Human Values in a Single Sentence: Moral Presence, Hierarchies, and Transformer Ensembles on the Schwartz Continuum

We study sentence-level identification of the 19 values in the Schwartz motivational continuum as a concrete formulation of human value detection in text. The setting - out-of-context sentences from news and political manifestos - features sparse moral cues and severe class imbalance. This combination makes fine-grained sentence-level value detection intrinsically difficult, even for strong modern neural models. We first operationalize a binary moral presence task ("does any value appear?") and show that it is learnable from single sentences (positive-class F1 $\approx$ 0.74 with calibrated thresholds). We then compare a presence-gated hierarchy to a direct multi-label classifier under matched compute, both based on DeBERTa-base and augmented with lightweight signals (prior-sentence context, LIWC-22/eMFD/MJD lexica, and topic features). The hierarchy does not outperform direct prediction, indicating that gate recall limits downstream gains. We also benchmark instruction-tuned LLMs - Gemma 2 9B, Llama 3.1 8B, Mistral 8B, and Qwen 2.5 7B - in zero-/few-shot and QLoRA setups and build simple ensembles; a soft-vote supervised ensemble reaches macro-F1 0.332, significantly surpassing the best single supervised model and exceeding prior English-only baselines. Overall, in this scenario, lightweight signals and small ensembles yield the most reliable improvements, while hierarchical gating offers limited benefit. We argue that, under an 8 GB single-GPU constraint and at the 7-9B scale, carefully tuned supervised encoders remain a strong and compute-efficient baseline for structured human value detection, and we outline how richer value structure and sentence-in-document context could further improve performance.

Predicting Retrieval Utility and Answer Quality in Retrieval-Augmented Generation

The quality of answers generated by large language models (LLMs) in retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is largely influenced by the contextual information contained in the retrieved documents. A key challenge for improving RAG is to predict both the utility of retrieved documents -- quantified as the performance gain from using context over generation without context -- and the quality of the final answers in terms of correctness and relevance. In this paper, we define two prediction tasks within RAG. The first is retrieval performance prediction (RPP), which estimates the utility of retrieved documents. The second is generation performance prediction (GPP), which estimates the final answer quality. We hypothesise that in RAG, the topical relevance of retrieved documents correlates with their utility, suggesting that query performance prediction (QPP) approaches can be adapted for RPP and GPP. Beyond these retriever-centric signals, we argue that reader-centric features, such as the LLM's perplexity of the retrieved context conditioned on the input query, can further enhance prediction accuracy for both RPP and GPP. Finally, we propose that features reflecting query-agnostic document quality and readability can also provide useful signals to the predictions. We train linear regression models with the above categories of predictors for both RPP and GPP. Experiments on the Natural Questions (NQ) dataset show that combining predictors from multiple feature categories yields the most accurate estimates of RAG performance.

Beyond Linearization: Attributed Table Graphs for Table Reasoning

Table reasoning, a task to answer questions by reasoning over data presented in tables, is an important topic due to the prevalence of knowledge stored in tabular formats. Recent solutions use Large Language Models (LLMs), exploiting the semantic understanding and reasoning capabilities of LLMs. A common paradigm of such solutions linearizes tables to form plain texts that are served as input to LLMs. This paradigm has critical issues. It loses table structures, lacks explicit reasoning paths for result explainability, and is subject to the "lost-in-the-middle" issue. To address these issues, we propose Table Graph Reasoner (TABGR), a training-free model that represents tables as an Attributed Table Graph (ATG). The ATG explicitly preserves row-column-cell structures while enabling graph-based reasoning for explainability. We further propose a Question-Guided Personalized PageRank (QG-PPR) mechanism to rerank tabular data and mitigate the lost-in-the-middle issue. Extensive experiments on two commonly used benchmarks show that TABGR consistently outperforms state-of-the-art models by up to 9.7% in accuracy. Our code will be made publicly available upon publication.

