PsychEval: A Multi-Session and Multi-Therapy Benchmark for High-Realism AI Psychological Counselor

To develop a reliable AI for psychological assessment, we introduce \texttt{PsychEval}, a multi-session, multi-therapy, and highly realistic benchmark designed to address three key challenges: \textbf{1) Can we train a highly realistic AI counselor?} Realistic counseling is a longitudinal task requiring sustained memory and dynamic goal tracking. We propose a multi-session benchmark (spanning 6-10 sessions across three distinct stages) that demands critical capabilities such as memory continuity, adaptive reasoning, and longitudinal planning. The dataset is annotated with extensive professional skills, comprising over 677 meta-skills and 4577 atomic skills. \textbf{2) How to train a multi-therapy AI counselor?} While existing models often focus on a single therapy, complex cases frequently require flexible strategies among various therapies. We construct a diverse dataset covering five therapeutic modalities (Psychodynamic, Behaviorism, CBT, Humanistic Existentialist, and Postmodernist) alongside an integrative therapy with a unified three-stage clinical framework across six core psychological topics. \textbf{3) How to systematically evaluate an AI counselor?} We establish a holistic evaluation framework with 18 therapy-specific and therapy-shared metrics across Client-Level and Counselor-Level dimensions. To support this, we also construct over 2,000 diverse client profiles. Extensive experimental analysis fully validates the superior quality and clinical fidelity of our dataset. Crucially, \texttt{PsychEval} transcends static benchmarking to serve as a high-fidelity reinforcement learning environment that enables the self-evolutionary training of clinically responsible and adaptive AI counselors.

Comparative Efficiency Analysis of Lightweight Transformer Models: A Multi-Domain Empirical Benchmark for Enterprise NLP Deployment

In the rapidly evolving landscape of enterprise natural language processing (NLP), the demand for efficient, lightweight models capable of handling multi-domain text automation tasks has intensified. This study conducts a comparative analysis of three prominent lightweight Transformer models - DistilBERT, MiniLM, and ALBERT - across three distinct domains: customer sentiment classification, news topic classification, and toxicity and hate speech detection. Utilizing datasets from IMDB, AG News, and the Measuring Hate Speech corpus, we evaluated performance using accuracy-based metrics including accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score, as well as efficiency metrics such as model size, inference time, throughput, and memory usage. Key findings reveal that no single model dominates all performance dimensions. ALBERT achieves the highest task-specific accuracy in multiple domains, MiniLM excels in inference speed and throughput, and DistilBERT demonstrates the most consistent accuracy across tasks while maintaining competitive efficiency. All results reflect controlled fine-tuning under fixed enterprise-oriented constraints rather than exhaustive hyperparameter optimization. These results highlight trade-offs between accuracy and efficiency, recommending MiniLM for latency-sensitive enterprise applications, DistilBERT for balanced performance, and ALBERT for resource-constrained environments.

From National Curricula to Cultural Awareness: Constructing Open-Ended Culture-Specific Question Answering Dataset

Large language models (LLMs) achieve strong performance on many tasks, but their progress remains uneven across languages and cultures, often reflecting values latent in English-centric training data. To enable practical cultural alignment, we propose a scalable approach that leverages national social studies curricula as a foundation for culture-aware supervision. We introduce CuCu, an automated multi-agent LLM framework that transforms national textbook curricula into open-ended, culture-specific question-answer pairs. Applying CuCu to the Korean national social studies curriculum, we construct KCaQA, comprising 34.1k open-ended QA pairs. Our quantitative and qualitative analyses suggest that KCaQA covers culture-specific topics and produces responses grounded in local sociocultural contexts.

EvolMem: A Cognitive-Driven Benchmark for Multi-Session Dialogue Memory

Despite recent advances in understanding and leveraging long-range conversational memory, existing benchmarks still lack systematic evaluation of large language models(LLMs) across diverse memory dimensions, particularly in multi-session settings. In this work, we propose EvolMem, a new benchmark for assessing multi-session memory capabilities of LLMs and agent systems. EvolMem is grounded in cognitive psychology and encompasses both declarative and non-declarative memory, further decomposed into multiple fine-grained abilities. To construct the benchmark, we introduce a hybrid data synthesis framework that consists of topic-initiated generation and narrative-inspired transformations. This framework enables scalable generation of multi-session conversations with controllable complexity, accompanied by sample-specific evaluation guidelines. Extensive evaluation reveals that no LLM consistently outperforms others across all memory dimensions. Moreover, agent memory mechanisms do not necessarily enhance LLMs' capabilities and often exhibit notable efficiency limitations. Data and code will be released at https://github.com/shenye7436/EvolMem.

Measuring Social Media Polarization Using Large Language Models and Heuristic Rules

Understanding affective polarization in online discourse is crucial for evaluating the societal impact of social media interactions. This study presents a novel framework that leverages large language models (LLMs) and domain-informed heuristics to systematically analyze and quantify affective polarization in discussions on divisive topics such as climate change and gun control. Unlike most prior approaches that relied on sentiment analysis or predefined classifiers, our method integrates LLMs to extract stance, affective tone, and agreement patterns from large-scale social media discussions. We then apply a rule-based scoring system capable of quantifying affective polarization even in small conversations consisting of single interactions, based on stance alignment, emotional content, and interaction dynamics. Our analysis reveals distinct polarization patterns that are event dependent: (i) anticipation-driven polarization, where extreme polarization escalates before well-publicized events, and (ii) reactive polarization, where intense affective polarization spikes immediately after sudden, high-impact events. By combining AI-driven content annotation with domain-informed scoring, our framework offers a scalable and interpretable approach to measuring affective polarization. The source code is publicly available at: https://github.com/hasanjawad001/llm-social-media-polarization.

