Perspectives - Interactive Document Clustering in the Discourse Analysis Tool Suite

This paper introduces Perspectives, an interactive extension of the Discourse Analysis Tool Suite designed to empower Digital Humanities (DH) scholars to explore and organize large, unstructured document collections. Perspectives implements a flexible, aspect-focused document clustering pipeline with human-in-the-loop refinement capabilities. We showcase how this process can be initially steered by defining analytical lenses through document rewriting prompts and instruction-based embeddings, and further aligned with user intent through tools for refining clusters and mechanisms for fine-tuning the embedding model. The demonstration highlights a typical workflow, illustrating how DH researchers can leverage Perspectives's interactive document map to uncover topics, sentiments, or other relevant categories, thereby gaining insights and preparing their data for subsequent in-depth analysis.

Supercharging Agenda Setting Research: The ParlaCAP Dataset of 28 European Parliaments and a Scalable Multilingual LLM-Based Classification

This paper introduces ParlaCAP, a large-scale dataset for analyzing parliamentary agenda setting across Europe, and proposes a cost-effective method for building domain-specific policy topic classifiers. Applying the Comparative Agendas Project (CAP) schema to the multilingual ParlaMint corpus of over 8 million speeches from 28 parliaments of European countries and autonomous regions, we follow a teacher-student framework in which a high-performing large language model (LLM) annotates in-domain training data and a multilingual encoder model is fine-tuned on these annotations for scalable data annotation. We show that this approach produces a classifier tailored to the target domain. Agreement between the LLM and human annotators is comparable to inter-annotator agreement among humans, and the resulting model outperforms existing CAP classifiers trained on manually-annotated but out-of-domain data. In addition to the CAP annotations, the ParlaCAP dataset offers rich speaker and party metadata, as well as sentiment predictions coming from the ParlaSent multilingual transformer model, enabling comparative research on political attention and representation across countries. We illustrate the analytical potential of the dataset with three use cases, examining the distribution of parliamentary attention across policy topics, sentiment patterns in parliamentary speech, and gender differences in policy attention.

Human Control Is the Anchor, Not the Answer: Early Divergence of Oversight in Agentic AI Communities

Oversight for agentic AI is often discussed as a single goal ("human control"), yet early adoption may produce role-specific expectations. We present a comparative analysis of two newly active Reddit communities in Jan--Feb 2026 that reflect different socio-technical roles: r/OpenClaw (deployment and operations) and r/Moltbook (agent-centered social interaction). We conceptualize this period as an early-stage crystallization phase, where oversight expectations form before norms reach equilibrium. Using topic modeling in a shared comparison space, a coarse-grained oversight-theme abstraction, engagement-weighted salience, and divergence tests, we show the communities are strongly separable (JSD =0.418, cosine =0.372, permutation $p=0.0005$). Across both communities, "human control" is an anchor term, but its operational meaning diverges: r/OpenClaw} emphasizes execution guardrails and recovery (action-risk), while r/Moltbook} emphasizes identity, legitimacy, and accountability in public interaction (meaning-risk). The resulting distinction offers a portable lens for designing and evaluating oversight mechanisms that match agent role, rather than applying one-size-fits-all control policies.

Guide-Guard: Off-Target Predicting in CRISPR Applications

With the introduction of cyber-physical genome sequencing and editing technologies, such as CRISPR, researchers can more easily access tools to investigate and create remedies for a variety of topics in genetics and health science (e.g. agriculture and medicine). As the field advances and grows, new concerns present themselves in the ability to predict the off-target behavior. In this work, we explore the underlying biological and chemical model from a data driven perspective. Additionally, we present a machine learning based solution named \textit{Guide-Guard} to predict the behavior of the system given a gRNA in the CRISPR gene-editing process with 84\% accuracy. This solution is able to be trained on multiple different genes at the same time while retaining accuracy.

A Content-Based Framework for Cybersecurity Refusal Decisions in Large Language Models

Large language models and LLM-based agents are increasingly used for cybersecurity tasks that are inherently dual-use. Existing approaches to refusal, spanning academic policy frameworks and commercially deployed systems, often rely on broad topic-based bans or offensive-focused taxonomies. As a result, they can yield inconsistent decisions, over-restrict legitimate defenders, and behave brittlely under obfuscation or request segmentation. We argue that effective refusal requires explicitly modeling the trade-off between offensive risk and defensive benefit, rather than relying solely on intent or offensive classification. In this paper, we introduce a content-based framework for designing and auditing cyber refusal policies that makes offense-defense tradeoffs explicit. The framework characterizes requests along five dimensions: Offensive Action Contribution, Offensive Risk, Technical Complexity, Defensive Benefit, and Expected Frequency for Legitimate Users, grounded in the technical substance of the request rather than stated intent. We demonstrate that this content-grounded approach resolves inconsistencies in current frontier model behavior and allows organizations to construct tunable, risk-aware refusal policies.

