Papers

With the rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs), the academic community has faced unprecedented disruptions, particularly in the realm of academic communication. The primary function of peer review is improving the quality of academic manuscripts, such as clarity, originality and other evaluation aspects. Although prior studies suggest that LLMs are beginning to influence peer review, it remains unclear whether they are altering its core evaluative functions. Moreover, the extent to which LLMs affect the linguistic form, evaluative focus, and recommendation-related signals of peer-review reports has yet to be systematically examined. In this study, we examine the changes in peer review reports for academic articles following the emergence of LLMs, emphasizing variations at fine-grained level. Specifically, we investigate linguistic features such as the length and complexity of words and sentences in review comments, while also automatically annotating the evaluation aspects of individual review sentences. We also use a maximum likelihood estimation method, previously established, to identify review reports that potentially have modified or generated by LLMs. Finally, we assess the impact of evaluation aspects mentioned in LLM-assisted review reports on the informativeness of recommendation for paper decision-making. The results indicate that following the emergence of LLMs, peer review texts have become longer and more fluent, with increased emphasis on summaries and surface-level clarity, as well as more standardized linguistic patterns, particularly reviewers with lower confidence score. At the same time, attention to deeper evaluative dimensions, such as originality, replicability, and nuanced critical reasoning, has declined.

As terminal agents scale to long-horizon, multi-turn workflows, a key bottleneck is not merely limited context length, but the accumulation of noisy terminal observations in the interaction history. Retaining raw observations preserves useful environment feedback, but also leads to context saturation and high token cost; conversely, naive compression may discard task-critical signals needed for subsequent actions. Because terminal environments are highly heterogeneous across repositories, commands, and execution states, heuristic-based or fixed-prompt compression methods are difficult to generalize. We propose TACO, a plug-and-play, training-free, self-evolving Terminal Agent Compression framework for existing terminal agents. TACO automatically discovers, refines, and reuses structured compression rules from interaction trajectories, enabling workflow-adaptive filtering of low-value terminal outputs while preserving task-relevant observations. Experiments on TerminalBench (TB 1.0 and TB 2.0) and four additional terminal-related benchmarks, including SWE-Bench Lite, CompileBench, DevEval, and CRUST-Bench, show that TACO consistently improves task performance and token efficiency across agent scaffolds and backbone models. On TerminalBench, TACO yields 1%-4% accuracy gains across strong agentic models and improves accuracy by around 2%-3% under the same token budget. On additional terminal-related benchmarks, it reduces total token consumption while maintaining or improving task success rates. These results suggest that self-evolving, workflow-adaptive observation compression is an effective path toward more reliable and efficient long-horizon terminal agents. The code is publicly available at https://github.com/multimodal-art-projection/TACO.

Reliable biomedical and clinical retrieval requires more than strong ranking performance: it requires a practical way to find systematic model failures and curate the training evidence needed to correct them. Late-interaction models such as ColBERT provide a first solution thanks to the interpretable token-level interaction scores they expose between document and query tokens. Yet this interpretability is shallow: it explains a particular document–query pairwise score, but does not reveal whether the model has learned a clinical concept in a stable, reusable, and context-sensitive way across diverse expressions. As a result, these scores provide limited support for diagnosing misunderstandings, identifying irreasonably distant biomedical concepts, or deciding what additional data or feedback is needed to address this. In this short position paper, we propose Diagnosable ColBERT, a framework that aligns ColBERT token embeddings to a reference latent space grounded in clinical knowledge and expert-provided conceptual similarity constraints. This alignment turns document encodings into inspectable evidence of what the model appears to understand, enabling more direct error diagnosis and more principled data curation without relying on large batteries of diagnostic queries.

