Bridging Online Behavior and Clinical Insight: A Longitudinal LLM-based Study of Suicidality on YouTube Reveals Novel Digital Markers

Suicide remains a leading cause of death in Western countries, underscoring the need for new research approaches. As social media becomes central to daily life, digital footprints offer valuable insight into suicidal behavior. Focusing on individuals who attempted suicide while uploading videos to their channels, we investigate: How do suicidal behaviors manifest on YouTube, and how do they differ from expert knowledge? We applied complementary approaches: computational bottom-up, hybrid, and expert-driven top-down, on a novel longitudinal dataset of 181 YouTube channels from individuals with life-threatening attempts, alongside 134 control channels. In the bottom-up approach, we applied LLM-based topic modeling to identify behavioral indicators. Of 166 topics, five were associated with suicide-attempt, with two also showing temporal attempt-related changes ($p<.01$) - Mental Health Struggles ($+0.08$)* and YouTube Engagement ($+0.1$)*. In the hybrid approach, a clinical expert reviewed LLM-derived topics and flagged 19 as suicide-related. However, none showed significant attempt-related temporal effects beyond those identified bottom-up. Notably, YouTube Engagement, a platform-specific indicator, was not flagged by the expert, underscoring the value of bottom-up discovery. In the top-down approach, psychological assessment of suicide attempt narratives revealed that the only significant difference between individuals who attempted before and those attempted during their upload period was the motivation to share this experience: the former aimed to Help Others ($\beta=-1.69$, $p<.01$), while the latter framed it as part of their Personal Recovery ($\beta=1.08$, $p<.01$). By integrating these approaches, we offer a nuanced understanding of suicidality, bridging digital behavior and clinical insights. * Within-group changes in relation to the suicide attempt.

Multi-Domain Explainability of Preferences

Preference mechanisms, such as human preference, LLM-as-a-Judge (LaaJ), and reward models, are central to aligning and evaluating large language models (LLMs). Yet, the underlying concepts that drive these preferences remain poorly understood. In this work, we propose a fully automated end-to-end method for generating local and global concept-based explanations of preferences across multiple domains. Our method employs an LLM to discover concepts that differentiate between chosen and rejected responses and represent them with concept-based vectors. To model the relationships between concepts and preferences, we propose a white-box Hierarchical Multi-Domain Regression model that captures both domain-general and domain-specific effects. To evaluate our method, we curate a dataset spanning eight challenging and diverse domains and explain twelve mechanisms. Our method achieves strong preference prediction performance, outperforming baselines while also being explainable. Additionally, we assess explanations in two novel application-driven settings. First, guiding LLM outputs with concepts from LaaJ explanations yields responses that those judges consistently prefer. Second, prompting LaaJs with concepts explaining humans improves their preference predictions. Together, our work provides a new paradigm for explainability in the era of LLMs.

TabSTAR: A Foundation Tabular Model With Semantically Target-Aware Representations

While deep learning has achieved remarkable success across many domains, it has historically underperformed on tabular learning tasks, which remain dominated by gradient boosting decision trees (GBDTs). However, recent advancements are paving the way for Tabular Foundation Models, which can leverage real-world knowledge and generalize across diverse datasets, particularly when the data contains free-text. Although incorporating language model capabilities into tabular tasks has been explored, most existing methods utilize static, target-agnostic textual representations, limiting their effectiveness. We introduce TabSTAR: a Foundation Tabular Model with Semantically Target-Aware Representations. TabSTAR is designed to enable transfer learning on tabular data with textual features, with an architecture free of dataset-specific parameters. It unfreezes a pretrained text encoder and takes as input target tokens, which provide the model with the context needed to learn task-specific embeddings. TabSTAR achieves state-of-the-art performance for both medium- and large-sized datasets across known benchmarks of classification tasks with text features, and its pretraining phase exhibits scaling laws in the number of datasets, offering a pathway for further performance improvements.