The Gray Area: Characterizing Moderator Disagreement on Reddit

Volunteer moderators play a crucial role in sustaining online dialogue, but they often disagree about what should or should not be allowed. In this paper, we study the complexity of content moderation with a focus on disagreements between moderators, which we term the ``gray area'' of moderation. Leveraging 5 years and 4.3 million moderation log entries from 24 subreddits of different topics and sizes, we characterize how gray area, or disputed cases, differ from undisputed cases. We show that one-in-seven moderation cases are disputed among moderators, often addressing transgressions where users' intent is not directly legible, such as in trolling and brigading, as well as tensions around community governance. This is concerning, as almost half of all gray area cases involved automated moderation decisions. Through information-theoretic evaluations, we demonstrate that gray area cases are inherently harder to adjudicate than undisputed cases and show that state-of-the-art language models struggle to adjudicate them. We highlight the key role of expert human moderators in overseeing the moderation process and provide insights about the challenges of current moderation processes and tools.

LeanCat: A Benchmark Suite for Formal Category Theory in Lean (Part I: 1-Categories)

Large language models (LLMs) have made rapid progress in formal theorem proving, yet current benchmarks under-measure the kind of abstraction and library-mediated reasoning that organizes modern mathematics. In parallel with FATE's emphasis on frontier algebra, we introduce LeanCat, a Lean benchmark for category-theoretic formalization -- a unifying language for mathematical structure and a core layer of modern proof engineering -- serving as a stress test of structural, interface-level reasoning. Part I: 1-Categories contains 100 fully formalized statement-level tasks, curated into topic families and three difficulty tiers via an LLM-assisted + human grading process. The best model solves 8.25% of tasks at pass@1 (32.50%/4.17%/0.00% by Easy/Medium/High) and 12.00% at pass@4 (50.00%/4.76%/0.00%). We also evaluate LeanBridge which use LeanExplore to search Mathlib, and observe consistent gains over single-model baselines. LeanCat is intended as a compact, reusable checkpoint for tracking both AI and human progress toward reliable, research-level formalization in Lean.

Learning Resilient Elections with Adversarial GNNs

In the face of adverse motives, it is indispensable to achieve a consensus. Elections have been the canonical way by which modern democracy has operated since the 17th century. Nowadays, they regulate markets, provide an engine for modern recommender systems or peer-to-peer networks, and remain the main approach to represent democracy. However, a desirable universal voting rule that satisfies all hypothetical scenarios is still a challenging topic, and the design of these systems is at the forefront of mechanism design research. Automated mechanism design is a promising approach, and recent works have demonstrated that set-invariant architectures are uniquely suited to modelling electoral systems. However, various concerns prevent the direct application to real-world settings, such as robustness to strategic voting. In this paper, we generalise the expressive capability of learned voting rules, and combine improvements in neural network architecture with adversarial training to improve the resilience of voting rules while maximizing social welfare. We evaluate the effectiveness of our methods on both synthetic and real-world datasets. Our method resolves critical limitations of prior work regarding learning voting rules by representing elections using bipartite graphs, and learning such voting rules using graph neural networks. We believe this opens new frontiers for applying machine learning to real-world elections.

Stakeholder Suite: A Unified AI Framework for Mapping Actors, Topics and Arguments in Public Debates

Public debates surrounding infrastructure and energy projects involve complex networks of stakeholders, arguments, and evolving narratives. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for anticipating controversies and informing engagement strategies, yet existing tools in media intelligence largely rely on descriptive analytics with limited transparency. This paper presents Stakeholder Suite, a framework deployed in operational contexts for mapping actors, topics, and arguments within public debates. The system combines actor detection, topic modeling, argument extraction and stance classification in a unified pipeline. Tested on multiple energy infrastructure projects as a case study, the approach delivers fine-grained, source-grounded insights while remaining adaptable to diverse domains. The framework achieves strong retrieval precision and stance accuracy, producing arguments judged relevant in 75% of pilot use cases. Beyond quantitative metrics, the tool has proven effective for operational use: helping project teams visualize networks of influence, identify emerging controversies, and support evidence-based decision-making.

When Do Tools and Planning Help LLMs Think? A Cost- and Latency-Aware Benchmark

Modern large language models (LLMs) increasingly rely on inference-time planning and external tools to improve reasoning. We benchmark this behavior on two real-world settings: event-centric question answering over graph-structured knowledge (Event-QA) and persuasive response generation in Reddit ChangeMyView (CMV). Using LangChain and LangGraph, we compare a one-shot baseline against a plan-execute-replan agent equipped with task-specific tools (DBpedia SPARQL/lookup/schema exploration, Wikipedia-focused retrieval, and topical web search). We evaluate on 60 examples each from Event-QA and CMV (3 splits of 20), and report both mean end-to-end latency and per-example token cost estimates. We evaluate GPT-4o and GPT-4o-mini under identical workflows and report accuracy and end-to-end latency. On Event-QA, the best tool-augmented configuration improves accuracy (e.g., 47.5\% $\rightarrow$ 67.5\% for GPT-4o) while increasing latency by orders of magnitude ($\sim$8s $\rightarrow$ $\sim$317s per example). On CMV, one-shot prompting is strongest (e.g., GPT-4o-mini achieves 75\% at $\sim$6s), and planning+search increases latency substantially without consistent gains. However, complex multi-tool orchestration exposes failure modes where the smaller model degrades. Overall, the findings highlight the need for task-specific, cost-aware choices of both model size and agent/tooling complexity.