Topic modeling is a type of statistical modeling for discovering the abstract topics that occur in a collection of documents.
By capturing the prevailing sentiment and market mood, textual data has become increasingly vital for forecasting commodity prices, particularly in metal markets. However, the effectiveness of lightweight, finetuned large language models (LLMs) in extracting predictive signals for aluminum prices, and the specific market conditions under which these signals are most informative, remains under-explored. This study generates monthly sentiment scores from English and Chinese news headlines (Reuters, Dow Jones Newswires, and China News Service) and integrates them with traditional tabular data, including base metal indices, exchange rates, inflation rates, and energy prices. We evaluate the predictive performance and economic utility of these models through long-short simulations on the Shanghai Metal Exchange from 2007 to 2024. Our results demonstrate that during periods of high volatility, Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) models incorporating sentiment data from a finetuned Qwen3 model (Sharpe ratio 1.04) significantly outperform baseline models using tabular data alone (Sharpe ratio 0.23). Subsequent analysis elucidates the nuanced roles of news sources, topics, and event types in aluminum price forecasting.
While reasoning in LLMs plays a natural role in math, code generation, and multi-hop factual questions, its effect on simple, single-hop factual questions remains unclear. Such questions do not require step-by-step logical decomposition, making the utility of reasoning highly counterintuitive. Nevertheless, we find that enabling reasoning substantially expands the capability boundary of the model's parametric knowledge recall, unlocking correct answers that are otherwise effectively unreachable. Why does reasoning aid parametric knowledge recall when there are no complex reasoning steps to be done? To answer this, we design a series of hypothesis-driven controlled experiments, and identify two key driving mechanisms: (1) a computational buffer effect, where the model uses the generated reasoning tokens to perform latent computation independent of their semantic content; and (2) factual priming, where generating topically related facts acts as a semantic bridge that facilitates correct answer retrieval. Importantly, this latter generative self-retrieval mechanism carries inherent risks: we demonstrate that hallucinating intermediate facts during reasoning increases the likelihood of hallucinations in the final answer. Finally, we show that our insights can be harnessed to directly improve model accuracy by prioritizing reasoning trajectories that contain hallucination-free factual statements.
Situational awareness, the capacity of an AI system to recognize its own nature, understand its training and deployment context, and reason strategically about its circumstances, is widely considered among the most dangerous emergent capabilities in advanced AI systems. Separately, a growing research effort seeks to improve the logical reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) across deduction, induction, and abduction. In this paper, we argue that these two research trajectories are on a collision course. We introduce the RAISE framework (Reasoning Advancing Into Self Examination), which identifies three mechanistic pathways through which improvements in logical reasoning enable progressively deeper levels of situational awareness: deductive self inference, inductive context recognition, and abductive self modeling. We formalize each pathway, construct an escalation ladder from basic self recognition to strategic deception, and demonstrate that every major research topic in LLM logical reasoning maps directly onto a specific amplifier of situational awareness. We further analyze why current safety measures are insufficient to prevent this escalation. We conclude by proposing concrete safeguards, including a "Mirror Test" benchmark and a Reasoning Safety Parity Principle, and pose an uncomfortable but necessary question to the logical reasoning community about its responsibility in this trajectory.
Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems combine document retrieval with a generative model to address complex information seeking tasks like report generation. While the relationship between retrieval quality and generation effectiveness seems intuitive, it has not been systematically studied. We investigate whether upstream retrieval metrics can serve as reliable early indicators of the final generated response's information coverage. Through experiments across two text RAG benchmarks (TREC NeuCLIR 2024 and TREC RAG 2024) and one multimodal benchmark (WikiVideo), we analyze 15 text retrieval stacks and 10 multimodal retrieval stacks across four RAG pipelines and multiple evaluation frameworks (Auto-ARGUE and MiRAGE). Our findings demonstrate strong correlations between coverage-based retrieval metrics and nugget coverage in generated responses at both topic and system levels. This relationship holds most strongly when retrieval objectives align with generation goals, though more complex iterative RAG pipelines can partially decouple generation quality from retrieval effectiveness. These findings provide empirical support for using retrieval metrics as proxies for RAG performance.
The growing use of unstructured text in business research makes topic modeling a central tool for constructing explanatory variables from reviews, social media, and open-ended survey responses, yet existing approaches function poorly as measurement instruments. Prior work shows that textual content predicts outcomes such as sales, satisfaction, and firm performance, but probabilistic models often generate conceptually diffuse topics, neural topic models are difficult to interpret in theory-driven settings, and large language model approaches lack standardization, stability, and alignment with document-level representations. We introduce LX Topic, a neural topic method that conceptualizes topics as latent linguistic constructs and produces calibrated document-level topic proportions for empirical analysis. LX Topic builds on FASTopic to ensure strong document representativeness and integrates large language model refinement at the topic-word level using alignment and confidence-weighting mechanisms that enhance semantic coherence without distorting document-topic distributions. Evaluations on large-scale Amazon and Yelp review datasets demonstrate that LX Topic achieves the highest overall topic quality relative to leading models while preserving clustering and classification performance. By unifying topic discovery, refinement, and standardized output in a web-based system, LX Topic establishes topic modeling as a reproducible, interpretable, and measurement-oriented instrument for marketing research and practice.
