Topic modeling is a type of statistical modeling for discovering the abstract topics that occur in a collection of documents.
Unsupervised learning methods -- topic modeling, partition-based and density-based clustering -- produce data groupings without human guidance, yet choosing and evaluating those groupings should not itself be unsupervised. We present \emph{SmartIterator}~(SI), a visual analytics approach that treats the full sequence of grouping results across a parameter sweep as a first-class analytical object. For each method family, SI provides a structured six-phase workflow that guides the analyst through systematic exploration of grouping results -- from quality-metric overview through transition-stability assessment, membership-confidence evaluation, content and context inspection, and recurrent-archetype verification to an informed decision -- building cumulative understanding of data structure along the way. The workflows are operationalized through \emph{IteraScope}~(IS), a coordinated visual display combining quality-metric charts with semantic color encoding, a 1D group embedding with Sankey-style transition flows and violin plots of membership confidence, a 2D group embedding with HDBSCAN-detected recurrent archetypes that highlights iterations capturing all persistent patterns, and domain-specific linked views for contextualized interpretation. We demonstrate the three workflows on: (1)~simulated social-media messages from the VAST Challenge 2011 (density-based clustering, validated against ground truth), (2)~EU population statistics across ${\sim}1\,500$ NUTS-3 regions (partition-based clustering), and (3)~30 years of IEEE VIS papers (NMF topic modeling). The workflows constitute the main contribution: they provide actionable, method-specific guidance for navigating parameter spaces, studying how data structure evolves across configurations, and grounding analytical understanding in domain context -- yielding knowledge about the data that no single ``best'' result can provide.
We present AgentJet, a distributed swarm training framework for large language model (LLM) agent reinforcement learning. Unlike centralized frameworks that tightly couple agent rollouts with model optimization, AgentJet adopts a decoupled multi-node architecture in which swarm server nodes host trainable models and run optimization on GPU clusters, whereas swarm client nodes execute arbitrary agents on arbitrary devices. This design provides capabilities that are difficult to support in centralized frameworks: (1) heterogeneous multi-model reinforcement learning, enabling the training of heterogeneous multi-agent teams with multiple LLM as brains; (2) multi-task cocktail training with isolated agent runtimes; (3) fault-tolerant execution that prevents external environment failures from interrupting the training process; and (4) live code iteration, which allows agents to be edited during training by replacing swarm client nodes. To support efficient RL in multi-model, multi-turn, and multi-agent settings, AgentJet introduces a context tracking module with timeline merging, which consolidates redundant context and achieves a 1.5-10x training speedup. Finally, AgentJet introduces an automated research system that takes a research topic as input and autonomously conducts long-horizon, multi-day RL studies on large-scale clusters. By leveraging the swarm architecture, this system reproduces key exploratory workflows of RL researchers without human intervention during execution.
Worker safety attitudes are key determinants of whether protective practices are applied or bypassed on construction sites. Yet measuring them at scale has remained out of reach. Safety attitudes are multidimensional, vary across topics, and surface most candidly in workers' own conversations. This study created and validated the Construction Safety Attitude Framework (CSAF), which integrates two components: a theory-grounded structure that characterizes safety attitudes along eight dimensions, and an operational codebook for measuring them in worker naturalistic discourse. Applying CSAF to 250 posts and comments from the r/Construction community on Reddit, trained coders reached strong agreement (Krippendorff's α = 0.85). Pairwise lift and conditional probability confirmed that the eight dimensions are related yet distinct. To apply the framework across large volumes of discourse, CSAF was operationalized through a large language model (LLM) classifier. On 450 r/Construction contributions, the classifier reproduced expert human coding (Cohen's \k{appa} = 0.90, precision = 0.98, recall = 0.98), and on 400 contributions from r/Roofing it retained that accuracy after transfer to a different trade community (\k{appa} = 0.89, precision = 0.98, recall = 0.97). A proof-of-value case study then applied the validated classifier to 10,346 contributions from r/Roofing, demonstrating that CSAF can distinguish multidimensional attitudes by safety topic, track how they shift over time, and trace the reasoning behind unfavorable ones. The study therefore provides a theoretically grounded, empirically vetted instrument for examining safety attitudes, offering a basis for targeted interventions that address the attitudes underlying unsafe practices.
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.
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.
