BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Benjamin Roth

Benjamin Roth contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Computation and LanguageMachine LearningArtificial IntelligenceInformation Retrieval

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
10works
0followers
4topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

10 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

Calibration Is Not Enough: Evaluating Confidence Estimation Under Language Variations

Confidence estimation (CE) indicates how reliable the answers of large language models (LLMs) are, and can impact user trust and decision-making. Existing work evaluates CE methods almost exclusively through calibration, examining whether stated confidence aligns with accuracy, or discrimination, whether confidence is ranked higher for correct predictions than incorrect ones. However, these facets ignore pitfalls of CE in the context of LLMs and language variation: confidence estimates should remain consistent under semantically equivalent prompt or answer variations, and should change when the answer meaning differs. Therefore, we present a comprehensive evaluation framework for CE that measures their confidence quality on three new aspects: robustness of confidence against prompt perturbations, stability across semantic equivalent answers, and sensitivity to semantically different answers. In our work, we demonstrate that common CE methods for LLMs often fail on these metrics: methods that achieve good performance on calibration or discrimination are not robust to prompt variations or are not sensitive to answer changes. Overall, our framework reveals limitations of existing CE evaluations relevant for real-world LLM use cases and provides practical guidance for selecting and designing more reliable CE methods.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2026arXiv

Do LLM Self-Explanations Help Users Predict Model Behavior? Evaluating Counterfactual Simulatability with Pragmatic Perturbations

Large Language Models (LLMs) can produce verbalized self-explanations, yet prior studies suggest that such rationales may not reliably reflect the model's true decision process. We ask whether these explanations nevertheless help users predict model behavior, operationalized as counterfactual simulatability. Using StrategyQA, we evaluate how well humans and LLM judges can predict a model's answers to counterfactual follow-up questions, with and without access to the model's chain-of-thought or post-hoc explanations. We compare LLM-generated counterfactuals with pragmatics-based perturbations as alternative ways to construct test cases for assessing the potential usefulness of explanations. Our results show that self-explanations consistently improve simulation accuracy for both LLM judges and humans, but the degree and stability of gains depend strongly on the perturbation strategy and judge strength. We also conduct a qualitative analysis of free-text justifications written by human users when predicting the model's behavior, which provides evidence that access to explanations helps humans form more accurate predictions on the perturbed questions.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2026arXiv

Influential Training Data Retrieval for Explaining Verbalized Confidence of LLMs

Large language models (LLMs) can increase users' perceived trust by verbalizing confidence in their outputs. However, prior work has shown that LLMs are often overconfident, making their stated confidence unreliable since it does not consistently align with factual accuracy. To better understand the sources of this verbalized confidence, we introduce TracVC (\textbf{Trac}ing \textbf{V}erbalized \textbf{C}onfidence), a method that builds on information retrieval and influence estimation to trace generated confidence expressions back to the training data. We evaluate TracVC on OLMo and Llama models in a question answering setting, proposing a new metric, content groundness, which measures the extent to which an LLM grounds its confidence in content-related training examples (relevant to the question and answer) versus in generic examples of confidence verbalization. Our analysis reveals that OLMo2-13B is frequently influenced by confidence-related data that is lexically unrelated to the query, suggesting that it may mimic superficial linguistic expressions of certainty rather than rely on genuine content grounding. These findings point to a fundamental limitation in current training regimes: LLMs may learn how to sound confident without learning when confidence is justified. Our analysis provides a foundation for improving LLMs' trustworthiness in expressing more reliable confidence.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2024arXiv

Learning with Noisy Labels by Adaptive Gradient-Based Outlier Removal

An accurate and substantial dataset is essential for training a reliable and well-performing model. However, even manually annotated datasets contain label errors, not to mention automatically labeled ones. Previous methods for label denoising have primarily focused on detecting outliers and their permanent removal - a process that is likely to over- or underfilter the dataset. In this work, we propose AGRA: a new method for learning with noisy labels by using Adaptive GRAdient-based outlier removal. Instead of cleaning the dataset prior to model training, the dataset is dynamically adjusted during the training process. By comparing the aggregated gradient of a batch of samples and an individual example gradient, our method dynamically decides whether a corresponding example is helpful for the model at this point or is counter-productive and should be left out for the current update. Extensive evaluation on several datasets demonstrates AGRA's effectiveness, while a comprehensive results analysis supports our initial hypothesis: permanent hard outlier removal is not always what model benefits the most from.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2024arXiv

ULF: Unsupervised Labeling Function Correction using Cross-Validation for Weak Supervision

A cost-effective alternative to manual data labeling is weak supervision (WS), where data samples are automatically annotated using a predefined set of labeling functions (LFs), rule-based mechanisms that generate artificial labels for the associated classes. In this work, we investigate noise reduction techniques for WS based on the principle of k-fold cross-validation. We introduce a new algorithm ULF for Unsupervised Labeling Function correction, which denoises WS data by leveraging models trained on all but some LFs to identify and correct biases specific to the held-out LFs. Specifically, ULF refines the allocation of LFs to classes by re-estimating this assignment on highly reliable cross-validated samples. Evaluation on multiple datasets confirms ULF's effectiveness in enhancing WS learning without the need for manual labeling.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Checking HateCheck: a cross-functional analysis of behaviour-aware learning for hate speech detection