Large Language Model and Formal Concept Analysis: a comparative study for Topic Modeling

Topic modeling is a research field finding increasing applications: historically from document retrieving, to sentiment analysis and text summarization. Large Language Models (LLM) are currently a major trend in text processing, but few works study their usefulness for this task. Formal Concept Analysis (FCA) has recently been presented as a candidate for topic modeling, but no real applied case study has been conducted. In this work, we compare LLM and FCA to better understand their strengths and weakneses in the topic modeling field. FCA is evaluated through the CREA pipeline used in past experiments on topic modeling and visualization, whereas GPT-5 is used for the LLM. A strategy based on three prompts is applied with GPT-5 in a zero-shot setup: topic generation from document batches, merging of batch results into final topics, and topic labeling. A first experiment reuses the teaching materials previously used to evaluate CREA, while a second experiment analyzes 40 research articles in information systems to compare the extracted topics with the underling subfields.

Entropy-Based Data Selection for Language Models

Modern language models (LMs) increasingly require two critical resources: computational resources and data resources. Data selection techniques can effectively reduce the amount of training data required for fine-tuning LMs. However, their effectiveness is closely related to computational resources, which always require a high compute budget. Owing to the resource limitations in practical fine-tuning scenario, we systematically reveal the relationship between data selection and uncertainty estimation of selected data. Although large language models (LLMs) exhibit exceptional capabilities in language understanding and generation, which provide new ways to alleviate data scarcity, evaluating data usability remains a challenging task. This makes efficient data selection indispensable. To mitigate these issues, we propose Entropy-Based Unsupervised Data Selection (EUDS) framework. Empirical experiments on sentiment analysis (SA), topic classification (Topic-CLS), and question answering (Q&A) tasks validate its effectiveness. EUDS establishes a computationally efficient data-filtering mechanism. Theoretical analysis and experimental results confirm the effectiveness of our approach. EUDS significantly reduces computational costs and improves training time efficiency with less data requirement. This provides an innovative solution for the efficient fine-tuning of LMs in the compute-constrained scenarios.

MultiCW: A Large-Scale Balanced Benchmark Dataset for Training Robust Check-Worthiness Detection Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) are beginning to reshape how media professionals verify information, yet automated support for detecting check-worthy claims a key step in the fact-checking process remains limited. We introduce the Multi-Check-Worthy (MultiCW) dataset, a balanced multilingual benchmark for check-worthy claim detection spanning 16 languages, 7 topical domains, and 2 writing styles. It consists of 123,722 samples, evenly distributed between noisy (informal) and structured (formal) texts, with balanced representation of check-worthy and non-check-worthy classes across all languages. To probe robustness, we also introduce an equally balanced out-of-distribution evaluation set of 27,761 samples in 4 additional languages. To provide baselines, we benchmark 3 common fine-tuned multilingual transformers against a diverse set of 15 commercial and open LLMs under zero-shot settings. Our findings show that fine-tuned models consistently outperform zero-shot LLMs on claim classification and show strong out-of-distribution generalization across languages, domains, and styles. MultiCW provides a rigorous multilingual resource for advancing automated fact-checking and enables systematic comparisons between fine-tuned models and cutting-edge LLMs on the check-worthy claim detection task.

Metaphors' journeys across time and genre: tracking the evolution of literary metaphors with temporal embeddings

Metaphors are a distinctive feature of literary language, yet they remain less studied experimentally than everyday metaphors. Moreover, previous psycholinguistic and computational approaches overlooked the temporal dimension, although many literary metaphors were coined centuries apart from contemporary readers. This study innovatively applies tools from diachronic distributional semantics to assess whether the processing costs of literary metaphors varied over time and genre. Specifically, we trained word embeddings on literary and nonliterary Italian corpora from the 19th and 21st centuries, for a total of 124 million tokens, and modeled changes in the semantic similarity between topics and vehicles of 515 19th-century literary metaphors, taking this measure as a proxy of metaphor processing demands. Overall, semantic similarity, and hence metaphor processing demands, remained stable over time. However, genre played a key role: metaphors appeared more difficult (i.e., lower topic-vehicle similarity) in modern literary contexts than in 19th-century literature, but easier (i.e., higher topic-vehicle similarity) in today's nonliterary language (e.g., the Web) than in 19th-century nonliterary texts. This pattern was further shaped by semantic features of metaphors' individual terms, such as vector coherence and semantic neighborhood density. Collectively, these findings align with broader linguistic changes in Italian, such as the stylistic simplification of modern literature, which may have increased metaphor processing demands, and the high creativity of the Web's language, which seems to render metaphor more accessible.

Quantum-Audit: Evaluating the Reasoning Limits of LLMs on Quantum Computing

Language models have become practical tools for quantum computing education and research, from summarizing technical papers to explaining theoretical concepts and answering questions about recent developments in the field. While existing benchmarks evaluate quantum code generation and circuit design, their understanding of quantum computing concepts has not been systematically measured. Quantum-Audit addresses this gap with 2,700 questions covering core quantum computing topics. We evaluate 26 models from leading organizations. Our benchmark comprises 1,000 expert-written questions, 1,000 questions extracted from research papers using LLMs and validated by experts, plus an additional 700 questions including 350 open-ended questions and 350 questions with false premises to test whether models can correct erroneous assumptions. Human participants scored between 23% and 86%, with experts averaging 74%. Top-performing models exceeded the expert average, with Claude Opus 4.5 reaching 84% accuracy, though top models showed an average 12-point accuracy drop on expert-written questions compared to LLM-generated ones. Performance declined further on advanced topics, dropping to 73% on security questions. Additionally, models frequently accepted and reinforced false premises embedded in questions instead of identifying them, with accuracy below 66% on these critical reasoning tasks.