Abstract:Token-level Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has become a standard way to elicit multi-step reasoning in large language models (LLMs), especially for mathematical word problems. However, generating long intermediate traces increases output length and inference cost, and can be inefficient when the model could arrive at the correct answer without extensive verbalization. This has motivated latent-space reasoning approaches that shift computation into hidden representations and only emit a final answer. Yet, many latent reasoning methods depend on a fixed number of latent refinement steps at inference, adding another hyperparameter that must be tuned across models and datasets to balance accuracy and efficiency. We introduce AdaAnchor, a latent reasoning framework that performs silent iterative computation by refining a set of latent anchor vectors attached to the input. AdaAnchor further incorporates an adaptive halting mechanism that monitors anchor stability across iterations and terminates refinement once the anchor dynamics converge, allocating fewer steps to easier instances while reserving additional refinement steps for harder ones under a shared maximum-step budget. Our empirical evaluation across three mathematical word-problem benchmarks shows that AdaAnchor with adaptive halting yields accuracy gains of up to 5% over fixed-step latent refinement while reducing average latent refinement steps by 48-60% under the same maximum-step budget. Compared to standard reasoning baselines, AdaAnchor achieves large reductions in generated tokens (92-93%) by moving computation into silent latent refinement, offering a different accuracy-efficiency trade-off with substantially lower output-token usage.
Abstract:Courtrooms are places where lives are determined and fates are sealed, yet they are not impervious to manipulation. Strategic use of manipulation in legal jargon can sway the opinions of judges and affect the decisions. Despite the growing advancements in NLP, its application in detecting and analyzing manipulation within the legal domain remains largely unexplored. Our work addresses this gap by introducing LegalCon, a dataset of 1,063 annotated courtroom conversations labeled for manipulation detection, identification of primary manipulators, and classification of manipulative techniques, with a focus on long conversations. Furthermore, we propose CLAIM, a two-stage, Intent-driven Multi-agent framework designed to enhance manipulation analysis by enabling context-aware and informed decision-making. Our results highlight the potential of incorporating agentic frameworks to improve fairness and transparency in judicial processes. We hope that this contributes to the broader application of NLP in legal discourse analysis and the development of robust tools to support fairness in legal decision-making. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/Disha1001/CLAIM.
Abstract:Despite advancements in drug development strategies, 90% of clinical trials fail. This suggests overlooked aspects in target validation and drug optimization. In order to address this, we introduce HeCiX-KG, Hetionet-Clinicaltrials neXus Knowledge Graph, a novel fusion of data from ClinicalTrials.gov and Hetionet in a single knowledge graph. HeCiX-KG combines data on previously conducted clinical trials from ClinicalTrials.gov, and domain expertise on diseases and genes from Hetionet. This offers a thorough resource for clinical researchers. Further, we introduce HeCiX, a system that uses LangChain to integrate HeCiX-KG with GPT-4, and increase its usability. HeCiX shows high performance during evaluation against a range of clinically relevant issues, proving this model to be promising for enhancing the effectiveness of clinical research. Thus, this approach provides a more holistic view of clinical trials and existing biological data.