A Systematic Evaluation of Current Architectures in Wind Power Forecasting

Interval wind speed forecasting is essential for the efficient integration of wind energy into power systems, as it accounts for the inherent uncertainty of wind resources. This study presents a systematic literature review focused on hybrid approaches to interval forecasting of wind generation, exploring the combination of deep learning, modal decomposition, and statistical methods. To guide the paper selection, Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) was applied for topic modeling, enabling the identification of patterns and research trends. The findings emphasize that integrating hybrid models with decomposition techniques-such as Variational Mode Decomposition (VMD) and Ensemble Empirical Mode Decomposition (EEMD)-enhances forecast accuracy and reliability by narrowing prediction intervals without compromising coverage. Regarding interval construction, most studies adopt a dual-model strategy, independently forecasting the lower and upper bounds. Input data are commonly decomposed using techniques like EMD, EEMD, or VMD, which extract frequency-based components. These components serve as inputs to models such as LSTM or ELM, trained separately for each bound. This approach allows for targeted modeling of uncertainty, improving flexibility and precision, Interval quality is typically evaluated through metrics that balance coverage and interval width. The review also highlights challenges, including the lack of standardized evaluation metrics, computational complexity, and limited real-world validation. Overall, the study reinforces the value of interval forecasting for wind energy operations and offers insights for advancing model robustness and decision-making.

Do Neural Retrievers Prefer Certain Documents? Evidence of Learned Relevance Priors

Neural retrievers are trained to estimate query-document relevance from annotated query-document pairs. Yet annotation protocols may not purely reflect relevance: they select only a subset of documents for labeling, and this selection can favor certain document types over others. We investigate whether supervised bi-encoder retrievers implicitly learn a document-level relevance prior: a query-independent signal encoded in their representation space as a side effect of training on annotated data. We estimate this prior by training simple classifiers on frozen document embeddings and evaluate three state-of-the-art retrievers across multiple IR benchmarks. We find that supervised neural retrievers encode relevance priors that generalize to unseen documents and are consistent across models. These priors create a findability gap: documents with lower prior are systematically harder to retrieve, even when genuinely relevant. This effect appears in supervised dense retrievers but is weaker and less consistent in BM25, and it persists under controlled matched-document comparisons. Using LLM-based explanations, we find that judged-relevant documents tend to be comprehensive, self-contained summaries of mainstream topics, while niche, fragmentary, or highly technical content is often left unjudged. Retrievers internalize this bias, ranking documents with these favored features higher than documents that lack them, independently of their actual relevance. Our findings expose a structural limitation of supervised retrieval: models trained on annotated data do not just learn relevance, but also the implicit document preferences in their training data.

LLM-Assisted Reranking to Operationalize Nuanced Objectives in Recommender Systems

Recommender systems have grown from content-organization tools into sophisticated systems that shape daily behavior. By controlling what we see, they shape what we perceive, raising concerns about filter bubbles, radicalization, polarization, and social inequality. Large language models (LLMs) enable more powerful personalization, intensifying these dynamics. Yet most recommenders are tuned for engagement or limited accuracy metrics, with little attention to broader social implications, e.g. how personalization reshapes exposure in socially consequential domains. We investigate whether LLM-assisted reranking, while improving personalization, inadvertently amplifies exposure to ideologically extreme or conspiratorial political content, a risk theorized but not empirically characterized in news recommendation. Using real news-consumption histories, we rerank YouTube's sidebar candidates through zero-shot, instruction-based prompting. We compare a baseline prompt with a constrained variant that preserves topical relevance and broadens ideological exposure while reducing conspiratorial or extreme content. Without constraints, reranking strengthened personalization but increased exposure to conspiratorial and extremist material for users whose histories contained such content. Lightweight prompt-level regularization reduced promotion of extreme content and increased ideological diversity, with modest relevance loss. Synthetic experiments suggest that LLMs rerank via statistical regularities in language rather than semantic understanding of ideology, clarifying why naive prompts amplify these patterns and why regularization can reshape them. Together, our results highlight the power of LLMs to operationalize contextual nuance in high-stakes recommendation, and the need to evaluate LLM-assisted personalization beyond accuracy and treat prompt design as a value-laden rather than neutral default.

