natural language processing practitioners

Abstract: Chain-of-thought (CoT) explanations can sound plausible while having little influence on a model's final answer. We study four rewards that use the policy's own signals to encourage reliance on generated reasoning: gradient sensitivity, confidence gaps, progressive confidence gains, and reasoning--prompt swaps. We add each reward to group relative policy optimization (GRPO) and evaluate two small instruction-tuned models on GSM8K and StrategyQA using reasoning edits, paraphrases, and prompt hints. Several configurations increase answer reliance to reasoning edits, while effects on accuracy and paraphrase robustness vary. We also observe answer copying at a high reward weight and high reliance in decomposition settings with poor task accuracy. The study compares practical objectives for reasoning reliance, confirms the trade-off between reliance and performance, and proposes four lightweight rewards that can improve reasoning reliance.

Abstract: Existing quality control for long-context instruction-tuning data is a one-shot judgment inside the generation pipeline that leaves only a scalar, revealing neither which document parts an answer uses nor how many reasoning steps it writes down; the data can thus be neither audited nor controlled. We formalize data quality as a property of the alignment structure among document, question, and answer, and build LongForge, which pairs an analyzer that measures long-context data with a synthesizer that generates it. The analyzer reverse-reconstructs each sample into an evidence-assertion reasoning graph and programmatically computes four dimensions on it: breadth, depth, correctness, and completeness. Every reading traces back to specific evidence spans and reasoning steps, making data auditable. Measuring seven mainstream datasets reveals two previously unquantified defects: breadth barely grows with document length, and depth is generally low, the two being nearly orthogonal. The synthesizer then embeds the analyzer into generation, gating on correctness and completeness and deferring breadth and depth to a training-time mixture over measured values, which makes the training distribution controllable. On two backbones, its two mixtures, LongForge-1 and LongForge-N, outperform the strongest baseline by 2.2-4.7 points on average over six long-context benchmarks, and in a controlled comparison that holds the gate and the candidate pool fixed, raising breadth and depth alone is worth a further 1.16 points, making the structural distribution of training data a lever on downstream quality rather than only a description of it.

Abstract: Not all facts a language model can recall support further learning equally well. We distinguish active facts, which support generalization beyond their own recall, from inert facts, which can be recalled but do not support such generalization in a given task. We study this distinction by constructing new relations from existing ones. Take the relation that maps a place to its continent (Paris -> Europe) and assign each of its answers an arbitrary new label (Europe -> crab, Asia -> zebra). The new relation then maps Paris -> crab. We fine-tune the model on the new relation for a subset of subjects, without telling it the original relation or the relabeling rule, and test whether it assigns the corresponding labels to held-out subjects that share an answer in the original relation. Having learned Paris -> crab, does it answer Munich -> crab? Across eleven language models and 70 relations, how linearly readable the original relation is in pretrained representations strongly predicts this generalization. Within each model, the two correlate across relations at Pearson r = 0.87 to 0.92. This association persists when controlling, separately and jointly, for the number of fine-tuning subjects and answers, the model's accuracy on the original relation, and how often the subjects occur in pretraining text. It is also robust to re-randomizing the label assignment and fine-tuning seed, and to replacing the animal labels with labels from thirteen other semantic categories. When we map a fine-tuned model's wrong label back to the original answer it was assigned to, Munich -> zebra becomes Munich -> Asia. Answers recovered this way are more often among the linear probe's top answers for the subject than among the pretrained model's own. Whether a new relation generalizes depends less on whether its facts can be recalled than on how readily their shared structure can be read out linearly.