TruthStance: An Annotated Dataset of Conversations on Truth Social

Argument mining and stance detection are central to understanding how opinions are formed and contested in online discourse. However, most publicly available resources focus on mainstream platforms such as Twitter and Reddit, leaving conversational structure on alt-tech platforms comparatively under-studied. We introduce TruthStance, a large-scale dataset of Truth Social conversation threads spanning 2023-2025, consisting of 24,378 posts and 523,360 comments with reply-tree structure preserved. We provide a human-annotated benchmark of 1,500 instances across argument mining and claim-based stance detection, including inter-annotator agreement, and use it to evaluate large language model (LLM) prompting strategies. Using the best-performing configuration, we release additional LLM-generated labels for 24,352 posts (argument presence) and 107,873 comments (stance to parent), enabling analysis of stance and argumentation patterns across depth, topics, and users. All code and data are released publicly.

Metaphors' journeys across time and genre: tracking the evolution of literary metaphors with temporal embeddings

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.

Human Control Is the Anchor, Not the Answer: Early Divergence of Oversight in Agentic AI Communities

Oversight for agentic AI is often discussed as a single goal ("human control"), yet early adoption may produce role-specific expectations. We present a comparative analysis of two newly active Reddit communities in Jan--Feb 2026 that reflect different socio-technical roles: r/OpenClaw (deployment and operations) and r/Moltbook (agent-centered social interaction). We conceptualize this period as an early-stage crystallization phase, where oversight expectations form before norms reach equilibrium. Using topic modeling in a shared comparison space, a coarse-grained oversight-theme abstraction, engagement-weighted salience, and divergence tests, we show the communities are strongly separable (JSD =0.418, cosine =0.372, permutation $p=0.0005$). Across both communities, "human control" is an anchor term, but its operational meaning diverges: r/OpenClaw} emphasizes execution guardrails and recovery (action-risk), while r/Moltbook} emphasizes identity, legitimacy, and accountability in public interaction (meaning-risk). The resulting distinction offers a portable lens for designing and evaluating oversight mechanisms that match agent role, rather than applying one-size-fits-all control policies.

Backdooring Bias in Large Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in settings where inducing a bias toward a certain topic can have significant consequences, and backdoor attacks can be used to produce such models. Prior work on backdoor attacks has largely focused on a black-box threat model, with an adversary targeting the model builder's LLM. However, in the bias manipulation setting, the model builder themselves could be the adversary, warranting a white-box threat model where the attacker's ability to poison, and manipulate the poisoned data is substantially increased. Furthermore, despite growing research in semantically-triggered backdoors, most studies have limited themselves to syntactically-triggered attacks. Motivated by these limitations, we conduct an analysis consisting of over 1000 evaluations using higher poisoning ratios and greater data augmentation to gain a better understanding of the potential of syntactically- and semantically-triggered backdoor attacks in a white-box setting. In addition, we study whether two representative defense paradigms, model-intrinsic and model-extrinsic backdoor removal, are able to mitigate these attacks. Our analysis reveals numerous new findings. We discover that while both syntactically- and semantically-triggered attacks can effectively induce the target behaviour, and largely preserve utility, semantically-triggered attacks are generally more effective in inducing negative biases, while both backdoor types struggle with causing positive biases. Furthermore, while both defense types are able to mitigate these backdoors, they either result in a substantial drop in utility, or require high computational overhead.

ViMedCSS: A Vietnamese Medical Code-Switching Speech Dataset & Benchmark

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.

Automatic Simplification of Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures Descriptions

Understanding cyber security is increasingly important for individuals and organizations. However, a lot of information related to cyber security can be difficult to understand to those not familiar with the topic. In this study, we focus on investigating how large language models (LLMs) could be utilized in automatic text simplification (ATS) of Common Vulnerability and Exposure (CVE) descriptions. Automatic text simplification has been studied in several contexts, such as medical, scientific, and news texts, but it has not yet been studied to simplify texts in the rapidly changing and complex domain of cyber security. We created a baseline for cyber security ATS and a test dataset of 40 CVE descriptions, evaluated by two groups of cyber security experts in two survey rounds. We have found that while out-of-the box LLMs can make the text appear simpler, they struggle with meaning preservation. Code and data are available at https://version.aalto.fi/gitlab/vehomav1/simplification\_nmi.

Quantum-Audit: Evaluating the Reasoning Limits of LLMs on Quantum Computing

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.

Divide, Harmonize, Then Conquer It: Shooting Multi-Commodity Flow Problems with Multimodal Language Models

The multi-commodity flow (MCF) problem is a fundamental topic in network flow and combinatorial optimization, with broad applications in transportation, communication, and logistics, etc. Nowadays, the rapid expansion of allocation systems has posed challenges for existing optimization engines in balancing optimality and tractability. In this paper, we present Pram, the first ML-based method that leverages the reasoning power of multimodal language models (MLMs) for addressing the trade-off dilemma -- a great need of service providers. As part of our proposal, Pram (i) quickly computes high-quality allocations by dividing the original problem into local subproblems, which are then resolved by an MLM-powered "agent", and (ii) ensures global consistency by harmonizing these subproblems via a multi-agent reinforcement learning algorithm. Theoretically, we show that Pram, which learns to perform gradient descent in context, provably converges to the optimum within the family of MCF problems. Empirically, on real-world datasets and public topologies, Pram achieves performance comparable to, and in some cases even surpassing, linear programming solvers (very close to the optimal solution), and substantially lower runtimes (1 to 2 orders of magnitude faster). Moreover, Pram exhibits strong robustness (<10\% performance degradation under link failures or flow bursts), demonstrating MLM's generalization ability to unforeseen events. Pram is objective-agnostic and seamlessly integrates with mainstream allocation systems, providing a practical and scalable solution for future networks.

Hybrid Pooling with LLMs via Relevance Context Learning

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.

Large Language Model and Formal Concept Analysis: a comparative study for Topic Modeling

Topic modeling is a research field finding increasing applications: historically from document retrieving, to sentiment analysis and text summarization. Large Language Models (LLM) are currently a major trend in text processing, but few works study their usefulness for this task. Formal Concept Analysis (FCA) has recently been presented as a candidate for topic modeling, but no real applied case study has been conducted. In this work, we compare LLM and FCA to better understand their strengths and weakneses in the topic modeling field. FCA is evaluated through the CREA pipeline used in past experiments on topic modeling and visualization, whereas GPT-5 is used for the LLM. A strategy based on three prompts is applied with GPT-5 in a zero-shot setup: topic generation from document batches, merging of batch results into final topics, and topic labeling. A first experiment reuses the teaching materials previously used to evaluate CREA, while a second experiment analyzes 40 research articles in information systems to compare the extracted topics with the underling subfields.