Here is today's selection of cs.CL papers exploring advancements in language model applications. The common thread is the enhancement of large language models (LLMs) to improve performance across various domains, including healthcare, multilingual reasoning, and low-resource language spell checking. These studies also emphasize the importance of error analysis and self-improvement mechanisms in refining LLM capabilities.

LMSpell: Neural Spell Checking for Low-Resource Languages

Spell correction is still a challenging problem for low-resource languages (LRLs). While pretrained language models (PLMs) have been employed for spell correction, their use is still limited to a handful of languages, and there has been no proper comparison across PLMs. We present the first empirical study on the effectiveness of PLMs for spell correction, which includes LRLs. We find that Large Language Models (LLMs) outperform their counterparts (encoder-based and encoder-decoder) when the fine-tuning dataset is large. This observation holds even in languages for which the LLM is not pre-trained. We release LMSpell, an easy- to use spell correction toolkit across PLMs. It includes an evaluation function that compensates for the hallucination of LLMs. Further, we present a case study with Sinhala to shed light on the plight of spell correction for LRLs.

Grounded Multilingual Medical Reasoning for Question Answering with Large Language Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) with reasoning capabilities have recently demonstrated strong potential in medical Question Answering (QA). Existing approaches are largely English-focused and primarily rely on distillation from general-purpose LLMs, raising concerns about the reliability of their medical knowledge. In this work, we present a method to generate multilingual reasoning traces grounded in factual medical knowledge. We produce 500k traces in English, Italian, and Spanish, using a retrievalaugmented generation approach over medical information from Wikipedia. The traces are generated to solve medical questions drawn from MedQA and MedMCQA, which we extend to Italian and Spanish. We test our pipeline in both in-domain and outof-domain settings across Medical QA benchmarks, and demonstrate that our reasoning traces improve performance both when utilized via in-context learning (few-shot) and supervised fine-tuning, yielding state-of-the-art results among 8B-parameter LLMs. We believe that these resources can support the development of safer, more transparent clinical decision-support tools in multilingual settings. We release the full suite of resources: reasoning traces, translated QA datasets, Medical-Wikipedia, and fine-tuned models.

To Err Is Human: Systematic Quantification of Errors in Published AI Papers via LLM Analysis

How many mistakes do published AI papers contain? Peer-reviewed publications form the foundation upon which new research and knowledge are built. Errors that persist in the literature can propagate unnoticed, creating confusion in follow-up studies and complicating reproducibility. The accelerating pace of research and the increasing demands on the peer-review system make such mistakes harder to detect and avoid. To address this, we developed a Paper Correctness Checker based on GPT-5 to systematically identify mistakes in papers previously published at top AI conferences and journals. Our analysis focuses on objective mistakes-e.g., errors in formulas, derivations, calculations, figures, and tables-that have a clearly verifiable ground truth. We intentionally exclude subjective considerations such as novelty, importance, or writing quality. We find that published papers contain a non-negligible number of objective mistakes and that the average number of mistakes per paper has increased over time-from 3.8 in NeurIPS 2021 to 5.9 in NeurIPS 2025 (55.3% increase); from 4.1 in ICLR 2018 to 5.2 in ICLR 2025; and from 5.0 in TMLR 2022/23 to 5.5 in TMLR 2025. Human experts reviewed 316 potential mistakes identified by the AI Checker and confirmed that 263 were actual mistakes, corresponding to a precision of 83.2%. While most identified issues are relatively minor, correcting them would reduce confusion in the literature and strengthen reproducibility. The AI Checker also surfaced potentially more substantive mistakes that could affect the interpretation of results. Moreover, we show that the AI Checker can propose correct fixes for 75.8% of the identified mistakes. Overall, this study highlights the potential of frontier LLMs to detect and correct objective mistakes in published papers, helping to establish a firmer foundation of knowledge.

Empathy by Design: Aligning Large Language Models for Healthcare Dialogue

General-purpose large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable generative and reasoning capabilities but remain limited in healthcare and caregiving applications due to two key deficiencies: factual unreliability and a lack of empathetic communication. These shortcomings pose significant risks in sensitive contexts where users, particularly non-professionals and caregivers, seek medically relevant guidance or emotional reassurance. To address these challenges, we introduce a Direct Preference Optimization (DPO)-based alignment framework designed to improve factual correctness, semantic coherence, and human-centric qualities such as empathy, politeness, and simplicity in caregiver-patient dialogues. Our approach fine-tunes domain-adapted LLMs using pairwise preference data, where preferred responses reflect supportive and accessible communication styles while rejected ones represent prescriptive or overly technical tones. This direct optimization method aligns model outputs with human preferences more efficiently than traditional reinforcement-learning-based alignment. Empirical evaluations across multiple open and proprietary LLMs show that our DPO-tuned models achieve higher semantic alignment, improved factual accuracy, and stronger human-centric evaluation scores compared to baseline and commercial alternatives such as Google medical dialogue systems. These improvements demonstrate that preference-based alignment offers a scalable and transparent pathway toward developing trustworthy, empathetic, and clinically informed AI assistants for caregiver and healthcare communication. Our open-source code is available at: https://github.com/LeonG19/Empathy-by-Design

Learning from Self Critique and Refinement for Faithful LLM Summarization

Large Language Models (LLMs) often suffer from hallucinations: output content that is not grounded in the input context, when performing long-form text generation tasks such as summarization. Prior works have shown that hallucinations can be reduced by iteratively critiquing and refining previously generated outputs using either the same model or a more powerful teacher model as the critique. However, these approaches either require additional test-time compute or assume access to more powerful teacher models, making them costly and less practical. In this work, we propose Self Critique and Refinement-based Preference Optimization (SCRPO), which is a self-supervised training framework that first constructs a preference dataset by leveraging the LLM's own critique and refinement capabilities, and then applies preference learning to improve the same LLM for faithful summarization. Experiments on three summarization benchmarks (XSUM CNNDM and SAMSum), demonstrate that our approach outperforms state-of-the-art self-supervised learning methods in terms of faithfulness metrics while either maintaining or improving other metrics that measure the overall quality of the summary. Moreover, compared to test-time refinement, our approach not only improves efficiency but also results in more faithful summaries.