLMs to converge to a smaller set of main arguments, sub-arguments, and paragraph-level structures. We compare 1,039 human responses from 195 New York Times (NYT) debates, 448 human responses from 61 longer-form Boston Review (BR) forums, and 23,381 LLM-generated essays. In the NYT corpus, 65.3% of human main arguments are unique within a debate, compared to 3.4% of LLM main arguments. Asking LLMs to generate diverse answers adds variation, but a typical model recovers only about half of the distinct human main arguments, with much of the added variation falling outside the observed human argument space. Collapse also appears in sub-arguments, where among essays with the same main argument, 41.0% of human subarguments are unique versus 9.1% from LLM responses. Qualitatively, LLMs often reuse generalized and hedged sub-arguments, while humans prefer more concrete and topic-specific ones. Structure-wise, LLM-generated essays tend to follow a more fixed arc, often opening with a direct claim and moving quickly toward proposals. The same patterns hold in longer BR essays, suggesting that argument collapse extends beyond short-form responses. Finally, human-preference evaluators favor both common arguments and LLM essays, which could reinforce argument collapse.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

POLARIS: Guiding Small Models to Write Long Stories

Small open-weight models struggle at long-form creative writing: their generated stories either fall far short of the requested length, or their quality significantly degrades as length increases, especially when compared to frontier models. We present POLARIS (Policy Optimization with LLM-as-a-judge rewards and Anchored-Reference Injection for Storywriting), a lower-compute GRPO recipe with two key ingredients: a frontier LLM judge with a structured Story Quality rubric as the online reward, and human-reference injection (HRI), where a teacher-forced human-written story serves as a high-reward anchor within each GRPO group. By applying our training recipe to Qwen3.5-9B, using a dataset of approximately 1.4K prompt-story pairs derived from 100 short-story anthologies and 4 A100 GPUs, we obtain POLARIS-9B. Across five benchmarks spanning in-distribution and out-of-distribution prompts and rubrics, POLARIS-9B is competitive with much larger open-weight models while following length instructions more closely. A blinded human evaluation confirms that POLARIS-9B is preferred to the base Qwen3.5-9B and on par with Qwen3.5-27B. Despite training only on stories up to 4k words, POLARIS-9B preserves quality on prompts requesting stories up to 3 times the training length, a regime where most open-weight models degrade substantially in quality, length adherence, or both. More broadly, our results suggest that length generalization is a meaningful stress test for creative-writing models and a useful lens for distinguishing otherwise close models.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

StoryScope: Investigating idiosyncrasies in AI fiction

As AI-generated fiction becomes increasingly prevalent, questions of authorship and originality are becoming central to how written work is evaluated. While most existing work in this space focuses on identifying surface-level signatures of AI writing, we ask instead whether AI-generated stories can be distinguished from human ones without relying on stylistic signals, focusing on discourse-level narrative choices such as character agency and chronological discontinuity. We propose StoryScope, a pipeline that automatically induces a fine-grained, interpretable feature space of discourse-level narrative features across 10 dimensions. We apply StoryScope to a parallel corpus of 10,272 writing prompts, each written by a human author and five LLMs, yielding 61,608 stories, each ~5,000 words, and 304 extracted features per story. Narrative features alone achieve 93.2% macro-F1 for human vs. AI detection and 68.4% macro-F1 for six-way authorship attribution, retaining over 97% of the performance of models that include stylistic cues. A compact set of 30 core narrative features captures much of this signal: AI stories over-explain themes and favor tidy, single-track plots while human stories frame protagonist' choices as more morally ambiguous and have increased temporal complexity. Per-model fingerprint features enable six-way attribution: for example, Claude produces notably flat event escalation, GPT over-indexes on dream sequences, and Gemini defaults to external character description. We find that AI-generated stories cluster in a shared region of narrative space, while human-authored stories exhibit greater diversity. More broadly, these results suggest that differences in underlying narrative construction, not just writing style, can be used to separate human-written original works from AI-generated fiction.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Recovering Diversity Without Losing Alignment: A DPO Recipe for Post-Trained LLMs

