arXiv subjects

Yohei Kobashi

Publications and source records attributed to Yohei Kobashi.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Loop Before You Leap: What Recurrent Depth Can and Cannot Buy in Data-Limited Pretraining

Multimodal models have often scored below text-only baselines in the BabyLM Challenge (Klerings et al., 2024; Takmaz et al., 2025). We test whether additional recurrent computation helps close this gap. Recurrence increases computation by reusing layers without adding parameters or training data. Using a single implementation, we compare standard and looped Transformers under a 100M-word budget, with three seeds per main condition. Each image is represented by one feature vector from a frozen DINOv2 encoder, used as a prefix token. Caption words count toward the budget, so multimodal training also changes the language data. In a pre-registered text-only comparison, a 12-layer stack repeated four times exceeds a standard 48-layer Transformer by 5.4 BLiMP percentage points at matched inference compute. However, multimodal training lowers BLiMP accuracy by about 3.8 points in both architectures, with no clear mitigation from recurrence. An exploratory loop-side no-image control, trained with the multimodal language data and batching schedule, scores 5.7 points below the text-only baseline. Adding the visual prefix raises accuracy by 1.85 points on average, but this contrast is uncertain with three seeds. These results suggest that changes in language data and its presentation are a major source of the drop. Diagnostic tests show that the models use visual information; its contribution to grammatical generalization remains uncertain under this single-vector interface.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

When to Stop Asking: Factor Coverage Bias and LLM Determinability Judgments with Underspecified Information in Medicine

Clinical decision-making often begins with underspecified information and requires not only gathering missing information but also knowing when to stop. This calls for judging determinability (whether the available information is sufficient for a decision) by considering whether missing information could change the conclusion, not simply the amount of available decision-relevant information. Reliance on this amount as a cue for determinability, which we term \textit{factor coverage bias}, could undermine the trustworthiness of large language models (LLMs) through premature conclusions or excessive information gathering, such as unnecessary invasive tests. Yet whether LLMs exhibit this bias remains insufficiently studied. To address this gap, we construct a controlled pairwise benchmark in which LLMs identify the determinable case within each determinable--undeterminable pair. We add a decision-relevant factor to either side while keeping each case's determinability unchanged, and similarly add irrelevant text to distinguish this bias from context-length effects. Adding a relevant factor made LLMs more likely to select the augmented case as determinable even when it remained undeterminable, an effect that persisted with increased reasoning effort, while adding irrelevant text made them less likely to select the augmented case, an effect that reasoning substantially reduced. These findings identify factor coverage bias as a failure mode distinct from context-length effects and a potential risk to LLM trustworthiness. Our work provides an evaluation framework for LLM trustworthiness under underspecification.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Bootstrapping Niche Multilingual Code Translation via Reinforcement Learning with Execution-Based Verifiable Supervision

Code translation must preserve executable behavior across many programming languages, yet neural code translation has largely focused on a few popular languages such as C++, Java, and Python. This leaves a niche, many-to-many setting where parallel supervision is sparse, producing plausible but non-executable translations. We address this setting with preference-based reinforcement learning driven by execution-based supervision. Our pipeline firstly expands verifiable seed Python programs into a multilingual pool of execution-validated codes. Using the pool, a base LLM generates translation candidates across language pairs, which we label by their execution outcomes. The resulting preferences are used to train a reward model that scores cross-language translation quality. Finally, we optimize our base LLMs with GRPO over 600 directed language pairs (25 x 24) using the reward model as a signal. To evaluate the niche translation capability, we introduce HumanEval-X++, an execution-based benchmark that extends HumanEval-X to a broad many-to-many language space. We evaluate our approach using Qwen-3.5 4B and 9B models. On HumanEval-X++ and existing benchmarks, it yields consistent gains over the untrained baselines. In particular, the 4B model achieves an average improvement of 13% across all languages on HumanEval-X++, with a gain of 21% on mid-tier languages. Our study establishes a reliable approach of data generation, training, and benchmarking, paving the way toward further bootstrapping the quality of many-to-many translation for programming languages.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

ClinDet-Bench: Beyond Abstention, Evaluating Judgment Determinability of LLMs in Clinical Decision-Making

Clinical decisions are often required under incomplete information. Clinical experts must identify whether available information is sufficient for judgment, as both premature conclusion and unnecessary abstention can compromise patient safety. To evaluate this capability of large language models (LLMs), we developed ClinDet-Bench, a benchmark based on clinical scoring systems that decomposes incomplete-information scenarios into determinable and undeterminable conditions. Identifying determinability requires considering all hypotheses about missing information, including unlikely ones, and verifying whether the conclusion holds across them. We find that recent LLMs fail to identify determinability under incomplete information, producing both premature judgments and excessive abstention, despite correctly explaining the underlying scoring knowledge and performing well under complete information. These findings suggest that existing benchmarks are insufficient to evaluate the safety of LLMs in clinical settings. ClinDet-Bench provides a framework for evaluating determinability recognition, leading to appropriate abstention, with potential applicability to medicine and other high-stakes domains, and is publicly available.

cs.AI↗