Today’s digest highlights a broad slice of language AI research, from multimodal generation and figurative language to toxicity detection, semantic change, and question answering. Across these works, a shared theme is improving model reliability through better control mechanisms, calibration, and training signals that make predictions more trustworthy. Another common thread is scrutiny of interpretation and evaluation, with researchers pushing for systems that are not only stronger but also more explainable and more carefully assessed.

Decoding by Perturbation: Mitigating MLLM Hallucinations via Dynamic Textual Perturbation

Multimodal Large Language Models frequently suffer from inference hallucinations, partially stemming from language priors dominating visual evidence. Existing training-free mitigation methods either perturb the visual representation and deviate from the natural image distribution, or enforce intrusive manipulations that compromise the model's inherent generative fluency. We introduce a novel perspective that multimodal hallucination manifests as the hypersensitivity of visual grounding to textual phrasing during the decoding phase. Building on this insight, we propose Decoding by Perturbation (DeP), a training-free framework mitigating prior-induced hallucinations via controlled textual interventions. DeP employs a dynamic probe applying multi-level textual perturbations to elicit latent language priors. Leveraging attention variance, it enhances stable evidence regions while suppressing suspicious noise in the feature space. Furthermore, it constructs an interpretable prior drift direction using logits statistics to counteract probability biases from textual co-occurrences. Extensive experiments confirm DeP effectively reduces hallucinations and achieves superior performance across multiple benchmarks.

MetFuse: Figurative Fusion between Metonymy and Metaphor

Metonymy and metaphor often co-occur in natural language, yet computational work has studied them largely in isolation. We introduce a framework that transforms a literal sentence into three figurative variants: metonymic, metaphoric, and hybrid. Using this framework, we construct MetFuse, the first dedicated dataset of figurative fusion between metonymy and metaphor, containing 1,000 human-verified meaning-aligned quadruplets totaling 4,000 sentences. Extrinsic experiments on eight existing benchmarks show that augmenting training data with MetFuse consistently improves both metonymy and metaphor classification, with hybrid examples yielding the largest gains on metonymy tasks. Using this dataset, we also analyze how the presence of one figurative type impacts another. Our findings show that both human annotators and large language models better identify metonymy in hybrid sentences than in metonymy-only sentences, demonstrating that the presence of a metaphor makes a metonymic noun more explicit. Our dataset is publicly available at: https://github.com/cincynlp/MetFuse.

ToxiTrace: Gradient-Aligned Training for Explainable Chinese Toxicity Detection

Existing Chinese toxic content detection methods mainly target sentence-level classification but often fail to provide readable and contiguous toxic evidence spans. We propose \textbf{ToxiTrace}, an explainability-oriented method for BERT-style encoders with three components: (1) \textbf{CuSA}, which refines encoder-derived saliency cues into fine-grained toxic spans with lightweight LLM guidance; (2) \textbf{GCLoss}, a gradient-constrained objective that concentrates token-level saliency on toxic evidence while suppressing irrelevant activations; and (3) \textbf{ARCL}, which constructs sample-specific contrastive reasoning pairs to sharpen the semantic boundary between toxic and non-toxic content. Experiments show that ToxiTrace improves classification accuracy and toxic span extraction while preserving efficient encoder-based inference and producing more coherent, human-readable explanations. We have released the model at https://huggingface.co/ArdLi/ToxiTrace.

Evaluating the Evaluator: Problems with SemEval-2020 Task 1 for Lexical Semantic Change Detection

This discussion paper re-examines SemEval-2020 Task 1, the most influential shared benchmark for lexical semantic change detection, through a three-part evaluative framework: operationalisation, data quality, and benchmark design. First, at the level of operationalisation, we argue that the benchmark models semantic change mainly as gain, loss, or redistribution of discrete senses. While practical for annotation and evaluation, this framing is too narrow to capture gradual, constructional, collocational, and discourse-level change. Also, the gold labels are outcomes of annotation decisions, clustering procedures, and threshold settings, which could potentially limit the validity of the task. Second, at the level of data quality, we show that the benchmark is affected by substantial corpus and preprocessing problems, including OCR noise, malformed characters, truncated sentences, inconsistent lemmatisation, POS-tagging errors, and missed targets. These issues can distort model behaviour, complicate linguistic analysis, and reduce reproducibility. Third, at the level of bench-mark design, we argue the small curated target sets and limited language coverage reduce realism and increase statistical uncertainty. Taken together, these limitations suggest that the benchmark should be treated as a useful but partial test bed rather than a definitive measure of progress. We therefore call for future datasets and shared tasks to adopt broader theories of semantic change, document pre-processing transparently, expand cross-linguistic coverage, and use more realistic evaluation settings. Such steps are necessary for more valid, interpretable, and generalisable progress in lexical semantic change detection

Calibrated Confidence Estimation for Tabular Question Answering

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed for tabular question answering, yet calibration on structured data is largely unstudied. This paper presents the first systematic comparison of five confidence estimation methods across five frontier LLMs and two tabular QA benchmarks. All models are severely overconfident (smooth ECE 0.35-0.64 versus 0.10-0.15 reported for textual QA). A consistent self-evaluation versus perturbation dichotomy replicates across both benchmarks and all four fully-covered models: self-evaluation methods (verbalized, P(True)) achieve AUROC 0.42-0.76, while perturbation methods (semantic entropy, self-consistency, and our Multi-Format Agreement) achieve AUROC 0.78-0.86. Per-model paired bootstrap tests reject the null at p<0.001 after Holm-Bonferroni correction, and a 3-seed check on GPT-4o-mini gives a per-seed standard deviation of only 0.006. The paper proposes Multi-Format Agreement (MFA), which exploits the lossless and deterministic serialization variation unique to structured data (Markdown, HTML, JSON, CSV) to estimate confidence at 20% lower API cost than sampling baselines. MFA reduces ECE by 44-63%, generalizes across all four models on TableBench (mean AUROC 0.80), and combines complementarily with sampling: an MFA + self-consistency ensemble lifts AUROC from 0.74 to 0.82. A secondary contribution, structure-aware recalibration, improves AUROC by +10 percentage points over standard post-hoc methods.