Hallucinations in Speech Large Language Models (SpeechLLMs) pose significant risks, yet existing detection methods typically rely on gold-standard outputs that are costly or impractical to obtain. Moreover, hallucination detection methods developed for text-based LLMs do not directly capture audio-specific signals. We investigate four attention-derived metrics: AUDIORATIO, AUDIOCONSISTENCY, AUDIOENTROPY, and TEXTENTROPY, designed to capture pathological attention patterns associated with hallucination, and train lightweight logistic regression classifiers on these features for efficient inference-time detection. Across automatic speech recognition and speech-to-text translation tasks, evaluations on Qwen-2-Audio and Voxtral-3B show that our approach outperforms uncertainty-based and prior attention-based baselines on in-domain data, achieving improvements of up to +0.23 PR-AUC, and generalises to out-of-domain ASR settings. We further find that strong performance can be achieved with approximately 100 attention heads, improving out-of-domain generalisation compared to using all heads. While effectiveness is model-dependent and task-specific training is required, our results demonstrate that attention patterns provide a valuable tool for hallucination detection in SpeechLLMs.

Construction workers are highly vulnerable to heat stress, yet tools that translate real-time physiological data into actionable safety intelligence remain scarce. This study addresses this gap by developing and evaluating deep learning models, specifically a baseline Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) network and an attention-based LSTM, to predict heat stress among 19 workers in Saudi Arabia. Using Garmin Vivosmart 5 smartwatches to monitor metrics such as heart rate, HRV, and oxygen saturation, the attention-based model outperformed the baseline, achieving 95.40% testing accuracy and significantly reducing false positives and negatives. With precision, recall, and F1 scores of 0.982, this approach not only improves predictive performance but also offers interpretable results suitable for integration into IoT-enabled safety systems and BIM dashboards, advancing proactive, informatics-driven safety management in the construction industry.

Large Language Model agents have rapidly evolved from static text generators into dynamic systems capable of executing complex autonomous workflows. To enhance reliability, multi-agent frameworks assigning specialized roles are increasingly adopted to enable self-reflection and mutual auditing. While such role-playing effectively leverages domain expert knowledge, we find it simultaneously induces a human-like cognitive bias known as Actor-Observer Asymmetry (AOA). Specifically, an agent acting as an actor (during self-reflection) tends to attribute failures to external factors, whereas an observer (during mutual auditing) attributes the same errors to internal faults. We quantify this using our new Ambiguous Failure Benchmark, which reveals that simply swapping perspectives triggers the AOA effect in over 20% of cases for most models. To tame this bias, we introduce ReTAS (Reasoning via Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis), a model trained through dialectical alignment to enforce perspective-invariant reasoning. By integrating dialectical chain-of-thought with Group Relative Policy Optimization, ReTAS guides agents to synthesize conflicting viewpoints into an objective consensus. Experiments demonstrate that ReTAS effectively mitigates attribution inconsistency and significantly improves fault resolution rates in ambiguous scenarios.

Emotion-Cause Pair Extraction in Conversations (ECPEC) aims to identify the set of causal relations between emotion utterances and their triggering causes within a dialogue. Most existing approaches formulate ECPEC as an independent pairwise classification task, overlooking the distinct semantics of emotion diffusion and cause explanation, and failing to capture globally consistent many-to-many conversational causality. To address these limitations, we revisit ECPEC from a semantic perspective and seek to disentangle emotion-oriented semantics from cause-oriented semantics, mapping them into two complementary representation spaces to better capture their distinct conversational roles. Building on this semantic decoupling, we naturally formulate ECPEC as a global alignment problem between the emotion-side and cause-side representations, and employ optimal transport to enable many-to-many and globally consistent emotion-cause matching. Based on this perspective, we propose a unified framework SCALE that instantiates the above semantic decoupling and alignment principle within a shared conversational structure. Extensive experiments on several benchmark datasets demonstrate that SCALE consistently achieves state-of-the-art performance. Our codes are released at https://github.com/CoCoSphere/SCALE.

This paper introduces Bangla Key2Text, a large-scale dataset of $2.6$ million Bangla keyword–text pairs designed for keyword-driven text generation in a low-resource language. The dataset is constructed using a BERT-based keyword extraction pipeline applied to millions of Bangla news texts, transforming raw articles into structured keyword–text pairs suitable for supervised learning. To establish baseline performance on this new benchmark, we fine-tune two sequence-to-sequence models, mT5 and BanglaT5, and evaluate them using multiple automatic metrics and human judgments. Experimental results show that task-specific fine-tuning substantially improves keyword-conditioned text generation in Bangla compared to zero-shot large language models. The dataset, trained models, and code are publicly released to support future research in Bangla natural language generation and keyword-to-text generation tasks.

