Topic modeling is a type of statistical modeling for discovering the abstract topics that occur in a collection of documents.
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.
Code-switching (CS), which is when Vietnamese speech uses English words like drug names or procedures, is a common phenomenon in Vietnamese medical communication. This creates challenges for Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) systems, especially in low-resource languages like Vietnamese. Current most ASR systems struggle to recognize correctly English medical terms within Vietnamese sentences, and no benchmark addresses this challenge. In this paper, we construct a 34-hour \textbf{Vi}etnamese \textbf{Med}ical \textbf{C}ode-\textbf{S}witching \textbf{S}peech dataset (ViMedCSS) containing 16,576 utterances. Each utterance includes at least one English medical term drawn from a curated bilingual lexicon covering five medical topics. Using this dataset, we evaluate several state-of-the-art ASR models and examine different specific fine-tuning strategies for improving medical term recognition to investigate the best approach to solve in the dataset. Experimental results show that Vietnamese-optimized models perform better on general segments, while multilingual pretraining helps capture English insertions. The combination of both approaches yields the best balance between overall and code-switched accuracy. This work provides the first benchmark for Vietnamese medical code-switching and offers insights into effective domain adaptation for low-resource, multilingual ASR systems.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Drawing on constructs from psychology, prior work has identified a distinction between explicit and implicit bias in large language models (LLMs). While many LLMs undergo post-training alignment and safety procedures to avoid expressions of explicit social bias, they still exhibit significant implicit biases on indirect tasks resembling the Implicit Association Test (IAT). Recent work has further shown that inference-time reasoning can impair LLM performance on tasks that rely on implicit statistical learning. Motivated by a theoretical link between implicit associations and statistical learning in human cognition, we examine how reasoning-enabled inference affects implicit bias in LLMs. We find that enabling reasoning significantly reduces measured implicit bias on an IAT-style evaluation for some model classes across fifteen stereotype topics. This effect appears specific to social bias domains, as we observe no corresponding reduction for non-social implicit associations. As reasoning is increasingly enabled by default in deployed LLMs, these findings suggest that it can meaningfully alter fairness evaluation outcomes in some systems, while also raising questions about how alignment procedures interact with inference-time reasoning to drive variation in bias reduction across model types. More broadly, this work highlights how theory from cognitive science and psychology can complement AI evaluation research by providing methodological and interpretive frameworks that reveal new insights into model behavior.