Papers

Full-duplex spoken dialogue models, such as Moshi, enable natural, low-latency voice conversations. However, they remain limited to the audio modality, lacking the facial expressions that are integral to human communication. We present Moshi-Face, the first full-duplex dialogue model that jointly processes the user's audio and facial input while simultaneously generating speech and facial motion. We first construct a vector-quantized variational autoencoder (VQ-VAE) as a face codec that encodes 3D head meshes extracted from facial videos into compact discrete tokens, referred to as face tokens, and conversely reconstructs 3D meshes from these tokens. We then extend Moshi with a Face Transformer module that generates face tokens non-autoregressively, enabling Moshi-Face to produce synchronized audio and face tokens in real time. Experiments show that Moshi-Face achieves audiovisual alignment at low latency while preserving the dialogue quality of the original audio-only model.

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) struggle as query-relevant objects become smaller. To address this, recent training-free approaches dynamically retrieve and zoom into local image regions. However, we show that indiscriminately applying retrieval ignores a critical vulnerability: the resolution-context trade-off. Patch-based zooming recovers details for small targets, but can split large objects and destroy global spatial context; attention-based retrieval better preserves large objects, but remains less reliable on tiny details; and global perception is often fastest when retrieval is unnecessary. Motivated by these failure modes, we introduce ViRGo (Visual Retrieval or Global Perception), a lightweight framework that formulates visual retrieval as an adaptive routing problem. ViRGo estimates object scale from the VLM's intrinsic localization heads during the initial forward pass and combines it with semantic token confidence to select between global perception, patch-based retrieval, and attention-based retrieval with minimal additional computation. Experiments across multiple VQA benchmarks and object-size groups show that ViRGo improves the accuracy-efficiency trade-off: it matches patch retrieval on small details, leverages attention-based retrieval for larger objects, and reduces inference time by routing to the global baseline when zooming is unnecessary.

A working citation looks like proof – but the fact that a link resolves does not mean the cited paper supports the claim. I find that current agentic models rarely fabricate citations (over $99\%$ resolve), yet roughly $15.9\%$ link to the wrong paper. Existing benchmarks miss this failure mode: when a question has a fixed answer key, a model can reproduce the expected source from that key rather than independently verifying that the source supports the claim. I introduce \textbf{\openbiorq{}}, a retrieval-grounded agentic benchmark of $12{,}553$ unsolved biomedical research questions across $12$ domains that treats open questions as a faithfulness-and-abstention probe. To my knowledge, this is the first biomedical benchmark to combine an agentic setting – where the model must issue multiple tool calls – with unsolved questions that have no answer key. Openness is verified against real follow-up evidence rather than a model's parametric knowledge. Difficulty is empirical: I anchor it on questions that three open-weight reference models fail to answer, rather than on subjective hardness labels. On this hardest subset, held-out models from the same lineage as the difficulty anchors solve only ~17%, while three independent frontier agents (Gemini-3-Pro, Opus-4.7, GPT-5.5) span a wide 29-60% range. The benchmark is thus hard, non-saturating (the best agent still leaves ~33-40% unsolved), and discriminating across capability tiers. Beyond difficulty, I observe agentic collapse on the hardest questions, where agents stop using their tools. For the most collapse-prone model, blocking tool access entirely barely changes its score – so tools stop paying off exactly where they are needed most. A frozen per-question checklist raises inter-judge agreement from Spearman 0.35 to 0.82.

Cross-lingual transfer is a model's ability to generalize capabilities from well-represented source languages to under-represented target languages. Existing measures of a model's transfer strength conflate improvements in transfer with general improvements to accuracy in the source language. We advocate for an alternate metric that reliably captures transfer strength called Hardness Adjusted Transfer (HAT) Score, and use it to derive multiple insights on factors influencing transfer strength. Our analysis across twenty diverse language models and three popular mainstream multilingual benchmarks argues that 1) transfer in small models is not broken, 2) we are making slower than expected progress in cross-lingual transfer with model size, and 3) we have made clear progress over time.