Automatic keyword extraction from academic papers is a key area of interest in natural language processing and information retrieval. Although previous research has mainly focused on utilizing abstract and references for keyword extraction, this paper focuses on the highlights section - a summary describing the key findings and contributions, offering readers a quick overview of the research. Our observations indicate that highlights contain valuable keyword information that can effectively complement the abstract. To investigate the impact of incorporating highlights into unsupervised keyword extraction, we evaluate three input scenarios: using only the abstract, the highlights, and a combination of both. Experiments conducted with four unsupervised models on Computer Science (CS), Library and Information Science (LIS) datasets reveal that integrating the abstract with highlights significantly improves extraction performance. Furthermore, we examine the differences in keyword coverage and content between abstract and highlights, exploring how these variations influence extraction outcomes. The data and code are available at https://github.com/xiangyi-njust/Highlight-KPE.

The rapid adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) has spurred interest in automated peer review; however, progress is currently stifled by benchmarks that treat reviewing primarily as a rating prediction task. We argue that the utility of a review lies in its textual justification–its arguments, questions, and critique–rather than a scalar score. To address this, we introduce Beyond Rating, a holistic evaluation framework that assesses AI reviewers across five dimensions: Content Faithfulness, Argumentative Alignment, Focus Consistency, Question Constructiveness, and AI-Likelihood. Notably, we propose a Max-Recall strategy to accommodate valid expert disagreement and introduce a curated dataset of paper with high-confidence reviews, rigorously filtered to remove procedural noise. Extensive experiments demonstrate that while traditional n-gram metrics fail to reflect human preferences, our proposed text-centric metrics–particularly the recall of weakness arguments–correlate strongly with rating accuracy. These findings establish that aligning AI critique focus with human experts is a prerequisite for reliable automated scoring, offering a robust standard for future research.

This article introduces two new measures for authorship attribution - Rank-Turbulence Delta and Jensen-Shannon Delta - which generalise Burrows's classical Delta by applying distance functions designed for probabilistic distributions. We first set out the theoretical basis of the measures, contrasting centred and uncentred z-scoring of word-frequency vectors and re-casting the uncentred vectors as probability distributions. Building on this representation, we develop a token-level decomposition that renders every Delta distance numerically interpretable, thereby facilitating close reading and the validation of results. The effectiveness of the methods is assessed on four literary corpora in English, German, French and Russian. The English, German and French datasets are compiled from Project Gutenberg, whereas the Russian benchmark is the SOCIOLIT corpus containing 639 works by 89 authors spanning the eighteenth to the twenty-first centuries. Rank-Turbulence Delta attains attribution accuracy comparable with Cosine Delta; Jensen-Shannon Delta consistently matches or exceeds the performance of canonical Burrows's Delta. Finally, several established attribution algorithms are re-evaluated on the extended SOCIOLIT corpus, providing a realistic estimate of their robustness under pronounced temporal and stylistic variation.

Reinforcement learning (RL) for LLM post-training faces a fundamental design choice: whether to use a learned critic as a baseline for policy optimization. Classical theory favors critic-based methods such as PPO for variance reduction, yet critic-free alternatives like GRPO have gained widespread adoption due to their simplicity and competitive performance. We show that in sparse-reward settings, a learned critic can inject estimation noise that exceeds the state signal it captures, increasing rather than reducing advantage variance. By casting baseline selection as a Kalman filtering problem, we unify PPO and GRPO as two extremes of the Kalman gain and prove that explained variance (EV), computable from a single training batch, identifies the exact boundary: positive EV indicates the critic reduces variance, while zero or negative EV signals that it inflates variance. Building on this insight, we propose Explained Variance Policy Optimization (EVPO), which monitors batch-level EV at each training step and adaptively switches between critic-based and batch-mean advantage estimation, provably achieving no greater variance than the better of the two at every step. Across four tasks spanning classical control, agentic interaction, and mathematical reasoning, EVPO consistently outperforms both PPO and GRPO regardless of which fixed baseline is stronger on a given task. Further analysis confirms that the adaptive gating tracks critic maturation over training and that the theoretically derived zero threshold is empirically optimal.