Many open-ended instructions have multiple valid answers that users can benefit from seeing, but post-training often narrows an LLM's output space toward a small set of canonical responses. We introduce REDIPO, an offline DPO data-construction pipeline for recovering distinct valid answer modes while preserving the alignment benefits of the instruct model. For each prompt, REDIPO samples responses from both base and instruct models, rewrites base-model responses with the instruct model, filters candidates for safety and instruction-following quality, and builds preference pairs that favor marginally diverse responses among candidates with similar instruction-following reward. Across Qwen3-4B, OLMo-3-7B, and LLaMA-3.1-8B, REDIPO improves NoveltyBench distinct_k by 134%, 33%, and 44% relative to the instruct checkpoints, while DivPO changes diversity by 0%, -6%, and -4% on the same models. These gains largely maintain MTBench, IFEval, and Arena-Hard performance, and reduce direct-category HarmBench attack success rate. Ablations show that marginal-diversity pair selection and base-response rewriting drive the diversity gains, while filtering and quality-bounded pairing help maintain alignment. Overall, our results show that diverse valid answers from base-model generations can be reintroduced through carefully constructed preference data while retaining the alignment benefits of post-training. We release our code and data at https://github.com/vsamuel2003/ReDiPO.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Bio-Inspired Self-Supervised Learning for Wrist-worn Accelerometer Data

Wearable accelerometers enable large-scale health monitoring, yet learning robust human-activity representations has been constrained by scarce labeled data. While self-supervised learning offers a remedy, existing methods treat sensor streams as unstructured time series, overlooking the underlying biological structure of human movement, a factor we argue is critical for effective Human Activity Recognition (HAR). We introduce a novel tokenization strategy grounded in the submovement theory of motor control, which posits that continuous wrist motion is composed of elementary basis functions called submovements. We define our token as the movement segment, a computationally tractable unit of motion composed of a finite sequence of submovements. By pretraining a Transformer encoder via masked reconstruction of these tokens, we shift the learning focus from local waveform morphology to high-level structural and temporal organization. Pretrained on the NHANES corpus (approximately 28k hours; 11k participants), our representations outperform strong wearable SSL baselines across six subject-disjoint HAR benchmarks. Code and pretrained weights are available at https://prithvitarale.github.io/biopm-site/.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

AI use in American newspapers is widespread, uneven, and rarely disclosed

AI is rapidly transforming journalism, but the extent of its use in published newspaper articles remains unclear. We address this gap by auditing a large-scale dataset of 186K articles from online editions of 1.5K American newspapers published in the summer of 2025. Using Pangram, a state-of-the-art AI detector, we discover that approximately 9% of newly-published articles are either partially or fully AI-generated. This AI use is unevenly distributed, appearing more frequently in smaller, local outlets, in specific topics such as weather and technology, and within certain ownership groups. We also analyze 45K opinion pieces from Washington Post, New York Times, and Wall Street Journal, finding that they are 6.4 times more likely to contain AI-generated content than news articles from the same publications, with many AI-flagged op-eds authored by prominent public figures. Despite this prevalence, we find that AI use is rarely disclosed: a manual audit of 100 AI-flagged articles found only five disclosures of AI use. Overall, our audit highlights the immediate need for greater transparency and updated editorial standards regarding the use of AI in journalism to maintain public trust.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Frankentext: Stitching random text fragments into long-form narratives

