Today’s digest highlights how MT and neighboring language technologies are being pushed beyond raw output quality toward more human-centered notions of reliability, interaction, and explanation. A shared theme is evaluation: several works question whether current metrics and probability-based accounts really capture reasoning quality, simplification usefulness, or semantic coherence in realistic human-facing settings. Another throughline is trust, with researchers examining how to detect deceptive machine text and how to build systems whose behavior better matches human expectations in translation and speech.

Should We be Pedantic About Reasoning Errors in Machine Translation?

Across multiple language pairings (English $\to$ {Spanish, French, German, Mandarin, Japanese, Urdu, Cantonese}), we find reasoning errors in translation. To quantify how often these reasoning errors occur, we leverage an automated annotation protocol for reasoning evaluation wherein the goal is to detect if a reasoning step is any of three error categories: (1) source sentence-misaligned, (2) model hypothesis-misaligned, or (3) reasoning trace-misaligned. We probe the reasoning model with perturbed traces correcting for these identified reasoning errors using an array of weak-to-strong interventions: hedging, removal, re-reasoning after removal, hindsight, and oracle interventions. Experimenting with interventions on the reasoning traces suggests that small corrections to the reasoning have little impact on translation quality, but stronger interventions yield the highest resolution rates, despite translation quality gains being mixed. We find ultimately that reasoning errors in MT can be identified with high precision in Urdu but lower precision in Spanish, but that removing these reasoning errors does not resolve the initial errors significantly, suggesting limited reasoning faithfulness for machine translation.

MuTSE: A Human-in-the-Loop Multi-use Text Simplification Evaluator

As Large Language Models (LLMs) become increasingly prevalent in text simplification, systematically evaluating their outputs across diverse prompting strategies and architectures remains a critical methodological challenge in both NLP research and Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS). Developing robust prompts is often hindered by the absence of structured, visual frameworks for comparative text analysis. While researchers typically rely on static computational scripts, educators are constrained to standard conversational interfaces -- neither paradigm supports systematic multi-dimensional evaluation of prompt-model permutations. To address these limitations, we introduce \textbf{MuTSE}\footnote{The project code and the demo have been made available for peer review at the following anonymized URL. https://osf.io/njs43/overview?view_only=4b4655789f484110a942ebb7788cdf2a, an interactive human-in-the-loop web application designed to streamline the evaluation of LLM-generated text simplifications across arbitrary CEFR proficiency targets. The system supports concurrent execution of $P \times M$ prompt-model permutations, generating a comprehensive comparison matrix in real-time. By integrating a novel tiered semantic alignment engine augmented with a linearity bias heuristic ($λ$), MuTSE visually maps source sentences to their simplified counterparts, reducing the cognitive load associated with qualitative analysis and enabling reproducible, structured annotation for downstream NLP dataset construction.

Across the Levels of Analysis: Explaining Predictive Processing in Humans Requires More Than Machine-Estimated Probabilities

Under the lens of Marr's levels of analysis, we critique and extend two claims about language models (LMs) and language processing: first, that predicting upcoming linguistic information based on context is central to language processing, and second, that many advances in psycholinguistics would be impossible without large language models (LLMs). We further outline future directions that combine the strengths of LLMs with psycholinguistic models.

Human vs. Machine Deception: Distinguishing AI-Generated and Human-Written Fake News Using Ensemble Learning

The rapid adoption of large language models has introduced a new class of AI-generated fake news that coexists with traditional human-written misinformation, raising important questions about how these two forms of deceptive content differ and how reliably they can be distinguished. This study examines linguistic, structural, and emotional differences between human-written and AI-generated fake news and evaluates machine learning and ensemble-based methods for distinguishing these content types. A document-level feature representation is constructed using sentence structure, lexical diversity, punctuation patterns, readability indices, and emotion-based features capturing affective dimensions such as fear, anger, joy, sadness, trust, and anticipation. Multiple classification models, including logistic regression, random forest, support vector machines, extreme gradient boosting, and a neural network, are applied alongside an ensemble framework that aggregates predictions across models. Model performance is assessed using accuracy and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. The results show strong and consistent classification performance, with readability-based features emerging as the most informative predictors and AI-generated text exhibiting more uniform stylistic patterns. Ensemble learning provides modest but consistent improvements over individual models. These findings indicate that stylistic and structural properties of text provide a robust basis for distinguishing AI-generated misinformation from human-written fake news.

Interactive ASR: Towards Human-Like Interaction and Semantic Coherence Evaluation for Agentic Speech Recognition

Recent years have witnessed remarkable progress in automatic speech recognition (ASR), driven by advances in model architectures and large-scale training data. However, two important aspects remain underexplored. First, Word Error Rate (WER), the dominant evaluation metric for decades, treats all words equally and often fails to reflect the semantic correctness of an utterance at the sentence level. Second, interactive correction-an essential component of human communication-has rarely been systematically studied in ASR research. In this paper, we integrate these two perspectives under an agentic framework for interactive ASR. We propose leveraging LLM-as-a-Judge as a semantic-aware evaluation metric to assess recognition quality beyond token-level accuracy. Furthermore, we design an LLM-driven agent framework to simulate human-like multi-turn interaction, enabling iterative refinement of recognition outputs through semantic feedback. Extensive experiments are conducted on standard benchmarks, including GigaSpeech (English), WenetSpeech (Chinese), the ASRU 2019 code-switching test set. Both objective and subjective evaluations demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed framework in improving semantic fidelity and interactive correction capability. We will release the code to facilitate future research in interactive and agentic ASR.