Abstract:Automatic Prompt Optimization (APO) is a powerful approach for extracting performance from large language models without modifying their weights. Many existing methods rely on trial-and-error, testing different prompts or in-context examples until a good configuration emerges, often consuming substantial compute. Recently, natural language feedback derived from execution logs has shown promise as a way to identify how prompts can be improved. However, most prior approaches operate in a bottom-up manner, iteratively adjusting the prompt based on feedback from individual problems, which can cause them to lose the global perspective. In this work, we propose Error Taxonomy-Guided Prompt Optimization (ETGPO), a prompt optimization algorithm that adopts a top-down approach. ETGPO focuses on the global failure landscape by collecting model errors, categorizing them into a taxonomy, and augmenting the prompt with guidance targeting the most frequent failure modes. Across multiple benchmarks spanning mathematics, question answering, and logical reasoning, ETGPO achieves accuracy that is comparable to or better than state-of-the-art methods, while requiring roughly one third of the optimization-phase token usage and evaluation budget.
Abstract:This paper presents several strategies to automatically obtain additional examples for in-context learning of one-shot relation extraction. Specifically, we introduce a novel strategy for example selection, in which new examples are selected based on the similarity of their underlying syntactic-semantic structure to the provided one-shot example. We show that this method results in complementary word choices and sentence structures when compared to LLM-generated examples. When these strategies are combined, the resulting hybrid system achieves a more holistic picture of the relations of interest than either method alone. Our framework transfers well across datasets (FS-TACRED and FS-FewRel) and LLM families (Qwen and Gemma). Overall, our hybrid selection method consistently outperforms alternative strategies and achieves state-of-the-art performance on FS-TACRED and strong gains on a customized FewRel subset.




Abstract:Automatic search for Multi-Agent Systems has recently emerged as a key focus in agentic AI research. Several prior approaches have relied on LLM-based free-form search over the code space. In this work, we propose a more structured framework that explores the same space through a fixed set of simple, composable components. We show that, despite lacking the generative flexibility of LLMs during the candidate generation stage, our method outperforms prior approaches on four out of five benchmarks across two domains: mathematics and question answering. Furthermore, our method offers additional advantages, including a more cost-efficient search process and the generation of modular, interpretable multi-agent systems with simpler logic.




Abstract:Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at linear reasoning tasks but remain underexplored on non-linear structures such as those found in natural debates, which are best expressed as argument graphs. We evaluate whether LLMs can approximate structured reasoning from Computational Argumentation Theory (CAT). Specifically, we use Quantitative Argumentation Debate (QuAD) semantics, which assigns acceptability scores to arguments based on their attack and support relations. Given only dialogue-formatted debates from two NoDE datasets, models are prompted to rank arguments without access to the underlying graph. We test several LLMs under advanced instruction strategies, including Chain-of-Thought and In-Context Learning. While models show moderate alignment with QuAD rankings, performance degrades with longer inputs or disrupted discourse flow. Advanced prompting helps mitigate these effects by reducing biases related to argument length and position. Our findings highlight both the promise and limitations of LLMs in modeling formal argumentation semantics and motivate future work on graph-aware reasoning.




Abstract:People often ask questions with false assumptions, a type of question that does not have regular answers. Answering such questions require first identifying the false assumptions. Large Language Models (LLMs) often generate misleading answers because of hallucinations. In this paper, we focus on identifying and answering questions with false assumptions in several domains. We first investigate to reduce the problem to fact verification. Then, we present an approach leveraging external evidence to mitigate hallucinations. Experiments with five LLMs demonstrate that (1) incorporating retrieved evidence is beneficial and (2) generating and validating atomic assumptions yields more improvements and provides an interpretable answer by specifying the false assumptions.
Abstract:Understanding how news narratives frame entities is crucial for studying media's impact on societal perceptions of events. In this paper, we evaluate the zero-shot capabilities of large language models (LLMs) in classifying framing roles. Through systematic experimentation, we assess the effects of input context, prompting strategies, and task decomposition. Our findings show that a hierarchical approach of first identifying broad roles and then fine-grained roles, outperforms single-step classification. We also demonstrate that optimal input contexts and prompts vary across task levels, highlighting the need for subtask-specific strategies. We achieve a Main Role Accuracy of 89.4% and an Exact Match Ratio of 34.5%, demonstrating the effectiveness of our approach. Our findings emphasize the importance of tailored prompt design and input context optimization for improving LLM performance in entity framing.




Abstract:Negation has been a long-standing challenge for language models. Previous studies have shown that they struggle with negation in many natural language understanding tasks. In this work, we propose a self-supervised method to make language models more robust against negation. We introduce a novel task, Next Sentence Polarity Prediction (NSPP), and a variation of the Next Sentence Prediction (NSP) task. We show that BERT and RoBERTa further pre-trained on our tasks outperform the off-the-shelf versions on nine negation-related benchmarks. Most notably, our pre-training tasks yield between 1.8% and 9.1% improvement on CondaQA, a large question-answering corpus requiring reasoning over negation.




Abstract:Hate speech (HS) erodes the inclusiveness of online users and propagates negativity and division. Counterspeech has been recognized as a way to mitigate the harmful consequences. While some research has investigated the impact of user-generated counterspeech on social media platforms, few have examined and modeled haters' reactions toward counterspeech, despite the immediate alteration of haters' attitudes being an important aspect of counterspeech. This study fills the gap by analyzing the impact of counterspeech from the hater's perspective, focusing on whether the counterspeech leads the hater to reenter the conversation and if the reentry is hateful. We compile the Reddit Echoes of Hate dataset (ReEco), which consists of triple-turn conversations featuring haters' reactions, to assess the impact of counterspeech. The linguistic analysis sheds insights on the language of counterspeech to hate eliciting different haters' reactions. Experimental results demonstrate that the 3-way classification model outperforms the two-stage reaction predictor, which first predicts reentry and then determines the reentry type. We conclude the study with an assessment showing the most common errors identified by the best-performing model.




Abstract:Counterspeech is a targeted response to counteract and challenge abusive or hateful content. It can effectively curb the spread of hatred and foster constructive online communication. Previous studies have proposed different strategies for automatically generated counterspeech. Evaluations, however, focus on the relevance, surface form, and other shallow linguistic characteristics. In this paper, we investigate the human likeness of AI-generated counterspeech, a critical factor influencing effectiveness. We implement and evaluate several LLM-based generation strategies, and discover that AI-generated and human-written counterspeech can be easily distinguished by both simple classifiers and humans. Further, we reveal differences in linguistic characteristics, politeness, and specificity.




Abstract:In-context learning (ICL) has proven to be an effective strategy for improving the performance of large language models (LLMs) with no additional training. However, the exact mechanism behind these performance improvements remains unclear. This study is the first to show how ICL surfaces memorized training data and to explore the correlation between this memorization and performance across various ICL regimes: zero-shot, few-shot, and many-shot. Our most notable findings include: (1) ICL significantly surfaces memorization compared to zero-shot learning in most cases; (2) demonstrations, without their labels, are the most effective element in surfacing memorization; (3) ICL improves performance when the surfaced memorization in few-shot regimes reaches a high level (about 40%); and (4) there is a very strong correlation between performance and memorization in ICL when it outperforms zero-shot learning. Overall, our study uncovers a hidden phenomenon -- memorization -- at the core of ICL, raising an important question: to what extent do LLMs truly generalize from demonstrations in ICL, and how much of their success is due to memorization?