arXiv subjects

Najoung Kim

Publications and source records attributed to Najoung Kim.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Does Episodic Memory Help Close the Lexical Frequency Gap in Sensitivity to Syntactic Contrasts? A Test Using Retrieval-Augmented Language Models

Grammatical knowledge and how it is empirically tested are typically considered robust to the frequency of the lexical items in the expressions. However, neural network-based models of grammaticality exhibit high sensitivity to lexical frequency. We draw upon Complementary Learning Systems theory to test the hypothesis that robustness to lexical frequency can arise via a hippocampal episodic memory mechanism, which enables rapid encoding and retrieval of specific experiences and allows learners to leverage them when processing rare patterns. We use retrieval-augmented language models as an instantiation of such an episodic memory mechanism (specifically, $k$-nearest-neighbor language models that augment parametric models with explicit instance storage), and test whether this augmentation helps close the lexical frequency gap that vanilla language models exhibit in syntactic contrast tests. Using syntactic contrasts with frequency-stratified test items, we find that retrieval augmentation narrows the performance gap between high- and low-frequency items, consistent with episodic memory compensating for weak parametric representations. This benefit is consistent across different syntactic phenomena and across models pretrained on child-realistic and large-scale data. Additionally, we show that structural information is critical for effective retrieval, whereas semantic similarity alone provides little benefit. While these are promising proof-of-concept results supporting our hypothesis, the frequency gap is narrowed rather than fully closed. Based on our analyses, we propose preferential reweighting of retrieved instances, better representations and retrieval strategies for structural information, and flexible configurations of storage and retrieval as promising future directions for improving the implementation of episodic memory in language models.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

LLMs Learn Better In-Context from Rules than from Examples

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit in-context learning capabilities, where they can learn new tasks from prompt contexts without weight updates. We compare the learning efficacies of two prominent modes of in-context learning: (1) learning from descriptions of rules (instruction following); and (2) learning from examples of input-output demonstrations (few-shot prompting). Through five learning tasks that cover diverse domains (games, arithmetic, linguistic inferences), we compare two modes of learning (rules vs. examples) specifying the same underlying task. We furthermore explore model and task properties that modulate the learning efficacies. We find that models generally learn more reliably from rules than from examples alone, and additional examples on top of rules or simply scaling up the number of examples do not lead to consistent and significant gains. Instruction tuning amplifies the benefit of rule-based learning while keeping example-based learning capacities intact. Surprisingly, we find no privileged effect of example-based learning in base models, and rules still lead to gains in algebraic task domains. Overall, the comparative efficacy of rules over examples is larger when the task recruits algebraic abstractions and computations, and smaller when the task requires distributional sensitivity and/or recruits parametric knowledge.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Linear representations of grammaticality in neural language models

Whether neural language models (NLMs) possess the ability to distinguish strings on the basis of their grammaticality remains a debated topic in the computational linguistics literature. Existing evidence has largely relied on probability-based measures, testing whether models assign higher probabilities to grammatical than ungrammatical strings. However, probability comparisons have been criticized as a measure for grammatical knowledge based on the assumption that grammaticality is inherently entangled with likelihood. Model-assigned probability is a function of many related sentence properties, such as lexical frequency, plausibility, and world knowledge. In this work, we move beyond probability-based evaluations and investigate whether grammaticality is encoded in the internal representations of NLMs. Using mass-mean probing, we test whether grammatical and ungrammatical sentences are systematically separated in representational space. We further examine the extent to which these representations are independent of sentence properties that are correlated with grammaticality, as well as their generalization across grammatical phenomena and languages. Our results provide evidence that grammaticality is robustly encoded in sentence representations of a wide range of pretrained NLMs, yielding clear representational separation on the dimension of grammaticality that cannot be fully explained by alternative sentence-level factors. Moreover, this encoding generalizes across a broad range of grammatical phenomena and to some degree, across languages, suggesting that grammaticality constitutes a coherent representational dimension in contemporary NLMs. These findings contribute new evidence to debates about the nature of syntactic knowledge in language models and offer a complementary framework for evaluating grammatical competence that is not dependent on string probabilities alone.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Do Language Models Track Entities Across State Changes?

