Topic modeling is a type of statistical modeling for discovering the abstract topics that occur in a collection of documents.
The increasing production of waste, driven by population growth, has created challenges in managing and recycling materials effectively. Manual waste sorting is a common practice; however, it remains inefficient for handling large-scale waste streams and presents health risks for workers. On the other hand, existing automated sorting approaches still struggle with the high variability, clutter, and visual complexity of real-world waste streams. The lack of real-world datasets for waste sorting is a major reason automated systems for this problem are underdeveloped. Accordingly, we introduce SortWaste, a densely annotated object detection dataset collected from a Material Recovery Facility. Additionally, we contribute to standardizing waste detection in sorting lines by proposing ClutterScore, an objective metric that gauges the scene's hardness level using a set of proxies that affect visual complexity (e.g., object count, class and size entropy, and spatial overlap). In addition to these contributions, we provide an extensive benchmark of state-of-the-art object detection models, detailing their results with respect to the hardness level assessed by the proposed metric. Despite achieving promising results (mAP of 59.7% in the plastic-only detection task), performance significantly decreases in highly cluttered scenes. This highlights the need for novel and more challenging datasets on the topic.
As LLMs gain persuasive agentic capabilities through extended dialogues, they introduce novel risks in multi-turn conversational scams that single-turn safety evaluations fail to capture. We systematically study these risks using a controlled LLM-to-LLM simulation framework across multi-turn scam scenarios. Evaluating eight state-of-the-art models in English and Chinese, we analyze dialogue outcomes and qualitatively annotate attacker strategies, defensive responses, and failure modes. Results reveal that scam interactions follow recurrent escalation patterns, while defenses employ verification and delay mechanisms. Furthermore, interactional failures frequently stem from safety guardrail activation and role instability. Our findings highlight multi-turn interactional safety as a critical, distinct dimension of LLM behavior.
We present a systematic framework of indices designed to characterize Large Language Model (LLM) responses when challenged with rebuttals during a chat. Assessing how LLMs respond to user dissent is crucial for understanding their reliability and behavior patterns, yet the complexity of human-LLM interactions makes systematic evaluation challenging. Our approach employs a fictitious-response rebuttal method that quantifies LLM behavior when presented with multiple-choice questions followed by deliberate challenges to their fictitious previous response. The indices are specifically designed to detect and measure what could be characterized as sycophantic behavior (excessive agreement with user challenges) or stubborn responses (rigid adherence to the fictitious response in the chat history) from LLMs. These metrics allow investigation of the relationships between sycophancy, stubbornness, and the model's actual mastery of the subject matter. We demonstrate the utility of these indices using two physics problems as test scenarios with various OpenAI models. The framework is intentionally generalizable to any multiple-choice format question, including on topics without universally accepted correct answers. Our results reveal measurable differences across OpenAI model generations, with trends indicating that newer models and those employing greater "Reasoning Effort" exhibit reduced sycophantic behavior. The FR pairing method combined with our proposed indices provides a practical, adaptable toolkit for systematically comparing LLM dialogue behaviors across different models and contexts.
Large language models (LLMs) achieve strong performance on many tasks, but their progress remains uneven across languages and cultures, often reflecting values latent in English-centric training data. To enable practical cultural alignment, we propose a scalable approach that leverages national social studies curricula as a foundation for culture-aware supervision. We introduce CuCu, an automated multi-agent LLM framework that transforms national textbook curricula into open-ended, culture-specific question-answer pairs. Applying CuCu to the Korean national social studies curriculum, we construct KCaQA, comprising 34.1k open-ended QA pairs. Our quantitative and qualitative analyses suggest that KCaQA covers culture-specific topics and produces responses grounded in local sociocultural contexts.
Despite recent advances in understanding and leveraging long-range conversational memory, existing benchmarks still lack systematic evaluation of large language models(LLMs) across diverse memory dimensions, particularly in multi-session settings. In this work, we propose EvolMem, a new benchmark for assessing multi-session memory capabilities of LLMs and agent systems. EvolMem is grounded in cognitive psychology and encompasses both declarative and non-declarative memory, further decomposed into multiple fine-grained abilities. To construct the benchmark, we introduce a hybrid data synthesis framework that consists of topic-initiated generation and narrative-inspired transformations. This framework enables scalable generation of multi-session conversations with controllable complexity, accompanied by sample-specific evaluation guidelines. Extensive evaluation reveals that no LLM consistently outperforms others across all memory dimensions. Moreover, agent memory mechanisms do not necessarily enhance LLMs' capabilities and often exhibit notable efficiency limitations. Data and code will be released at https://github.com/shenye7436/EvolMem.
