Topic modeling is a type of statistical modeling for discovering the abstract topics that occur in a collection of documents.
Language models are pretrained as passive predictors with no incentive to model the consequences of their own outputs. Post-training changes this: a model producing its own responses can benefit from recognizing that it is on-policy. We present evidence that post-trained models recognize their on-policy generations, and this recognition is implicitly encoded in their output distributions. In particular, on-policy output distribution entropy is 3--4$\times$ lower than off-policy entropy, across model families and size classes. We trace part of this effect to an internal representation of input surprise, tracking the unlikeliness of the most recent input token according to the model's prior predictions, that causally modulates output entropy. One example of these phenomena can be observed in response to open-ended prompts; post-trained models (unlike pretrained models) collapse their uncertainty over the topic of their upcoming response before the first output token; violating this cached intention with a different-topic prefill results in higher output entropy. We also tested whether models can distinguish on-policy contexts from prefills via explicit verbal report. We find that they can, but that interestingly, this explicit recognition routes through a different mechanism than implicit recognition.
AI for materials science is a critical topic within AI for science, aiming to accelerate materials discovery and produce accurate property predictions. Bilayer 2D material stacking is essential for exploring new materials with novel functions and inherent phenomena, enabling the creation of new 2D bilayers for diverse real-world applications. Research on bilayer vdWs materials has made significant progress from experimental and computational perspectives. Various bilayer materials have been successfully synthe sized experimentally and the increasing utilization of high-throughput computing technology has con structed several computational two-dimensional materials databases. However, the use of AI to model bilayer stacking and predict new properties remains underexplored, necessitating further research studies. In this work, we propose a novel multimodal learning approach to study the interfaces between dissimilar materials that jointly enable new or multiple functions, and to predict new properties arising from the vertical integration (stacking) of different functional material layers under given configurations. Comprehensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of our approach compared to baseline methods. Our code is available at https://github.com/AnVuong123/bimat ml.
We present ClimateChat-300K, a large-scale dataset of 299,329 public Facebook posts about climate change collected between May 2020 and May 2024 through the CrowdTangle platform. The dataset contains 41 metadata features including post content, engagement metrics, and page attributes, covering material from more than 26,000 global pages. Each post includes rich contextual information such as language, timestamp, page category, and interaction counts, enabling comprehensive analyses of public discourse around climate communication. Using topic modeling and sentiment analysis, we identify ten main themes grouped into five domains: policy, activism, cooperation, science, and conservation. The results reveal that emotional tone, post format, and page identity strongly influence audience engagement, with visually rich and emotionally charged content receiving the highest levels of interaction. The dataset also demonstrates how online discussions evolved in response to major events such as international climate summits and the COVID-19 pandemic period. ClimateChat-300K provides an open resource for reproducible and interdisciplinary research on polarization, misinformation, and the dynamics of digital climate discourse. By releasing this dataset, we aim to support transparent, data-driven research and contribute to a deeper un-derstanding of how public engagement with climate issues develops across time, geography, and institutional contexts.
Existing financial NLP benchmarks often rely on labels supplied by outside observers, measuring how language is perceived rather than what speakers have committed to in the market. We introduce StakeBench, an evaluation framework for language understanding grounded in market commitment. StakeBench links 560,876 comments from 2,261 resolved markets to verified position, action, and market-odds records across Polymarket and Manifold. Supervision is derived from observable market behavior. Position sides, post-comment trading actions, and market-odds trajectories replace human annotation. Four diagnostic tasks test whether models detect market commitment, identify the revealed side, anticipate future action, and perform collective odds projection. Three commitment-aware metrics measure alignment with revealed preferences rather than perceived sentiment. Validity audits and explicit interpretation boundaries help distinguish observable commitment signals from latent belief and causal market-odds impact. Across 15 LLMs and 18 topics and platform settings, models partially recover position-side signals, with Directed Accuracy from 0.506 to 0.599, but show structural failures on later tasks. Ten of the fifteen models collapse to one or two action labels in future action anticipation, and no model consistently improves on the naive odds-direction baseline in collective odds projection. Model scale is not correlated with performance, finance-domain tuning does not improve revealed-side identification, and platform incentives strongly shape higher-order results. StakeBench is packaged with evaluation code and dataset under CC-BY 4.0.
Joint Entity and Relation Extraction (JERE) is highly sensitive to training data quality, making data augmentation a natural way to improve generalization. However, existing augmentation methods often weaken entity relevance and disrupt semantic structure, limiting their effectiveness for JERE. In this paper, we propose \textbf{Structured Semantic Data Augmentation (SSDAU)}, a method designed to preserve triple-aware semantic structure during augmentation. SSDAU segments text by entity labels, captures semantic features through context-aware encoding, and restructures entity semantics to generate augmented data. To distinguish semantically similar entities, SSDAU combines contextualized embeddings with traditional similarity scores. To reduce topic inconsistency, we apply BERTopic-based filtering to remove irrelevant augmentations. We evaluate SSDAU on datasets with different annotation types and compare its performance on five representative JERE models against seven popular augmentation baselines. Experiments show that SSDAU generates semantically consistent data, is more robust to ambiguity than non-LLM methods (8.95\% vs. 23.58\% average relative F1 decrease), and significantly outperforms strong alternatives in most settings.