Accurate and comprehensive video captions with consistent subject references are critical for downstream understanding and generation tasks. However, few existing benchmarks can objectively and comprehensively evaluate these properties across diverse durations and scenarios, thereby hindering the advancement of video captioning models. To bridge this gap, we propose CapRiCorn-1K, a comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate both video captioning quality and subject referential consistency across long temporal horizons and diverse video domains. To accommodate varied evaluation needs, our benchmark supports both audiovisual and visual-only settings. Extensive experiments on CapRiCorn-1K reveal that current models generally struggle to generate accurate and comprehensive captions while maintaining consistent subject references. Moreover, as video duration increases, both the overall caption quality and subject referential consistency decline. Notably, our evaluation metrics exhibit strong correlations with the performance of downstream understanding and generation tasks conditioned on the generated captions, further validating their effectiveness. The project is available at https://github.com/xlchen0205/CapRiCorn-1K .

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in contexts requiring complex moral reasoning and value trade-offs. However, existing evaluations typically rely on item-level behavioral metrics, which fail to capture how models structurally prioritize competing values as a cohesive system. To address this, we propose a symmetric human-LLM evaluation framework, grounded in Q methodology, to measure value-structure alignment. Under our protocol, humans and models sort an identical 140-item moral statement set into a shared nine-column forced distribution; for LLMs, we elicit strict rankings and deterministically map them to Q-sort buckets. Using a human reference sample ($N=35$), we establish a stable three-factor reference geometry specific to this instrument and sample. We evaluate 12 LLMs across four model families via 240 replicated Q-sorts at two temperature settings, quantifying structural alignment via Procrustes similarity ($\phi$) and RSA-based Spearman correlation ($\rho$). Our results reveal significant cross-family heterogeneity, model-specific sensitivity to generation stochasticity and localized misalignment, which demonstrate that favorable global scores can obscure underlying regional distortions. While rank- and bucket-based analyses remain highly consistent, prompt phrasing introduces notable variance. Ultimately, assessing value-structure alignment provides a crucial structural complement to traditional itemwise moral benchmarks.

Confidence calibration in large language models (LLMs) is commonly evaluated by comparing predicted confidence with observed accuracy. However, such approaches do not model item difficulty, making it difficult to interpret discrepancies and to determine whether model confidence reflects genuine self-assessment or is merely a byproduct of the response generation process. To address this, we adopt a Rasch model-based latent ability framework and a metacognitive perspective, and propose Latent Confidence Alignment Error (LCAE) to measure the consistency between model self-assessment and the latent error probability implied by model ability and item difficulty. We further incorporate item difficulty as an external signal with a reasoning mechanism. Experiments on a medical-domain dataset with 20 models show that the proposed approach improves self-assessment quality without affecting model ability, and reveals an association between reliability and inference cost.

As mental health concerns continue to rise globally, social media has emerged as a vital space where individuals seek emotional support. While prior work on personalized emotional support has leveraged seekers' emotional states, personas, and situational context, these approaches primarily capture the seeker's current state, overlooking the formative experiences that shape present concerns. In this work, we propose MindTailor, a framework that generates personalized emotional support responses by constructing a case formulation from the seeker's post history and iteratively refining responses through collaborative critique among counselor agents grounded in distinct counseling strategies. To enable research on this history-aware task, we construct ReddiSupp, a dataset of 798 Reddit posts paired with seekers' prior post histories. Through LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation, expert human evaluation, and a user study with seekers, we demonstrate that MindTailor outperforms baselines across these evaluations, improving empathy, personalization, understanding, and achieving the highest overall preference.