Identifying suitable datasets for a research question remains challenging because existing dataset search engines rely heavily on metadata quality and keyword overlap, which often fail to capture the semantic intent of scientific investigation. We introduce a literature-driven framework that discovers datasets from citation contexts in scientific papers, enabling retrieval grounded in actual research use rather than metadata availability. Our approach combines large-scale citation-context extraction, schema-guided dataset recognition with Large Language Models, and provenance-preserving entity resolution. We evaluate the system on eight survey-derived computer science queries and find that it achieves substantially higher recall than Google Dataset Search and DataCite Commons, with normalized recall ranging from an average of 47.47% to a highest value of 81.82%. Beyond recovering gold-standard datasets, the method also surfaces additional datasets not documented in the surveys. Expert assessments across five top-level Fields of Science indicate that a substantial portion of the additional datasets are considered high utility, and some are regarded as novel for the specific topics chosen by the experts. These findings establish citation-context mining as an effective and generalizable paradigm for dataset discovery, particularly in settings where datasets lack sufficient or reliable metadata. To support reproducibility and future extensions, we release our code, evaluation datasets, and results on GitHub (https://github.com/Fireblossom/citation-context-dataset-discovery).
Volunteer moderators play a crucial role in sustaining online dialogue, but they often disagree about what should or should not be allowed. In this paper, we study the complexity of content moderation with a focus on disagreements between moderators, which we term the ``gray area'' of moderation. Leveraging 5 years and 4.3 million moderation log entries from 24 subreddits of different topics and sizes, we characterize how gray area, or disputed cases, differ from undisputed cases. We show that one-in-seven moderation cases are disputed among moderators, often addressing transgressions where users' intent is not directly legible, such as in trolling and brigading, as well as tensions around community governance. This is concerning, as almost half of all gray area cases involved automated moderation decisions. Through information-theoretic evaluations, we demonstrate that gray area cases are inherently harder to adjudicate than undisputed cases and show that state-of-the-art language models struggle to adjudicate them. We highlight the key role of expert human moderators in overseeing the moderation process and provide insights about the challenges of current moderation processes and tools.
Modern large language models (LLMs) increasingly rely on inference-time planning and external tools to improve reasoning. We benchmark this behavior on two real-world settings: event-centric question answering over graph-structured knowledge (Event-QA) and persuasive response generation in Reddit ChangeMyView (CMV). Using LangChain and LangGraph, we compare a one-shot baseline against a plan-execute-replan agent equipped with task-specific tools (DBpedia SPARQL/lookup/schema exploration, Wikipedia-focused retrieval, and topical web search). We evaluate on 60 examples each from Event-QA and CMV (3 splits of 20), and report both mean end-to-end latency and per-example token cost estimates. We evaluate GPT-4o and GPT-4o-mini under identical workflows and report accuracy and end-to-end latency. On Event-QA, the best tool-augmented configuration improves accuracy (e.g., 47.5\% $\rightarrow$ 67.5\% for GPT-4o) while increasing latency by orders of magnitude ($\sim$8s $\rightarrow$ $\sim$317s per example). On CMV, one-shot prompting is strongest (e.g., GPT-4o-mini achieves 75\% at $\sim$6s), and planning+search increases latency substantially without consistent gains. However, complex multi-tool orchestration exposes failure modes where the smaller model degrades. Overall, the findings highlight the need for task-specific, cost-aware choices of both model size and agent/tooling complexity.
In the rapidly evolving landscape of enterprise natural language processing (NLP), the demand for efficient, lightweight models capable of handling multi-domain text automation tasks has intensified. This study conducts a comparative analysis of three prominent lightweight Transformer models - DistilBERT, MiniLM, and ALBERT - across three distinct domains: customer sentiment classification, news topic classification, and toxicity and hate speech detection. Utilizing datasets from IMDB, AG News, and the Measuring Hate Speech corpus, we evaluated performance using accuracy-based metrics including accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score, as well as efficiency metrics such as model size, inference time, throughput, and memory usage. Key findings reveal that no single model dominates all performance dimensions. ALBERT achieves the highest task-specific accuracy in multiple domains, MiniLM excels in inference speed and throughput, and DistilBERT demonstrates the most consistent accuracy across tasks while maintaining competitive efficiency. All results reflect controlled fine-tuning under fixed enterprise-oriented constraints rather than exhaustive hyperparameter optimization. These results highlight trade-offs between accuracy and efficiency, recommending MiniLM for latency-sensitive enterprise applications, DistilBERT for balanced performance, and ALBERT for resource-constrained environments.
In the face of adverse motives, it is indispensable to achieve a consensus. Elections have been the canonical way by which modern democracy has operated since the 17th century. Nowadays, they regulate markets, provide an engine for modern recommender systems or peer-to-peer networks, and remain the main approach to represent democracy. However, a desirable universal voting rule that satisfies all hypothetical scenarios is still a challenging topic, and the design of these systems is at the forefront of mechanism design research. Automated mechanism design is a promising approach, and recent works have demonstrated that set-invariant architectures are uniquely suited to modelling electoral systems. However, various concerns prevent the direct application to real-world settings, such as robustness to strategic voting. In this paper, we generalise the expressive capability of learned voting rules, and combine improvements in neural network architecture with adversarial training to improve the resilience of voting rules while maximizing social welfare. We evaluate the effectiveness of our methods on both synthetic and real-world datasets. Our method resolves critical limitations of prior work regarding learning voting rules by representing elections using bipartite graphs, and learning such voting rules using graph neural networks. We believe this opens new frontiers for applying machine learning to real-world elections.