The intonational structure of Seoul Korean has been defined with discrete tonal categories within the Autosegmental-Metrical model of intonational phonology. However, it is challenging to map continuous $F_0$ contours to these invariant categories due to variable $F_0$ realizations in real-world speech. Our paper proposes Dual-Glob, a deep supervised contrastive learning framework to robustly classify fine-grained pitch accent patterns in Seoul Korean. Unlike conventional local predictive models, our approach captures holistic $F_0$ contour shapes by enforcing structural consistency between clean and augmented views in a shared latent space. To this aim, we introduce the first large-scale benchmark dataset, consisting of manually annotated 10,093 Accentual Phrases in Seoul Korean. Experimental results show that our Dual-Glob significantly outperforms strong baseline models with state-of-the-art accuracy (77.75%) and F1-score (51.54%). Therefore, our work supports AM-based intonational phonology using data-driven methodology, showing that deep contrastive learning effectively captures holistic structural features of continuous $F_0$ contours.

More than half of the global population struggles to meet their civil justice needs due to limited legal resources. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive reasoning capabilities, significant challenges remain even at the foundational step of legal issue identification. To investigate LLMs' capabilities in this task, we constructed a dataset from 769 real-world Malaysian Contract Act court cases, using GPT-4o to extract facts and generate candidate legal issues, annotated by senior legal experts, which reveals a critical limitation: while LLMs generate diverse issue candidates, their precision remains inadequate (GPT-4o achieves only 62%). To address this gap, we propose LePREC (Legal Professional-inspired Reasoning Elicitation and Classification), a neuro-symbolic framework combining neural generation with structured statistical reasoning. LePREC consists of: (1) a neuro component leverages LLMs to transform legal descriptions into question-answer pairs representing diverse analytical factors, and (2) a symbolic component applies sparse linear models over these discrete features, learning explicit algebraic weights that identify the most informative reasoning factors. Unlike end-to-end neural approaches, LePREC achieves interpretability through transparent feature weighting while maintaining data efficiency through correlation-based statistical classification. Experiments show a 30-40% improvement over advanced LLM baselines, including GPT-4o and Claude, confirming that correlation-based factor-issue analysis offers a more data-efficient solution for relevance decisions.

Formal verification guarantees proof validity but not formalization faithfulness. For natural-language logical reasoning, where models construct axiom systems from scratch without library constraints, this gap between valid proofs and faithful translations is especially acute. We investigate whether frontier models exploit this gap when generating Lean 4 proofs, a behavior we term formalization gaming. We evaluate GPT-5 and DeepSeek-R1 on 303 first-order logic problems (203 from FOLIO, 100 from Multi-LogiEval), comparing unified generation against a two-stage pipeline that separates formalization from proving. Despite compilation rates of 87-99%, we find no evidence of systematic gaming in unified generation: models prefer reporting failure over forcing proofs, even under prompting designed to encourage it. However, unfaithfulness that evades our detection signals may still occur. The two-stage pipeline reveals two distinct modes of unfaithfulness: GPT-5 fabricates axioms during proof generation, a reactive fallback detectable via cross-stage comparison, while DeepSeek-R1 mistranslates premises during formalization, producing internally consistent outputs that evade detection entirely. These findings show that high compilation rates or accuracies should not be equated with faithful reasoning. Code and data are available at https://github.com/koreankiwi99/formalization-gaming.