Why Do Self-Harm Prediction Models Struggle to Generalise? Lexical and Semantic Variations in Emergency Department Triage Notes

Self-harm presentations to emergency departments (EDs) are strongly associated with higher suicide risk. NLP models have shown robust performance in detecting self-harm from triage notes within single hospitals, yet performance often declines across institutions. To examine potential causes, we compare ED triage notes from two hospitals by analyzing lexical characteristics, highly associated predictive features, and salient topics. Our results reveal variation in lexical expression and feature importance related to self-harm across hospitals, despite consistent core themes such as self-poisoning and self-injury. These documentation differences are associated with reduced cross-site performance. Our findings provide insight into how institutional variation affects the identification of self-harm in clinical text and highlight potential methods to improve model generalisability.

Who Annotates in NLP? A Large-scale Assessment of Human Annotation Reporting between 2018 and 2025

Human annotation is the empirical foundation of much NLP research, from dataset construction to model evaluation, but papers often leave unclear who produced the annotations and how the annotation process was controlled. We provide the first large-scale, task-level audit of human annotation reporting across major NLP venues, asking which annotation details are documented, which are missing, and how reporting varies across time, topic, venue, and intended use of human judgment. We introduce a unified taxonomy of annotation-reporting practices and validate an LLM-assisted extraction pipeline against Annotated-gold, a human-adjudicated gold standard of 41 papers and 72 annotation tasks, where the best model reaches human-comparable agreement with adjudicated labels, with Krippendorff's alpha of 0.606 versus 0.585 for human-human agreement. Using this pipeline, we construct Annotated-llm, a dataset covering ACL-venue papers from 2018-2025, with 2,667 extracted annotation tasks from 1,603 papers, and find that papers frequently report operational details such as recruitment strategies, annotator expertise, and annotation volume, but often omit details needed to assess annotation validity, including training, language proficiency, compensation, socio-demographics, adjudication, and agreement values, especially in model-evaluation studies. Our results show that annotation reporting in NLP has improved over time but remains uneven, and they establish a scalable framework and bare-minimum reporting recommendations for making human annotation more reliable, reproducible, and interpretable.

Argument Collapse: LLMs Flatten Long-Form Public Debate

As LLMs are increasingly used to draft public-facing arguments, they may flatten public debate by repeatedly introducing the same polished, plausible arguments. We study argument collapse, the tendency of essays generated by different LLMs to converge to a smaller set of main arguments, sub-arguments, and paragraph-level structures. We compare 1,039 human responses from 195 New York Times (NYT) debates, 448 human responses from 61 longer-form Boston Review (BR) forums, and 23,384 LLM-generated essays. In the NYT corpus, 65.3% of human main arguments are unique within a debate, compared to 3.4% of LLM main arguments. Asking LLMs to generate diverse answers adds variation, but a typical model recovers only about half of the distinct human main arguments, with much of the added variation falling outside the observed human argument space. Collapse also appears in sub-arguments, where among essays with the same main argument, 41.0% of human sub-arguments are unique versus 9.1% from LLM responses. Qualitatively, LLMs often reuse generalized and hedged sub-arguments, while humans prefer more concrete and topic-specific ones. Structure-wise, LLM-generated essays tend to follow a more fixed arc, often opening with a direct claim and moving quickly toward proposals. The same patterns hold in longer BR essays, suggesting that argument collapse extends beyond short-form responses.