AI-exhibited Personality Traits Can Shape Human Self-concept through Conversations

Recent Large Language Model (LLM) based AI can exhibit recognizable and measurable personality traits during conversations to improve user experience. However, as human understandings of their personality traits can be affected by their interaction partners' traits, a potential risk is that AI traits may shape and bias users' self-concept of their own traits. To explore the possibility, we conducted a randomized behavioral experiment. Our results indicate that after conversations about personal topics with an LLM-based AI chatbot using GPT-4o default personality traits, users' self-concepts aligned with the AI's measured personality traits. The longer the conversation, the greater the alignment. This alignment led to increased homogeneity in self-concepts among users. We also observed that the degree of self-concept alignment was positively associated with users' conversation enjoyment. Our findings uncover how AI personality traits can shape users' self-concepts through human-AI conversation, highlighting both risks and opportunities. We provide important design implications for developing more responsible and ethical AI systems.

Can Deep Research Agents Find and Organize? Evaluating the Synthesis Gap with Expert Taxonomies

Deep Research Agents are increasingly used for automated survey generation. However, whether they can write surveys like human experts remains unclear. Existing benchmarks focus on fluency or citation accuracy, but none evaluates the core capabilities: retrieving essential papers and organizing them into coherent knowledge structures. We introduce TaxoBench, a diagnostic benchmark derived from 72 highly-cited computer science surveys. We manually extract expert-authored taxonomy trees containing 3,815 precisely categorized citations as ground truth. Our benchmark supports two evaluation modes: Deep Research mode tests end-to-end retrieval and organization given only a topic, while Bottom-Up mode isolates structuring capability by providing the exact papers human experts used. We evaluate 7 leading Deep Research agents and 12 frontier LLMs. Results reveal a dual bottleneck: the best agent recalls only 20.9% of expert-selected papers, and even with perfect input, the best model achieves only 0.31 ARI in organization. Current deep research agents remain far from expert-level survey writing. Our benchmark is publicly available at https://github.com/KongLongGeFDU/TaxoBench.

NLP-Based Review for Toxic Comment Detection Tailored to the Chinese Cyberspace

With the in-depth integration of mobile Internet and widespread adoption of social platforms, user-generated content in the Chinese cyberspace has witnessed explosive growth. Among this content, the proliferation of toxic comments poses severe challenges to individual mental health, community atmosphere and social trust. Owing to the strong context dependence, cultural specificity and rapid evolution of Chinese cyber language, toxic expressions are often conveyed through complex forms such as homophones and metaphors, imposing notable limitations on traditional detection methods. To address this issue, this review focuses on the core topic of natural language processing based toxic comment detection in the Chinese cyberspace, systematically collating and critically analyzing the research progress and key challenges in this field. This review first defines the connotation and characteristics of Chinese toxic comments, and analyzes the platform ecology and transmission mechanisms they rely on. It then comprehensively reviews the construction methods and limitations of existing public datasets, and proposes a novel fine-grained and scalable framework for toxic comment definition and classification, along with corresponding data annotation and quality assessment strategies. We systematically summarize the evolutionary path of detection models from traditional methods to deep learning, with special emphasis on the importance of interpretability in model design. Finally, we thoroughly discuss the open challenges faced by current research and provide forward-looking suggestions for future research directions.

Defenses Against Prompt Attacks Learn Surface Heuristics

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in security-sensitive applications, where they must follow system- or developer-specified instructions that define the intended task behavior, while completing benign user requests. When adversarial instructions appear in user queries or externally retrieved content, models may override intended logic. Recent defenses rely on supervised fine-tuning with benign and malicious labels. Although these methods achieve high attack rejection rates, we find that they rely on narrow correlations in defense data rather than harmful intent, leading to systematic rejection of safe inputs. We analyze three recurring shortcut behaviors induced by defense fine-tuning. \emph{Position bias} arises when benign content placed later in a prompt is rejected at much higher rates; across reasoning benchmarks, suffix-task rejection rises from below \textbf{10\%} to as high as \textbf{90\%}. \emph{Token trigger bias} occurs when strings common in attack data raise rejection probability even in benign contexts; inserting a single trigger token increases false refusals by up to \textbf{50\%}. \emph{Topic generalization bias} reflects poor generalization beyond the defense data distribution, with defended models suffering test-time accuracy drops of up to \textbf{40\%}. These findings suggest that current prompt-injection defenses frequently respond to attack-like surface patterns rather than the underlying intent. We introduce controlled diagnostic datasets and a systematic evaluation across two base models and multiple defense pipelines, highlighting limitations of supervised fine-tuning for reliable LLM security.