SinhaLegal introduces a Sinhala legislative text corpus containing approximately 2 million words across 1,206 legal documents. The dataset includes two types of legal documents: 1,065 Acts dated from 1981 to 2014 and 141 Bills from 2010 to 2014, which were systematically collected from official sources. The texts were extracted using OCR with Google Document AI, followed by extensive post-processing and manual cleaning to ensure high-quality, machine-readable content, along with dedicated metadata files for each document. A comprehensive evaluation was conducted, including corpus statistics, lexical diversity, word frequency analysis, named entity recognition, and topic modelling, demonstrating the structured and domain-specific nature of the corpus. Additionally, perplexity analysis using both large and small language models was performed to assess how effectively language models respond to domain-specific texts. The SinhaLegal corpus represents a vital resource designed to support NLP tasks such as summarisation, information extraction, and analysis, thereby bridging a critical gap in Sinhala legal research.
Ramsa is a developing 41-hour speech corpus of Emirati Arabic designed to support sociolinguistic research and low-resource language technologies. It contains recordings from structured interviews with native speakers and episodes from national television shows. The corpus features 157 speakers (59 female, 98 male), spans subdialects such as Urban, Bedouin, and Mountain/Shihhi, and covers topics such as cultural heritage, agriculture and sustainability, daily life, professional trajectories, and architecture. It consists of 91 monologic and 79 dialogic recordings, varying in length and recording conditions. A 10\% subset was used to evaluate commercial and open-source models for automatic speech recognition (ASR) and text-to-speech (TTS) in a zero-shot setting to establish initial baselines. Whisper-large-v3-turbo achieved the best ASR performance, with average word and character error rates of 0.268 and 0.144, respectively. MMS-TTS-Ara reported the best mean word and character rates of 0.285 and 0.081, respectively, for TTS. These baselines are competitive but leave substantial room for improvement. The paper highlights the challenges encountered and provides directions for future work.
Topic models uncover latent thematic structures in text corpora, yet evaluating their quality remains challenging, particularly in specialized domains. Existing methods often rely on automated metrics like topic coherence and diversity, which may not fully align with human judgment. Human evaluation tasks, such as word intrusion, provide valuable insights but are costly and primarily validated on general-domain corpora. This paper introduces Topic Word Mixing (TWM), a novel human evaluation task assessing inter-topic distinctness by testing whether annotators can distinguish between word sets from single or mixed topics. TWM complements word intrusion's focus on intra-topic coherence and provides a human-grounded counterpart to diversity metrics. We evaluate six topic models - both statistical and embedding-based (LDA, NMF, Top2Vec, BERTopic, CFMF, CFMF-emb) - comparing automated metrics with human evaluation methods based on nearly 4,000 annotations from a domain-specific corpus of philosophy of science publications. Our findings reveal that word intrusion and coherence metrics do not always align, particularly in specialized domains, and that TWM captures human-perceived distinctness while appearing to align with diversity metrics. We release the annotated dataset and task generation code. This work highlights the need for evaluation frameworks bridging automated and human assessments, particularly for domain-specific corpora.
Large language models sometimes produce false or misleading responses. Two approaches to this problem are honesty elicitation -- modifying prompts or weights so that the model answers truthfully -- and lie detection -- classifying whether a given response is false. Prior work evaluates such methods on models specifically trained to lie or conceal information, but these artificial constructions may not resemble naturally-occurring dishonesty. We instead study open-weights LLMs from Chinese developers, which are trained to censor politically sensitive topics: Qwen3 models frequently produce falsehoods about subjects like Falun Gong or the Tiananmen protests while occasionally answering correctly, indicating they possess knowledge they are trained to suppress. Using this as a testbed, we evaluate a suite of elicitation and lie detection techniques. For honesty elicitation, sampling without a chat template, few-shot prompting, and fine-tuning on generic honesty data most reliably increase truthful responses. For lie detection, prompting the censored model to classify its own responses performs near an uncensored-model upper bound, and linear probes trained on unrelated data offer a cheaper alternative. The strongest honesty elicitation techniques also transfer to frontier open-weights models including DeepSeek R1. Notably, no technique fully eliminates false responses. We release all prompts, code, and transcripts.
Despite the rapid progress of Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs), the integration of visual modalities introduces new safety vulnerabilities that adversaries can exploit to elicit biased or malicious outputs. In this paper, we demonstrate an underexplored vulnerability via semantic slot filling, where LVLMs complete missing slot values with unsafe content even when the slot types are deliberately crafted to appear benign. Building on this finding, we propose StructAttack, a simple yet effective single-query jailbreak framework under black-box settings. StructAttack decomposes a harmful query into a central topic and a set of benign-looking slot types, then embeds them as structured visual prompts (e.g., mind maps, tables, or sunburst diagrams) with small random perturbations. Paired with a completion-guided instruction, LVLMs automatically recompose the concealed semantics and generate unsafe outputs without triggering safety mechanisms. Although each slot appears benign in isolation (local benignness), StructAttack exploits LVLMs' reasoning to assemble these slots into coherent harmful semantics. Extensive experiments on multiple models and benchmarks show the efficacy of our proposed StructAttack.