We introduce Frankentexts, a long-form narrative generation paradigm that treats an LLM as a composer of existing texts rather than as an author. Given a writing prompt and thousands of randomly sampled human-written snippets, the model is asked to produce a narrative under the extreme constraint that most tokens (e.g., 90%) must be copied verbatim from the provided paragraphs. This task is effectively intractable for humans: selecting and ordering snippets yields a combinatorial search space that an LLM implicitly explores, before minimally editing and stitching together selected fragments into a coherent long-form story. Despite the extreme challenge of the task, we observe through extensive automatic and human evaluation that Frankentexts significantly improve over vanilla LLM generations in terms of writing quality, diversity, and originality while remaining coherent and relevant to the prompt. Furthermore, Frankentexts pose a fundamental challenge to detectors of AI-generated text: 72% of Frankentexts produced by our best Gemini 2.5 Pro configuration are misclassified as human-written by Pangram, a state-of-the-art detector. Human annotators praise Frankentexts for their inventive premises, vivid descriptions, and dry humor; on the other hand, they identify issues with abrupt tonal shifts and uneven grammar across segments, particularly in longer pieces. The emergence of high-quality Frankentexts raises serious questions about authorship and copyright: when humans provide the raw materials and LLMs orchestrate them into new narratives, who truly owns the result?

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Beyond Precision: Importance-Aware Recall for Factuality Evaluation in Long-Form LLM Generation

Evaluating the factuality of long-form output generated by large language models (LLMs) remains challenging, particularly when responses are open-ended and contain many fine-grained factual statements. Existing evaluation methods primarily focus on precision: they decompose a response into atomic claims and verify each claim against external knowledge sources such as Wikipedia. However, this overlooks an equally important dimension of factuality: recall, whether the generated response covers the relevant facts that should be included. We propose a comprehensive factuality evaluation framework that jointly measures precision and recall. Our method leverages external knowledge sources to construct reference facts and determine whether they are captured in generated text. We further introduce an importance-aware weighting scheme based on relevance and salience. Our analysis reveals that current LLMs perform substantially better on precision than on recall, suggesting that factual incompleteness remains a major limitation of long-form generation and that models are generally better at covering highly important facts than the full set of relevant facts.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

How2Everything: Mining the Web for How-To Procedures to Evaluate and Improve LLMs

Generating step-by-step "how-to" procedures is a key LLM capability: how-to advice is commonly requested in chatbots, and step-by-step planning is critical for reasoning over complex tasks. Yet, measuring and improving procedural validity at scale on real-world tasks remains challenging and understudied. To address this, we introduce How2Everything, a scalable framework to evaluate and improve goal-conditioned procedure generation. Our framework includes How2Mine, which mines 351K procedures from 980K web pages across 14 topics and readily scales to larger corpora. From this pool we build How2Bench, a 7K-example evaluation set balanced across topics. To reliably score model outputs, we develop How2Score, an evaluation protocol that uses an LLM judge to detect whether a generation contains any critical failure that would prevent achieving the goal. For low-cost, reproducible evaluation, we distill a frontier model into an open 8B model, achieving 80.5% agreement with human annotators. How2Bench reveals clear scaling trends across model sizes and training stages, providing signal early in pretraining. Finally, RL using How2Score as a reward improves performance on How2Bench by >10 points across three models without systematic regressions on standard benchmarks, with gains robust to superficial source-document memorization or format compliance. Taken together, How2Everything shows how pretraining web data can support a closed loop of capability evaluation and improvement at scale.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Whose story is it? Personalizing story generation by inferring author styles

Personalization is critical for improving user experience in interactive writing and educational applications, yet remains understudied in story generation. We study the task of personalizing story generation, where our goal is to mimic an author's writing style, given other stories written by them. We collect Mythos, a dataset of 3.6k stories from 112 authors, with an average of 16 stories per author, across five distinct sources reflecting diverse story-writing settings. We propose a two-stage pipeline for personalized story generation: first, we infer authors' implicit writing characteristics and organize them into an Author Writing Sheet, which is validated by humans to be of high quality; second, we simulate the author's persona using tailored persona descriptions and personalized story rules. We find that stories personalized using the Author Writing Sheet outperform a non-personalized baseline, achieving a 78% win-rate in capturing authors' past style and 59% in similarity to ground-truth author stories. Human evaluation supports these findings and further highlights trends, such as Reddit stories being easier to personalize, and the Creativity and Language Use aspects of stories being easier to personalize than the Plot.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