Entity tracking (ET), the ability to keep track of states, is a fundamental skill that underlies complex reasoning. An increasing amount of work investigates how transformer language models (LMs) solve entity binding $\textit{without}$ state changes. However, there is limited understanding of how non-toy LMs address ET problems of realistic difficulties expressed in natural language. To this end, we investigate the mechanisms underlying ET in more complex scenarios featuring multiple state-changing operations. We find that LMs do not incrementally track world states across tokens or query-relevant states across layers, but simply aggregate relevant information in parallel at the last token when the query becomes evident. We further investigate mechanisms of individual operations ($\texttt{PUT}$, $\texttt{REMOVE}$, $\texttt{MOVE}$) to characterize this non-incremental ET mechanism. Surprisingly, LMs implement the $\texttt{REMOVE}$ operation with a fragile global suppression tag; this global removal mechanism predicts various failure modes that we confirm behaviorally. We provide a mechanistic solution of nullifying this tag to partially address this issue. Overall, our findings reveal that LMs solve a fundamentally sequential task using a non-sequential strategy. More broadly, our work illustrates how behavioral and mechanistic analyses can fruitfully interact. Behavioral results inform mechanistic hypotheses, and insights from mechanistic analyses help build stronger behavioral evaluations by predicting failure modes missing from existing evaluations.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

RExBench: Can coding agents autonomously implement AI research extensions?

Agents based on Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise for performing sophisticated software engineering tasks autonomously. In addition, there has been progress towards developing agents that can perform parts of the research pipeline in machine learning and the natural sciences. We argue that research extension and its implementation is a critical capability for such systems, and introduce RExBench to support the evaluation of this capability. RExBench is a benchmark consisting of realistic extensions of 12 research papers that aim to investigate novel research hypotheses. Each task is set up as an extension to an existing research paper and codebase, accompanied by domain expert-written instructions. RExBench is robust to data contamination and supports an automatic evaluation infrastructure that executes agent outputs to determine whether the success criteria are met. We use this benchmark to evaluate 12 LLM agents implemented using two different frameworks, aider and OpenHands. We find that all agents fail to autonomously implement the majority of the extensions, with the best agent achieving around a 33% success rate. Although the success rate improves with additional human-written hints, the best performance under this setting remains below 44%. This indicates that current agents are still short of being able to handle realistic research extension tasks without substantial human guidance.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Are they lovers or friends? Evaluating LLMs' Social Reasoning in English and Korean Dialogues

As LLMs are increasingly deployed in real-world interactions, their social reasoning in interpersonal communication becomes critical. To explore their capabilities, we introduce SCRIPTS, a 1.1k-dialogue dataset in English and Korean, sourced from movie scripts and propose a social reasoning task based on SCRIPTS that evaluates the capacity of LLMs to infer the social relationships (e.g., friends, lovers) between speakers in each dialogue. Evaluating nine models on our task, current LLMs achieve around 75--80% on the English dataset and 58--69% in Korean, and models predict an Unlikely relationship in 10--25% of responses in both languages. Furthermore, we find that thinking models and chain-of-thought prompting provide minimal benefits for social reasoning and occasionally amplify social biases. In sum, there are significant limitations in current LLMs' social reasoning capabilities, especially for Korean, highlighting the need for efforts to develop socially-aware LLMs across languages.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

A systematic framework for generating novel experimental hypotheses from language models

