Topic modeling is a type of statistical modeling for discovering the abstract topics that occur in a collection of documents.
Humour-aware information retrieval poses unique challenges beyond standard semantic retrieval, as systems must account not only for topical relevance but also for humour-specific linguistic phenomena such as wordplay, phonetic ambiguity, and polysemy. In this paper, Team DUTH studies multilingual humour-aware information retrieval using the CLEF 2025 JOKER Task 1 benchmark, which evaluates humour retrieval in English and Portuguese. Our approach combines multilingual XLM-RoBERTa-based dense retrieval with additional system variants, including neural re-ranking, in order to assess the extent to which general-purpose Transformer models can capture humour-specific relevance. The results reveal substantial cross-lingual variation. While the Portuguese runs demonstrate comparatively strong performance across MAP, MRR, and early precision metrics, the English runs perform significantly worse, with relevant humorous documents frequently appearing at lower ranks. These findings highlight the limitations of purely semantic dense representations for humour retrieval, particularly when humour depends on surface-level cues that are not explicitly modelled by multilingual encoders. We further analyse contributing factors to this discrepancy, including dataset characteristics, query-document alignment, and variation in humour mechanisms. Overall, the Team DUTH experiments establish multilingual dense-retrieval and re-ranking baselines and provide insights into the challenges of modelling humour-aware relevance within the JOKER framework.
Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has become the standard way to ground large language models in external knowledge, but many systems still organize evidence as flat chunks and retrieve it through largely unstructured search. This weak structure becomes a bottleneck for complex retrieval: the system must decide where to search, how to move from coarse topics to entity-relation evidence, which evidence has been verified, and which intermediate artifacts can be reused. We define these intermediate variables as a retrieval state and study RAG as structured state management. EfficientGraph-RAG makes this state explicit through three coupled mechanisms: TAM defines a typed hierarchical state space over evidence, MARS updates and verifies the state through role-specialized agents, and SMP stores reusable state under hierarchy-aware access control. Using one shared framework configuration, EfficientGraph-RAG ranks first on the reported answer-quality metrics averaged over the three evaluated LongBench retrieval-style subsets, matches the strongest agentic baseline on HotpotQA EM while reducing large-model token usage by $3.51\times$, and provides a low-token DocVQA result among retrieval-organizing cross-modal methods. Component analysis shows role-specific mechanisms: MARS is the main answer-quality driver, TAM supplies the typed traversal state and Adaptive Routing signal, and SMP enables corpus-dependent reuse, with cross-query cache hit rates ranging from 3.77% to 23.18%.
Researchers in Holocaust studies have often distinguished between two styles of oral survivor testimony: the USC Shoah Foundation's interviews tend to follow a structured, interviewer-guided format, whereas the Yale Fortunoff Video Archive generally favors a more free-form, open-ended style. This distinction has influenced both scholarly research and the development of later archives. In this study, we critically examine that claim by conducting a large-scale computational analysis of more than 1,600 testimonies from both collections. Leveraging discourse segmentation, topic modeling, and large language model (LLM) based analysis, we quantify the "structuredness" level of testimonies through topic coherence, interviewer-survivor dynamics, and the distribution of question types. Our results generally corroborate the structural differences identified in earlier research, while also revealing significant overlaps between the collections, both within individual interviews and across common narrative patterns. This complicates the simple "structured vs. free-form" dichotomy often applied to these oral histories. Beyond revisiting a foundational claim in Holocaust studies, our work provides a scalable, replicable framework for comparative corpus analysis. As a proof of concept, it suggests broader applications for digital oral history, narrative analysis, and the design of citizen-science annotation platforms.
The rapid growth of scientific publishing has made it increasingly difficult to track how fast-moving areas evolve. Search engines and LLM-based assistants retrieve or summarize papers, but often hide how the corpus was selected, organized, or connected to temporal patterns. We present $\texttt{Eliot}$, a publicly deployed interactive system for traceable exploration of evolving scientific literature. Motivated by two studies on Large Language Models (LLMs) and Automated Planning and Scheduling (APS), $\texttt{Eliot}$ generalizes literature-evolution analysis beyond hand-built taxonomies and domain-specific scripts. Given explicit query terms and filters, it retrieves arXiv papers at query time, represents each paper by title and abstract, clusters the corpus into themes, assigns representative keywords, and visualizes each cluster's publication-year distribution. We evaluate $\texttt{Eliot}$ as both an applied system and an interactive research aid. An offline configuration study across eight arXiv domains compares document representations, dimensionality reduction methods, and clustering algorithms using intrinsic clustering and topic-coherence metrics; the results support MiniLM embeddings with 10-dimensional UMAP and Agglomerative Clustering as a practical default. A scenario-based survey and expert focus group assess interpretability and use contexts: participants rated cluster labels as meaningful in 85% of scenario responses, and feedback indicated that $\texttt{Eliot}$ is most valuable for auditable overviews of rapidly changing technical areas. These results suggest that query-time clustering and temporal inspection can complement search and generation tools by helping researchers inspect and refine the evidence behind literature trends.