Researchers in Holocaust studies have often distinguished between two styles of oral survivor testimony: the USC Shoah Foundation's interviews tend to follow a structured, interviewer-guided format, whereas the Yale Fortunoff Video Archive generally favors a more free-form, open-ended style. This distinction has influenced both scholarly research and the development of later archives. In this study, we critically examine that claim by conducting a large-scale computational analysis of more than 1,600 testimonies from both collections. Leveraging discourse segmentation, topic modeling, and large language model (LLM) based analysis, we quantify the "structuredness" level of testimonies through topic coherence, interviewer-survivor dynamics, and the distribution of question types. Our results generally corroborate the structural differences identified in earlier research, while also revealing significant overlaps between the collections, both within individual interviews and across common narrative patterns. This complicates the simple "structured vs. free-form" dichotomy often applied to these oral histories. Beyond revisiting a foundational claim in Holocaust studies, our work provides a scalable, replicable framework for comparative corpus analysis. As a proof of concept, it suggests broader applications for digital oral history, narrative analysis, and the design of citizen-science annotation platforms.
As scientific literature grows rapidly, automated survey generation has become a key capability for AI scientists and human researchers. However, existing systems suffer from limited analytical depth due to reliance on abstracts and isolated paper processing, and unreliable citations from imprecise retrieval and post-hoc grounding, producing superficial surveys and may mislead researchers. We present DeepSurvey, an agentic system that addresses both. To enhance depth, DeepSurvey extracts structured keynotes from full-text papers, models cross-paper relationships through clustering and comparative analysis, and integrates code-repository analysis to recover implementation-level details. To fortify reliability, it combines citation-graph expansion with hybrid filtering for topic-focussed retrieval, enforces evidence-constrained citation assignment, and deploys multi-granularity agentic refinement to validate citation-claim alignment. Experiments show that DeepSurvey achieves the highest content score (8.644/10) and citation quality (12.3% and 9.3% recall and precision gains over the strongest baseline), generalizes more robustly across domains (0.14 vs 0.22 to 0.69 CS-to-non-CS drop), and is preferred over human-written surveys by domain experts (83.3% overall quality, 100% content depth).
While scaling laws govern aggregate large language model performance, no scaling law has linked factual recall to both model size and training-data composition. We evaluated 38 models on over 8,900 scholarly references evaluated by an automated reference verification system. Recall quality follows a sigmoid in the log-linear combination of model parameter count and topic representation in training data. These two variables alone explain 60% of the variance across 16 dense models from four families, rising to 74-94% within individual families. The form matches a superposition-inspired account in which recall is gated by a signal-to-noise ratio: signal strength scales with concept frequency and the noise floor with model capacity.
Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) ranks passages by semantic similarity to the input, implicitly assuming that semantic similarity is a reliable indication of applicability in downstream tasks. This assumption breaks down when task success depends not on topical relevance but on applying the correct rules, constraints, or procedural guidance. In such settings, the most useful context may be the rule triggered by the input rather than the most semantically similar passage. We propose Task-Aligned Retrieval (TAG), a retrieval framework that replaces similarity-based retrieval with applicability-based rule selection. TAG transforms source documents into traceable condition-action rules, identifies which rules apply to a given input through pairwise LLM judgments, and generates the output conditioned only on the selected actions. We empirically observe that across Wikipedia NPOV rewriting, HumanEval with PEP~8 compliance, and NBA transaction reasoning on RuleArena, TAG consistently outperforms standard RAG, with the largest gains in high-mismatch settings (up to 12.2\%) while reducing retrieved context by up to 93\%. These results suggest that, in rule- and instruction-governed tasks, retrieval should optimize for applicability rather than for semantic similarity alone.
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems rely on retrieved documents being concatenated into a model's input context, making both document ordering and context size critical yet controversial design choices. Prior work reports position-based effects such as lost in the middle and related long-context phenomena. However, empirical findings remain inconsistent and hard to reproduce across models, datasets, and evaluation protocols. In this paper, we present a systematic reproducibility study that revisits these claims and examines how they evolve with contemporary LLMs under a controlled evaluation framework. We first show that topic sampling is a major source of variance: small topic sets can mask or exaggerate ordering effects. Based on repeated subset sampling across multiple topic budgets, we provide a practical calibration procedure that identifies topic counts yielding stable trends at feasible cost. Using these fixed topic sets, we then reproduce and extend results on position sensitivity, re-evaluating lost in the middle and positional biases in modern LLMs. Then, we also study a more realistic RAG scenario in which relevance is mediated by a retriever rather than oracle access to ground-truth documents. In this setting, we re-examine a recent industry study and identify discrepancies to evaluation choices such as limited topic coverage and reliance on LLM-based judges. Finally, we conduct an analysis of how retrieval order and context size affect downstream LLM performance under imperfect retrieval. Our results demonstrate that both factors interact strongly with retrieval quality and model choice, and that conclusions drawn from idealised setups do not always transfer to real-world RAG pipelines. We release all code and configurations to support reproducibility and future work on robust RAG evaluation.