Neural language models (LMs) have been shown to capture complex linguistic patterns, yet their utility in understanding human language and more broadly, human cognition, remains debated. While existing work in this area often evaluates human-machine alignment, few studies attempt to translate findings from this enterprise into novel insights about humans. To this end, we propose a systematic framework for hypothesis generation that uses LMs to simulate outcomes of experiments that do not yet exist in the literature. We instantiate this framework in the context of a specific research question in child language development: dative verb acquisition and cross-structural generalization. Through this instantiation, we derive novel, untested hypotheses: the alignment between argument ordering and discourse prominence features of exposure contexts modulates how children generalize new verbs to unobserved structures. Additionally, we also design a set of experiments that can test these hypotheses in the lab with children. This work contributes both a domain-general framework for systematic hypothesis generation via simulated learners and domain-specific, lab-testable hypotheses for child language acquisition research.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Death of the Novel(ty): Beyond n-Gram Novelty as a Metric for Textual Creativity

N-gram novelty is widely used to evaluate language models' ability to generate text outside of their training data. More recently, it has also been adopted as a metric for measuring textual creativity. However, theoretical work on creativity suggests that this approach may be inadequate, as it does not account for creativity's dual nature: novelty (how original the text is) and appropriateness (how sensical and pragmatic it is). We investigate the relationship between this notion of creativity and n-gram novelty through 8,618 expert writer annotations of novelty, pragmaticality, and sensicality via close reading of human- and AI-generated text. We find that while n-gram novelty is positively associated with expert writer-judged creativity, approximately 91% of top-quartile n-gram novel expressions are not judged as creative, cautioning against relying on n-gram novelty alone. Furthermore, unlike in human-written text, higher n-gram novelty in open-source LLMs correlates with lower pragmaticality. In an exploratory study with frontier closed-source models, we additionally confirm that they are less likely to produce creative expressions than humans. Using our dataset, we test whether zero-shot, few-shot, and finetuned models are able to identify expressions perceived as novel by experts (a positive aspect of writing) or non-pragmatic (a negative aspect). Overall, frontier LLMs exhibit performance much higher than random but leave room for improvement, especially struggling to identify non-pragmatic expressions. We further find that LLM-as-a-Judge novelty ratings align with expert writer preferences in an out-of-distribution dataset, more so than an n-gram based metric.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Findings of the BlackboxNLP 2025 Shared Task: Localizing Circuits and Causal Variables in Language Models

Mechanistic interpretability (MI) seeks to uncover how language models (LMs) implement specific behaviors, yet measuring progress in MI remains challenging. The recently released Mechanistic Interpretability Benchmark (MIB; Mueller et al., 2025) provides a standardized framework for evaluating circuit and causal variable localization. Building on this foundation, the BlackboxNLP 2025 Shared Task extends MIB into a community-wide reproducible comparison of MI techniques. The shared task features two tracks: circuit localization, which assesses methods that identify causally influential components and interactions driving model behavior, and causal variable localization, which evaluates approaches that map activations into interpretable features. With three teams spanning eight different methods, participants achieved notable gains in circuit localization using ensemble and regularization strategies for circuit discovery. With one team spanning two methods, participants achieved significant gains in causal variable localization using low-dimensional and non-linear projections to featurize activation vectors. The MIB leaderboard remains open; we encourage continued work in this standard evaluation framework to measure progress in MI research going forward.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

CheckEval: A reliable LLM-as-a-Judge framework for evaluating text generation using checklists

Existing LLM-as-a-Judge approaches for evaluating text generation suffer from rating inconsistencies, with low agreement and high rating variance across different evaluator models. We attribute this to subjective evaluation criteria combined with Likert scale scoring in existing protocols. To address this issue, we introduce CheckEval, a checklist-based evaluation framework that improves rating reliability via decomposed binary questions. Through experiments with 12 evaluator models across multiple datasets, we first demonstrate that CheckEval strongly correlates with human judgments. More importantly, CheckEval dramatically improves the average agreement across evaluator models by 0.45 and reduces the score variance. CheckEval scores furthermore have the benefit of being more interpretable because it decomposes evaluation criteria into traceable binary decisions, allowing analyses of specific attributes driving quality judgments.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Vision-and-Language Training Helps Deploy Taxonomic Knowledge but Does Not Fundamentally Alter It

