Rongchun Zhao

Raoyuan Zhao, Yihong Liu, Hinrich Schütze et al.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) increasingly rely on step-by-step Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning to improve task performance, particularly in high-resource languages such as English. While recent work has examined final-answer accuracy in multilingual settings, the thinking traces themselves, i.e., the intermediate steps that lead to the final answer, remain underexplored. In this paper, we present the first comprehensive study of multilingual CoT reasoning, evaluating three key dimensions: performance, consistency, and faithfulness. We begin by measuring language compliance, answer accuracy, and answer consistency when LRMs are explicitly instructed or prompt-hacked to think in a target language, revealing strong language preferences and divergent performance across languages. Next, we assess crosslingual consistency of thinking traces by interchanging them between languages. We find that the quality and effectiveness of thinking traces vary substantially depending on the prompt language. Finally, we adapt perturbation-based techniques -- i.e., truncation and error injection -- to probe the faithfulness of thinking traces across languages, showing that models rely on traces to varying degrees. We release our code and data to support future research.

Raoyuan Zhao, Abdullatif Köksal, Ali Modarressi et al.

The reliability of large language models (LLMs) is greatly compromised by their tendency to hallucinate, underscoring the need for precise identification of knowledge gaps within LLMs. Various methods for probing such gaps exist, ranging from calibration-based to prompting-based methods. To evaluate these probing methods, in this paper, we propose a new process based on using input variations and quantitative metrics. Through this, we expose two dimensions of inconsistency in knowledge gap probing. (1) Intra-method inconsistency: Minimal non-semantic perturbations in prompts lead to considerable variance in detected knowledge gaps within the same probing method; e.g., the simple variation of shuffling answer options can decrease agreement to around 40%. (2) Cross-method inconsistency: Probing methods contradict each other on whether a model knows the answer. Methods are highly inconsistent -- with decision consistency across methods being as low as 7% -- even though the model, dataset, and prompt are all the same. These findings challenge existing probing methods and highlight the urgent need for perturbation-robust probing frameworks.

Michael A. Hedderich, Anyi Wang, Raoyuan Zhao et al.

Prompt engineering for large language models is challenging, as even small prompt perturbations or model changes can significantly impact the generated output texts. Existing evaluation methods of LLM outputs, either automated metrics or human evaluation, have limitations, such as providing limited insights or being labor-intensive. We propose Spotlight, a new approach that combines both automation and human analysis. Based on data mining techniques, we automatically distinguish between random (decoding) variations and systematic differences in language model outputs. This process provides token patterns that describe the systematic differences and guide the user in manually analyzing the effects of their prompts and changes in models efficiently. We create three benchmarks to quantitatively test the reliability of token pattern extraction methods and demonstrate that our approach provides new insights into established prompt data. From a human-centric perspective, through demonstration studies and a user study, we show that our token pattern approach helps users understand the systematic differences of language model outputs. We are further able to discover relevant differences caused by prompt and model changes (e.g. related to gender or culture), thus supporting the prompt engineering process and human-centric model behavior research.