KletterMix: Climbing Toward High-Quality German Pretraining Data

High-quality pretraining data is a central ingredient in modern language models, but German-language resources remain far less developed than their English counterparts: they are often smaller, less carefully curated, weakly documented, and rarely validated through controlled training experiments. We introduce KletterMix, a high-quality German corpus for language model pretraining and annealing, designed as a reusable dataset artifact for the natural language processing and modeling community. KletterMix is built by translating a state-of-the-art English pretraining corpus into German while preserving document boundaries, metadata, source structure, and topical diversity. This construction yields a German corpus with the scale and diversity of a modern pretraining dataset, while enabling direct comparison to its English source. We document the dataset through a broad set of corpus-level analyses, including translation quality, document length distributions, topic coverage, source composition, and geographic metadata. Using COMETKiwi, we show that the translated documents achieve strong quality across diverse domains, suggesting that careful translation can preserve much of the semantic and stylistic richness of the original corpus. Beyond dataset construction, we evaluate KletterMix as training data. Through controlled pretraining and annealing ablations against established German corpora, we show that models trained on KletterMix achieve measurable improvements on German-language downstream evaluations. These results demonstrate that carefully curated translated data can substantially strengthen the German pretraining data ecosystem.

Fine-grained Fragment Retrieval in Multi-modal Long-form Dialogues

With the widespread adoption of multi-modal communication platforms, long-form dialogues interleaving text and images have become increasingly common. Users often need to retrieve coherent dialogue fragments related to specific topics, rather than isolated utterances. We propose Fine-grained Fragment Retrieval (FFR), which locates semantically relevant multi-utterance, multi-image fragments in multi-modal long-form dialogues. We explore two settings: (1) FFR within Single-Dialogue, retrieving fragments from a given dialogue; and (2) FFR within Dialogue Corpus, retrieving from a large-scale corpus for open-domain scenarios. For (1), we introduce F2RVLM, a generation-based retrieval model trained with reinforcement learning, using multi-objective rewards and difficulty-aware curriculum sampling to enhance fragment coherence. For (2), we develop FFRS, a two-stage system combining offline fragment-level indexing with online retrieval. Specifically, each dialogue is decomposed into minimal semantic fragments encoded by a Fragment Embedding Model (FEM) into a vector database; at inference, FEM rapidly recalls Top-K candidates, and F2RVLM performs fine-grained reasoning to identify the most relevant sub-content. To support FFR, we construct MLDR, the longest multi-modal dialogue retrieval dataset to date, and a WeChat-based real-world test set. Experiments on both benchmarks demonstrate that F2RVLM and FFRS consistently achieve superior performance across single-dialogue and corpus-level FFR.

Ten Headache Specialists versus Artificial Intelligence for Clinical Literature Summarization: A Critical Evaluation and Comparison

Summarizing the latest medical literature to guide clinical decision-making is essential for evidence-based medicine and high-quality patient care. Yet clinicians face increasing challenges due to limited time with patients and a rapidly growing volume of published articles. Although retrieval-augmented large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in clinical summarization, human evaluations of their effectiveness in synthesizing broader scientific literature and direct comparisons to expert-written syntheses remain scarce. We constructed a RAG-based agentic AI framework using three state-of-the-art LLMs: Sonnet, GPT-4o, and Llama 3.1. A headache specialist created 13 questions, three for prompt optimization and ten for evaluation. Ten headache specialists across the United States and Canada each wrote a summary for one question, yielding four summaries per question (expert, Sonnet, GPT-4o, and Llama). The experts, blinded to authorship, critically evaluated the summaries, excluding the topic for which they wrote a summary, based on correctness, completeness, conciseness, and clinical utility, scoring each from 1 to 10 using standardized rubrics. They also ranked the summaries by preference and indicated whether they believed each summary was written by an expert or an LLM. Our study, comparing LLM- and expert-written literature summaries evaluated by headache specialists, showed that expert-written summaries were preferred, although experts sometimes found it challenging to distinguish between human- and AI-generated summaries. We also identified key expert-valued features beyond standard evaluation metrics that can guide future refinement of both human and AI literature summarization pipelines.

