Eojin Kang

Eojin Kang, Juae Kim

Multilingual large language models (LLMs) offer promising opportunities for cross-lingual information access, yet their use of factual knowledge remains highly sensitive to the input language. Prior work has addressed this through English prompting and evaluation, assuming that English-based reasoning is universally beneficial. In this work, we challenge that assumption by exploring factual knowledge transfer from non-English to English through the lens of Language and Thought Theory. We introduce Language-to-Thought (L2T) prompting, which aligns the model's internal ''thinking'' language with the source of knowledge. Across three languages and four models, L2T consistently outperforms English-based reasoning, reversing the expected advantage of English prompts. Our code is available at https://github.com/GeomeunByeol/Language2Thought.

Yejin Kim, Eojin Kang, Juae Kim et al.

Large language models (LLMs) typically improve performance by either retrieving semantically similar information, or enhancing reasoning abilities through structured prompts like chain-of-thought. While both strategies are considered crucial, it remains unclear which has a greater impact on model performance or whether a combination of both is necessary. This paper answers this question by proposing a knowledge graph (KG)-based random-walk reasoning approach that leverages causal relationships. We conduct experiments on the commonsense question answering task that is based on a KG. The KG inherently provides both relevant information, such as related entity keywords, and a reasoning structure through the connections between nodes. Experimental results show that the proposed KG-based random-walk reasoning method improves the reasoning ability and performance of LLMs. Interestingly, incorporating three seemingly irrelevant sentences into the query using KG-based random-walk reasoning enhances LLM performance, contrary to conventional wisdom. These findings suggest that integrating causal structures into prompts can significantly improve reasoning capabilities, providing new insights into the role of causality in optimizing LLM performance.

Eojin Kang, Jaehyuk Yu, Juae Kim

Recent studies on personas have improved the way Large Language Models (LLMs) interact with users. However, the effect of personas on domain-specific question-answering (QA) tasks remains a subject of debate. This study analyzes whether personas enhance specialized QA performance by introducing two types of persona: Profession-Based Personas (PBPs) (e.g., scientist), which directly relate to domain expertise, and Occupational Personality-Based Personas (OPBPs) (e.g., scientific person), which reflect cognitive tendencies rather than explicit expertise. Through empirical evaluations across multiple scientific domains, we demonstrate that while PBPs can slightly improve accuracy, OPBPs often degrade performance, even when semantically related to the task. Our findings suggest that persona relevance alone does not guarantee effective knowledge utilization and that they may impose cognitive constraints that hinder optimal knowledge application. Future research can explore how nuanced distinctions in persona representations guide LLMs, potentially contributing to reasoning and knowledge retrieval that more closely mirror human social conceptualization.