Daily Papers

Natural Language Processing (NLP) models risk overfitting to specific terms in the training data, thereby reducing their performance, fairness, and generalizability. E.g., neural hate speech detection models are strongly influenced by identity terms like gay, or women, resulting in false positives, severe unintended bias, and lower performance. Most mitigation techniques use lists of identity terms or samples from the target domain during training. However, this approach requires a-priori knowledge and introduces further bias if important terms are neglected. Instead, we propose a knowledge-free Entropy-based Attention Regularization (EAR) to discourage overfitting to training-specific terms. An additional objective function penalizes tokens with low self-attention entropy. We fine-tune BERT via EAR: the resulting model matches or exceeds state-of-the-art performance for hate speech classification and bias metrics on three benchmark corpora in English and Italian. EAR also reveals overfitting terms, i.e., terms most likely to induce bias, to help identify their effect on the model, task, and predictions.

Standard Byte-Pair Encoding (BPE) tokenization compresses text by pairing a learned token vocabulary with a detailed merge list. Recent work has shown that this merge list exposes a potential attack surface for extracting information about language model's training data. In this paper, we explore the downstream impact of BPE inference algorithms that do not rely on this merge list at all, and hence differ from the encoding process during BPE training. To address this question, we investigate two broad classes of BPE inference schemes that differ from BPE application during training: a) targeted deviation from merge-lists including random merge orders, and various corruptions of merge list involving deletion/truncation, and b) non-targeted BPE inference algorithms that do not depend on the merge list but focus on compressing the text either greedily or exactly. Extensive experiments across diverse language modeling tasks like accuracy-based QA benchmarks, machine translation, and open-ended generation reveal that while targeted deviation from the merge lists exhibits significant degradation in language model performance, the non-targeted merge-list-free inference algorithms result in minimal impact on downstream performance that is often much smaller than expected. These findings pave way for simpler and potentially more privacy-preserving tokenization schemes that do not catastrophically compromise model performance.

Medical reasoning models (MRMs) achieve superior performance on medical benchmarks compared to medical LLMs; however, high accuracy alone is insufficient for practical deployment. One of such requirements for real-world application is robustness to varying output constraints. Specifically, posing the same medical question while requesting different answer formats should not affect the underlying correctness of the response. We investigate this phenomenon in this paper, focusing on MRMs. To quantify this behavior, we propose the metric answer-format robustness: the ability to reliably generate correct outputs across varying specified formats. We examine three representative formats: multiple-choice, open-ended question-answering, and ranked lists. Across 15 proprietary and open-weight models, we observe substantial variation in format robustness (35-100%). Furthermore, we conduct controlled fine-tuning experiments on a shared backbone with matched training data to isolate the effects of the fine-tuning paradigm. We find that supervised fine-tuning yields more stable behavior across formats, whereas reinforcement fine-tuning often exhibits higher cross-format brittleness, with the degree of instability strongly dependent on reward design. Overall, answer-format robustness in MRMs is trainable yet brittle and requires careful evaluation for practical medical use.