VeriFastScore: Speeding up long-form factuality evaluation

Metrics like FactScore and VeriScore that evaluate long-form factuality operate by decomposing an input response into atomic claims and then individually verifying each claim. While effective and interpretable, these methods incur numerous LLM calls and can take upwards of 100 seconds to evaluate a single response, limiting their practicality in large-scale evaluation and training scenarios. To address this, we propose VeriFastScore, which leverages synthetic data to fine-tune Llama3.1 8B for simultaneously extracting and verifying all verifiable claims within a given text based on evidence from Google Search. We show that this task cannot be solved via few-shot prompting with closed LLMs due to its complexity: the model receives ~4K tokens of evidence on average and needs to concurrently decompose claims, judge their verifiability, and verify them against noisy evidence. However, our fine-tuned VeriFastScore model demonstrates strong correlation with the original VeriScore pipeline at both the example level (r=0.80) and system level (r=0.94) while achieving an overall speedup of 6.6x (9.9x excluding evidence retrieval) over VeriScore. To facilitate future factuality research, we publicly release our VeriFastScore model and synthetic datasets.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

BLEUBERI: BLEU is a surprisingly effective reward for instruction following

Reward models are central to aligning LLMs with human preferences, but they are costly to train, requiring large-scale human-labeled preference data and powerful pretrained LLM backbones. Meanwhile, the increasing availability of high-quality synthetic instruction-following datasets raises the question: can simpler, reference-based metrics serve as viable alternatives to reward models during RL-based alignment? In this paper, we show first that BLEU, a basic string-matching metric, surprisingly matches strong reward models in agreement with human preferences on general instruction-following datasets. Based on this insight, we develop BLEUBERI, a method that first identifies challenging instructions and then applies Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) using BLEU directly as the reward function. We demonstrate that BLEUBERI-trained models are competitive with models trained via reward model-guided RL across four challenging instruction-following benchmarks and three different base language models. A human evaluation further supports that the quality of BLEUBERI model outputs is on par with those from reward model-aligned models. Moreover, BLEUBERI models generate outputs that are more factually grounded than competing methods. Overall, we show that given access to high-quality reference outputs (easily obtained via existing instruction-following datasets or synthetic data generation), string matching-based metrics are cheap yet effective proxies for reward models during alignment. We release our code and data at https://github.com/lilakk/BLEUBERI.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

OWL: Probing Cross-Lingual Recall of Memorized Texts via World Literature

Large language models (LLMs) are known to memorize and recall English text from their pretraining data. However, the extent to which this ability generalizes to non-English languages or transfers across languages remains unclear. This paper investigates multilingual and cross-lingual memorization in LLMs, probing if memorized content in one language (e.g., English) can be recalled when presented in translation. To do so, we introduce OWL, a dataset of 31.5K aligned excerpts from 20 books in ten languages, including English originals, official translations (Vietnamese, Spanish, Turkish), and new translations in six low-resource languages (Sesotho, Yoruba, Maithili, Malagasy, Setswana, Tahitian). We evaluate memorization across model families and sizes through three tasks: (1) direct probing, which asks the model to identify a book's title and author; (2) name cloze, which requires predicting masked character names; and (3) prefix probing, which involves generating continuations. We find that LLMs consistently recall content across languages, even for texts without direct translation in pretraining data. GPT-4o, for example, identifies authors and titles 69% of the time and masked entities 6% of the time in newly translated excerpts. Perturbations (e.g., masking characters, shuffling words) modestly reduce direct probing accuracy (7% drop for shuffled official translations). Our results highlight the extent of cross-lingual memorization and provide insights on the differences between the models.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