We ask whether topic sentiment has a causal effect on perceived political ideology, and whether the answer depends on who assigns the ideology label. Using articles from AllSides, paired with shared sentiment annotations from Llama-3.3-70b-versatile, we compare ideology labels from expert human annotators, GPT-4o-mini (baseline and finetuned), and Llama-3.3-70B. We apply Double Machine Learning (DML) and community-level mediation analysis across all four annotation paradigms. Human annotations yield no significant causal effects at the community level. Fine-tuned GPT-4o-mini achieves the highest classification accuracy (F1=72.48) and is the only annotator paradigm that produces significant community-level treatment effects and significant natural direct effects (NDEs) in mediation. We interpret this as evidence of shortcut learning: fine-tuning on ideology-labeled data causes the model to internalise a spurious sentiment--ideology coupling not operative in human judgment for this task. This coupling is structurally invisible to F1-based evaluation, with implications for the use of LLM annotations as silver labels and as proxies for human judgment in downstream causal analyses.
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.
We present the knowledge manifold: a Riemannian geometric space in which a corpus of documents is arranged according to semantic positional relationships derived from character n-gram TF-IDF representations. The framework proceeds in five tightly coupled stages. First, each document is converted to a character-level n-gram TF-IDF vector (4-7 grams, up to 250,000 features, L2-normalized) and embedded in a two-dimensional knowledge map via constrained stress minimization with repulsion, variance, and centering regularizers. Second, knowledge at an arbitrary query point is estimated through Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) interpolation using a cubic-spline kernel, yielding an interpolated TF-IDF feature vector that can be linguistically characterized. Third, directional knowledge gradients at 0, 45, and 90 degrees are computed from the SPH interpolation map, and pairwise directional similarity is quantified via inner product and cosine similarity. Fourth, a Gaussian Process Regression (GPR) model, with a Constant x RBF + White kernel fitted on a 10-dimensional SVD projection, provides a Bayesian posterior mean, uncertainty estimate, and per-document contribution rate at the query point. Fifth, geodesics in the knowledge space are obtained by minimizing a discrete Riemannian path energy derived from the SPH-induced metric tensor, using L-BFGS-B with seven deterministic initial-path candidates. We apply the formulation to a corpus of 20 papers in fiber-reinforced composite materials and aerospace structural mechanics, showing that the semantic map recovers meaningful research clusters, geodesic paths reveal natural conceptual bridges between distant topics, and SPH/GPR interpolation enables the generation of virtual knowledge: hypothetical paper abstracts describing unstudied but geometrically predicted research directions.
Dictionary methods, topic models, and embedding-similarity scorers are widely used in CSS and management research to measure constructs such as "entrepreneurial spirit" in corporate speeches. We contribute a label-light measurement diagnostic for such instruments rather than a new extraction model. On a corpus of 80 speeches by leaders of centrally administered Chinese state-owned enterprises, we exploit a natural experiment of 24 same-company different-speaker pairs and 5 same-company same-speaker pairs to test whether a method's per-document indices vary with leader identity holding firm constant. LDA fails (Cohen d=0.20, 95% CI [-0.72, 1.20]); a dictionary scorer reaches d=0.81 and a Chinese sentence encoder d=0.65 on doc-vector distances of order 10^-3. A zero-shot 9B open-weight LLM (Qwen3.5:9b) raises paired-contrast d to 1.09 (exact permutation p1=0.034). We downgrade three claims accordingly: gold F1 measures consistency with the LLM's own prompt rule rather than external construct recovery; doc-level style residualisation cuts the LLM's d to 0.43 (p1=0.22), so roughly half of the effect is consistent with leader idiolect; and a confidence-weighted calibration trades Delta for variance with an auto-mined slogan lexicon near-inert in ablation. We release the 2,190-segment scored corpus, the 170-paragraph pilot, the slogan lexicon, two-family LLM scores, and the evaluation harness.
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems are widely deployed and increasingly influential, but their reliance on external corpora exposes new security risks from poisoned retrieval content. Existing RAG attacks are largely focusing on individual queries or narrow topic-local query sets, which limits their practical reach and offers limited camouflage in real-world settings. In this paper, we introduce discourse-level opinion manipulation, a new threat model in which coordinated influence across a semantic query network induces opinion shifts over a holistic, multi-topic query space. We formalize this threat in a black-box setting and propose DiscourseFlip, an agentic, graph-guided attack that dynamically allocates a limited poisoning budget to maximize discourse-level opinion deviation. Extensive experiments demonstrate that DiscourseFlip consistently induces targeted opinion shifts across the contextualized query network and significantly outperforms existing baselines in terms of coverage and effectiveness. User studies further confirm that DiscourseFlip is effective while remaining well camouflaged from user detection. Moreover, systematic analyses show that existing mitigation strategies are ineffective against discourse-level manipulation, underscoring the urgent need for more robust and adaptive defenses to address discourse-level vulnerabilities.