Does vision-and-language (VL) training change the linguistic representations of language models in meaningful ways? Most results in the literature have shown inconsistent or marginal differences, both behaviorally and representationally. In this work, we start from the hypothesis that the domain in which VL training could have a significant effect is lexical-conceptual knowledge, in particular its taxonomic organization. Through comparing minimal pairs of text-only LMs and their VL-trained counterparts, we first show that the VL models often outperform their text-only counterparts on a text-only question-answering task that requires taxonomic understanding of concepts mentioned in the questions. Using an array of targeted behavioral and representational analyses, we show that the LMs and VLMs do not differ significantly in terms of their taxonomic knowledge itself, but they differ in how they represent questions that contain concepts in a taxonomic relation vs. a non-taxonomic relation. This implies that the taxonomic knowledge itself does not change substantially through additional VL training, but VL training does improve the deployment of this knowledge in the context of a specific task, even when the presentation of the task is purely linguistic.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Erasing More Than Intended? How Concept Erasure Degrades the Generation of Non-Target Concepts

Concept erasure techniques have recently gained significant attention for their potential to remove unwanted concepts from text-to-image models. While these methods often demonstrate promising results in controlled settings, their robustness in real-world applications and suitability for deployment remain uncertain. In this work, we (1) identify a critical gap in evaluating sanitized models, particularly in assessing their performance across diverse concept dimensions, and (2) systematically analyze the failure modes of text-to-image models post-erasure. We focus on the unintended consequences of concept removal on non-target concepts across different levels of interconnected relationships including visually similar, binomial, and semantically related concepts. To address this, we introduce EraseBench, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating post-erasure performance. EraseBench includes over 100 curated concepts, targeted evaluation prompts, and a robust set of metrics to assess both effectiveness and side effects of erasure. Our findings reveal a phenomenon of concept entanglement, where erasure leads to unintended suppression of non-target concepts, causing spillover degradation that manifests as distortions and a decline in generation quality.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2025

Is analogy enough to draw novel adjective-noun inferences?

Recent work (Ross et al., 2025, 2024) has argued that the ability of humans and LLMs respectively to generalize to novel adjective-noun combinations shows that they each have access to a compositional mechanism to determine the phrase's meaning and derive inferences. We study whether these inferences can instead be derived by analogy to known inferences, without need for composition. We investigate this by (1) building a model of analogical reasoning using similarity over lexical items, and (2) asking human participants to reason by analogy. While we find that this strategy works well for a large proportion of the dataset of Ross et al. (2025), there are novel combinations for which both humans and LLMs derive convergent inferences but which are not well handled by analogy. We thus conclude that the mechanism humans and LLMs use to generalize in these cases cannot be fully reduced to analogy, and likely involves composition.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Transformers Struggle to Learn to Search

Search is an ability foundational in many important tasks, and recent studies have shown that large language models (LLMs) struggle to perform search robustly. It is unknown whether this inability is due to a lack of data, insufficient model parameters, or fundamental limitations of the transformer architecture. In this work, we use the foundational graph connectivity problem as a testbed to generate effectively limitless high-coverage data to train small transformers and test whether they can learn to perform search. We find that, when given the right training distribution, the transformer is able to learn to search. We analyze the algorithm that the transformer has learned through a novel mechanistic interpretability technique that enables us to extract the computation graph from the trained model. We find that transformers perform search at every vertex in parallel: For each vertex in the input graph, transformers compute the set of vertices reachable from that vertex. Each layer then progressively expands these sets, allowing the model to search over a number of vertices exponential in $n_{\text{layers}}$. However, we find that as the input graph size increases, the transformer has greater difficulty in learning the task. This difficulty is not resolved even as the number of parameters is increased, suggesting that increasing model scale will not lead to robust search abilities. We also find that performing search in-context (i.e., chain-of-thought) does not resolve this inability to learn to search on larger graphs.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Is artificial intelligence still intelligence? LLMs generalize to novel adjective-noun pairs, but don't mimic the full human distribution