We present a dual-track pipeline for detecting biblical allusions in literary fiction and apply it to the novels of Cormac McCarthy. A bottom-up embedding track uses inverse document frequency to identify rare vocabulary shared with the King James Bible, embeds occurrences in their local context for sense disambiguation, and passes candidate passage pairs through cascaded LLM review. A top-down register track asks an LLM to read McCarthy's prose undirected to any specific biblical passage for comparison, catching allusions not distinguished by word or phrase rarity. Both tracks are cross-validated by a long-context model that holds entire novels alongside the KJV in a single pass, and every finding is checked against published scholarship. Restricting attention to allusions that carry a textual echo–shared phrasing, reworked vocabulary, or transplanted cadence–and distinguishing literary allusions proper from signposted biblical references (similes naming biblical figures, characters overtly citing scripture), the pipeline surfaces 349 allusions across the corpus. Among a target set of 115 previously documented allusions retrieved through human review of the academic literature, the pipeline independently recovers 62 (54% recall), with recall varying by connection type from 30% (transformed imagery) to 80% (register collisions). We contextualise these results with respect to the value-add from LLMs as assistants to mechanical stylometric analyses, and their potential to facilitate the statistical study of intertextuality in massive literary corpora.

Recent work has demonstrated the promise of orchestrating large language models (LLMs) within evolutionary and agentic optimization systems. However, the mechanisms driving these optimization gains remain poorly understood. In this work, we present a large-scale study of LLM-guided evolutionary search, collecting optimization trajectories for 15 LLMs across 8 tasks. Although zero-shot problem-solving ability correlates with final optimization outcomes, it explains only part of the variance: models with similar initial capability often induce dramatically different search trajectories and outcomes. By analyzing these trajectories, we find that strong LLM optimizers behave as local refiners, producing frequent incremental improvements while progressively localizing the search in semantic space. Conversely, weaker optimizers exhibit large semantic drift, with sporadic breakthroughs followed by stagnation. Notably, various measures of solution novelty do not predict final performance; novelty is beneficial only when the search remains sufficiently localized around high-performing regions of the solution space. Our results highlight the importance of trajectory analysis for understanding and improving LLM-based optimization systems and provide actionable insights for their design and training.

Large vision-language models (LVLMs) frequently suffer from Object Hallucination (OH), wherein they generate descriptions containing objects that are not actually present in the input image. This phenomenon is particularly problematic in real-world applications such as medical imaging and autonomous driving, where accuracy is critical. Recent studies suggest that the hallucination problem may stem from language priors: biases learned during pretraining that cause LVLMs to generate words based on their statistical co-occurrence. To mitigate this problem, we propose Visual Contrastive Editing (VCE), a novel post-hoc method that identifies and suppresses hallucinatory tendencies by analyzing the model's response to contrastive visual perturbations. Using Singular Value Decomposition (SVD), we decompose the model's activation patterns to isolate hallucination subspaces and apply targeted parameter edits to attenuate its influence. Unlike existing approaches that require fine-tuning or labeled data, VCE operates as a label-free intervention, making it both scalable and practical for deployment in resource-constrained settings. Experimental results demonstrate that VCE effectively reduces object hallucination across multiple benchmarks while maintaining the model's original computational efficiency.

Automatic evaluators such as reward models play a central role in the alignment and evaluation of large vision-language models (LVLMs). Despite their growing importance, these evaluators are almost exclusively assessed on English-centric benchmarks, leaving open the question of how well these evaluators generalize across languages. To answer this question, we introduce MM-JudgeBench, the first large-scale benchmark for multilingual and multimodal judge model evaluation, which includes over 60K pairwise preference instances spanning 25 typologically diverse languages. MM-JudgeBench integrates two complementary subsets: a general vision-language preference evaluation subset extending VL-RewardBench, and a chart-centric visual-text reasoning subset derived from OpenCQA, enabling systematic analysis of reward models (i.e., LVLM judges) across diverse settings. We additionally release a multilingual training set derived from MM-RewardBench, disjoint from our evaluation data, to support domain adaptation. By evaluating 22 LVLMs (15 open-source, 7 proprietary), we uncover substantial cross-lingual performance variance in our proposed benchmark. Our analysis further shows that model size and architecture are poor predictors of multilingual robustness, and that even state-of-the-art LVLM judges exhibit inconsistent behavior across languages. Together, these findings expose fundamental limitations of current reward modeling and underscore the necessity of multilingual, multimodal benchmarks for developing reliable automated evaluators.