Detecting hallucination risk before generation enables abstention, retrieval augmentation, and routing decisions without incurring the cost of decoding. While prior work has shown that such risk can be estimated from a model's internal representations, existing approaches treat this as binary classification over a single decoded output. We instead formulate it as a risk-estimation problem. Under this formulation, we introduce soft-target supervision based on the empirical answer error rate over stochastically sampled outputs - an estimator we prove to be the unique unbiased minimum-variance estimator of the model's per-prompt error probability under its sampling distribution. We further adapt attention probing to the pre-generation setting, enabling the detector to selectively aggregate hallucination-relevant prompt representations. Across three question-answering benchmarks and five models, attention probing outperforms linear probing on short-answer tasks. Replacing binary labels with soft-target supervision further and consistently improves detection quality.

This study explores gender differences in research topic choice and methodology among collaborating scholars. Previous studies have often focused on gender differences in research topics or methods at the individual level of scholars, without considering collaborating groups, lacking depth and practical guidance. This study takes Library and Information Science (LIS) as an example, employing the Top2Vec method for topic identification and the CogFT model for research method classification. It systematically analyzes 25,204 papers published between 1990 and 2022 to investigate gender differences in the convergence of research topics and method choices among collaborating scholars in this field. The results of the study found that female scholars showed lower convergence in their research methods and topic choices compared to male scholars. This study uses a relatively systematic methodology to address the difficulty of studying gender differences in academic publishing, and is expected to serve as a reference for other disciplines and research questions. This study also emphasizes the manifestation of gender differences in collaborative research and provides insights into the convergence and diversity of research topics and methods chosen by scholars.

Autoregressive generation in large language models (LLMs) conventionally decodes from the final layer, assuming that deeper representations yield more reliable next-token predictions. We revisit this assumption by revealing a recurring Guess-Refine-Perturb dynamic: early layers form coarse guesses, intermediate layers refine reasoning-relevant semantics, and final layers can perturb these refined predictions toward generic or alignment-preferred tokens. We introduce Confident Decoding, a training-free decoding strategy that dynamically selects the most reliable near-final layer through entropy-guided conservative backward search. We further provide a theoretical formulation of layer selection as an optimal stopping problem, showing that under bounded projection noise and dominant late-stage alignment perturbation, our search rule filters perturbation while bounding the loss relative to the oracle refinement layer. Experiments across dense and Mixture-of-Experts LLMs demonstrate consistent gains on challenging reasoning benchmarks, including GPQA-Diamond, Omni-MATH, and HLE, with zero memory overhead and less than 2% latency increase. These results suggest dynamically bypassing final-layer perturbations can unlock stronger reasoning behavior from aligned LLMs.

Purpose: Peer review is essential to scientific publishing, but increasing submission volumes have placed growing pressure on reviewers and editors. This study examines the relationship between sentiment toward specific review aspects and peer review duration. It also investigates how this relationship varies across disciplines and review rounds, with the aim of supporting targeted manuscript revision and improving review efficiency. Design/methodology/approach: We adopt a two-stage approach. First, fine-grained aspects are extracted from peer review reports, and a sentiment classification model is used to determine the sentiment associated with each aspect. Second, correlations between aspect-level sentiment and peer review duration are analyzed. Sentiment scores are also calculated for different review rounds to determine whether these relationships change over successive rounds. Findings: Review sentiment has a weak but statistically significant negative correlation with peer review duration, indicating that more positive reviews tend to be associated with shorter review periods. Aspects concerning Evaluation and Results and Impact and Research Value show relatively stronger correlations with review duration. The relationships between aspect-level sentiment and review duration also differ significantly across review rounds. Originality/value: This study connects the textual content of peer review reports with the temporal characteristics of the review process. By identifying review aspects that are more closely associated with review duration, it provides evidence that may help authors prioritize revisions and assist reviewers and editors in improving review efficiency. The findings contribute to reducing the burden of peer review and accelerating scholarly communication and knowledge dissemination.

