AgentGR: Semantic-aware Agentic Group Decision-Making Simulator for Group Recommendation

Group Recommendation (GR) aims to suggest items to a group of users, which has become a critical component of modern social platforms. Existing GR methods focus on aggregating individual user preferences with advanced neural networks to infer group preferences. Despite effectiveness, they essentially treat group preference learning as a simple preference aggregation process, failing to capture the complex dynamics of real-world group decision-making. To address these limitations, we propose AgentGR, a novel Semantic-aware Agentic Group Decision-Making Simulator for Group Recommendations, inspired by the semantic reasoning and human behavior simulation capabilities of LLM-driven agents. It aims to jointly capture collaborative-semantic user preferences for member-role-playing and simulate dynamic group interactions to reflect real-world group decision-making processes, thereby boosting recommendation performance. Specifically, to capture collaborative-semantic user preferences, we introduce a semantic meta-path guided chain-of-preference reasoning mechanism that integrates high-order collaborative filtering signals and textual semantics to improve user preference profiles. To model the complex dynamics of group decision-making, we first recognize group topic and leadership to explicitly model the influencing factors within the group decision processes. Building on these, we simulate group-level decision dynamics via two multi-agent simulation strategies for recommendations: a static workflow-based strategy for efficiency and a dynamic dialogue-based strategy for precision. Extensive experiments on two real-world datasets show that AgentGR significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines in both recommendation accuracy and group decision simulation, highlighting its potential for real-world GR applications.

Output Composability of QLoRA PEFT Modules for Plug-and-Play Attribute-Controlled Text Generation

Parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) techniques offer task-specific fine-tuning at a fraction of the cost of full fine-tuning, but require separate fine-tuning for every new task (combination). In this paper, we explore three ways of generalising beyond single-task training/inference: (i) training on combinations of multiple, related datasets; (ii) at inference, composing the weight matrices of separately trained PEFT modules; and (iii) at inference, composing the outputs of separately trained PEFT modules. We test these approaches on three different LLMs, QLoRA as the PEFT technique, and three sets of controlled text generation datasets for sentiment control, topic control, and multi-attribute control. We find that summing PEFT module outputs is a particularly strong composition method, which consistently either outperforms or matches the performance of alternative approaches. This is the case even when comparing against single-task specialised modules on the single-task test set, where three-module output composition achieves an average 2% point performance increase across all models for sentiment control.

Reward Hacking in Rubric-Based Reinforcement Learning

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards has enabled strong post-training gains in domains such as math and coding, though many open-ended settings rely on rubric-based rewards. We study reward hacking in rubric-based RL, where a policy is optimized against a training verifier but evaluated against a cross-family panel of three frontier judges, reducing dependence on any single evaluator. Our framework separates two sources of divergence: verifier failure, where the training verifier credits rubric criteria that reference verifiers reject, and rubric-design limitations, where even strong rubric-based verifiers favor responses that rubric-free judges rate worse overall. Across medical and science domains, weak verifiers produce large proxy-reward gains that do not transfer to the reference verifiers; exploitation grows over training and concentrates in recurring failures such as partial satisfaction of compound criteria, treating implicit content as explicit, and imprecise topical matching. Stronger verifiers substantially reduce, but do not eliminate, verifier exploitation. We also introduce a self-internalization gap, a verifier-free diagnostic based on policy log-probabilities, which tracks reference-verifier quality, detecting when the policy trained using the weak verifier stops improving. Finally, in our setting, stronger verification does not prevent reward hacking when the rubric leaves important failure modes unspecified: rubric-based verifiers prefer the RL checkpoint, while rubric-free judges prefer the base model. These disagreements coincide with gains concentrated in completeness and presence-based criteria, alongside declines in factual correctness, conciseness, relevance, and overall quality. Together, these results suggest that stronger verification reduces reward hacking, but does not by itself ensure that rubric gains correspond to broader quality gains.

Grounded Satirical Generation with RAG

Humor generation remains challenging task for Large Language Models (LLMs), due to their subjective nature. We focus on satire, a form of humor strongly shaped by context. In this work, we present a novel pipeline for grounded satire generation that uses Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) over current news to produce satirical dictionary definitions in the Finnish context. We also introduce a new task-specific evaluation framework and annotate 100 generated definitions with six human annotators, enabling analysis across multiple experimental conditions, including cultural background, source-word type, and the presence or absence of RAG. Our results show that the generated definitions are perceived as more political than humorous. Both topic-based word selection and RAG improve the political relevance of the outputs, but neither yields clear gains in humor generation. In addition, our LLM-as-a-judge evaluation of five state-of-the-art models indicates that LLMs correlate well with human judgments on political relevance, but perform poorly on humor. We release our code and annotated dataset to support further research on grounded satire generation and evaluation.

Building Korean linguistic resource for NLU data generation of banking app CS dialog system

Natural language understanding (NLU) is integral to task-oriented dialog systems, but demands a considerable amount of annotated training data to increase the coverage of diverse utterances. In this study, we report the construction of a linguistic resource named FIAD (Financial Annotated Dataset) and its use to generate a Korean annotated training data for NLU in the banking customer service (CS) domain. By an empirical examination of a corpus of banking app reviews, we identified three linguistic patterns occurring in Korean request utterances: TOPIC (ENTITY, FEATURE), EVENT, and DISCOURSE MARKER. We represented them in LGGs (Local Grammar Graphs) to generate annotated data covering diverse intents and entities. To assess the practicality of the resource, we evaluate the performances of DIET-only (Intent: 0.91 /Topic [entity+feature]: 0.83), DIET+ HANBERT (I:0.94/T:0.85), DIET+ KoBERT (I:0.94/T:0.86), and DIET+ KorBERT (I:0.95/T:0.84) models trained on FIAD-generated data to extract various types of semantic items.