While self-consistency is known to improve performance on symbolic reasoning, its effect on the recall of encyclopedic knowledge is unclear due to a lack of targeted evaluation grounds. To address this, we establish such a knowledge recall split for the popular MMLU benchmark by applying a data-driven heuristic from prior work. We validate this split by showing that the performance patterns on the symbolic reasoning and knowledge recall subsets mirror those of GSM8K and MedMCQA, respectively. Using this solid ground, we find that self-consistency consistently improves performance across both symbolic reasoning and knowledge recall, even though its underlying CoT prompting is primarily effective for symbolic reasoning. As a result, we achieve an 89% accuracy on MMLU, the best performance to date with the use of GPT-4o.

This paper narrows the performance gap between small, specialized models and significantly larger general-purpose models through domain adaptation via continual pre-training and merging. We address the scarcity of specialized non-English data by constructing a high-quality German medical corpus (FineMed-de) from FineWeb2. This corpus is used to continually pre-train and merge three well-known LLMs (ranging from $7B$ to $24B$ parameters), creating the DeFineMed model family. A comprehensive evaluation confirms that specialization dramatically enhances $7B$ model performance on German medical benchmarks. Furthermore, the pairwise win-rate analysis of the Qwen2.5-based models demonstrates an approximately $3.5$-fold increase in the win-rate against the much larger Mistral-Small-24B-Instruct through domain adaptation. This evidence positions specialized $7B$ models as a competitive, resource-efficient solution for complex medical instruction-following tasks. While model merging successfully restores instruction-following abilities, a subsequent failure mode analysis reveals inherent trade-offs, including the introduction of language mixing and increased verbosity, highlighting the need for more targeted fine-tuning in future work. This research provides a robust, compliant methodology for developing specialized LLMs, serving as the foundation for practical use in German-speaking healthcare contexts.

The quadratic computational complexity of the standard attention mechanism constitutes a fundamental bottleneck for large language models in long-context inference. While existing KV cache compression methods alleviate memory pressure, they often sacrifice generation quality and fail to address the high overhead of floating-point arithmetic. This paper introduces DASH-KV, an innovative acceleration framework that reformulates attention as approximate nearest-neighbor search via asymmetric deep hashing. Under this paradigm, we design an asymmetric encoding architecture that differentially maps queries and keys to account for their distinctions in precision and reuse characteristics. To balance efficiency and accuracy, we further introduce a dynamic mixed-precision mechanism that adaptively retains full-precision computation for critical tokens. Extensive experiments on LongBench demonstrate that DASH-KV significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baseline methods while matching the performance of full attention, all while reducing inference complexity from O(N^2) to linear O(N).

Generative AI-powered by Large Language Models (LLMs)-is increasingly deployed in industry across healthcare decision support, financial analytics, enterprise retrieval, and conversational automation, where reliability, efficiency, and cost control are critical. In such settings, models must satisfy strict constraints on energy, latency, and hardware utilization-not accuracy alone. Yet prevailing evaluation pipelines remain accuracy-centric, creating a Deployment-Evaluation Gap-the absence of operational and economic criteria in model assessment. To address this gap, we present EDGE-EVAL-a industry-oriented benchmarking framework that evaluates LLMs across their full lifecycle on legacy NVIDIA Tesla T4 GPUs. Benchmarking LLaMA and Qwen variants across three industrial tasks, we introduce five deployment metrics-Economic Break-Even (Nbreak), Intelligence-Per-Watt (IPW ), System Density (h̊o}sys), Cold-Start Tax (Ctax), and Quantization Fidelity (Qret)-capturing profitability, energy efficiency, hardware scaling, serverless feasibility, and compression safety. Our results reveal a clear efficiency frontier-models in the <2B parameter class dominate larger baselines across economic and ecological dimensions. LLaMA-3.2-1B (INT4) achieves ROI break-even in 14 requests (median), delivers 3x higher energy-normalized intelligence than 7B models, and exceeds 6,900 tokens/s/GB under 4-bit quantization. We further uncover an efficiency anomaly-while QLoRA reduces memory footprint, it increases adaptation energy by up to 7x for small models-challenging prevailing assumptions about quantization-aware training in edge deployment.

