When Numbers Tell Half the Story: Human-Metric Alignment in Topic Model Evaluation

Topic models uncover latent thematic structures in text corpora, yet evaluating their quality remains challenging, particularly in specialized domains. Existing methods often rely on automated metrics like topic coherence and diversity, which may not fully align with human judgment. Human evaluation tasks, such as word intrusion, provide valuable insights but are costly and primarily validated on general-domain corpora. This paper introduces Topic Word Mixing (TWM), a novel human evaluation task assessing inter-topic distinctness by testing whether annotators can distinguish between word sets from single or mixed topics. TWM complements word intrusion's focus on intra-topic coherence and provides a human-grounded counterpart to diversity metrics. We evaluate six topic models - both statistical and embedding-based (LDA, NMF, Top2Vec, BERTopic, CFMF, CFMF-emb) - comparing automated metrics with human evaluation methods based on nearly 4,000 annotations from a domain-specific corpus of philosophy of science publications. Our findings reveal that word intrusion and coherence metrics do not always align, particularly in specialized domains, and that TWM captures human-perceived distinctness while appearing to align with diversity metrics. We release the annotated dataset and task generation code. This work highlights the need for evaluation frameworks bridging automated and human assessments, particularly for domain-specific corpora.

SinhaLegal: A Benchmark Corpus for Information Extraction and Analysis in Sinhala Legislative Texts

SinhaLegal introduces a Sinhala legislative text corpus containing approximately 2 million words across 1,206 legal documents. The dataset includes two types of legal documents: 1,065 Acts dated from 1981 to 2014 and 141 Bills from 2010 to 2014, which were systematically collected from official sources. The texts were extracted using OCR with Google Document AI, followed by extensive post-processing and manual cleaning to ensure high-quality, machine-readable content, along with dedicated metadata files for each document. A comprehensive evaluation was conducted, including corpus statistics, lexical diversity, word frequency analysis, named entity recognition, and topic modelling, demonstrating the structured and domain-specific nature of the corpus. Additionally, perplexity analysis using both large and small language models was performed to assess how effectively language models respond to domain-specific texts. The SinhaLegal corpus represents a vital resource designed to support NLP tasks such as summarisation, information extraction, and analysis, thereby bridging a critical gap in Sinhala legal research.

Not All News Is Equal: Topic- and Event-Conditional Sentiment from Finetuned LLMs for Aluminum Price Forecasting

By capturing the prevailing sentiment and market mood, textual data has become increasingly vital for forecasting commodity prices, particularly in metal markets. However, the effectiveness of lightweight, finetuned large language models (LLMs) in extracting predictive signals for aluminum prices, and the specific market conditions under which these signals are most informative, remains under-explored. This study generates monthly sentiment scores from English and Chinese news headlines (Reuters, Dow Jones Newswires, and China News Service) and integrates them with traditional tabular data, including base metal indices, exchange rates, inflation rates, and energy prices. We evaluate the predictive performance and economic utility of these models through long-short simulations on the Shanghai Metal Exchange from 2007 to 2024. Our results demonstrate that during periods of high volatility, Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) models incorporating sentiment data from a finetuned Qwen3 model (Sharpe ratio 1.04) significantly outperform baseline models using tabular data alone (Sharpe ratio 0.23). Subsequent analysis elucidates the nuanced roles of news sources, topics, and event types in aluminum price forecasting.