Inferences from adjective-noun combinations like "Is artificial intelligence still intelligence?" provide a good test bed for LLMs' understanding of meaning and compositional generalization capability, since there are many combinations which are novel to both humans and LLMs but nevertheless elicit convergent human judgments. We study a range of LLMs and find that the largest models we tested are able to draw human-like inferences when the inference is determined by context and can generalize to unseen adjective-noun combinations. We also propose three methods to evaluate LLMs on these inferences out of context, where there is a distribution of human-like answers rather than a single correct answer. We find that LLMs show a human-like distribution on at most 75\% of our dataset, which is promising but still leaves room for improvement.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Beyond Thumbs Up/Down: Untangling Challenges of Fine-Grained Feedback for Text-to-Image Generation

Human feedback plays a critical role in learning and refining reward models for text-to-image generation, but the optimal form the feedback should take for learning an accurate reward function has not been conclusively established. This paper investigates the effectiveness of fine-grained feedback which captures nuanced distinctions in image quality and prompt-alignment, compared to traditional coarse-grained feedback (for example, thumbs up/down or ranking between a set of options). While fine-grained feedback holds promise, particularly for systems catering to diverse societal preferences, we show that demonstrating its superiority to coarse-grained feedback is not automatic. Through experiments on real and synthetic preference data, we surface the complexities of building effective models due to the interplay of model choice, feedback type, and the alignment between human judgment and computational interpretation. We identify key challenges in eliciting and utilizing fine-grained feedback, prompting a reassessment of its assumed benefits and practicality. Our findings -- e.g., that fine-grained feedback can lead to worse models for a fixed budget, in some settings; however, in controlled settings with known attributes, fine grained rewards can indeed be more helpful -- call for careful consideration of feedback attributes and potentially beckon novel modeling approaches to appropriately unlock the potential value of fine-grained feedback in-the-wild.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2024

Code Pretraining Improves Entity Tracking Abilities of Language Models

Recent work has provided indirect evidence that pretraining language models on code improves the ability of models to track state changes of discourse entities expressed in natural language. In this work, we systematically test this claim by comparing pairs of language models on their entity tracking performance. Critically, the pairs consist of base models and models trained on top of these base models with additional code data. We extend this analysis to additionally examine the effect of math training, another highly structured data type, and alignment tuning, an important step for enhancing the usability of models. We find clear evidence that models additionally trained on large amounts of code outperform the base models. On the other hand, we find no consistent benefit of additional math training or alignment tuning across various model families.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Inverse Scaling: When Bigger Isn't Better

Work on scaling laws has found that large language models (LMs) show predictable improvements to overall loss with increased scale (model size, training data, and compute). Here, we present evidence for the claim that LMs may show inverse scaling, or worse task performance with increased scale, e.g., due to flaws in the training objective and data. We present empirical evidence of inverse scaling on 11 datasets collected by running a public contest, the Inverse Scaling Prize, with a substantial prize pool. Through analysis of the datasets, along with other examples found in the literature, we identify four potential causes of inverse scaling: (i) preference to repeat memorized sequences over following in-context instructions, (ii) imitation of undesirable patterns in the training data, (iii) tasks containing an easy distractor task which LMs could focus on, rather than the harder real task, and (iv) correct but misleading few-shot demonstrations of the task. We release the winning datasets at https://inversescaling.com/data to allow for further investigation of inverse scaling. Our tasks have helped drive the discovery of U-shaped and inverted-U scaling trends, where an initial trend reverses, suggesting that scaling trends are less reliable at predicting the behavior of larger-scale models than previously understood. Overall, our results suggest that there are tasks for which increased model scale alone may not lead to progress, and that more careful thought needs to go into the data and objectives for training language models.

cs.CL↗