Named Entity Recognition (NER) in low-resource languages suffers from limited supervision and a lack of high-quality pretrained embeddings. Biological olfaction, which relies on sparse combinatorial coding through receptor and glomerular organization, offers a compelling paradigm for learning robust representations under uncertainty. In this paper, we introduce a receptor-glomerular bottleneck - a novel, biologically-inspired olfactory architecture - between standard token embeddings and a BiLSTM-CRF sequence model. We evaluate our architecture across six multilingual datasets trained entirely from scratch (without pre-trained embeddings) under varied data-scale conditions, including a strict 1k-sentence low-resource control. Our results demonstrate that introducing a representation bottleneck yields F1 score improvements under severe data scarcity, primarily by acting as a powerful regularizer. Under the 1k capped training condition, at least one olfactory-inspired configuration achieves the highest mean F1 score across all six datasets. While these improvements represent near-ties with generic bottleneck controls for most languages, the olfactory architecture provides a significant advantage in languages like Bangla (+6.23% F1 over standard baseline and +8.47% F1 over the best control baseline) where generic bottlenecks degrade performance. We also observe improvements in the ultra-low-resource Telugu setting (+4.43% F1) at full-scale, and find that sparse specialization naturally emerges within the receptor layer. Our findings suggest that structured sparse coding inspired by olfactory networks serves as an effective inductive bias and regularizer when representations must be learned from limited or noisy supervision.

Scientific discovery can be formulated as an iterative search process over the space of hypotheses and experiments. Contemporary methods navigate this space using heuristics such as MCTS. These algorithms conflate the merit of a hypothesis with the quality of its experimental execution. A promising hypothesis with preliminary execution is therefore ranked below a modest hypothesis whose execution is refined. Moreover, prior methods prune the search logs as the search progresses because the accumulated history outgrows the context window. We propose Agentic Reasoning for Tree Search (ARTS), where we deploy a reasoning language model to navigate this space. The model inspects prior execution logs, diagnoses whether earlier failures arose from faulty implementations or bad hypotheses, and selects the hypothesis to build on next. To mitigate challenges with context length, ARTS uses test-time training to instill the knowledge of search tree in the model weights. Across 22 tasks from MLGym and MLEBench, we show that ARTS outperforms leading algorithms, with over 15.3% relative improvement in the normalized score. With test-time training we show that a Qwen3-4B agent can match performance with closed-source frontier models like Gemini-3 Pro and GPT o3-reasoning with upto 5x lower inference cost. We further observe that on partially observable RL tasks, the test-time trained Qwen3-4B scientist surpasses ARTS with the o3 scientist by rediscovering the human-best recurrent-memory solution that heuristic methods prune away.

In-context learning (ICL) with large language models (LLMs) has emerged as a powerful alternative to fine-tuning for Named Entity Recognition (NER), achieving strong performance with minimal annotation and no additional training. However, prior work has shown that despite their adaptability, LLMs still lag behind fully supervised models such as fine-tuned BERT in structured tasks like NER. While existing studies on ICL for NER have mainly explored few-shot settings, the potential of scaling to hundreds of demonstrations has not been thoroughly investigated. To address this gap, we conduct a comprehensive investigation of many-shot ICL for NER and further explore its effectiveness in annotating and refining data for low-resource NER tasks. Specifically, we evaluate various LLMs across multiple domains using hundreds of ICL examples and then assess the feasibility of using many-shot ICL as a data annotation framework. Our experiments demonstrate that: (1) scaling to hundreds of in-context examples enables LLMs to match or even surpass the performance of fully supervised BERT models; and (2) using about one hundred human-labeled examples as demonstrations, many-shot in-context annotation can generate high-quality labeled data, leading to approximately 10% absolute F1 improvement over existing state-of-the-art approaches when used to fine-tune BERT on low-resource NER.

