Topic modeling is a type of statistical modeling for discovering the abstract topics that occur in a collection of documents.
Generating step-by-step "how-to" procedures is a key LLM capability: how-to advice is commonly requested in chatbots, and step-by-step planning is critical for reasoning over complex tasks. Yet, measuring and improving procedural validity at scale on real-world tasks remains challenging and understudied. To address this, we introduce How2Everything, a scalable framework to evaluate and improve goal-conditioned procedure generation. Our framework includes How2Mine, which mines 351K procedures from 980K web pages across 14 topics and readily scales to larger corpora. From this pool we build How2Bench, a 7K-example evaluation set balanced across topics. To reliably score model outputs, we develop How2Score, an evaluation protocol that uses an LLM judge to detect whether a generation contains any critical failure that would prevent achieving the goal. For low-cost, reproducible evaluation, we distill a frontier model into an open 8B model, achieving 80.5% agreement with human annotators. How2Bench reveals clear scaling trends across model sizes and training stages, providing signal early in pretraining. Finally, RL using How2Score as a reward improves performance on How2Bench by >10 points across three models without systematic regressions on standard benchmarks, with gains robust to superficial source-document memorization or format compliance. Taken together, How2Everything shows how pretraining web data can support a closed loop of capability evaluation and improvement at scale.
Text clustering is today the most popular paradigm for topic modelling, both in academia and industry. Despite clustering topic models' apparent success, we identify a number of issues in Top2Vec and BERTopic, which remain largely unsolved. Firstly, these approaches are unreliable at discovering natural clusters in corpora, due to extreme sensitivity to sample size and hyperparameters, the default values of which result in suboptimal behaviour. Secondly, when estimating term importance, BERTopic ignores the semantic distance of keywords to topic vectors, while Top2Vec ignores word counts in the corpus. This results in, on the one hand, less coherent topics due to the presence of stop words and junk words, and lack of variety and trust on the other. In this paper, I introduce a new approach, \textbf{Topeax}, which discovers the number of clusters from peaks in density estimates, and combines lexical and semantic indices of term importance to gain high-quality topic keywords. Topeax is demonstrated to be better at both cluster recovery and cluster description than Top2Vec and BERTopic, while also exhibiting less erratic behaviour in response to changing sample size and hyperparameters.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as agents to solve complex tasks such as question answering (QA), scientific debate, and software development. A standard evaluation procedure aggregates multiple responses from LLM agents into a single final answer, often via majority voting, and compares it against reference answers. However, this process can obscure the quality and distributional characteristics of the original responses. In this paper, we propose a novel evaluation framework based on the empirical cumulative distribution function (ECDF) of cosine similarities between generated responses and reference answers. This enables a more nuanced assessment of response quality beyond exact match metrics. To analyze the response distributions across different agent configurations, we further introduce a clustering method for ECDFs using their distances and the $k$-medoids algorithm. Our experiments on a QA dataset demonstrate that ECDFs can distinguish between agent settings with similar final accuracies but different quality distributions. The clustering analysis also reveals interpretable group structures in the responses, offering insights into the impact of temperature, persona, and question topics.
High-resolution range profile (HRRP ) data are in vogue in radar automatic target recognition (RATR). With the interest in classifying models using HRRP, filling gaps in datasets using generative models has recently received promising contributions. Evaluating generated data is a challenging topic, even for explicit data like face images. However, the evaluation methods used in the state-ofthe-art of HRRP generation rely on classification models. Such models, called ''black-box'', do not allow either explainability on generated data or multi-level evaluation. This work focuses on decomposing HRRP data into three components: the mask, the features, and the noise. Using this decomposition, we propose two metrics based on the physical interpretation of those data. We take profit from an expensive dataset to evaluate our metrics on a challenging task and demonstrate the discriminative ability of those.
Characterizing the behavior of large language models (LLMs) across diverse settings is critical for reliable monitoring and AI safety. However, most existing analyses rely on topic- or task-specific prompts, which can substantially limit what can be observed. In this work, we study what LLMs generate from minimal, topic-neutral inputs and probe their near-unconstrained generative behavior. Despite the absence of explicit topics, model outputs cover a broad semantic space, and surprisingly, each model family exhibits strong and systematic topical preferences. GPT-OSS predominantly generates programming (27.1%) and mathematical content (24.6%), whereas Llama most frequently generates literary content (9.1%). DeepSeek often generates religious content, while Qwen frequently generates multiple-choice questions. Beyond topical preferences, we also observe differences in content specialization and depth: GPT-OSS often generates more technically advanced content (e.g., dynamic programming) compared with other models (e.g., basic Python). Furthermore, we find that the near-unconstrained generation often degenerates into repetitive phrases, revealing interesting behaviors unique to each model family. For instance, degenerate outputs from Llama include multiple URLs pointing to personal Facebook and Instagram accounts. We release the complete dataset of 256,000 samples from 16 LLMs, along with a reproducible codebase.
