Auditing the Auditors: Does Community-based Moderation Get It Right?

Online social platforms increasingly rely on crowd-sourced systems to label misleading content at scale, but these systems must both aggregate users' evaluations and decide whose evaluations to trust. To address the latter, many platforms audit users by rewarding agreement with the final aggregate outcome, a design we term consensus-based auditing. We analyze the consequences of this design in X's Community Notes, which in September 2022 adopted consensus-based auditing that ties users' eligibility for participation to agreement with the eventual platform outcome. We find evidence of strategic conformity: minority contributors' evaluations drift toward the majority and their participation share falls on controversial topics, where independent signals matter most. We formalize this mechanism in a behavioral model in which contributors trade off private beliefs against anticipated penalties for disagreement. Motivated by these findings, we propose a two-stage auditing and aggregation algorithm that weights contributors by the stability of their past residuals rather than by agreement with the majority. The method first accounts for differences across content and contributors, and then measures how predictable each contributor's evaluations are relative to the latent-factor model. Contributors whose evaluations are consistently informative receive greater influence in aggregation, even when they disagree with the prevailing consensus. In the Community Notes data, this approach improves out-of-sample predictive performance while avoiding penalization of disagreement.

Discovering Decoupled Functional Modules in Large Language Models

Understanding the internal functional organization of Large Language Models (LLMs) is crucial for improving their trustworthiness and performance. However, how LLMs organize different functions into modules remains highly unexplored. To bridge this gap, we formulate a functional module discovery problem and propose an Unsupervised LLM Cross-layer MOdule Discovery (ULCMOD) framework that simultaneously disentangles the large set of neurons in the entire LLM into modules while discovering the topics of input samples related to these modules. Our framework introduces a novel objective function and an efficient Iterative Decoupling (IterD) algorithm. Extensive experiments show that our method discovers high-quality, disentangled modules that capture more meaningful semantic information and achieve superior performance in various downstream tasks. Moreover, our qualitative analysis reveals that the discovered modules show semantic coherence, correspond to interpretable specializations, and a clear spatial and hierarchical organization within the LLM. Our work provides a novel tool for interpreting the functional modules of LLMs, filling a critical blank in LLM's interpretability research.

Seamless Deception: Larger Language Models Are Better Knowledge Concealers

Language Models (LMs) may acquire harmful knowledge, and yet feign ignorance of these topics when under audit. Inspired by the recent discovery of deception-related behaviour patterns in LMs, we aim to train classifiers that detect when a LM is actively concealing knowledge. Initial findings on smaller models show that classifiers can detect concealment more reliably than human evaluators, with gradient-based concealment proving easier to identify than prompt-based methods. However, contrary to prior work, we find that the classifiers do not reliably generalize to unseen model architectures and topics of hidden knowledge. Most concerningly, the identifiable traces associated with concealment become fainter as the models increase in scale, with the classifiers achieving no better than random performance on any model exceeding 70 billion parameters. Our results expose a key limitation in black-box-only auditing of LMs and highlight the need to develop robust methods to detect models that are actively hiding the knowledge they contain.

A Context Alignment Pre-processor for Enhancing the Coherence of Human-LLM Dialog

Large language models (LLMs) have made remarkable progress in generating fluent text, but they still face a critical challenge of contextual misalignment in long-term and dynamic dialogue. When human users omit premises, simplify references, or shift context abruptly during interactions with LLMs, the models may fail to capture their actual intentions, producing mechanical or off-topic responses that weaken the collaborative potential of dialogue. To address this problem, this paper proposes a computational framework called the Context Alignment Pre-processor (C.A.P.). Rather than operating during generation, C.A.P. functions as a pre-processing module between user input and response generation. The framework includes three core processes: (1) semantic expansion, which extends a user instruction to a broader semantic span including its premises, literal meaning, and implications; (2) time-weighted context retrieval, which prioritizes recent dialogue history through a temporal decay function approximating human conversational focus; and (3) alignment verification and decision branching, which evaluates whether the dialogue remains on track by measuring the semantic similarity between the current prompt and the weighted historical context. When a significant deviation is detected, C.A.P. initiates a structured clarification protocol to help users and the system recalibrate the conversation. This study presents the architecture and theoretical basis of C.A.P., drawing on cognitive science and Common Ground theory in human-computer interaction. We argue that C.A.P. is not only a technical refinement but also a step toward shifting human-computer dialogue from one-way command-execution patterns to two-way, self-correcting, partnership-based collaboration. Finally, we discuss implementation paths, evaluation methods, and implications for the future design of interactive intelligent systems.

MedCL-Bench: Benchmarking stability-efficiency trade-offs and scaling in biomedical continual learning

Medical language models must be updated as evidence and terminology evolve, yet sequential updating can trigger catastrophic forgetting. Although biomedical NLP has many static benchmarks, no unified, task-diverse benchmark exists for evaluating continual learning under standardized protocols, robustness to task order and compute-aware reporting. We introduce MedCL-Bench, which streams ten biomedical NLP datasets spanning five task families and evaluates eleven continual learning strategies across eight task orders, reporting retention, transfer, and GPU-hour cost. Across backbones and task orders, direct sequential fine-tuning on incoming tasks induces catastrophic forgetting, causing update-induced performance regressions on prior tasks. Continual learning methods occupy distinct retention-compute frontiers: parameter-isolation provides the best retention per GPU-hour, replay offers strong protection at higher cost, and regularization yields limited benefit. Forgetting is task-dependent, with multi-label topic classification most vulnerable and constrained-output tasks more robust. MedCL-Bench provides a reproducible framework for auditing model updates before deployment.