Conversational AI promises a new kind of preparation for high-stakes workplace negotiations – personalized, interactive, and capable of simulating realistic resistance. That promise is intuitive. We built Trucey, a theory-driven coaching system, to test it. The system encoded four assumptions: that articulation supports clarification, that personalization builds strategic competence, that chunked delivery reduces cognitive load, and that structured scaffolding removes metacognitive burden. A pre-registered experiment (N=267) and interviews (N=15) complicated each of them. Notably, the static handbook we included as a passive control outperformed both AI conditions on empowerment and usability. We reflect on why: each assumption encoded a specific model of how preparation unfolds, and the findings revealed that conversational AI imposes a linear execution model on a task that is fundamentally recursive. We identify an unexamined scope condition on established HAI design guidelines and close with a sequencing principle – map before path, path before simulation – for future AI coaching design.

It is tempting to assume any task solvable by a short program can be taught to a model as its chain-of-thought: write the steps out, fine-tune, and the model follows. This paper shows the assumption fails for an identifiable class of procedures. The testbed is nine reasoning tasks, each from a deterministic generator; public and hidden splits share generators, so held-out data proxies test accuracy. I reverse-engineer the generators into Python solvers, render them as chain-of-thought, and distill into a rank-<= 32 LoRA over a 30B (3.5B-active) Nemotron model. Forward-computable tasks install readily: lookup/arithmetic and an 8-bit boolean task transfer (>= 0.99 and 0.68). Cryptarithm does not: distilling its backtracking search holds at 0.01-0.07 across eleven chain-of-thought designs, RL from verifiable rewards, and self-training, even though a search solver answers 71% of instances. This is not a capability gap. The model does the arithmetic on 97-100% of lines and ranks the correct cipher in its top eight on 71%; it cannot carry the search forward as a left-to-right derivation. Fine-tuning learns the shape of a verifiable elimination step while its verdicts become unconditional templates, correct only 16-57% of the time ("verdict-as-token"). The ceiling holds across backbones from 3B to 671B and across fine-tuning and prompting; a controlled intervention isolates the cause: revealing the cipher key, which turns the derivation forward, lifts the same instances from 0.03 to 0.57. When a procedure's only solution is search over information-free structure, no faithful forward chain-of-thought exists to imitate. The task becomes learnable only by removing the search, precomputing its combinatorial core into a catalog and reducing the trace to recall plus verification; the 1st-place solution reaches Private LB 0.92 this way. What distills is memorization and verification, not search.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in multilingual settings, yet the energy costs of serving these models across different languages remain poorly understood. We present a systematic study of inference energy consumption across languages with ML.Energy framework (Chung et al., 2026). We find striking disparities: energy consumption per output token varies by up to 8.3 times across languages, while total energy for a fixed set of requests varies by up to 179 times between the cheapest (English, 17.6 kJ) and the most expensive (Pashto, 3,147 kJ) languages. Our analysis shows that this disparity is driven by two compounding factors: (1) higher per-token energy costs for languages using complex or rare scripts, and (2) more tokens generated for low-resource languages. Moreover, we find a double cost + performance penalty: languages with the highest energy footprints also tend to achieve the lowest task accuracy. We reveal that the energy divide persists across models, hardware, and tasks, suggesting a systemic energy inequity in multilingual LLM deployment. Finally, we recommend that the community treat energy as a first-class evaluation axis, extend reporting checklists and model cards to include it, and adopt deployment-side mitigations for better energy efficiency.

Current evaluations of Large Language Models (LLMs) on logical fallacy detection focus on predicted labels, but do not establish whether those labels are supported by the reasoning the models provide. We propose ForEx (Formal Verification for Explainable Reasoning), a framework that translates LLM-generated explanations into Lean4 and verifies whether the translated rationale is derivable under encoded premises, not the logical validity of the original natural language argument. To distinguish prediction outcomes from the formal status of the supporting reasoning, we introduce the LLM Argument Verification Matrix, which separates label consistency from formal verification status. Experiments on LOGIC-Climate show that over 90% of LLM outputs can be translated into formal reasoning chains that pass verification, while agreement with human annotations remains around 20%. These results expose a systematic gap between formal derivability and label agreement, a distinction invisible to prediction-based metrics. ForEx moves LLM evaluation beyond label correctness toward machine-checkable analysis of formalized reasoning chains.

