#01Oct 22, 2026
cs.CL
Bilingual Language Models Capture Cross-Linguistic Influence in Second-Language Reading
Abderrahmane Issam, Irene E. Winther, Stefan L. Frank
While monolingual language model (LM) surprisal is widely established as a predictor of reading times, it cannot capture the non-native (L2) reading dynamics that are shaped by the reader's first language (L1). In this work, we investigate whether the cross-lingual transfer within bilingual models aligns with human L1-driven biases during L2 reading. We evaluate bilingual models on eye-tracking data of readers from 12 diverse L1 backgrounds reading English texts. To isolate L1-specific transfer, we compare bilingual models trained on an L1 that matches the readers' L1 background to both a monolingual English baseline and bilingual models trained on other L1s. We demonstrate that matching the readers' L1 improves the prediction of L2 reading times. This predictive advantage is concentrated in late-stage eye-tracking measures, modulated by L1-L2 script overlap, and peaks among intermediate-proficiency readers. These findings provide evidence that bilingual LMs capture aspects of cross-linguistic influence, and that such influence is present in L2 reading behavior.
#02Oct 22, 2026
cs.CL
An Empirical Study of Recent Large Language Models for Knowledge Graph to Text Generation on Standard Benchmarks
Priyanka, Renaud Delbru, Souhail Bakkali and 2 more
Knowledge graph-to-text (KG-to-text) generation verbalizes a set of knowledge graph triples into fluent natural language. While fine-tuned encoder-decoder models have long been the standard approach, recent LLMs are becoming increasingly competitive. We benchmark recent LLMs against fine-tuned encoder-decoder models, using reference-based metrics and graph-grounded reference-free LLM-based evaluation validated against human annotations. We observed that recent LLMs substantially narrow, and in several settings close, the gap with fine-tuned models on reference-based metrics, while performing better on graph-grounded metrics. LLM-based evaluation scores show limited correlation with reference-based metrics, suggesting that the two approaches capture different aspects of generation quality. Graph-grounded evaluation reveals that prompted models produce fewer contradictions and triple omissions than fine-tuned models, and these errors increase more rapidly with graph size for fine-tuned models, highlighting differences between the two approaches that reference-based metrics may not fully capture.
#03Oct 22, 2026
cs.CL
Would an LLM Match into a Residency? Uncertainty, Reasoning and Image Use of Open Language Models on the Spanish MIR Examination
Miguel Fernandez-de-Retana, Unai Zulaika, Ruben Sanchez-Corcuera and 2 more
Accuracy on medical examinations is common evidence offered for the clinical use of language models, yet a health system that intends to run an open model on its own hardware needs to know considerably more: whether the model recognizes when it is likely to be wrong, whether medical fine-tuning improves this ability, whether its correct answers rest on sound clinical reasoning, or whether it actually uses the images it is given. We examine these questions for four open models of 8 to 27 billion parameters on the Spanish MIR residency examination, scoring 1,552 questions from eight editions under the exam's own rules. Answering every question, the three larger models would rank among roughly the first 600 to 3,000 candidates, with 41 to 43 specialties still open to them. Abstention, however, never pays, because even their least confident answers are right more often than the 25% break-even. Medical fine-tuning reduced overconfidence at the cost of accuracy, without improving how well confidence separates right from wrong answers. Moreover, 13-38% of correct answers rejected a distractor for a clinically unsound reason that confidence did not reflect, and removing or swapping the provided contextual images left accuracy unchanged.
#04Oct 22, 2026
cs.AI
Simulated Control Evals
Jeffrey Olmo, David Zhang, Tyler Tracy
Control evaluations measure whether safeguards can prevent an AI model from causing undesired outcomes even when it is intentionally trying to do so. These evaluations typically use purpose-built control settings and extrapolate their results to a model's deployment. However, the effectiveness of safeguards in deployment can depend on features of environments and tasks that control settings do not represent. To broaden where control evaluations can be run, we introduce simulated control evaluations (SCEs), which use a language model to simulate tool responses in place of an environment. We evaluate SCEs on LinuxArena, where execution provides ground-truth outcomes. We compare SCE prediction errors with those from a separate control setting, BashArena, and with variation in control metrics within LinuxArena. For independently sampled evaluation and deployment task sets, SCEs predict safety with a root mean squared error of 3.6 percentage points across five monitors at a 5% audit budget, compared with 10.1 for BashArena. SCEs closely reproduce distributions of attack strategies, attacker reasoning, and monitor reasoning, with over tenfold lower KL divergence from execution than BashArena. SCEs explain 78-85% of the between-environment variance in attack success, monitor scores, and safety. This accuracy is sample efficient: SCEs predict safety with less error than BashArena using fewer than 5% as many task-pair draws as the deployment task set. Strategies discovered through simulation also improve monitor performance on held-out LinuxArena attacks, outperforming BashArena and approximately matching improvement from executed strategies. These results suggest that deployment-specific SCEs can be more predictive than control evaluations executed in separate control settings.
#05Oct 22, 2026
cs.AI
Direct Pass@$k$ Optimization for Thought Pruning: Balancing Quality and Diversity in Test-Time Reasoning
Mahdi Salmani, Adel Javanmard, Devansh Gupta and 1 more
Test-time scaling has emerged as a key inference strategy for reasoning models, where a model generates a large number of candidate solutions in the hope of finding at least one correct solution. Running all candidate solutions to completion can be computationally demanding, so recent work prunes the candidate pool after generating only a short prefix, committing further computation only to the surviving candidates. Existing pruning strategies divide broadly into two categories: Quality-based methods assign a score to each partial solution and discard those predicted to ultimately lead to an incorrect final solution, while diversity-based methods select partial solutions that follow different reasoning trajectories and are therefore likely to cover different final solutions. The tension between these two objectives is an instance of exploration versus exploitation, yet little to no prior work on pruning exposes this trade-off directly, let alone optimizes it. In this paper, we introduce a pruning procedure that addresses this trade-off directly by optimizing pass@$k$ over the selected solution pool. In particular, it chooses the pool to maximize the probability that at least one of its partial solutions, when continued to completion, yields a correct answer. Because this objective simultaneously rewards high-quality partial solutions and penalizes redundancy among them, quality and diversity are naturally balanced by the criterion itself rather than through separate ad-hoc design choices. On eight open-weight reasoning models, our method outperforms existing quality-based and diversity-based pruning strategies. The gains are particularly pronounced when the pruning procedure keeps a moderate number of partial solutions for continued generation, highlighting the value of directly balancing quality and diversity during pruning.