Topic modeling is a type of statistical modeling for discovering the abstract topics that occur in a collection of documents.
We introduce ChemPro, a progressive benchmark with 4100 natural language question-answer pairs in Chemistry, across 4 coherent sections of difficulty designed to assess the proficiency of Large Language Models (LLMs) in a broad spectrum of general chemistry topics. We include Multiple Choice Questions and Numerical Questions spread across fine-grained information recall, long-horizon reasoning, multi-concept questions, problem-solving with nuanced articulation, and straightforward questions in a balanced ratio, effectively covering Bio-Chemistry, Inorganic-Chemistry, Organic-Chemistry and Physical-Chemistry. ChemPro is carefully designed analogous to a student's academic evaluation for basic to high-school chemistry. A gradual increase in the question difficulty rigorously tests the ability of LLMs to progress from solving basic problems to solving more sophisticated challenges. We evaluate 45+7 state-of-the-art LLMs, spanning both open-source and proprietary variants, and our analysis reveals that while LLMs perform well on basic chemistry questions, their accuracy declines with different types and levels of complexity. These findings highlight the critical limitations of LLMs in general scientific reasoning and understanding and point towards understudied dimensions of difficulty, emphasizing the need for more robust methodologies to improve LLMs.
Sustaining long-term interactions remains a bottleneck for Large Language Models (LLMs), as their limited context windows struggle to manage dialogue histories that extend over time. Existing memory systems often treat interactions as disjointed snippets, failing to capture the underlying narrative coherence of the dialogue stream. We propose TraceMem, a cognitively-inspired framework that weaves structured, narrative memory schemata from user conversational traces through a three-stage pipeline: (1) Short-term Memory Processing, which employs a deductive topic segmentation approach to demarcate episode boundaries and extract semantic representation; (2) Synaptic Memory Consolidation, a process that summarizes episodes into episodic memories before distilling them alongside semantics into user-specific traces; and (3) Systems Memory Consolidation, which utilizes two-stage hierarchical clustering to organize these traces into coherent, time-evolving narrative threads under unifying themes. These threads are encapsulated into structured user memory cards, forming narrative memory schemata. For memory utilization, we provide an agentic search mechanism to enhance reasoning process. Evaluation on the LoCoMo benchmark shows that TraceMem achieves state-of-the-art performance with a brain-inspired architecture. Analysis shows that by constructing coherent narratives, it surpasses baselines in multi-hop and temporal reasoning, underscoring its essential role in deep narrative comprehension. Additionally, we provide an open discussion on memory systems, offering our perspectives and future outlook on the field. Our code implementation is available at: https://github.com/YimingShu-teay/TraceMem
Long-term conversational memory is essential for LLM-based assistants, yet existing benchmarks focus on dyadic, single-topic dialogues that fail to capture real-world complexity. We introduce EverMemBench, a benchmark featuring multi-party, multi-group conversations spanning over 1 million tokens with temporally evolving information, cross-topic interleaving, and role-specific personas. EverMemBench evaluates memory systems across three dimensions through 1,000+ QA pairs: fine-grained recall, memory awareness, and user profile understanding. Our evaluation reveals critical limitations: (1) multi-hop reasoning collapses in multi-party settings, with even oracle models achieving only 26%; (2) temporal reasoning remains unsolved, requiring version semantics beyond timestamp matching; (3) memory awareness is bottlenecked by retrieval, where current similarity-based methods fail to bridge the semantic gap between queries and implicitly relevant memories. EverMemBench provides a challenging testbed for developing next-generation memory architectures.
This study investigates the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) for political stance detection in informal online discourse, where language is often sarcastic, ambiguous, and context-dependent. We explore whether providing contextual information, specifically user profile summaries derived from historical posts, can improve classification accuracy. Using a real-world political forum dataset, we generate structured profiles that summarize users' ideological leaning, recurring topics, and linguistic patterns. We evaluate seven state-of-the-art LLMs across baseline and context-enriched setups through a comprehensive cross-model evaluation. Our findings show that contextual prompts significantly boost accuracy, with improvements ranging from +17.5\% to +38.5\%, achieving up to 74\% accuracy that surpasses previous approaches. We also analyze how profile size and post selection strategies affect performance, showing that strategically chosen political content yields better results than larger, randomly selected contexts. These findings underscore the value of incorporating user-level context to enhance LLM performance in nuanced political classification tasks.
Pluralism, the capacity to engage with diverse perspectives without collapsing them into a single viewpoint, is critical for developing large language models that faithfully reflect human heterogeneity. Yet this characteristic has not been carefully examined in the LLM research community and remains absent from most alignment studies. Debate-oriented sources provide a natural entry point for pluralism research. Previous work builds on online debate sources but remains constrained by costly human validation. Other debate-rich platforms such as Reddit and Kialo also offer promising material: Reddit provides linguistic diversity and scale but lacks clear argumentative structure, while Kialo supplies explicit pro/con graphs but remains overly concise and detached from natural discourse. We introduce PERSPECTRA, a pluralist benchmark that integrates the structural clarity of Kialo debate graphs with the linguistic diversity of real Reddit discussions. Using a controlled retrieval-and-expansion pipeline, we construct 3,810 enriched arguments spanning 762 pro/con stances on 100 controversial topics. Each opinion is expanded to multiple naturalistic variants, enabling robust evaluation of pluralism. We initialise three tasks with PERSPECTRA: opinion counting (identifying distinct viewpoints), opinion matching (aligning supporting stances and discourse to source opinions), and polarity check (inferring aggregate stance in mixed discourse). Experiments with state-of-the-art open-source and proprietary LLMs, highlight systematic failures, such as overestimating the number of viewpoints and misclassifying concessive structures, underscoring the difficulty of pluralism-aware understanding and reasoning. By combining diversity with structure, PERSPECTRA establishes the first scalable, configurable benchmark for evaluating how well models represent, distinguish, and reason over multiple perspectives.