Academic age critically shapes career development, influencing research behavior, output volume, and methodological choices. Analyzing method variation across academic ages offers a new theoretical lens on scholarly evolution and provides early-career researchers with practical guidance for method selection. A corpus of 26,677 articles published 1990-2023 in 14 authoritative Library and Information Science journals was compiled. The CogFT model automatically classified the research methods embedded in these articles, and Top2Vec generated the topic model. This process resulted in a comprehensive dataset linking research methods with topics. Author-name disambiguation enabled calculation of each scholar's academic age. Popularity and Shannon diversity indices for methods, together with topic diversity, were compared across academic age groups. Results reveal dynamic methodological trends: the share of theoretical approaches declined gradually, whereas experimental and bibliometric methods gained ground. Method popularity differs significantly among cohorts. Mid-career scholars exhibit the highest method diversity; late-career scholars the lowest.

Knowledge Distillation (KD) has established itself as a pivotal technique for compressing large pre-trained language models. However, existing methods that force a student to strictly mimic the teacher's sentence embeddings or internal features often incur prohibitive computational costs and yield suboptimal performance due to the inherent capacity gap. To address these challenges, we propose TALAS (Teacher-Anchored Layer Alignment with Sharpness-aware minimization), a unified framework that synergizes hierarchical (multi-layer) alignment with robust optimization. First, we introduce a Teacher-Anchored mechanism that selectively distills final sentence embeddings only into the student's upper layers, thereby reducing overhead while respecting capacity constraints. Second, we bridge the semantic gap in lower layers via Layer-Aligned Self-Distillation, which propagates knowledge top-down using internal geometric relational constraints in the embedding space. Finally, to prevent the student from memorizing point-wise teacher noise, we integrate Adaptive Sharpness-Aware Minimization (ASAM) into the training objective, guiding the model towards flat minima for enhanced generalization. Empirical results on standard sentence embedding benchmarks demonstrate that TALAS consistently outperforms strong distillation baselines while achieving superior training efficiency in terms of computational cost and memory footprint.

Transformer architectures form the foundation of modern natural language processing, yet the Key-Value (KV) cache introduces substantial memory and bandwidth overhead during long-context generation, increasingly bottlenecking large-scale deployment. We propose Keyless Attention, a novel attention mechanism that replaces the conventional key projection with a dedicated value-space routing projection, eliminating key representations from the attention computation entirely and yielding a Value-Only Cache that reduces KV-cache memory by 50% while improving decode throughput. Experiments across multiple models and architectures demonstrate that Keyless Attention achieves comparable perplexity and downstream task performance to standard QKV attention, while consistently reducing KV-cache memory by 50%. Furthermore, Keyless Attention exhibits slower validation loss degradation after the best epoch, indicating improved robustness against overfitting. Ablation studies confirm that the dedicated value-space routing projection is critical, with Keyless Attention outperforming KV-sharing methods that eliminate the key cache without replacing its routing role. Experiments in the pretraining regime further confirm the viability of Keyless Attention in industrial settings.

As AI systems integrate into online spaces, differentiating them from humans in conversations is increasingly important. We present Inverse Turing Bench, a benchmark that evaluates LLMs and other models on their ability to differentiate humans and AI in multi-turn text. The benchmark provides a collection of paired dialogue transcripts, wherein one dialogue is between two humans and the other is between a human and an AI. The task is to correctly identify which dialogue is human-only vs. human-AI. We evaluated a preliminary set of models against this benchmark, and found that GPTZero, Claude Opus-4.6, and GPT-5.5 achieve the highest accuracy: 89.41%, 77.92%, and 75.94% respectively. Our results suggest that statistical approaches to detection have semantic blind spots, but semantic approaches are susceptible to persona-prompting. Our work speaks to the Inverse Turing Test and motivates human-AI differentiation as a critical capability for AI systems. Our live benchmark can be found at https://huggingface.co/spaces/roc-hci/Inverse-Turing-Bench-Leaderboard.

