How Quantization Shapes Bias in Large Language Models

This work presents a comprehensive evaluation of how quantization affects model bias, with particular attention to its impact on individual demographic subgroups. We focus on weight and activation quantization strategies and examine their effects across a broad range of bias types, including stereotypes, toxicity, sentiment, and fairness. We employ both probabilistic and generated text-based metrics across nine benchmarks and evaluate models varying in architecture family and reasoning ability. Our findings show that quantization has a nuanced impact on bias: while it can reduce model toxicity and does not significantly impact sentiment, it tends to slightly increase stereotypes and unfairness in generative tasks, especially under aggressive compression. These trends are generally consistent across demographic categories and model types, although their magnitude depends on the specific setting. Overall, our results highlight the importance of carefully balancing efficiency and ethical considerations when applying quantization in practice.

Expert Preference-based Evaluation of Automated Related Work Generation

Expert domain writing, such as scientific writing, typically demands extensive domain knowledge. Recent advances in LLMs show promising potential in reducing the expert workload. However, evaluating the quality of automatically generated scientific writing is a crucial open issue, as it requires knowledge of domain-specific evaluation criteria and the ability to discern expert preferences. Conventional automatic metrics and LLM-as-a-judge systems are insufficient to grasp expert preferences and domain-specific quality standards. To address this gap and support human-AI collaborative writing, we focus on related work generation, one of the most challenging scientific tasks, as an exemplar. We propose GREP, a multi-turn evaluation framework that integrates classical related work evaluation criteria with expert-specific preferences. Instead of assigning a single score, our framework decomposes the evaluation into fine-grained dimensions. This localized evaluation approach is further augmented with contrastive few-shot examples to provide detailed contextual guidance for the evaluation dimensions. The design principles allow our framework to deliver cardinal assessment of quality, which can facilitate better post-training compared to ordinal preference data. For better accessibility, we design two variants of GREP: a more precise variant with proprietary LLMs as evaluators, and a cheaper alternative with open-weight LLMs. Empirical investigation reveals that our framework is able to assess the quality of related work sections in a much more robust manner compared to standard LLM judges, reflects natural scenarios of scientific writing, and bears a strong correlation with the human expert assessment. We also observe that generations from state-of-the-art LLMs struggle to satisfy validation constraints of a suitable related work section. They (mostly) fail to improve based on feedback as well.

Tailored Emotional LLM-Supporter: Enhancing Cultural Sensitivity

Large language models (LLMs) show promise in offering emotional support and generating empathetic responses for individuals in distress, but their ability to deliver culturally sensitive support remains underexplored due to lack of resources. In this work, we introduce CultureCare, the first dataset designed for this task, spanning four cultures and including 1729 distress messages, 1523 cultural signals, and 1041 support strategies with fine-grained emotional and cultural annotations. Leveraging CultureCare, we (i) develop and test four adaptation strategies for guiding three state-of-the-art LLMs toward culturally sensitive responses; (ii) conduct comprehensive evaluations using LLM judges, in-culture human annotators, and clinical psychologists; (iii) show that adapted LLMs outperform anonymous online peer responses, and that simple cultural role-play is insufficient for cultural sensitivity; and (iv) explore the application of LLMs in clinical training, where experts highlight their potential in fostering cultural competence in future therapists.

Decision-Making with Deliberation: Meta-reviewing as a Document-grounded Dialogue

Meta-reviewing is a pivotal stage in the peer-review process, serving as the final step in determining whether a paper is recommended for acceptance. Prior research on meta-reviewing has treated this as a summarization problem over review reports. However, complementary to this perspective, meta-reviewing is a decision-making process that requires weighing reviewer arguments and placing them within a broader context. Prior research has demonstrated that decision-makers can be effectively assisted in such scenarios via dialogue agents. In line with this framing, we explore the practical challenges for realizing dialog agents that can effectively assist meta-reviewers. Concretely, we first address the issue of data scarcity for training dialogue agents by generating synthetic data using Large Language Models (LLMs) based on a self-refinement strategy to improve the relevance of these dialogues to expert domains. Our experiments demonstrate that this method produces higher-quality synthetic data and can serve as a valuable resource towards training meta-reviewing assistants. Subsequently, we utilize this data to train dialogue agents tailored for meta-reviewing and find that these agents outperform \emph{off-the-shelf} LLM-based assistants for this task. Finally, we apply our agents in real-world meta-reviewing scenarios and confirm their effectiveness in enhancing the efficiency of meta-reviewing.\footnote{Code and Data: https://github.com/UKPLab/arxiv2025-meta-review-as-dialog

SPARE: Single-Pass Annotation with Reference-Guided Evaluation for Automatic Process Supervision and Reward Modelling

