Topic modeling is a type of statistical modeling for discovering the abstract topics that occur in a collection of documents.
Accurately modeling long-term value (LTV) at the ranking stage of short-video recommendation remains challenging. While delayed feedback and extended engagement have been explored, fine-grained attribution and robust position normalization at billion-scale are still underdeveloped. We propose a practical ranking-stage LTV framework addressing three challenges: position bias, attribution ambiguity, and temporal limitations. (1) Position bias: We introduce a Position-aware Debias Quantile (PDQ) module that normalizes engagement via quantile-based distributions, enabling position-robust LTV estimation without architectural changes. (2) Attribution ambiguity: We propose a multi-dimensional attribution module that learns continuous attribution strengths across contextual, behavioral, and content signals, replacing static rules to capture nuanced inter-video influence. A customized hybrid loss with explicit noise filtering improves causal clarity. (3) Temporal limitations: We present a cross-temporal author modeling module that builds censoring-aware, day-level LTV targets to capture creator-driven re-engagement over longer horizons; the design is extensible to other dimensions (e.g., topics, styles). Offline studies and online A/B tests show significant improvements in LTV metrics and stable trade-offs with short-term objectives. Implemented as task augmentation within an existing ranking model, the framework supports efficient training and serving, and has been deployed at billion-scale in Taobao's production system, delivering sustained engagement gains while remaining compatible with industrial constraints.
This paper introduces Perspectives, an interactive extension of the Discourse Analysis Tool Suite designed to empower Digital Humanities (DH) scholars to explore and organize large, unstructured document collections. Perspectives implements a flexible, aspect-focused document clustering pipeline with human-in-the-loop refinement capabilities. We showcase how this process can be initially steered by defining analytical lenses through document rewriting prompts and instruction-based embeddings, and further aligned with user intent through tools for refining clusters and mechanisms for fine-tuning the embedding model. The demonstration highlights a typical workflow, illustrating how DH researchers can leverage Perspectives's interactive document map to uncover topics, sentiments, or other relevant categories, thereby gaining insights and preparing their data for subsequent in-depth analysis.
Language models have become practical tools for quantum computing education and research, from summarizing technical papers to explaining theoretical concepts and answering questions about recent developments in the field. While existing benchmarks evaluate quantum code generation and circuit design, their understanding of quantum computing concepts has not been systematically measured. Quantum-Audit addresses this gap with 2,700 questions covering core quantum computing topics. We evaluate 26 models from leading organizations. Our benchmark comprises 1,000 expert-written questions, 1,000 questions extracted from research papers using LLMs and validated by experts, plus an additional 700 questions including 350 open-ended questions and 350 questions with false premises to test whether models can correct erroneous assumptions. Human participants scored between 23% and 86%, with experts averaging 74%. Top-performing models exceeded the expert average, with Claude Opus 4.5 reaching 84% accuracy, though top models showed an average 12-point accuracy drop on expert-written questions compared to LLM-generated ones. Performance declined further on advanced topics, dropping to 73% on security questions. Additionally, models frequently accepted and reinforced false premises embedded in questions instead of identifying them, with accuracy below 66% on these critical reasoning tasks.
This paper introduces ParlaCAP, a large-scale dataset for analyzing parliamentary agenda setting across Europe, and proposes a cost-effective method for building domain-specific policy topic classifiers. Applying the Comparative Agendas Project (CAP) schema to the multilingual ParlaMint corpus of over 8 million speeches from 28 parliaments of European countries and autonomous regions, we follow a teacher-student framework in which a high-performing large language model (LLM) annotates in-domain training data and a multilingual encoder model is fine-tuned on these annotations for scalable data annotation. We show that this approach produces a classifier tailored to the target domain. Agreement between the LLM and human annotators is comparable to inter-annotator agreement among humans, and the resulting model outperforms existing CAP classifiers trained on manually-annotated but out-of-domain data. In addition to the CAP annotations, the ParlaCAP dataset offers rich speaker and party metadata, as well as sentiment predictions coming from the ParlaSent multilingual transformer model, enabling comparative research on political attention and representation across countries. We illustrate the analytical potential of the dataset with three use cases, examining the distribution of parliamentary attention across policy topics, sentiment patterns in parliamentary speech, and gender differences in policy attention.
Open research information (ORI) play a central role in shaping how scientific knowledge is produced, disseminated, validated, and reused across the research lifecycle. While the visibility of such ORI infrastructures is often assessed through citation-based metrics, in this study, we present a full-text, natural language processing (NLP) driven scientometric framework to systematically quantify the impact of ORI infrastructures beyond citation counts, using the LXCat platform for low temperature plasma (LTP) research as a representative case study. The modeling of LTPs and interpretation of LTP experiments rely heavily on accurate data, much of which is hosted on LXCat, a community-driven, open-access platform central to the LTP research ecosystem. To investigate the scholarly impact of the LXCat platform over the past decade, we analyzed a curated corpus of full-text research articles citing three foundational LXCat publications. We present a comprehensive pipeline that integrates chemical entity recognition, dataset and solver mention extraction, affiliation based geographic mapping and topic modeling to extract fine-grained patterns of data usage that reflect implicit research priorities, data practices, differential reliance on specific databases, evolving modes of data reuse and coupling within scientific workflows, and thematic evolution. Importantly, our proposed methodology is domain-agnostic and transferable to other ORI contexts, and highlights the utility of NLP in quantifying the role of scientific data infrastructures and offers a data-driven reflection on how open-access platforms like LXCat contribute to shaping research directions. This work presents a scalable scientometric framework that has the potential to support evidence based evaluation of ORI platforms and to inform infrastructure design, governance, sustainability, and policy for future development.