AI agents in long-context applications drift from their specified identity. Current methods detect this only after qualitative degradation is visible. We present a geometric framework for measuring identity structure using $\sqrt{\mathrm{JSD}}$ metric spaces and magnitude homology from enriched category theory, where identity is non-geodesic structure and drift is its relaxation toward the geodesic. Validated on a persistent AI agent, the framework's strongest empirical finding is a two-mechanism conditioning structure: cross-condition distances reveal an identity-vacuum cluster where the identity specification fills a behavioral void, and a safety-basin cluster where it displaces from post-training attractors. An equilateral probe baseline confirms that the identity specification creates measurable behavioral richness (55 unique response patterns vs. 1 for the base model) at maximum probe separation. A first-order perturbation theory for equilateral configurations predicts magnitude changes from perimeter changes alone, with shape perturbations first-order cancelled by the $S_n$ symmetry; the formula is self-consistent at the observed perturbation amplitudes. A drift experiment measuring magnitude decrease under context pressure was subsequently found to reflect repetitive-padding artifacts rather than genuine context-length drift; diverse padding produces no measurable deformation through 150K tokens. The magnitude homology framework's full diagnostic promise – detecting anisotropic contraction and structural collapse via homological simplification – is architecturally grounded in the perturbation theory and selection rules but remains empirically unconfirmed.

Understanding the causal structure of a language model's thought process is a problem of significant importance for both transparency and safety. In this work, we take a local approach toward this goal by analyzing the causal relationships among individual components, termed units, of a given, specific chain-of-thought trace. We construct a structural causal model on these units and relate each unit to the log probability of generating (subsequent) output units. Our algorithm, termed AttriCoT, is a black-box method that performs attribution by estimating importance parameters in the structural causal model using $O(U)$ forward passes through the model, where $U$ is the number of units. Evaluation of perturbation curves across 5 datasets and 4 reasoning models shows that AttriCoT produces attributions that are more faithful to the model's behavior than alternative methods. The attribution results also reveal notable differences in thought structure between models and domains.

Epidemiological models often rely on survey data to represent how individuals make health-related decisions, such as whether to vaccinate or adopt protective behaviors. However, repeated large-scale surveys are costly, time-consuming, and limited in the range of scenarios they can capture. In this work, we investigate whether large language models (LLMs) can generate synthetic survey responses that reproduce patterns observed in real populations. Using longitudinal data from the FluPaths surveys, we first identify groups associated with broadly positive or negative attitudes toward vaccination through clustering analysis. We then evaluate several LLMs using a cluster-informed prompting approach to generate synthetic survey responses across multiple epidemic waves. Across models, the synthetic data generally reproduce the distributions of demographic characteristics, vaccination-related beliefs, risk perceptions, and health behaviors observed in the survey data. However, they are less successful at capturing how these factors vary together within respondents. Some models reproduce group-level vaccination trends more reliably than others, although performance varies across waves. We also trained a classifier to distinguish real from synthetic records and found that the generated responses remained identifiable as synthetic. Overall, our findings suggest that LLM-generated survey data may provide a useful tool for exploratory data augmentation and we hope that it could support agent-based epidemic modeling approaches. However, the generated data should not be treated as a substitute for human survey data without further methodological improvements and validation.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) evaluations often compare readers after a compressor has changed their evidence. This mixes two questions: which complete pipeline works best, and how much of a reader upgrade survives compression. We show that fixed compression can raise average pipeline accuracy while hiding most of a reader upgrade. We hold questions, retrieved candidates, prompts, scoring, and compressed text fixed while comparing 8-20 readers across five question-answering benchmarks and five compression families. HotpotQA and MuSiQue are the main benchmarks, analyzed under a plan fixed in advance. In the 20-reader HotpotQA panel, the lowest- and highest-scoring readers under raw evidence are 31.8 percentage points (pp) apart before compression but only 7.8pp apart on the same stored output from a HotpotQA-trained RECOMP compressor. On both main benchmarks, lower raw-scoring readers gain more under exact match and token-overlap F1. Reader pairs also change order more often under compressed evidence than in raw replays across question halves. Row-level accounting explains how higher average accuracy and smaller upgrades coexist: compression rescues some wrong answers and damages some correct answers, with a different balance for each reader. We release ragscale to audit declared reader upgrades under raw and fixed compressed evidence. Reader evaluations should run this audit before attributing a compressed-only result to the reader.