Online hate on social media ranges from overt slurs and threats (\emph{hard hate speech}) to \emph{soft hate speech}: discourse that appears reasonable on the surface but uses framing and value-based arguments to steer audiences toward blaming or excluding a target group. We hypothesize that current moderation systems, largely optimized for surface toxicity cues, are not robust to this reasoning-driven hostility, yet existing benchmarks do not measure this gap systematically. We introduce \textbf{\textsc{SoftHateBench}}, a generative benchmark that produces soft-hate variants while preserving the underlying hostile standpoint. To generate soft hate, we integrate the \emph{Argumentum Model of Topics} (AMT) and \emph{Relevance Theory} (RT) in a unified framework: AMT provides the backbone argument structure for rewriting an explicit hateful standpoint into a seemingly neutral discussion while preserving the stance, and RT guides generation to keep the AMT chain logically coherent. The benchmark spans \textbf{7} sociocultural domains and \textbf{28} target groups, comprising \textbf{4,745} soft-hate instances. Evaluations across encoder-based detectors, general-purpose LLMs, and safety models show a consistent drop from hard to soft tiers: systems that detect explicit hostility often fail when the same stance is conveyed through subtle, reasoning-based language. \textcolor{red}{\textbf{Disclaimer.} Contains offensive examples used solely for research.}
The rise of conspiracy theories has created far-reaching societal harm in the public discourse by eroding trust and fueling polarization. Beyond this public impact lies a deeply personal toll on the friends and families of conspiracy believers, a dimension often overlooked in large-scale computational research. This study fills this gap by systematically mapping radicalization journeys and quantifying the associated emotional toll inflicted on loved ones. We use the prominent case of QAnon as a case study, analyzing 12747 narratives from the r/QAnonCasualties support community through a novel mixed-methods approach. First, we use topic modeling (BERTopic) to map the radicalization trajectories, identifying key pre-existing conditions, triggers, and post-radicalization characteristics. From this, we apply an LDA-based graphical model to uncover six recurring archetypes of QAnon adherents, which we term "radicalization personas." Finally, using LLM-assisted emotion detection and regression modeling, we link these personas to the specific emotional toll reported by narrators. Our findings reveal that these personas are not just descriptive; they are powerful predictors of the specific emotional harms experienced by narrators. Radicalization perceived as a deliberate ideological choice is associated with narrator anger and disgust, while those marked by personal and cognitive collapse are linked to fear and sadness. This work provides the first empirical framework for understanding radicalization as a relational phenomenon, offering a vital roadmap for researchers and practitioners to navigate its interpersonal fallout.
Deepfake detection is a widely researched topic that is crucial for combating the spread of malicious content, with existing methods mainly modeling the problem as classification or spatial localization. The rapid advancements in generative models impose new demands on Deepfake detection. In this paper, we propose multimodal alignment and reinforcement for explainable Deepfake detection via vision-language models, termed MARE, which aims to enhance the accuracy and reliability of Vision-Language Models (VLMs) in Deepfake detection and reasoning. Specifically, MARE designs comprehensive reward functions, incorporating reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), to incentivize the generation of text-spatially aligned reasoning content that adheres to human preferences. Besides, MARE introduces a forgery disentanglement module to capture intrinsic forgery traces from high-level facial semantics, thereby improving its authenticity detection capability. We conduct thorough evaluations on the reasoning content generated by MARE. Both quantitative and qualitative experimental results demonstrate that MARE achieves state-of-the-art performance in terms of accuracy and reliability.
Machine unlearning aims to remove specific content from trained models while preserving overall performance. However, the phenomenon of benign relearning, in which forgotten information reemerges even from benign fine-tuning data, reveals that existing unlearning methods remain fundamentally fragile. A common explanation attributes this effect to topical relevance, but we find this account insufficient. Through systematic analysis, we demonstrate that syntactic similarity, rather than topicality, is the primary driver: across benchmarks, syntactically similar data consistently trigger recovery even without topical overlap, due to their alignment in representations and gradients with the forgotten content. Motivated by this insight, we introduce syntactic diversification, which paraphrases the original forget queries into heterogeneous structures prior to unlearning. This approach effectively suppresses benign relearning, accelerates forgetting, and substantially alleviates the trade-off between unlearning efficacy and model utility.
Cross-lingual topic modeling seeks to uncover coherent and semantically aligned topics across languages - a task central to multilingual understanding. Yet most existing models learn topics in disjoint, language-specific spaces and rely on alignment mechanisms (e.g., bilingual dictionaries) that often fail to capture deep cross-lingual semantics, resulting in loosely connected topic spaces. Moreover, these approaches often overlook the rich semantic signals embedded in multilingual pretrained representations, further limiting their ability to capture fine-grained alignment. We introduce GloCTM (Global Context Space for Cross-Lingual Topic Model), a novel framework that enforces cross-lingual topic alignment through a unified semantic space spanning the entire model pipeline. GloCTM constructs enriched input representations by expanding bag-of-words with cross-lingual lexical neighborhoods, and infers topic proportions using both local and global encoders, with their latent representations aligned through internal regularization. At the output level, the global topic-word distribution, defined over the combined vocabulary, structurally synchronizes topic meanings across languages. To further ground topics in deep semantic space, GloCTM incorporates a Centered Kernel Alignment (CKA) loss that aligns the latent topic space with multilingual contextual embeddings. Experiments across multiple benchmarks demonstrate that GloCTM significantly improves topic coherence and cross-lingual alignment, outperforming strong baselines.