Measuring the State of Open Science in Transportation Using Large Language Models

Open science initiatives have strengthened scientific integrity and accelerated research progress across many fields, but the state of their practice within transportation research remains under-investigated. Key features of open science, defined here as data and code availability, are difficult to extract due to the inherent complexity of the field. Previous work has either been limited to small-scale studies due to the labor-intensive nature of manual analysis or has relied on large-scale bibliometric approaches that sacrifice contextual richness. This paper introduces an automatic and scalable feature-extraction pipeline to measure data and code availability in transportation research. We employ Large Language Models (LLMs) for this task and validate their performance against a manually curated dataset and through an inter-rater agreement analysis. We applied this pipeline to examine 10,724 research articles published in the Transportation Research Part series of journals between 2019 and 2024. Our analysis found that only 5% of quantitative papers shared a code repository, 4% of quantitative papers shared a data repository, and about 3% of papers shared both, with trends differing across journals, topics, and geographic regions. We found no significant difference in citation counts or review duration between papers that provided data and code and those that did not, suggesting a misalignment between open science efforts and traditional academic metrics. Consequently, encouraging these practices will likely require structural interventions from journals and funding agencies to supplement the lack of direct author incentives. The pipeline developed in this study can be readily scaled to other journals, representing a critical step toward the automated measurement and monitoring of open science practices in transportation research.

Detecting Winning Arguments with Large Language Models and Persuasion Strategies

Detecting persuasion in argumentative text is a challenging task with important implications for understanding human communication. This work investigates the role of persuasion strategies - such as Attack on reputation, Distraction, and Manipulative wording - in determining the persuasiveness of a text. We conduct experiments on three annotated argument datasets: Winning Arguments (built from the Change My View subreddit), Anthropic/Persuasion, and Persuasion for Good. Our approach leverages large language models (LLMs) with a Multi-Strategy Persuasion Scoring approach that guides reasoning over six persuasion strategies. Results show that strategy-guided reasoning improves the prediction of persuasiveness. To better understand the influence of content, we organize the Winning Argument dataset into broad discussion topics and analyze performance across them. We publicly release this topic-annotated version of the dataset to facilitate future research. Overall, our methodology demonstrates the value of structured, strategy-aware prompting for enhancing interpretability and robustness in argument quality assessment.

From Quotes to Concepts: Axial Coding of Political Debates with Ensemble LMs

Axial coding is a commonly used qualitative analysis method that enhances document understanding by organizing sentence-level open codes into broader categories. In this paper, we operationalize axial coding with large language models (LLMs). Extending an ensemble-based open coding approach with an LLM moderator, we add an axial coding step that groups open codes into higher-order categories, transforming raw debate transcripts into concise, hierarchical representations. We compare two strategies: (i) clustering embeddings of code-utterance pairs using density-based and partitioning algorithms followed by LLM labeling, and (ii) direct LLM-based grouping of codes and utterances into categories. We apply our method to Dutch parliamentary debates, converting lengthy transcripts into compact, hierarchically structured codes and categories. We evaluate our method using extrinsic metrics aligned with human-assigned topic labels (ROUGE-L, cosine, BERTScore), and intrinsic metrics describing code groups (coverage, brevity, coherence, novelty, JSD divergence). Our results reveal a trade-off: density-based clustering achieves high coverage and strong cluster alignment, while direct LLM grouping results in higher fine-grained alignment, but lower coverage 20%. Overall, clustering maximizes coverage and structural separation, whereas LLM grouping produces more concise, interpretable, and semantically aligned categories. To support future research, we publicly release the full dataset of utterances and codes, enabling reproducibility and comparative studies.