Polemic questions need more than one viewpoint to express a balanced answer. Large Language Models (LLMs) can provide a balanced answer, but also take a single aligned viewpoint or refuse to answer. In this paper, we study if such initial responses can be steered to a specific viewpoint in a simple and intuitive way: by only providing one-sided arguments supporting the viewpoint. Our systematic study has three dimensions: (i) which stance is induced in the LLM response, (ii) how the polemic question is formulated, (iii) how the arguments are shown. We construct a small dataset and remarkably find that opinion steering occurs across (i)-(iii) for diverse models, number of arguments, and topics. Switching to other arguments consistently decreases opinion steering.
Self-interpretation methods prompt language models to describe their own internal states, but remain unreliable due to hyperparameter sensitivity. We show that training lightweight adapters on interpretability artifacts, while keeping the LM entirely frozen, yields reliable self-interpretation across tasks and model families. A scalar affine adapter with just $d_\text{model}+1$ parameters suffices: trained adapters generate sparse autoencoder feature labels that outperform the training labels themselves (71% vs 63% generation scoring at 70B scale), identify topics with 94% recall@1 versus 1% for untrained baselines, and decode bridge entities in multi-hop reasoning that appear in neither prompt nor response, surfacing implicit reasoning without chain-of-thought. The learned bias vector alone accounts for 85% of improvement, and simpler adapters generalize better than more expressive alternatives. Controlling for model knowledge via prompted descriptions, we find self-interpretation gains outpace capability gains from 7B to 72B parameters. Our results demonstrate that self-interpretation improves with scale, without modifying the model being interpreted.
Spreading dynamics is a central topic in the physics of complex systems and network science, providing a unified framework for understanding how information, behaviors, and diseases propagate through interactions among system units. In many propagation contexts, spreading processes are influenced by multiple interacting factors, such as information expression patterns, cultural contexts, living environments, cognitive preferences, and public policies, which are difficult to incorporate directly into classical modeling frameworks. Recently, large language models (LLMs) have exhibited strong capabilities in natural language understanding, reasoning, and generation, enabling explicit perception of semantic content and contextual cues in spreading processes, thereby supporting the analysis of the different influencing factors. Beyond serving as external analytical tools, LLMs can also act as interactive agents embedded in propagation systems, potentially influencing spreading pathways and feedback structures. Consequently, the roles and impacts of LLMs on spreading dynamics have become an active and rapidly growing research area across multiple research disciplines. This review provides a comprehensive overview of recent advances in applying LLMs to the study of spreading dynamics across two representative domains: digital epidemics, such as misinformation and rumors, and biological epidemics, including infectious disease outbreaks. We first examine the foundations of epidemic modeling from a complex-systems perspective and discuss how LLM-based approaches relate to traditional frameworks. We then systematically review recent studies from three key perspectives, which are epidemic modeling, epidemic detection and surveillance, and epidemic prediction and management, to clarify how LLMs enhance these areas. Finally, open challenges and potential research directions are discussed.
In this paper, we propose a context-aware recommender system that models students' programming skills using embeddings of the source code they submit throughout a course. These embeddings predict students' skills across multiple programming topics, producing profiles that are matched to the skills required by unseen homework problems. To generate recommendations, we compute the cosine similarity between student profiles and problem skill vectors, ranking exercises according to their alignment with each student's current abilities. We evaluated our approach using real data from students and exercises in an introductory programming course at our university. First, we assessed the effectiveness of our source code embeddings for predicting skills, comparing them with token-based and graph-based alternatives. Results showed that Jina embeddings outperformed TF-IDF, CodeBERT-cpp, and GraphCodeBERT across most skills. Additionally, we evaluated the system's ability to recommend exercises aligned with weekly course content by analyzing student submissions collected over seven course offerings. Our approach consistently produced more suitable recommendations than baselines based on correctness or solution time, indicating that predicted programming skills provide a stronger signal for problem recommendation.
This work presents a consensus-based Bayesian framework to detect malicious user behavior in enterprise directory access graphs. By modeling directories as topics and users as agents within a multi-level interaction graph, we simulate access evolution using influence-weighted opinion dynamics. Logical dependencies between users are encoded in dynamic matrices Ci, and directory similarity is captured via a shared influence matrix W. Malicious behavior is injected as cross-component logical perturbations that violate structural norms of strongly connected components(SCCs). We apply theoretical guarantees from opinion dynamics literature to determine topic convergence and detect anomaly via scaled opinion variance. To quantify uncertainty, we introduce a Bayesian anomaly scoring mechanism that evolves over time, using both static and online priors. Simulations over synthetic access graphs validate our method, demonstrating its sensitivity to logical inconsistencies and robustness under dynamic perturbation.