# Assert, don't describe: Linguistic features that shift LLM reasoning about animal welfare

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.26104 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.26104/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 10 of its 20 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 30 Apr 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-benchmarks-and-evaluation/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 10 of 10)

- [LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.09685/) (2021)
- [LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.13971/) (2023)
- [Understanding Black-box Predictions via Influence Functions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1703.04730/) (2017)
- [Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17548/) (2023)
- [Aligning AI With Shared Human Values](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2008.02275/) (2020)
- [Pretraining Language Models with Human Preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.08582/) (2023)
- [Continual Learning of Large Language Models: A Comprehensive Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.16789/) (2024)
- [Investigating Continual Pretraining in Large Language Models: Insights and Implications](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.17400/) (2024)
- [Scalable Influence and Fact Tracing for Large Language Model Pretraining](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.17413/) (2024)
- [MAGIC: Near-Optimal Data Attribution for Deep Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.16430/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Animal-welfare advocates produce a lot of writing, and increasingly that writing trains the language models that millions of people then ask about animal welfare. Using vocabulary-matched stance-contrast probes on a held-out animal-welfare benchmark, we measure how each of ten linguistic features changes Llama-3.2-1B's preference for pro-animal-welfare reasoning when used as fine-tuning data. Eight of the ten features produce statistically significant shifts. Seven move the model toward stronger pro-animal-welfare reasoning: assertive certainty, explicit moral vocabulary, emotion words, evaluative claims, narrative structure, depicted harm severity, and immediate temporal framing. Two move it the other way: hedged language and concrete sensory description both dilute the pro-animal-welfare stance. First-person perspective has no statistically significant effect. The practical recommendation for anyone writing animal-welfare text that may end up in LLM training corpora: assert a position rather than describe a scene neutrally. The features that shift the model are the ones that make the writer's position explicit; the features that dilute it hold animal-welfare content but withhold stance.