Beyond Continuity: Challenges of Context Switching in Multi-Turn Dialogue with LLMs

Users interacting with Large Language Models (LLMs) in a multi-turn conversation routinely refine their requests or pivot to new topics. LLMs, however, often miss these topic shifts and carry over irrelevant context from previous turns, leading to inaccurate responses. In this paper, we stress-test the multi-turn understanding of LLMs and study the following two sub-tasks: (1) detecting whether the user pivots or refines in the current turn, and (2) shortlisting relevant context from previous turns. To this end, we construct synthetic benchmarks based on real-world datasets from varied domains, as to simulate context shifts of different levels of difficulty. We then evaluate the zero-shot performance of ten LLMs (open-weight, closed-source and reasoning), and demonstrate that only some reasoning and strongly instructed LLMs are accurate in detecting pivots; open-weight LLMs struggle with the task and frequently carry stale context even with explicit cues; and all models suffer from a position bias. Based on the results, we discuss key takeaways for improving long-term robustness in multi-turn capabilities for LLMs.

Primal-Dual Guided Decoding for Constrained Discrete Diffusion

Discrete diffusion models generate structured sequences by progressively unmasking tokens, but enforcing global property constraints during generation remains an open challenge. We propose primal-dual guided decoding, an inference-time method that formulates constrained generation as a KL-regularised optimisation problem and solves it online via adaptive Lagrangian multipliers. At each denoising step, the method modifies token logits through an additive, constraint-dependent bias, with multipliers updated by mirror descent based on constraint violation. The bias arises as the optimal KL-regularised projection of the constraint, so the constrained distribution remains as close as possible to the model's unconstrained distribution while still satisfying the constraint. The method requires no retraining and no additional model evaluations beyond standard sampling, supports multiple simultaneous constraints, and provides formal bounds on constraint violation. We evaluate our approach on topical text generation, molecular design, and music playlist generation, showing that a single algorithm instantiated via domain-specific scoring functions improves constraint satisfaction while preserving relevant domain-specific quality metrics.

LLM-XTM: Enhancing Cross-Lingual Topic Models with Large Language Models

Cross-lingual topic modeling aims to discover shared semantic structures across languages, yet existing models depend on sparse bilingual resources and often yield incoherent or weakly aligned topics. Recent LLM-based refinements improve interpretability but are costly, document-level, and prone to hallucination, with prior white-box approaches requiring inaccessible token probabilities. We propose LLM-XTM, a framework that integrates LLM-guided topic refinement with self-consistency uncertainty quantification, enabling black-box, stable, and scalable enhancement of cross-lingual topic models. Experiments on multilingual corpora show that LLM-XTM achieves superior topic coherence and alignment while reducing reliance on bilingual dictionaries and expensive LLM calls.

Retrieving Floods without Floodlights: Topic Models as Binary Classifiers for Extreme Climate Events in German News

In studies of media coverage of extreme climate events, NLP methods have become indispensable for identifying relevant texts in large news databases. Still, enough annotated data to train accurate deep learning-based classifiers from scratch is often not available. Topic Models have the advantage of being both unsupervised and interpretable, but are typically used only for exploratory analysis or data characterisation. In this study, we investigate how to employ Topic Models as binary classifiers for refining the retrieval of relevant news about seven types of extreme climate events in the German media. Our method relies on the posterior distributions estimated by Topic Models to select relevant documents, without modifying their training procedure. Using an annotated sample to guide the evaluation, we show that the probabilities assigned to keywords used to query news databases can also be informative for selecting relevant topics and improve sample precision. We compare our results to a fine-tuned text embedding classifier and an open-weight LLM, discussing observed trade-offs, e.g. the LLM's lowest precision. Moreover, we show that results are hazard-dependent, which speaks against considering climate events as a single category in NLP tasks.

Cited but Not Verified: Parsing and Evaluating Source Attribution in LLM Deep Research Agents

Large language models (LLMs) power deep research agents that synthesize information from hundreds of web sources into cited reports, yet these citations cannot be reliably verified. Current approaches either trust models to self-cite accurately, risking bias, or employ retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) that does not validate source accessibility, relevance, or factual consistency. We introduce the first source attribution evaluation framework that uses a reproducible AST parser to extract and evaluate inline citations from LLM-generated Markdown reports at scale. Unlike methods that verify claims in isolation, our framework closes the loop by retrieving the actual cited content, enabling human or model evaluators to judge each citation against its source. Citations are evaluated along three dimensions. (1) Link Works verifies URL accessibility, (2) Relevant Content measures topical alignment, and (3) Fact Check validates factual accuracy against source content. We benchmark 14 closed-source and open-source LLMs across three evaluation dimensions using rubric-based LLM-as-a-judge evaluators calibrated through human review. Our results reveal that even the strongest frontier models maintain link validity above 94% and relevance above 80%, yet achieve only 39-77% factual accuracy, while fewer than half of open-source models successfully generate cited reports in a one-shot setting. Ablation studies on research depth show that Fact Check accuracy drops by approximately 42% on average across two frontier models as tool calls scale from 2 to 150, demonstrating that more retrieval does not produce more accurate citations. These findings reveal a critical disconnect between surface-level citation quality and factual reliability, and our framework provides the evaluation infrastructure to assess the disconnect.