SECUREVENT: Hybrid AI/ML Security Monitoring for Distributed Event-Based Systems

Distributed event-based systems have become a common substrate for Internet-scale publish/subscribe services, IoT telemetry, cloud-native microservices, and security operations pipelines. Their loose coupling and asynchronous delivery improve scalability, but they also expand the attack surface: publishers, brokers, subscribers, topics, schemas, and temporal ordering can each be abused without a single component observing the whole behavior. This paper proposes SECUREVENT, a hybrid AI/ML security-monitoring architecture for distributed event-based systems. The architecture combines traditional protections such as authenticated transport, topic-level authorization, and signed events with online anomaly detection, graph-aware behavioral features, complex-event policy rules, federated learning, and adversarial-ML governance. A deterministic prototype study over synthetic event-stream attacks illustrates how a hybrid AI/CEP monitor can improve recall over static rules while retaining a low false-positive rate. The central claim is not that machine learning replaces cryptographic and access-control mechanisms, but that model-based security monitoring is necessary when event flows, identities, schemas, and timing relationships are too dynamic for static controls alone.

Beyond Topical Similarity: Contrastive Evidence Retrieval with Interpretable Attention Alignment in RAG

Ensuring factuality and interpretability in RAG remains an open and urgent problem. We introduce Contrastive Evidence Rationale Attention (CERA), the first retrieval framework to employ subjectivity-based hard negative selection and inject an evidential inductive bias into contrastive learning through an auxiliary attention alignment loss. CERA fine-tunes a dense retriever using two training objectives: triplet-based contrastive learning and interpretable attention alignment, which supervises CLS-to-token attention using a part-of-speech-weighted masking distribution over human-annotated factual rationales as evidence signals. Experiments on a large corpus of clinical trial reports demonstrate that the subjectivity-based hard negative selection substantially improves retrieval effectiveness compared to both Contriever and hard negative selection baselines. Furthermore, rationale alignment improves faithfulness while maintaining competitive retrieval performance, supporting the hypothesis that attention can serve as a more faithful explanation of model behavior when guided by human rationales. Moving beyond topical similarity, CERA enables the retriever to identify the specific tokens that constitute supporting evidence, promoting more interpretable evidence selection in RAG systems.

DiscourseFlip: An Oblique Discourse-Level Opinion Manipulation Attack against Black-box Retrieval-Augmented Generation

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems are widely deployed and increasingly influential, but their reliance on external corpora exposes new security risks from poisoned retrieval content. Existing RAG attacks are largely focusing on individual queries or narrow topic-local query sets, which limits their practical reach and offers limited camouflage in real-world settings. In this paper, we introduce discourse-level opinion manipulation, a new threat model in which coordinated influence across a semantic query network induces opinion shifts over a holistic, multi-topic query space. We formalize this threat in a black-box setting and propose DiscourseFlip, an agentic, graph-guided attack that dynamically allocates a limited poisoning budget to maximize discourse-level opinion deviation. Extensive experiments demonstrate that DiscourseFlip consistently induces targeted opinion shifts across the contextualized query network and significantly outperforms existing baselines in terms of coverage and effectiveness. User studies further confirm that DiscourseFlip is effective while remaining well camouflaged from user detection. Moreover, systematic analyses show that existing mitigation strategies are ineffective against discourse-level manipulation, underscoring the urgent need for more robust and adaptive defenses to address discourse-level vulnerabilities.

TextFake: Benchmarking AI-Generated Image Detection on Text-Rich Images

Recent AI-generated image (AIGI) detectors perform well on natural-image benchmarks, but their behavior on text-rich forgeries, such as fabricated screenshots, documents, and news pages prevalent in misinformation, remains untested. We introduce TextFake, a 20,000-image benchmark for text-rich AIGI detection spanning 28 languages, 4 topic categories, and 2 scene modalities. Fake images are synthesized via a four-stage pipeline that annotates real images along three controlled dimensions and generates counterparts through distribution-aligned structured prompting, ruling out covariate shortcuts. Zero-shot evaluation of 14 specialized detectors and 3 frontier VLM APIs reveals a large systematic gap: no method exceeds 80% accuracy, with some dropping over 60% from natural-image benchmarks. Diagnostic evaluations identify three failure modes: the Text Density Curse, where dense glyphs overwhelm low-level detectors; Cloaking via Rendering Fidelity, where stronger text rendering suppresses enerative artifacts; and Threshold Collapse, where routine perturbations drive detectors toward chance-level performance.