While scaling laws govern aggregate large language model performance, no scaling law has linked factual recall to both model size and training-data composition. We evaluated 38 models on over 8,900 scholarly references evaluated by an automated reference verification system. Recall quality follows a sigmoid in the log-linear combination of model parameter count and topic representation in training data. These two variables alone explain 60% of the variance across 16 dense models from four families, rising to 74-94% within individual families. The form matches a superposition-inspired account in which recall is gated by a signal-to-noise ratio: signal strength scales with concept frequency and the noise floor with model capacity.
An accurate assessment of a model's complexity is crucial for topics such as interpretation, generalization, and model selection. However, most existing complexity measures either rely on heuristic assumptions or are computationally prohibitive. In this paper, we present a mathematically rigorous yet easy-to-compute measure of model complexity that is based on the similarities between the model gradients across inputs. It is thus well-defined for any parametric model, but also for kernel-based non-parametric models. We prove that our measure of complexity generalizes model-specific complexity measures such as polynomial degree (for polynomial regression), kernel length scale (for Matérn kernels), number of neighbors (for k-nearest neighbors), number of splits (for decision trees), and number of trees (for random forests). We also use our measure to obtain new insights into the double descent phenomenon for random Fourier features, random forests, neural networks, and gradient boosting.
Idioms pose a fundamental challenge for language models, as their meaning cannot be inferred from surface form alone. Understanding such expressions, therefore, requires semantic abstraction beyond lexical overlap. We introduce IdioLink, a retrieval benchmark designed to test whether models can link idiomatic expressions to conceptually equivalent meanings expressed in literal or paraphrased forms. IdioLink comprises 10,700 documents and 2,140 queries, spanning 107 idioms with both literal and figurative uses. Each document and query is annotated with spans that convey the core meaning. Evaluating strong embedding baselines (e.g., BGE, E5, Contriever, and Qwen), we show that current models struggle to retrieve equivalent meanings across divergent surface realizations, relying instead on topical and shallow semantic cues. IdioLink exposes key gaps in idiom-aware semantic retrieval and provides a challenging testbed for future models.
Assessing the spatial fairness of predictive models involves establishing whether they are statistically penalizing (favoring) individuals associated with certain geographical locations. Literature on this topic makes the fundamental assumption that each individual is assigned to a single geographical location (e.g., place of residence). However, fairness with respect to the set of locations where one has been, i.e., their movement patterns over different regions, also matters when fairness is considered. Consequently, we argue that it is necessary to generalize the notion of spatial fairness to also include movement patterns, leading to the novel problem of assessing predictive models for fairness relative to the movements of individuals. To deal with this problem, we propose an approach that first associates the movements of individuals to certain geographic regions, considering multiple spatial partitions with different resolutions and alignments, and then employs a suitable spatial scan statistic to assess whether a predictive model is fair based on movement patterns. In the experimental evaluation, we study the performance of our approach over thousands of synthetic unfair datasets, showing that it is effective at detecting this new type of unfairness and at retrieving the set of objects treated unfairly, while localization performance exhibits a consistent multi-resolution trade-off.
Social norms reflect shared expectations on acceptable behavior. Measuring social norms alignment remains challenging, with existing approaches typically relying on artificial closed-form evaluations such as multiple-choice questionnaires or measuring agreement with predefined statements. In the context of this work, social norms alignment refers to measuring an agreement between solutions with respect to the social problem or dilemma. We propose a framework for measuring social norm alignment in naturalistic, free-form settings through solution matching. The framework enables us to measure alignment between any two dilemma responses e.g., LLMs to a human, LLMs to LLMs, or human to human. We introduce two metrics: stated and explicit agreement accuracy, and construct a dataset of 3k non-trivial social dilemmas in Danish. All dilemmas are assigned reference solutions derived from three panelists, who serve as culturally grounded judges. We evaluate the agreement of several LLMs and human responses in an interaction setup that resembles natural user-model conversations. Our results show that the proposed metrics produce consistent model rankings and reveal variation in agreement across different types of dilemmas, with higher agreement observed for topics such as neighbor conflicts and shared living situations. Overall, our work introduces a dataset and evaluation framework for studying culturally grounded social reasoning in naturalistic open-ended conversations.
Large language models (LLMs) exhibit systematic political bias across a variety of sensitive contexts. We find that LLMs handle counterpart topics from opposing political sides asymmetrically. We refer to this phenomenon as covert political bias and identify 7 categories of techniques through which it operates. We propose two metrics for covert bias: Sentiment Consistency measures symmetry in rhetoric and framing across paired political prompts; Helpfulness Consistency measures symmetric depth and engagement. To reduce both types of covert bias, we introduce Political Consistency Training (PCT), an RL training method with two complementary paradigms: Sentiment Consistency Training and Helpfulness Consistency Training. We show that PCT preserves overall helpfulness, substantially reduces covert political bias, and generalizes to held-out benchmarks. We release our work at https://political-manipulation.ai