EditLens: Quantifying the Extent of AI Editing in Text

A significant proportion of queries to large language models ask them to edit user-provided text, rather than generate new text from scratch. While previous work focuses on detecting fully AI-generated text, we demonstrate that AI-edited text is distinguishable from human-written and AI-generated text. First, we propose using lightweight similarity metrics to quantify the magnitude of AI editing present in a text given the original human-written text and validate these metrics with human annotators. Using these similarity metrics as intermediate supervision, we then train EditLens, a regression model that predicts the amount of AI editing present within a text. Our model achieves state-of-the-art performance on both binary (F1=94.7%) and ternary (F1=90.4%) classification tasks in distinguishing human, AI, and mixed writing. Not only do we show that AI-edited text can be detected, but also that the degree of change made by AI to human writing can be detected, which has implications for authorship attribution, education, and policy. Finally, as a case study, we use our model to analyze the effects of AI-edits applied by Grammarly, a popular writing assistance tool. To encourage further research, we commit to publicly releasing our models and dataset.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

One ruler to measure them all: Benchmarking multilingual long-context language models

We present ONERULER, a multilingual benchmark designed to evaluate long-context language models across 26 languages. ONERULER adapts the English-only RULER benchmark (Hsieh et al., 2024) by including seven synthetic tasks that test both retrieval and aggregation, including new variations of the "needle-in-a-haystack" task that allow for the possibility of a nonexistent needle. We create ONERULER through a two-step process, first writing English instructions for each task and then collaborating with native speakers to translate them into 25 additional languages. Experiments with both open-weight and closed LLMs reveal a widening performance gap between low- and high-resource languages as context length increases from 8K to 128K tokens. Surprisingly, English is not the top-performing language on long-context tasks (ranked 6th out of 26), with Polish emerging as the top language. Our experiments also show that many LLMs (particularly OpenAI's o3-mini-high) incorrectly predict the absence of an answer, even in high-resource languages. Finally, in cross-lingual scenarios where instructions and context appear in different languages, performance can fluctuate by up to 20% depending on the instruction language. We hope the release of ONERULER will facilitate future research into improving multilingual and cross-lingual long-context training pipelines.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Does quantization affect models' performance on long-context tasks?

Large language models (LLMs) now support context windows exceeding 128K tokens, but this comes with significant memory requirements and high inference latency. Quantization can mitigate these costs, but may degrade performance. In this work, we present the first systematic evaluation of quantized LLMs on tasks with long inputs (>64K tokens) and long-form outputs. Our evaluation spans 9.7K test examples, five quantization methods (FP8, GPTQ-int8, AWQ-int4, GPTQ-int4, BNB-nf4), and five models (Llama-3.1 8B and 70B; Qwen-2.5 7B, 32B, and 72B). We find that, on average, 8-bit quantization preserves accuracy (~0.8% drop), whereas 4-bit methods lead to substantial losses, especially for tasks involving long-context inputs (drops of up to 59%). This degradation tends to worsen when the input is in a language other than English. Crucially, the effects of quantization depend heavily on the quantization method, model, and task. For instance, while Qwen-2.5 72B remains robust under BNB-nf4, Llama-3.1 70B experiences a 32% performance drop on the same task. These findings highlight the importance of a careful, task-specific evaluation before deploying quantized LLMs, particularly in long-context scenarios and for languages other than English.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

CLIPPER: Compression enables long-context synthetic data generation

LLM developers are increasingly reliant on synthetic data, but generating high-quality data for complex long-context reasoning tasks remains challenging. We introduce CLIPPER, a compression-based approach for generating synthetic data tailored to narrative claim verification - a task that requires reasoning over a book to verify a given claim. Instead of generating claims directly from the raw text of the book, which results in artifact-riddled claims, CLIPPER first compresses the book into chapter outlines and book summaries and then uses these intermediate representations to generate complex claims and corresponding chain-of-thoughts. Compared to naive approaches, CLIPPER produces claims that are more valid, grounded, and complex. Using CLIPPER, we construct a dataset of 19K synthetic book claims paired with their source texts and chain-of-thought reasoning, and use it to fine-tune three open-weight models. Our best model achieves breakthrough results on narrative claim verification (from 28% to 76% accuracy on our test set) and sets a new state-of-the-art for sub-10B models on the NoCha leaderboard. Further analysis shows that our models generate more detailed and grounded chain-of-thought reasoning while also improving performance on other narrative understanding tasks (e.g., NarrativeQA).

cs.CL↗