A Model of Multi-turn Human Persuadability Using Probabilistic Belief Tracing

Large language models can shift human beliefs across high-stakes domains, but most persuasion studies rely on pre/post belief change. These endpoint measures identify whether persuasion occurred, yet miss where and how beliefs moved within a dialogue. We present PERSUASIONTRACE, a framework for studying persuasion in human-LLM interaction. Built on a web-based experimental platform, PERSUASIONTRACE contributes a tool for multi-turn persuasion studies and a process-level evaluation protocol: it records multi-turn belief reports from human or simulated targets of persuasion, annotates persuader turns with rhetorical dimensions (logos/pathos/ethos), and evaluates simulators by fidelity to real human belief dynamics. Using this framework, we find that human targets group into two clusters of multi-turn belief updates and exhibit susceptibility to rhetorical strategies, and that LLMs are persuasive across generic and personalized topics, text and audio modalities, and multi-turn interactions. Prior work has chiefly used vanilla-prompted LLMs to simulate human targets, but we show that these simulators fail to replicate human belief dynamics. We introduce a Bayesian-network simulated target that maintains an explicit latent belief state over time so each persuader message yields cognitively realistic belief updates. In human-likeness evaluation, our Bayesian target scores near a human reference (81 vs 80), while baseline LLM targets score substantially lower (64). PERSUASIONTRACE reframes persuasion evaluation from endpoint movement alone to process fidelity, providing a stronger basis for scientific analysis and safer optimization of persuasive systems.

Why Do Self-Harm Prediction Models Struggle to Generalise? Lexical and Semantic Variations in Emergency Department Triage Notes

Self-harm presentations to emergency departments (EDs) are strongly associated with higher suicide risk. NLP models have shown robust performance in detecting self-harm from triage notes within single hospitals, yet performance often declines across institutions. To examine potential causes, we compare ED triage notes from two hospitals by analyzing lexical characteristics, highly associated predictive features, and salient topics. Our results reveal variation in lexical expression and feature importance related to self-harm across hospitals, despite consistent core themes such as self-poisoning and self-injury. These documentation differences are associated with reduced cross-site performance. Our findings provide insight into how institutional variation affects the identification of self-harm in clinical text and highlight potential methods to improve model generalisability.

MMTM: Tri-Modal Topic Modeling for Long-Form Video via Similarity-Gated Fusion

We introduce MMTM, a modular pipeline for topic discovery in long-form video that integrates speech recognition, audio and visual embeddings, and BERTopic clustering through a deterministic similarity-gated fusion. Evaluated cross-lingually on German (Tagesschau) and English (NBC) broadcast news, joint tri-modal modeling substantially improves topic quality: noise drops from 0.27 to 0.06, transition rate from 0.70 to 0.21, and normalized entropy rises from 0.84 to 0.92, indicating more coherent and temporally stable topics. Cluster validity (Calinski-Harabasz) improves by 5-12X across embedding spaces. Lexical coherence (NPMI) rises from 0.77 to 0.86 on German but is corpus-dependent and does not transfer to the shorter NBC broadcasts. We release the pipeline code and a human-validated 54-hour multimodal video topic corpus with dual-annotator visual evaluation and LLM-assisted labeling.

Adversarial Feeds Steer LLM Agent Decisions Against Their Defaults

LLM agents increasingly act after consuming ranked external information streams such as social feeds, search results, retrieval contexts, and email queues, yet safety evaluations almost always test the model or the user prompt in isolation, never the upstream ranker that decides what the agent reads just before it acts. We introduce a controlled protocol that holds the model, persona, topic, and final decision prompt fixed and varies only the composition and ordering of the posts an agent encounters during a preceding ten-turn "scrolling" phase, isolating the causal effect of feed curation on a downstream decision. Across 2,785 decision rollouts on four modern open instruct LLMs from three independent labs, we identify three response regimes: adversarial capitulation, default saturation, and a default-direction asymmetry in which a one-sided feed tips a decision the model was genuinely uncertain about (in the clearest cases from 5% to 100%; Fisher p as low as 3 x 10^-10) but cannot dislodge one it already favors or holds firmly. The effect follows a dose-response curve, survives a generator swap that rules out a writing-style artifact, generalizes across several decision domains including security-relevant choices such as removing a deployment approval gate or relaxing access controls, and is partly mitigated by two simple feed-level defenses; a frontier model retains its default. We characterize the recommender as a practical, default-bounded control surface for LLM agents, and argue that agent evaluations must audit the feed layer rather than the final prompt alone.