Large language models and LLM-based agents are increasingly used for cybersecurity tasks that are inherently dual-use. Existing approaches to refusal, spanning academic policy frameworks and commercially deployed systems, often rely on broad topic-based bans or offensive-focused taxonomies. As a result, they can yield inconsistent decisions, over-restrict legitimate defenders, and behave brittlely under obfuscation or request segmentation. We argue that effective refusal requires explicitly modeling the trade-off between offensive risk and defensive benefit, rather than relying solely on intent or offensive classification. In this paper, we introduce a content-based framework for designing and auditing cyber refusal policies that makes offense-defense tradeoffs explicit. The framework characterizes requests along five dimensions: Offensive Action Contribution, Offensive Risk, Technical Complexity, Defensive Benefit, and Expected Frequency for Legitimate Users, grounded in the technical substance of the request rather than stated intent. We demonstrate that this content-grounded approach resolves inconsistencies in current frontier model behavior and allows organizations to construct tunable, risk-aware refusal policies.
With the introduction of cyber-physical genome sequencing and editing technologies, such as CRISPR, researchers can more easily access tools to investigate and create remedies for a variety of topics in genetics and health science (e.g. agriculture and medicine). As the field advances and grows, new concerns present themselves in the ability to predict the off-target behavior. In this work, we explore the underlying biological and chemical model from a data driven perspective. Additionally, we present a machine learning based solution named \textit{Guide-Guard} to predict the behavior of the system given a gRNA in the CRISPR gene-editing process with 84\% accuracy. This solution is able to be trained on multiple different genes at the same time while retaining accuracy.
Metaphors are a distinctive feature of literary language, yet they remain less studied experimentally than everyday metaphors. Moreover, previous psycholinguistic and computational approaches overlooked the temporal dimension, although many literary metaphors were coined centuries apart from contemporary readers. This study innovatively applies tools from diachronic distributional semantics to assess whether the processing costs of literary metaphors varied over time and genre. Specifically, we trained word embeddings on literary and nonliterary Italian corpora from the 19th and 21st centuries, for a total of 124 million tokens, and modeled changes in the semantic similarity between topics and vehicles of 515 19th-century literary metaphors, taking this measure as a proxy of metaphor processing demands. Overall, semantic similarity, and hence metaphor processing demands, remained stable over time. However, genre played a key role: metaphors appeared more difficult (i.e., lower topic-vehicle similarity) in modern literary contexts than in 19th-century literature, but easier (i.e., higher topic-vehicle similarity) in today's nonliterary language (e.g., the Web) than in 19th-century nonliterary texts. This pattern was further shaped by semantic features of metaphors' individual terms, such as vector coherence and semantic neighborhood density. Collectively, these findings align with broader linguistic changes in Italian, such as the stylistic simplification of modern literature, which may have increased metaphor processing demands, and the high creativity of the Web's language, which seems to render metaphor more accessible.
High-quality relevance judgements over large query sets are essential for evaluating Information Retrieval (IR) systems, yet manual annotation remains costly and time-consuming. Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently shown promise as automatic relevance assessors, but their reliability is still limited. Most existing approaches rely on zero-shot prompting or In-Context Learning (ICL) with a small number of labeled examples. However, standard ICL treats examples as independent instances and fails to explicitly capture the underlying relevance criteria of a topic, restricting its ability to generalize to unseen query-document pairs. To address this limitation, we introduce Relevance Context Learning (RCL), a novel framework that leverages human relevance judgements to explicitly model topic-specific relevance criteria. Rather than directly using labeled examples for in-context prediction, RCL first prompts an LLM (Instructor LLM) to analyze sets of judged query-document pairs and generate explicit narratives that describe what constitutes relevance for a given topic. These relevance narratives are then used as structured prompts to guide a second LLM (Assessor LLM) in producing relevance judgements. To evaluate RCL in a realistic data collection setting, we propose a hybrid pooling strategy in which a shallow depth-\textit{k} pool from participating systems is judged by human assessors, while the remaining documents are labeled by LLMs. Experimental results demonstrate that RCL substantially outperforms zero-shot prompting and consistently improves over standard ICL. Overall, our findings indicate that transforming relevance examples into explicit, context-aware relevance narratives is a more effective way of exploiting human judgements for LLM-based IR dataset construction.
While advancements in Text-to-Video (T2V) generative AI offer a promising path toward democratizing content creation, current models are often optimized for visual fidelity rather than instructional efficacy. This study introduces PedaCo-Gen, a pedagogically-informed human-AI collaborative video generating system for authoring instructional videos based on Mayer's Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (CTML). Moving away from traditional "one-shot" generation, PedaCo-Gen introduces an Intermediate Representation (IR) phase, enabling educators to interactively review and refine video blueprints-comprising scripts and visual descriptions-with an AI reviewer. Our study with 23 education experts demonstrates that PedaCo-Gen significantly enhances video quality across various topics and CTML principles compared to baselines. Participants perceived the AI-driven guidance not merely as a set of instructions but as a metacognitive scaffold that augmented their instructional design expertise, reporting high production efficiency (M=4.26) and guide validity (M=4.04). These findings highlight the importance of reclaiming pedagogical agency through principled co-creation, providing a foundation for future AI authoring tools that harmonize generative power with human professional expertise.