Dementia Through Different Eyes: Explainable Modeling of Human and LLM Perceptions for Early Awareness

Cognitive decline often surfaces in language years before diagnosis. It is frequently non-experts, such as those closest to the patient, who first sense a change and raise concern. As LLMs become integrated into daily communication and used over prolonged periods, it may even be an LLM that notices something is off. But what exactly do they notice--and should be noticing--when making that judgment? This paper investigates how dementia is perceived through language by non-experts. We presented transcribed picture descriptions to non-expert humans and LLMs, asking them to intuitively judge whether each text was produced by someone healthy or with dementia. We introduce an explainable method that uses LLMs to extract high-level, expert-guided features representing these picture descriptions, and use logistic regression to model human and LLM perceptions and compare with clinical diagnoses. Our analysis reveals that human perception of dementia is inconsistent and relies on a narrow, and sometimes misleading, set of cues. LLMs, by contrast, draw on a richer, more nuanced feature set that aligns more closely with clinical patterns. Still, both groups show a tendency toward false negatives, frequently overlooking dementia cases. Through our interpretable framework and the insights it provides, we hope to help non-experts better recognize the linguistic signs that matter.

AdaptiVocab: Enhancing LLM Efficiency in Focused Domains through Lightweight Vocabulary Adaptation

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown impressive versatility as general purpose models. However, their broad applicability comes at a high-cost computational overhead, particularly in auto-regressive decoding where each step requires a forward pass. In domain-specific settings, general-purpose capabilities are unnecessary and can be exchanged for efficiency. In this work, we take a novel perspective on domain adaptation, reducing latency and computational costs by adapting the vocabulary to focused domains of interest. We introduce AdaptiVocab, an end-to-end approach for vocabulary adaptation, designed to enhance LLM efficiency in low-resource domains. AdaptiVocab can be applied to any tokenizer and architecture, modifying the vocabulary by replacing tokens with domain-specific n-gram-based tokens, thereby reducing the number of tokens required for both input processing and output generation. AdaptiVocab initializes new n-token embeddings using an exponentially weighted combination of existing embeddings and employs a lightweight fine-tuning phase that can be efficiently performed on a single GPU. We evaluate two 7B LLMs across three niche domains, assessing efficiency, generation quality, and end-task performance. Our results show that AdaptiVocab reduces token usage by over 25% without compromising performance

Inside-Out: Hidden Factual Knowledge in LLMs

This work presents a framework for assessing whether large language models (LLMs) encode more factual knowledge in their parameters than what they express in their outputs. While a few studies hint at this possibility, none has clearly defined or demonstrated this phenomenon. We first propose a formal definition of knowledge, quantifying it for a given question as the fraction of correct-incorrect answer pairs where the correct one is ranked higher. This gives rise to external and internal knowledge, depending on the information used to score individual answer candidates: either the model's observable token-level probabilities or its intermediate computations. Hidden knowledge arises when internal knowledge exceeds external knowledge. We then present a case study, applying this framework to three popular open-weights LLMs in a closed-book QA setup. Our results indicate that: (1) LLMs consistently encode more factual knowledge internally than what they express externally, with an average gap of 40%. (2) Surprisingly, some knowledge is so deeply hidden that a model can internally know an answer perfectly, yet fail to generate it even once, despite large-scale repeated sampling of 1,000 answers. This reveals fundamental limitations in the generation capabilities of LLMs, which (3) puts a practical constraint on scaling test-time compute via repeated answer sampling in closed-book QA: significant performance improvements remain inaccessible because some answers are practically never sampled, yet if they were, we would be guaranteed to rank them first.

The Alternative Annotator Test for LLM-as-a-Judge: How to Statistically Justify Replacing Human Annotators with LLMs

The "LLM-as-a-judge" paradigm employs Large Language Models (LLMs) as annotators and evaluators in tasks traditionally performed by humans. LLM annotations are widely used, not only in NLP research but also in fields like medicine, psychology, and social science. Despite their role in shaping study results and insights, there is no standard or rigorous procedure to determine whether LLMs can replace human annotators. In this paper, we propose a novel statistical procedure -- the Alternative Annotator Test (alt-test) -- that requires only a modest subset of annotated examples to justify using LLM annotations. Additionally, we introduce a versatile and interpretable measure for comparing LLM judges. To demonstrate our procedure, we curated a diverse collection of ten datasets, consisting of language and vision-language tasks, and conducted experiments with six LLMs and four prompting techniques. Our results show that LLMs can sometimes replace humans with closed-source LLMs (such as GPT-4o), outperforming open-source LLMs, and that prompting techniques yield judges of varying quality. We hope this study encourages more rigorous and reliable practices.