Beyond Topical Similarity: Contrastive Evidence Retrieval with Interpretable Attention Alignment in RAG

Ensuring factuality and interpretability in RAG remains an open and urgent problem. We introduce Contrastive Evidence Rationale Attention (CERA), the first retrieval framework to employ subjectivity-based hard negative selection and inject an evidential inductive bias into contrastive learning through an auxiliary attention alignment loss. CERA fine-tunes a dense retriever using two training objectives: triplet-based contrastive learning and interpretable attention alignment, which supervises CLS-to-token attention using a part-of-speech-weighted masking distribution over human-annotated factual rationales as evidence signals. Experiments on a large corpus of clinical trial reports demonstrate that the subjectivity-based hard negative selection substantially improves retrieval effectiveness compared to both Contriever and hard negative selection baselines. Furthermore, rationale alignment improves faithfulness while maintaining competitive retrieval performance, supporting the hypothesis that attention can serve as a more faithful explanation of model behavior when guided by human rationales. Moving beyond topical similarity, CERA enables the retriever to identify the specific tokens that constitute supporting evidence, promoting more interpretable evidence selection in RAG systems.

Who Annotates in NLP? A Large-scale Assessment of Human Annotation Reporting between 2018 and 2025

Human annotation is the empirical foundation of much NLP research, from dataset construction to model evaluation, but papers often leave unclear who produced the annotations and how the annotation process was controlled. We provide the first large-scale, task-level audit of human annotation reporting across major NLP venues, asking which annotation details are documented, which are missing, and how reporting varies across time, topic, venue, and intended use of human judgment. We introduce a unified taxonomy of annotation-reporting practices and validate an LLM-assisted extraction pipeline against Annotated-gold, a human-adjudicated gold standard of 41 papers and 72 annotation tasks, where the best model reaches human-comparable agreement with adjudicated labels, with Krippendorff's alpha of 0.606 versus 0.585 for human-human agreement. Using this pipeline, we construct Annotated-llm, a dataset covering ACL-venue papers from 2018-2025, with 2,667 extracted annotation tasks from 1,603 papers, and find that papers frequently report operational details such as recruitment strategies, annotator expertise, and annotation volume, but often omit details needed to assess annotation validity, including training, language proficiency, compensation, socio-demographics, adjudication, and agreement values, especially in model-evaluation studies. Our results show that annotation reporting in NLP has improved over time but remains uneven, and they establish a scalable framework and bare-minimum reporting recommendations for making human annotation more reliable, reproducible, and interpretable.

When Hard Negatives Hurt: Bridging the Generative-Discriminative Gap in Hard Negative Synthesis for Retrieval

Hard negative mining has become the dominant strategy for training retrievers, yet it faces intrinsic limitations: negatives are bounded by corpus availability, selected by retriever score rather than diagnostic value, and increasingly contaminated by false positives as the retriever improves. LLM-based synthesis offers a principled alternative, where negatives that are unconstrained, targeted, and free from false positive risk. But we show that naively incorporating generated negatives into contrastive learning often degrades retrieval performance. We identify and formalize the root cause as a generative-discriminative gap: LLM generation optimizes for fluent, plausible text, while contrastive learning demands strategic violations of relevance at the decision boundary. Our analysis reveals two compounding failure modes: discriminative-agnostic generation, where the LLM lacks an explicit model of query information needs and defaults to generic or topic-drifted text that provides no contrastive signal; and source-dependent shortcuts, where distributional artifacts enable the model to distinguish negatives by origin rather than relevance, causing gradient drift that actively corrupts optimization. To close this gap, we propose CausalNeg consisting of two main modules: (1) CoT-guided counterfactual perturbation for data construction: decomposes why a document satisfies a query into explicit information requirements, then surgically violates individual requirements to construct negatives with controlled, interpretable hardness. (2) Query-view entropy maximization during training: disperses generated negatives across the similarity spectrum, minimizing the mutual information between source identity and similarity scores to suppress shortcut exploitation. We make our code publicly available at https://github.com/mzhangzhicheng/CausalNeg.