Strong inductive biases allow children to learn in fast and adaptable ways.

This paper examines how science fiction destabilises ontological categories by measuring conceptual permeability across the terms human, animal, and machine using masked language modelling (MLM). Drawing on corpora of science fiction (Gollancz SF Masterworks) and general fiction (NovelTM), we operationalise Darko Suvin's theory of estrangement as computationally measurable deviation in token prediction, using RoBERTa to generate lexical substitutes for masked referents and classifying them via Gemini. We quantify conceptual slippage through three metrics: retention rate, replacement rate, and entropy, mapping the stability or disruption of category boundaries across genres. Our findings reveal that science fiction exhibits heightened conceptual permeability, particularly around machine referents, which show significant cross-category substitution and dispersion. Human terms, by contrast, maintain semantic coherence and often anchor substitutional hierarchies. These patterns suggest a genre-specific restructuring within anthropocentric logics. We argue that estrangement in science fiction operates as a controlled perturbation of semantic norms, detectable through probabilistic modelling, and that MLMs, when used critically, serve as interpretive instruments capable of surfacing genre-conditioned ontological assumptions. This study contributes to the methodological repertoire of computational literary studies and offers new insights into the linguistic infrastructure of science fiction.

Adapting large language models to full document translation remains challenging due to the difficulty of capturing long-range dependencies and preserving discourse coherence throughout extended texts. While recent agentic machine translation systems mitigate context window constraints through multi-agent orchestration and persistent memory, they require substantial computational resources and are sensitive to memory retrieval strategies. We introduce TransGraph, a discourse-guided framework that explicitly models inter-chunk relationships through structured discourse graphs and selectively conditions each translation segment on relevant graph neighbourhoods rather than relying on sequential or exhaustive context. Across three document-level MT benchmarks spanning six languages and diverse domains, TransGraph consistently surpasses strong baselines in translation quality and terminology consistency while incurring significantly lower token overhead.

Our goal is to study how LLMs represent and interpret plural reference in ambiguous and unambiguous contexts. We ask the following research questions: (1) Do LLMs exhibit human-like preferences in representing plural reference? (2) Are LLMs able to detect ambiguity in plural anaphoric expressions and identify possible referents? To address these questions, we design a set of experiments, examining pronoun production using next-token prediction tasks, pronoun interpretation, and ambiguity detection using different prompting strategies. We then assess how comparable LLMs are to humans in formulating and interpreting plural reference. We find that LLMs are sometimes aware of possible referents of ambiguous pronouns. However, they do not always follow human reference when choosing between interpretations, especially when the possible interpretation is not explicitly mentioned. In addition, they struggle to identify ambiguity without direct instruction. Our findings also reveal inconsistencies in the results across different types of experiments.

This note illustrates how a variety of causal abstraction arXiv:1707.00819 arXiv:1812.03789, defined here as causal abstractive simulation, can be used to formalize a simple example of language model simulation. This note considers the case of simulating a fair coin toss with a language model. Examples are presented illustrating the ways language models can fail to simulate, and a success case is presented, illustrating how this formalism may be used to prove that a language model simulates some other system, given a causal description of the system. This note may be of interest to three groups. For practitioners in the growing field of language model simulation, causal abstractive simulation is a means to connect ad-hoc statistical benchmarking practices to the solid formal foundation of causality. Philosophers of AI and philosophers of mind may be interested as causal abstractive simulation gives a precise operationalization to the idea that language models are role-playing arXiv:2402.12422. Mathematicians and others working on causal abstraction may be interested to see a new application of the core ideas that yields a new variation of causal abstraction.

Humans communicate with increasing efficiency in multi-turn interactions, by adapting their language and forming ad-hoc conventions. In contrast, prior work shows that LLMs do not naturally show this behavior. We develop a post-training process to develop this ability through targeted fine-tuning on heuristically identified demonstrations of convention formation. We evaluate with two new benchmarks focused on this capability. First, we design a focused, cognitively-motivated interaction benchmark that consistently elicits strong convention formation trends in humans. Second, we create a new document-grounded reference completion task that reflects in-the-wild convention formation behavior. Our studies show significantly improved convention formation abilities in post-trained LLMs across the two evaluation methods.

Referring Expression Generation (REG) is a core task for evaluating the pragmatic competence of vision-language systems, requiring not only accurate semantic grounding but also adherence to principles of cooperative communication (Grice, 1975). However, current evaluations of vision-language models (VLMs) often overlook the pragmatic dimension, reducing REG to a region-based captioning task and neglecting Gricean maxims. In this work, we revisit REG from a pragmatic perspective, introducing a new dataset (RefOI) of 1.5k images annotated with both written and spoken referring expressions. Through a systematic evaluation of state-of-the-art VLMs, we identify three key failures of pragmatic competence: (1) failure to uniquely identify the referent, (2) inclusion of excessive or irrelevant information, and (3) misalignment with human pragmatic preference, such as the underuse of minimal spatial cues. We also show that standard automatic evaluations fail to capture these pragmatic violations, reinforcing superficial cues rather than genuine referential success. Our findings call for a renewed focus on pragmatically informed models and evaluation frameworks that align with real human communication.

Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT demonstrated the potential to replicate human language abilities through technology, ranging from text generation to engaging in conversations. However, it remains controversial to what extent these systems truly understand language. We examine this issue by narrowing the question down to the semantics of LLMs at the word and sentence level. By examining the inner workings of LLMs and their generated representation of language and by drawing on classical semantic theories by Frege and Russell, we get a more nuanced picture of the potential semantic capabilities of LLMs.

In this paper, we explore the use of a text-only, autoregressive language modeling approach for the extraction of referring expressions from visually grounded dialogue. More specifically, the aim is to investigate the extent to which the linguistic context alone can inform the detection of mentions that have a (visually perceivable) referent in the visual context of the conversation. To this end, we adapt a pretrained large language model (LLM) to perform a relatively course-grained annotation of mention spans in unfolding conversations by demarcating mention span boundaries in text via next-token prediction. Our findings indicate that even when using a moderately sized LLM, relatively small datasets, and parameter-efficient fine-tuning, a text-only approach can be effective, highlighting the relative importance of the linguistic context for this task. Nevertheless, we argue that the task represents an inherently multimodal problem and discuss limitations fundamental to unimodal approaches.