Large language models state false facts as fluently as true ones, yet a model often "knows" internally when it is on shaky ground: the probability it assigns to its own answer tends to dip on the facts it gets wrong. The usual way to act on this, teaching a model to abstain rather than guess, requires a labelled dataset of right and wrong answers. We ask whether the model's own confidence, which is free and needs no labels, can do that job instead. We fine-tune each model (with LoRA) to answer when its frozen confidence is high and to say "I'm not sure" when it is low, using the signal alone and no correctness labels. Across six open-weights models (1B-8B, two families) on short-form factual question answering, with correctness adjudicated by an independent judge model, this label-free recipe holds its own against label-supervised abstention-tuning: at matched coverage we find no statistically detectable difference between the two. A control that drills hard examples instead of abstaining does not help, indicating the gain comes from calibration, not rote memorization. The signal's one blind spot is confidently wrong facts, which it cannot flag. A model's own doubt is thus a near-free substitute for a labelled dataset when teaching it when to abstain. Code and artifacts are available on request.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are probabilistic models, typically defined by an autoregressive factorization. While recent work has begun to study richer target distributions beyond the base model, the sampling strategies remain highly inefficient. In this paper, we present a flexible and theoretically grounded framework for steering and scaling autoregressive LLMs with sampling. Within this framework, we describe two algorithms – one based on Sequential Monte Carlo (SMC) and one based on Replica Exchange (RE) – that steer generation toward powering, product or tilting of the base model distribution. We illustrate this framework through scaling the generation quality of LLMs without external supervision or reward models. Experimental results demonstrate our methods scale more favorably than Best-of-N and standard MCMC baselines. Overall, this paper offers a systematic recipe for probabilistic inference with LLMs via sampling.

A common claim is that zero-shot large language models (LLMs) can replace fine-tuned NLU classifiers for intent detection. We test this claim head-to-head and find that the honest answer is: it depends on the intent space. On full ATIS and CLINC150 we compare a fine-tuned RoBERTa, a TF-IDF+logistic-regression baseline, sentence-embedding kNN, and Claude Haiku zero-shot, reporting bootstrap 95% confidence intervals and paired significance tests. When abundant in-domain labels exist, fine-tuned RoBERTa is as good or better and three orders of magnitude cheaper and faster: on ATIS it beats Claude zero-shot by 11.8 points (95.9 vs. 84.1, p<0.001). On the broad 150-intent CLINC150 schema the two are statistically tied (89.1 vs. 88.5, p=0.24): the LLM matches a fully supervised model with no training data. The LLM's advantages appear in three production-relevant regimes: out-of-scope detection (OOS recall 85.6 vs. 58.1 for RoBERTa); robustness to realistic ASR noise via a controlled text-to-speech to noise to Whisper pipeline (92.5 vs. 80.0 at 0 dB); and dynamic per-deployment schemas, where a classifier trained on one app's intents scores 0% on a new app's intents while the schema-prompted LLM serves both at ~94% with zero retraining. We distill these findings into a decision framework for practitioners.