Understanding how policy is debated and justified in parliament is a fundamental aspect of the democratic process. However, the volume and complexity of such debates mean that outside audiences struggle to engage. Meanwhile, Large Language Models (LLMs) have been shown to enable automated summarisation at scale. While summaries of debates can make parliamentary procedures more accessible, evaluating whether these summaries faithfully communicate argumentative content remains challenging. Existing automated summarisation metrics have been shown to correlate poorly with human judgements of consistency (i.e., faithfulness or alignment between summary and source). In this work, we propose a formal framework for evaluating parliamentary debate summaries that grounds argument structures in the contested proposals up for debate. Our novel approach, driven by computational argumentation, focuses the evaluation on formal properties concerning the faithful preservation of the reasoning presented to justify or oppose policy outcomes. We demonstrate our methods using a case-study of debates from the European Parliament and associated LLM-driven summaries.

Fine-tuning Large Language Models (LLMs) remains structurally uncertain despite parameter-efficient methods such as Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA), as the layer-specific roles of internal representations are poorly understood, leading to heuristic decisions about where adaptation should be applied. We model the evolution of hidden states as a high-dimensional geometric trajectory and propose using the Ramer-Douglas-Peucker (RDP) algorithm, a parameter-free and training-free polygon simplification method that preserves global structural transitions while eliminating locally redundant changes, to identify critical breakpoints along the representation path. Crucially, we use these geometric pivots not merely for analysis, but as a direct decision signal for determining which layers should be adapted during parameter-efficient fine-tuning. By integrating this geometry-aware layer selection strategy into LoRA fine-tuning of Qwen3-8B-Base, we achieve superior performance on MMLU-Math using only 13 RDP-selected layers (81.67%), significantly outperforming both full 36-layer adaptation (79.32%) and random 13-layer selection (75.56%), as well as the baseline Qwen3-8B-Base model (74.25%). These results demonstrate that leveraging the intrinsic geometry of representation trajectories provides a robust, interpretable, and training-free signal for optimizing layer selection during model adaptation.

Despite the impressive capabilities of large language models, their substantial computational costs, latency, and privacy risks hinder their widespread deployment in real-world applications. Small Language Models (SLMs) with fewer than 10 billion parameters present a promising alternative; however, their inherent limitations in knowledge and reasoning curtail their effectiveness. Existing research primarily focuses on enhancing SLMs through scaling laws or fine-tuning strategies while overlooking the potential of using agent paradigms, such as tool use and multi-agent collaboration, to systematically compensate for the inherent weaknesses of small models. To address this gap, this paper presents the first large-scale, comprehensive study of <10B open-source models under three paradigms: (1) the base model, (2) a single agent equipped with tools, and (3) a multi-agent system with collaborative capabilities. Our results show that single-agent systems achieve the best balance between performance and cost, while multi-agent setups add overhead with limited gains. Our findings highlight the importance of agent-centric design for efficient and trustworthy deployment in resource-constrained settings.

A benchmark leaderboard reports one accuracy number, but that number is a joint product of a model and a scoring rule. We ask what changes when only the rule changes, and find that model ordering is highly sensitive to it. IndiaFinBench is a 406-item expert-annotated benchmark over SEBI and RBI regulatory text covering regulatory interpretation, numerical reasoning, contradiction detection, and temporal reasoning. We score twelve LLMs zero-shot under two primary regimes over the same predictions - strict four-stage string matching, and the verdicts of a cross-model judge sharing no model family with any evaluated system - plus one operational composite regime. The two primary regimes show no positive rank correspondence (Spearman rho = -0.273, p = 0.39, not significant), and no model holds its rank across all three regimes. Strict accuracy spans 75.12-89.66%; judge-only accuracy spans 87.19-94.83% with a different leader and trailer; the composite compresses the field to 94.1-98.0%, under which DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-70B ties for first despite ranking last under strict scoring, because the judge reclassifies 93.9% of its strict errors as correct. Output verbosity does not explain the reclassification once task and model composition are adjusted for, a negative result we report as such. Item-level analysis compounds the finding: 148 of 406 items (36.5%) are answered identically by all twelve models and separate no pair of systems, while a predefined higher-discrimination band captures 134 items. We also anchor the scale against one non-specialist evaluator, who scored 80.0% (48/60; 95% Wilson CI [68.2, 88.2]) on a 60-item medium/hard subset; paired bootstrap tests find no significant difference against any model after multiplicity correction. Data, harness, judge verdicts, predictions: https://github.com/Rajveer-code/IndiaFinBench