How LLMs Distort Our Written Language

Large language models (LLMs) are used by over a billion people globally, most often to assist with writing. In this work, we demonstrate that LLMs not only alter the voice and tone of human writing, but also consistently alter the intended meaning. First, we conduct a human user study to understand how people actually interact with LLMs when using them for writing. Our findings reveal that extensive LLM use led to a nearly 70% increase in essays that remained neutral in answering the topic question. Significantly more heavy LLM users reported that the writing was less creative and not in their voice. Next, using a dataset of human-written essays that was collected in 2021 before the widespread release of LLMs, we study how asking an LLM to revise the essay based on the human-written feedback in the dataset induces large changes in the resulting content and meaning. We find that even when LLMs are prompted with expert feedback and asked to only make grammar edits, they still change the text in a way that significantly alters its semantic meaning. We then examine LLM-generated text in the wild, specifically focusing on the 21% of AI-generated scientific peer reviews at a recent top AI conference. We find that LLM-generated reviews place significantly less weight on clarity and significance of the research, and assign scores that, on average, are a full point higher.These findings highlight a misalignment between the perceived benefit of AI use and an implicit, consistent effect on the semantics of human writing, motivating future work on how widespread AI writing will affect our cultural and scientific institutions.

WildDepth: A Multimodal Dataset for 3D Wildlife Perception and Depth Estimation

Depth estimation and 3D reconstruction have been extensively studied as core topics in computer vision. Starting from rigid objects with relatively simple geometric shapes, such as vehicles, the research has expanded to address general objects, including challenging deformable objects, such as humans and animals. However, for the animal, in particular, the majority of existing models are trained based on datasets without metric scale, which can help validate image-only models. To address this limitation, we present WildDepth, a multimodal dataset and benchmark suite for depth estimation, behavior detection, and 3D reconstruction from diverse categories of animals ranging from domestic to wild environments with synchronized RGB and LiDAR. Experimental results show that the use of multi-modal data improves depth reliability by up to 10% RMSE, while RGB-LiDAR fusion enhances 3D reconstruction fidelity by 12% in Chamfer distance. By releasing WildDepth and its benchmarks, we aim to foster robust multimodal perception systems that generalize across domains.

Sensi: Learn One Thing at a Time -- Curriculum-Based Test-Time Learning for LLM Game Agents

Large language model (LLM) agents deployed in unknown environments must learn task structure at test time, but current approaches require thousands of interactions to form useful hypotheses. We present Sensi, an LLM agent architecture for the ARC-AGI-3 game-playing challenge that introduces structured test-time learning through three mechanisms: (1) a two-player architecture separating perception from action, (2) a curriculum-based learning system managed by an external state machine, and (3) a database-as-control-plane that makes the agents context window programmatically steerable. We further introduce an LLM-as-judge component with dynamically generated evaluation rubrics to determine when the agent has learned enough about one topic to advance to the next. We report results across two iterations: Sensi v1 solves 2 game levels using the two-player architecture alone, while Sensi v2 adds curriculum learning and solves 0 levels - but completes its entire learning curriculum in approximately 32 action attempts, achieving 50-94x greater sample efficiency than comparable systems that require 1600-3000 attempts. We precisely diagnose the failure mode as a self-consistent hallucination cascade originating in the perception layer, demonstrating that the architectural bottleneck has shifted from learning efficiency to perceptual grounding - a more tractable problem.

Disentangling Similarity and Relatedness in Topic Models

The recent advancement of large language models has spurred a growing trend of integrating pre-trained language model (PLM) embeddings into topic models, fundamentally reshaping how topics capture semantic structure. Classical models such as Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) derive topics from word co-occurrence statistics, whereas PLM-augmented models anchor these statistics to pre-trained embedding spaces, imposing a prior that also favours clustering of semantically similar words. This structural difference can be captured by the psycholinguistic dimensions of thematic relatedness and taxonomic similarity of the topic words. To disentangle these dimensions in topic models, we construct a large synthetic benchmark of word pairs using LLM-based annotation to train a neural scoring function. We apply this scorer to a comprehensive evaluation across multiple corpora and topic model families, revealing that different model families capture distinct semantic structure in their topics. We further demonstrate that similarity and relatedness scores successfully predict downstream task performance depending on task requirements. This paper establishes similarity and relatedness as essential axes for topic model evaluation and provides a reliable pipeline for characterising these across model families and corpora.

AI Scientist via Synthetic Task Scaling

With the advent of AI agents, automatic scientific discovery has become a tenable goal. Many recent works scaffold agentic systems that can perform machine learning research, but don't offer a principled way to train such agents -- and current LLMs often generate plausible-looking but ineffective ideas. To make progress on training agents that can learn from doing, we provide a novel synthetic environment generation pipeline targeting machine learning agents. Our pipeline automatically synthesizes machine learning challenges compatible with the SWE-agent framework, covering topic sampling, dataset proposal, and code generation. The resulting synthetic tasks are 1) grounded in real machine learning datasets, because the proposed datasets are verified against the Huggingface API and are 2) verified for higher quality with a self-debugging loop. To validate the effectiveness of our synthetic tasks, we tackle MLGym, a benchmark for machine learning tasks. From the synthetic tasks, we sample trajectories from a teacher model (GPT-5), then use the trajectories to train a student model (Qwen3-4B and Qwen3-8B). The student models trained with our synthetic tasks achieve improved performance on MLGym, raising the AUP metric by 9% for Qwen3-4B and 12% for Qwen3-8B.