Process or step-wise supervision has played a crucial role in advancing complex multi-step reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, efficient, high-quality automated process annotation remains a significant challenge. To address this, we introduce Single-Pass Annotation with Reference-Guided Evaluation (SPARE), a novel structured framework that enables single-pass, per-step annotation by aligning each solution step to one or multiple steps in a reference solution, accompanied by explicit reasoning for evaluation. We show that reference-guided step-level evaluation effectively facilitates process supervision on four datasets spanning three domains: mathematical reasoning, multi-hop compositional question answering, and spatial reasoning. We demonstrate that SPARE, when compared to baselines, improves reasoning performance when used for: (1) fine-tuning models in an offline RL setup for inference-time greedy-decoding, and (2) training reward models for ranking/aggregating multiple LLM-generated outputs. Additionally, SPARE achieves competitive performance on challenging mathematical datasets while offering 2.6 times greater efficiency, requiring only 38% of the runtime, compared to tree search-based automatic annotation. The codebase, along with a trained SPARE-PRM model, is publicly released to facilitate further research and reproducibility.

Factual Self-Awareness in Language Models: Representation, Robustness, and Scaling

Factual incorrectness in generated content is one of the primary concerns in ubiquitous deployment of large language models (LLMs). Prior findings suggest LLMs can (sometimes) detect factual incorrectness in their generated content (i.e., fact-checking post-generation). In this work, we provide evidence supporting the presence of LLMs' internal compass that dictate the correctness of factual recall at the time of generation. We demonstrate that for a given subject entity and a relation, LLMs internally encode linear features in the Transformer's residual stream that dictate whether it will be able to recall the correct attribute (that forms a valid entity-relation-attribute triplet). This self-awareness signal is robust to minor formatting variations. We investigate the effects of context perturbation via different example selection strategies. Scaling experiments across model sizes and training dynamics highlight that self-awareness emerges rapidly during training and peaks in intermediate layers. These findings uncover intrinsic self-monitoring capabilities within LLMs, contributing to their interpretability and reliability.

Community Moderation and the New Epistemology of Fact Checking on Social Media

Social media platforms have traditionally relied on internal moderation teams and partnerships with independent fact-checking organizations to identify and flag misleading content. Recently, however, platforms including X (formerly Twitter) and Meta have shifted towards community-driven content moderation by launching their own versions of crowd-sourced fact-checking -- Community Notes. If effectively scaled and governed, such crowd-checking initiatives have the potential to combat misinformation with increased scale and speed as successfully as community-driven efforts once did with spam. Nevertheless, general content moderation, especially for misinformation, is inherently more complex. Public perceptions of truth are often shaped by personal biases, political leanings, and cultural contexts, complicating consensus on what constitutes misleading content. This suggests that community efforts, while valuable, cannot replace the indispensable role of professional fact-checkers. Here we systemically examine the current approaches to misinformation detection across major platforms, explore the emerging role of community-driven moderation, and critically evaluate both the promises and challenges of crowd-checking at scale.

From Surveys to Narratives: Rethinking Cultural Value Adaptation in LLMs

Adapting cultural values in Large Language Models (LLMs) presents significant challenges, particularly due to biases and limited training data. Prior work primarily aligns LLMs with different cultural values using World Values Survey (WVS) data. However, it remains unclear whether this approach effectively captures cultural nuances or produces distinct cultural representations for various downstream tasks. In this paper, we systematically investigate WVS-based training for cultural value adaptation and find that relying solely on survey data can homogenize cultural norms and interfere with factual knowledge. To investigate these issues, we augment WVS with encyclopedic and scenario-based cultural narratives from Wikipedia and NormAd. While these narratives may have variable effects on downstream tasks, they consistently improve cultural distinctiveness than survey data alone. Our work highlights the inherent complexity of aligning cultural values with the goal of guiding task-specific behavior.

From Problem-Solving to Teaching Problem-Solving: Aligning LLMs with Pedagogy using Reinforcement Learning

Large language models (LLMs) can transform education, but their optimization for direct question-answering often undermines effective pedagogy which requires strategically withholding answers. To mitigate this, we propose an online reinforcement learning (RL)-based alignment framework that can quickly adapt LLMs into effective tutors using simulated student-tutor interactions by emphasizing pedagogical quality and guided problem-solving over simply giving away answers. We use our method to train a 7B parameter tutor model without human annotations which reaches similar performance to larger proprietary models like LearnLM. We introduce a controllable reward weighting to balance pedagogical support and student solving accuracy, allowing us to trace the Pareto frontier between these two objectives. Our models better preserve reasoning capabilities than single-turn SFT baselines and can optionally enhance interpretability through thinking tags that expose the model's instructional planning.

In-depth Research Impact Summarization through Fine-Grained Temporal Citation Analysis

Understanding the impact of scientific publications is crucial for identifying breakthroughs and guiding future research. Traditional metrics based on citation counts often miss the nuanced ways a paper contributes to its field. In this work, we propose a new task: generating nuanced, expressive, and time-aware impact summaries that capture both praise (confirmation citations) and critique (correction citations) through the evolution of fine-grained citation intents. We introduce an evaluation framework tailored to this task, showing moderate to strong human correlation on subjective metrics such as insightfulness. Expert feedback from professors reveals a strong interest in these summaries and suggests future improvements.