Are LLMs Better than Reported? Detecting Label Errors and Mitigating Their Effect on Model Performance

NLP benchmarks rely on standardized datasets for training and evaluating models and are crucial for advancing the field. Traditionally, expert annotations ensure high-quality labels; however, the cost of expert annotation does not scale well with the growing demand for larger datasets required by modern models. While crowd-sourcing provides a more scalable solution, it often comes at the expense of annotation precision and consistency. Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) offer new opportunities to enhance the annotation process, particularly for detecting label errors in existing datasets. In this work, we consider the recent approach of LLM-as-a-judge, leveraging an ensemble of LLMs to flag potentially mislabeled examples. Through a case study of four datasets from the TRUE benchmark, covering different tasks and domains, we empirically analyze the labeling quality of existing datasets, and compare expert, crowd-sourced, and our LLM-based annotations in terms of agreement, label quality, and efficiency, demonstrating the strengths and limitations of each annotation method. Our findings reveal a substantial number of label errors, which, when corrected, induce a significant upward shift in reported model performance. This suggests that many of the LLMs so-called mistakes are due to label errors rather than genuine model failures. Additionally, we discuss the implications of mislabeled data and propose methods to mitigate them in training to improve model performance.

GLEE: A Unified Framework and Benchmark for Language-based Economic Environments

Large Language Models (LLMs) show significant potential in economic and strategic interactions, where communication via natural language is often prevalent. This raises key questions: Do LLMs behave rationally? Can they mimic human behavior? Do they tend to reach an efficient and fair outcome? What is the role of natural language in the strategic interaction? How do characteristics of the economic environment influence these dynamics? These questions become crucial concerning the economic and societal implications of integrating LLM-based agents into real-world data-driven systems, such as online retail platforms and recommender systems. While the ML community has been exploring the potential of LLMs in such multi-agent setups, varying assumptions, design choices and evaluation criteria across studies make it difficult to draw robust and meaningful conclusions. To address this, we introduce a benchmark for standardizing research on two-player, sequential, language-based games. Inspired by the economic literature, we define three base families of games with consistent parameterization, degrees of freedom and economic measures to evaluate agents' performance (self-gain), as well as the game outcome (efficiency and fairness). We develop an open-source framework for interaction simulation and analysis, and utilize it to collect a dataset of LLM vs. LLM interactions across numerous game configurations and an additional dataset of human vs. LLM interactions. Through extensive experimentation, we demonstrate how our framework and dataset can be used to: (i) compare the behavior of LLM-based agents to human players in various economic contexts; (ii) evaluate agents in both individual and collective performance measures; and (iii) quantify the effect of the economic characteristics of the environments on the behavior of agents.

LLMs Know More Than They Show: On the Intrinsic Representation of LLM Hallucinations

Large language models (LLMs) often produce errors, including factual inaccuracies, biases, and reasoning failures, collectively referred to as "hallucinations". Recent studies have demonstrated that LLMs' internal states encode information regarding the truthfulness of their outputs, and that this information can be utilized to detect errors. In this work, we show that the internal representations of LLMs encode much more information about truthfulness than previously recognized. We first discover that the truthfulness information is concentrated in specific tokens, and leveraging this property significantly enhances error detection performance. Yet, we show that such error detectors fail to generalize across datasets, implying that -- contrary to prior claims -- truthfulness encoding is not universal but rather multifaceted. Next, we show that internal representations can also be used for predicting the types of errors the model is likely to make, facilitating the development of tailored mitigation strategies. Lastly, we reveal a discrepancy between LLMs' internal encoding and external behavior: they may encode the correct answer, yet consistently generate an incorrect one. Taken together, these insights deepen our understanding of LLM errors from the model's internal perspective, which can guide future research on enhancing error analysis and mitigation.