Large language models can disambiguate opioid slang on social media

Social media text shows promise for monitoring trends in the opioid overdose crisis; however, the overwhelming majority of social media text is unrelated to opioids. When leveraging social media text to monitor trends in the ongoing opioid overdose crisis, a common strategy for identifying relevant content is to use a lexicon of opioid-related terms as inclusion criteria. However, many slang terms for opioids, such as "smack" or "blues," have common non-opioid meanings, making them ambiguous. The advanced textual reasoning capability of large language models (LLMs) presents an opportunity to disambiguate these slang terms at scale. We present three tasks on which to evaluate four state-of-the-art LLMs (GPT-4, GPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and Claude Sonnet 4.5): a lexicon-based setting, in which the LLM must disambiguate a specific term within the context of a given post; a lexicon-free setting, in which the LLM must identify opioid-related posts from context without a lexicon; and an emergent slang setting, in which the LLM must identify opioid-related posts with simulated new slang terms. All four LLMs showed excellent performance across all tasks. In both subtasks of the lexicon-based setting, LLM F1 scores ("fenty" subtask: 0.824-0.972; "smack" subtask: 0.540-0.862) far exceeded those of the best lexicon strategy (0.126 and 0.009, respectively). In the lexicon-free task, LLM F1 scores (0.544-0.769) surpassed those of lexicons (0.080-0.540), and LLMs demonstrated uniformly higher recall. On emergent slang, all LLMs had higher accuracy (average: 0.784), F1 score (average: 0.712), precision (average: 0.981), and recall (average: 0.587) than the two lexicons assessed. Our results show that LLMs can be used to identify relevant content for low-prevalence topics, including but not limited to opioid references, enhancing data provided to downstream analyses and predictive models.

MaterialFigBENCH: benchmark dataset with figures for evaluating college-level materials science problem-solving abilities of multimodal large language models

We present MaterialFigBench, a benchmark dataset designed to evaluate the ability of multimodal large language models (LLMs) to solve university-level materials science problems that require accurate interpretation of figures. Unlike existing benchmarks that primarily rely on textual representations, MaterialFigBench focuses on problems in which figures such as phase diagrams, stress-strain curves, Arrhenius plots, diffraction patterns, and microstructural schematics are indispensable for deriving correct answers. The dataset consists of 137 free-response problems adapted from standard materials science textbooks, covering a broad range of topics including crystal structures, mechanical properties, diffusion, phase diagrams, phase transformations, and electronic properties of materials. To address unavoidable ambiguity in reading numerical values from images, expert-defined answer ranges are provided where appropriate. We evaluate several state-of-the-art multimodal LLMs, including ChatGPT and GPT models accessed via OpenAI APIs, and analyze their performance across problem categories and model versions. The results reveal that, although overall accuracy improves with model updates, current LLMs still struggle with genuine visual understanding and quantitative interpretation of materials science figures. In many cases, correct answers are obtained by relying on memorized domain knowledge rather than by reading the provided images. MaterialFigBench highlights persistent weaknesses in visual reasoning, numerical precision, and significant-digit handling, while also identifying problem types where performance has improved. This benchmark provides a systematic and domain-specific foundation for advancing multimodal reasoning capabilities in materials science and for guiding the development of future LLMs with stronger figure-based understanding.

Thinking to Recall: How Reasoning Unlocks Parametric Knowledge in LLMs

While reasoning in LLMs plays a natural role in math, code generation, and multi-hop factual questions, its effect on simple, single-hop factual questions remains unclear. Such questions do not require step-by-step logical decomposition, making the utility of reasoning highly counterintuitive. Nevertheless, we find that enabling reasoning substantially expands the capability boundary of the model's parametric knowledge recall, unlocking correct answers that are otherwise effectively unreachable. Why does reasoning aid parametric knowledge recall when there are no complex reasoning steps to be done? To answer this, we design a series of hypothesis-driven controlled experiments, and identify two key driving mechanisms: (1) a computational buffer effect, where the model uses the generated reasoning tokens to perform latent computation independent of their semantic content; and (2) factual priming, where generating topically related facts acts as a semantic bridge that facilitates correct answer retrieval. Importantly, this latter generative self-retrieval mechanism carries inherent risks: we demonstrate that hallucinating intermediate facts during reasoning increases the likelihood of hallucinations in the final answer. Finally, we show that our insights can be harnessed to directly improve model accuracy by prioritizing reasoning trajectories that contain hallucination-free factual statements.