Behavioural testing -- verifying system capabilities by validating human-designed input-output pairs -- is an alternative evaluation method of natural language processing systems proposed to address the shortcomings of the standard approach: computing metrics on held-out data. While behavioural tests capture human prior knowledge and insights, there has been little exploration on how to leverage them for model training and development. With this in mind, we explore behaviour-aware learning by examining several fine-tuning schemes using HateCheck, a suite of functional tests for hate speech detection systems. To address potential pitfalls of training on data originally intended for evaluation, we train and evaluate models on different configurations of HateCheck by holding out categories of test cases, which enables us to estimate performance on potentially overlooked system properties. The fine-tuning procedure led to improvements in the classification accuracy of held-out functionalities and identity groups, suggesting that models can potentially generalise to overlooked functionalities. However, performance on held-out functionality classes and i.i.d. hate speech detection data decreased, which indicates that generalisation occurs mostly across functionalities from the same class and that the procedure led to overfitting to the HateCheck data distribution.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Is the Computation of Abstract Sameness Relations Human-Like in Neural Language Models?

In recent years, deep neural language models have made strong progress in various NLP tasks. This work explores one facet of the question whether state-of-the-art NLP models exhibit elementary mechanisms known from human cognition. The exploration is focused on a relatively primitive mechanism for which there is a lot of evidence from various psycholinguistic experiments with infants. The computation of "abstract sameness relations" is assumed to play an important role in human language acquisition and processing, especially in learning more complex grammar rules. In order to investigate this mechanism in BERT and other pre-trained language models (PLMs), the experiment designs from studies with infants were taken as the starting point. On this basis, we designed experimental settings in which each element from the original studies was mapped to a component of language models. Even though the task in our experiments was relatively simple, the results suggest that the cognitive faculty of computing abstract sameness relations is stronger in infants than in all investigated PLMs.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Topic Segmentation of Research Article Collections

Collections of research article data harvested from the web have become common recently since they are important resources for experimenting on tasks such as named entity recognition, text summarization, or keyword generation. In fact, certain types of experiments require collections that are both large and topically structured, with records assigned to separate research disciplines. Unfortunately, the current collections of publicly available research articles are either small or heterogeneous and unstructured. In this work, we perform topic segmentation of a paper data collection that we crawled and produce a multitopic dataset of roughly seven million paper data records. We construct a taxonomy of topics extracted from the data records and then annotate each document with its corresponding topic from that taxonomy. As a result, it is possible to use this newly proposed dataset in two modalities: as a heterogeneous collection of documents from various disciplines or as a set of homogeneous collections, each from a single research topic.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Ranking vs. Classifying: Measuring Knowledge Base Completion Quality

Knowledge base completion (KBC) methods aim at inferring missing facts from the information present in a knowledge base (KB) by estimating the likelihood of candidate facts. In the prevailing evaluation paradigm, models do not actually decide whether a new fact should be accepted or not but are solely judged on the position of true facts in a likelihood ranking with other candidates. We argue that consideration of binary predictions is essential to reflect the actual KBC quality, and propose a novel evaluation paradigm, designed to provide more transparent model selection criteria for a realistic scenario. We construct the data set FB14k-QAQ where instead of single facts, we use KB queries, i.e., facts where one entity is replaced with a variable, and construct corresponding sets of entities that are correct answers. We randomly remove some of these correct answers from the data set, simulating the realistic scenario of real-world entities missing from a KB. This way, we can explicitly measure a model's ability to handle queries that have more correct answers in the real world than in the KB, including the special case of queries without any valid answer. The latter especially contrasts the ranking setting. We evaluate a number of state-of-the-art KB embeddings models on our new benchmark. The differences in relative performance between ranking-based and classification-based evaluation that we observe in our experiments confirm our hypothesis that good performance on the ranking task does not necessarily translate to good performance on the actual completion task. Our results motivate future work on KB embedding models with better prediction separability and, as a first step in that direction, we propose a simple variant of TransE that encourages thresholding and achieves a significant improvement in classification F1 score relative to the original TransE.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Dirichlet-Smoothed Word Embeddings for Low-Resource Settings

Nowadays, classical count-based word embeddings using positive pointwise mutual information (PPMI) weighted co-occurrence matrices have been widely superseded by machine-learning-based methods like word2vec and GloVe. But these methods are usually applied using very large amounts of text data. In many cases, however, there is not much text data available, for example for specific domains or low-resource languages. This paper revisits PPMI by adding Dirichlet smoothing to correct its bias towards rare words. We evaluate on standard word similarity data sets and compare to word2vec and the recent state of the art for low-resource settings: Positive and Unlabeled (PU) Learning for word embeddings. The proposed method outperforms PU-Learning for low-resource settings and obtains competitive results for Maltese and Luxembourgish.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access