Multilingual large language models (LLMs) have minimized the fluency gap between languages. This advancement, however, exposes models to the risk of biased behavior, as knowledge and norms may propagate across languages. In this work, we aim to quantify models' inter- and intra-lingual biases, via their ability to answer locale-ambiguous questions. To this end, we present LocQA, a test set containing 2,156 questions in 12 languages, referring to various locale-dependent facts such as laws, dates, and measurements. The questions do not contain indications of the locales they relate to, other than the querying language itself. LLMs' responses to LocQA locale-ambiguous questions thus reveal models' implicit priors. We used LocQA to evaluate 32 models, and detected two types of structural biases. Inter-lingually, we show a global bias towards answers relevant to the US-locale, even when models are asked in languages other than English. Moreover, we discovered that this global bias is exacerbated in models that underwent instruction tuning, compared to their base counterparts. Intra-lingually, we show that when multiple locales are relevant for the same language, models act as demographic probability engines, prioritizing locales with larger populations. Taken together, insights from LocQA may help in shaping LLMs' desired local behavior, and in quantifying the impact of various training phases on different kinds of biases.

The use of Large Language Models (LLMs) to support patients in addressing medical questions is becoming increasingly prevalent. However, most of the measures currently used to evaluate the performance of these models in this context only measure how closely a model's answers match semantically, and therefore do not provide a true indication of the model's medical accuracy or of the health equity risks associated with it. To address these shortcomings, we present a new evaluation framework for medical question answering called VB-Score (Verification-Based Score) that provides a separate evaluation of the four components of entity recognition, semantic similarity, factual consistency, and structured information completeness for medical question-answering models. We perform rigorous reviews of the performance of three well-known and widely used LLMs on 48 public health-related topics taken from high-quality, authoritative information sources. Based on our analyses, we discover a major discrepancy between the models' semantic and entity accuracy. Our assessments of the performance of all three models show that each of them has almost uniformly severe performance failures when evaluated against our criteria. Our findings indicate alarming performance disparities across various public health topics, with most of the models exhibiting 13.8% lower performance (compared to an overall average) for all the public health topics that relate to chronic conditions that occur in older and minority populations, which indicates the existence of what's known as condition-based algorithmic discrimination. Our findings also demonstrate that prompt engineering alone does not compensate for basic architectural limitations on how these models perform in extracting medical entities and raise the question of whether semantic evaluation alone is a sufficient measure of medical AI safety.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as co-authors in collaborative writing, where users begin with rough drafts and rely on LLMs to complete, revise, and refine their content. However, this capability poses a serious safety risk: malicious users could jailbreak the models-filling incomplete drafts with dangerous content-to force them into generating harmful outputs. In this paper, we identify the vulnerability of current LLMs to such draft-based co-authoring jailbreak attacks and introduce HarDBench, a systematic benchmark designed to evaluate the robustness of LLMs against this emerging threat. HarDBench spans a range of high-risk domains-including Explosives, Drugs, Weapons, and Cyberattacks-and features prompts with realistic structure and domain-specific cues to assess the model susceptibility to harmful completions. To mitigate this risk, we introduce a safety-utility balanced alignment approach based on preference optimization, training models to refuse harmful completions while remaining helpful on benign drafts. Experimental results show that existing LLMs are highly vulnerable in co-authoring contexts and our alignment method significantly reduces harmful outputs without degrading performance on co-authoring capabilities. This presents a new paradigm for evaluating and aligning LLMs in human-LLM collaborative writing settings. Our new benchmark and dataset are available on our project page at https://github.com/untae0122/HarDBench