Topic modeling is a type of statistical modeling for discovering the abstract topics that occur in a collection of documents.
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.
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.
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.
This study investigates the use of neural topic modeling and LLMs to uncover meaningful themes from patient storytelling data, to offer insights that could contribute to more patient-oriented healthcare practices. We analyze a collection of transcribed interviews with cancer patients (132,722 words in 13 interviews). We first evaluate BERTopic and Top2Vec for individual interview summarization by using similar preprocessing, chunking, and clustering configurations to ensure a fair comparison on Keyword Extraction. LLMs (GPT4) are then used for the next step topic labeling. Their outputs for a single interview (I0) are rated through a small-scale human evaluation, focusing on {coherence}, {clarity}, and {relevance}. Based on the preliminary results and evaluation, BERTopic shows stronger performance and is selected for further experimentation using three {clinically oriented embedding} models. We then analyzed the full interview collection with the best model setting. Results show that domain-specific embeddings improved topic \textit{precision} and \textit{interpretability}, with BioClinicalBERT producing the most consistent results across transcripts. The global analysis of the full dataset of 13 interviews, using the BioClinicalBERT embedding model, reveals the most dominant topics throughout all 13 interviews, namely ``Coordination and Communication in Cancer Care Management" and ``Patient Decision-Making in Cancer Treatment Journey''. Although the interviews are machine translations from Dutch to English, and clinical professionals are not involved in this evaluation, the findings suggest that neural topic modeling, particularly BERTopic, can help provide useful feedback to clinicians from patient interviews. This pipeline could support more efficient document navigation and strengthen the role of patients' voices in healthcare workflows.
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.
Existing research often treats parliamentary discourse as a homogeneous whole, overlooking topic-specific patterns. Parliamentary speeches address a wide range of topics, some of which evoke stronger emotions than others. While everyone has intuitive assumptions about what the most emotive topics in a parliament may be, there has been little research into the emotions typically linked to different topics. This paper strives to fill this gap by examining emotion expression among the topics of parliamentary speeches delivered in Eduskunta, the Finnish Parliament, between 2000 and 2020. An emotion analysis model is used to investigate emotion expression in topics, from both synchronic and diachronic perspectives. The results strengthen evidence of increasing positivity in parliamentary speech and provide further insights into topic-specific emotion expression within parliamentary debate.
Large language models (LLMs) are highly capable of answering questions, but they are often unaware of their own knowledge boundary, i.e., knowing what they know and what they don't know. As a result, they can generate factually incorrect responses on topics they do not have enough knowledge of, commonly known as hallucination. Rather than hallucinating, a language model should be more honest and respond with "I don't know" when it does not have enough knowledge about a topic. Many methods have been proposed to improve LLM honesty, but their evaluations lack robustness, as they do not take into account the knowledge that the LLM has ingested during its pretraining. In this paper, we propose a more robust evaluation benchmark dataset for LLM honesty by utilizing Pythia, a truly open LLM with publicly available pretraining data. In addition, we also propose a novel method for harnessing the pretraining data to build a more honest LLM.
For ethical and safe AI, machine unlearning rises as a critical topic aiming to protect sensitive, private, and copyrighted knowledge from misuse. To achieve this goal, it is common to conduct gradient ascent (GA) to reverse the training on undesired data. However, such a reversal is prone to catastrophic collapse, which leads to serious performance degradation in general tasks. As a solution, we propose model extrapolation as an alternative to GA, which reaches the counterpart direction in the hypothesis space from one model given another reference model. Therefore, we leverage the original model as the reference, further train it to memorize undesired data while keeping prediction consistency on the rest retained data, to obtain a memorization model. Counterfactual as it might sound, a forget model can be obtained via extrapolation from the memorization model to the reference model. Hence, we avoid directly acquiring the forget model using GA, but proceed with gradient descent for the memorization model, which successfully stabilizes the machine unlearning process. Our model extrapolation is simple and efficient to implement, and it can also effectively converge throughout training to achieve improved unlearning performance.
Large language Model (LLM)-assisted algorithm discovery is an iterative, black-box optimization process over programs to approximatively solve a target task, where an LLM proposes candidate programs and an external evaluator provides task feedback. Despite intense recent research on the topic and promising results, how can the LLM internal representation of the space of possible programs be maximally exploited to improve performance is an open question. Here, we introduce Contrastive Concept-Tree Search (CCTS), which extracts a hierarchical concept representation from the generated programs and learns a contrastive concept model that guides parent selection. By reweighting parents using a likelihood-ratio score between high- and low-performing solutions, CCTS biases search toward useful concept combinations and away from misleading ones, providing guidance through an explicit concept hierarchy rather than the algorithm lineage constructed by the LLM. We show that CCTS improves search efficiency over fitness-based baselines and produces interpretable, task-specific concept trees across a benchmark of open Erdős-type combinatorics problems. Our analysis indicates that the gains are driven largely by learning which concepts to avoid. We further validate these findings in a controlled synthetic algorithm-discovery environment, which reproduces qualitatively the search dynamics observed with the LLMs.