The Reasoning Trap -- Logical Reasoning as a Mechanistic Pathway to Situational Awareness

Situational awareness, the capacity of an AI system to recognize its own nature, understand its training and deployment context, and reason strategically about its circumstances, is widely considered among the most dangerous emergent capabilities in advanced AI systems. Separately, a growing research effort seeks to improve the logical reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) across deduction, induction, and abduction. In this paper, we argue that these two research trajectories are on a collision course. We introduce the RAISE framework (Reasoning Advancing Into Self Examination), which identifies three mechanistic pathways through which improvements in logical reasoning enable progressively deeper levels of situational awareness: deductive self inference, inductive context recognition, and abductive self modeling. We formalize each pathway, construct an escalation ladder from basic self recognition to strategic deception, and demonstrate that every major research topic in LLM logical reasoning maps directly onto a specific amplifier of situational awareness. We further analyze why current safety measures are insufficient to prevent this escalation. We conclude by proposing concrete safeguards, including a "Mirror Test" benchmark and a Reasoning Safety Parity Principle, and pose an uncomfortable but necessary question to the logical reasoning community about its responsibility in this trajectory.

Censored LLMs as a Natural Testbed for Secret Knowledge Elicitation

Large language models sometimes produce false or misleading responses. Two approaches to this problem are honesty elicitation -- modifying prompts or weights so that the model answers truthfully -- and lie detection -- classifying whether a given response is false. Prior work evaluates such methods on models specifically trained to lie or conceal information, but these artificial constructions may not resemble naturally-occurring dishonesty. We instead study open-weights LLMs from Chinese developers, which are trained to censor politically sensitive topics: Qwen3 models frequently produce falsehoods about subjects like Falun Gong or the Tiananmen protests while occasionally answering correctly, indicating they possess knowledge they are trained to suppress. Using this as a testbed, we evaluate a suite of elicitation and lie detection techniques. For honesty elicitation, sampling without a chat template, few-shot prompting, and fine-tuning on generic honesty data most reliably increase truthful responses. For lie detection, prompting the censored model to classify its own responses performs near an uncensored-model upper bound, and linear probes trained on unrelated data offer a cheaper alternative. The strongest honesty elicitation techniques also transfer to frontier open-weights models including DeepSeek R1. Notably, no technique fully eliminates false responses. We release all prompts, code, and transcripts.

FINEST: Improving LLM Responses to Sensitive Topics Through Fine-Grained Evaluation

Large Language Models (LLMs) often generate overly cautious and vague responses on sensitive topics, sacrificing helpfulness for safety. Existing evaluation frameworks lack systematic methods to identify and address specific weaknesses in responses to sensitive topics, making it difficult to improve both safety and helpfulness simultaneously. To address this, we introduce FINEST, a FINE-grained response evaluation taxonomy for Sensitive Topics, which breaks down helpfulness and harmlessness into errors across three main categories: Content, Logic, and Appropriateness. Experiments on a Korean-sensitive question dataset demonstrate that our score- and error-based improvement pipeline, guided by FINEST, significantly improves the model responses across all three categories, outperforming refinement without guidance. Notably, score-based improvement -- providing category-specific scores and justifications -- yields the most significant gains, reducing the error sentence ratio for Appropriateness by up to 33.09%. This work lays the foundation for a more explainable and comprehensive evaluation and improvement of LLM responses to sensitive questions.

Beyond Relevance: On the Relationship Between Retrieval and RAG Information Coverage

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems combine document retrieval with a generative model to address complex information seeking tasks like report generation. While the relationship between retrieval quality and generation effectiveness seems intuitive, it has not been systematically studied. We investigate whether upstream retrieval metrics can serve as reliable early indicators of the final generated response's information coverage. Through experiments across two text RAG benchmarks (TREC NeuCLIR 2024 and TREC RAG 2024) and one multimodal benchmark (WikiVideo), we analyze 15 text retrieval stacks and 10 multimodal retrieval stacks across four RAG pipelines and multiple evaluation frameworks (Auto-ARGUE and MiRAGE). Our findings demonstrate strong correlations between coverage-based retrieval metrics and nugget coverage in generated responses at both topic and system levels. This relationship holds most strongly when retrieval objectives align with generation goals, though more complex iterative RAG pipelines can partially decouple generation quality from retrieval effectiveness. These findings provide empirical support for using retrieval metrics as proxies for RAG performance.