Topic modeling is a type of statistical modeling for discovering the abstract topics that occur in a collection of documents.
Modern large language models (LLMs) increasingly rely on inference-time planning and external tools to improve reasoning. We benchmark this behavior on two real-world settings: event-centric question answering over graph-structured knowledge (Event-QA) and persuasive response generation in Reddit ChangeMyView (CMV). Using LangChain and LangGraph, we compare a one-shot baseline against a plan-execute-replan agent equipped with task-specific tools (DBpedia SPARQL/lookup/schema exploration, Wikipedia-focused retrieval, and topical web search). We evaluate on 60 examples each from Event-QA and CMV (3 splits of 20), and report both mean end-to-end latency and per-example token cost estimates. We evaluate GPT-4o and GPT-4o-mini under identical workflows and report accuracy and end-to-end latency. On Event-QA, the best tool-augmented configuration improves accuracy (e.g., 47.5\% $\rightarrow$ 67.5\% for GPT-4o) while increasing latency by orders of magnitude ($\sim$8s $\rightarrow$ $\sim$317s per example). On CMV, one-shot prompting is strongest (e.g., GPT-4o-mini achieves 75\% at $\sim$6s), and planning+search increases latency substantially without consistent gains. However, complex multi-tool orchestration exposes failure modes where the smaller model degrades. Overall, the findings highlight the need for task-specific, cost-aware choices of both model size and agent/tooling complexity.
We present a systematic framework of indices designed to characterize Large Language Model (LLM) responses when challenged with rebuttals during a chat. Assessing how LLMs respond to user dissent is crucial for understanding their reliability and behavior patterns, yet the complexity of human-LLM interactions makes systematic evaluation challenging. Our approach employs a fictitious-response rebuttal method that quantifies LLM behavior when presented with multiple-choice questions followed by deliberate challenges to their fictitious previous response. The indices are specifically designed to detect and measure what could be characterized as sycophantic behavior (excessive agreement with user challenges) or stubborn responses (rigid adherence to the fictitious response in the chat history) from LLMs. These metrics allow investigation of the relationships between sycophancy, stubbornness, and the model's actual mastery of the subject matter. We demonstrate the utility of these indices using two physics problems as test scenarios with various OpenAI models. The framework is intentionally generalizable to any multiple-choice format question, including on topics without universally accepted correct answers. Our results reveal measurable differences across OpenAI model generations, with trends indicating that newer models and those employing greater "Reasoning Effort" exhibit reduced sycophantic behavior. The FR pairing method combined with our proposed indices provides a practical, adaptable toolkit for systematically comparing LLM dialogue behaviors across different models and contexts.
Explainable artificial intelligence (xAI) has gained significant attention in recent years. Among other things, explainablility for deep neural networks has been a topic of intensive research due to the meteoric rise in prominence of deep neural networks and their "black-box" nature. xAI approaches can be characterized along different dimensions such as their scope (global versus local explanations) or underlying methodologies (statistic-based versus rule-based strategies). Methods generating global explanations aim to provide reasoning process applicable to all possible output classes while local explanation methods focus only on a single, specific class. SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations), a well-known statistical technique, identifies important features of a network. Deep neural network rule extraction method constructs IF-THEN rules that link input conditions to a class. Another approach focuses on generating counterfactuals which help explain how small changes to an input can affect the model's predictions. However, these techniques primarily focus on the input-output relationship and thus neglect the structure of the network in explanation generation. In this work, we propose xDNN(ASP), an explanation generation system for deep neural networks that provides global explanations. Given a neural network model and its training data, xDNN(ASP) extracts a logic program under answer set semantics that-in the ideal case-represents the trained model, i.e., answer sets of the extracted program correspond one-to-one to input-output pairs of the network. We demonstrate experimentally, using two synthetic datasets, that not only the extracted logic program maintains a high-level of accuracy in the prediction task, but it also provides valuable information for the understanding of the model such as the importance of features as well as the impact of hidden nodes on the prediction. The latter can be used as a guide for reducing the number of nodes used in hidden layers, i.e., providing a means for optimizing the network.
In the face of adverse motives, it is indispensable to achieve a consensus. Elections have been the canonical way by which modern democracy has operated since the 17th century. Nowadays, they regulate markets, provide an engine for modern recommender systems or peer-to-peer networks, and remain the main approach to represent democracy. However, a desirable universal voting rule that satisfies all hypothetical scenarios is still a challenging topic, and the design of these systems is at the forefront of mechanism design research. Automated mechanism design is a promising approach, and recent works have demonstrated that set-invariant architectures are uniquely suited to modelling electoral systems. However, various concerns prevent the direct application to real-world settings, such as robustness to strategic voting. In this paper, we generalise the expressive capability of learned voting rules, and combine improvements in neural network architecture with adversarial training to improve the resilience of voting rules while maximizing social welfare. We evaluate the effectiveness of our methods on both synthetic and real-world datasets. Our method resolves critical limitations of prior work regarding learning voting rules by representing elections using bipartite graphs, and learning such voting rules using graph neural networks. We believe this opens new frontiers for applying machine learning to real-world elections.
Social media (SM) platforms (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit) are increasingly leveraged to share opinions and emotions, specifically during challenging events, such as natural disasters, pandemics, and political elections, and joyful occasions like festivals and celebrations. Among the SM platforms, Reddit provides a unique space for its users to anonymously express their experiences and thoughts on sensitive issues such as health and daily life. In this work, we present a novel dataset, called NepEMO, for multi-label emotion (MLE) and sentiment classification (SC) on the Nepali subreddit post. We curate and build a manually annotated dataset of 4,462 posts (January 2019- June 2025) written in English, Romanised Nepali and Devanagari script for five emotions (fear, anger, sadness, joy, and depression) and three sentiment classes (positive, negative, and neutral). We perform a detailed analysis of posts to capture linguistic insights, including emotion trends, co-occurrence of emotions, sentiment-specific n-grams, and topic modelling using Latent Dirichlet Allocation and TF-IDF keyword extraction. Finally, we compare various traditional machine learning (ML), deep learning (DL), and transformer models for MLE and SC tasks. The result shows that transformer models consistently outperform the ML and DL models for both tasks.
Understanding affective polarization in online discourse is crucial for evaluating the societal impact of social media interactions. This study presents a novel framework that leverages large language models (LLMs) and domain-informed heuristics to systematically analyze and quantify affective polarization in discussions on divisive topics such as climate change and gun control. Unlike most prior approaches that relied on sentiment analysis or predefined classifiers, our method integrates LLMs to extract stance, affective tone, and agreement patterns from large-scale social media discussions. We then apply a rule-based scoring system capable of quantifying affective polarization even in small conversations consisting of single interactions, based on stance alignment, emotional content, and interaction dynamics. Our analysis reveals distinct polarization patterns that are event dependent: (i) anticipation-driven polarization, where extreme polarization escalates before well-publicized events, and (ii) reactive polarization, where intense affective polarization spikes immediately after sudden, high-impact events. By combining AI-driven content annotation with domain-informed scoring, our framework offers a scalable and interpretable approach to measuring affective polarization. The source code is publicly available at: https://github.com/hasanjawad001/llm-social-media-polarization.
In the rapidly evolving landscape of enterprise natural language processing (NLP), the demand for efficient, lightweight models capable of handling multi-domain text automation tasks has intensified. This study conducts a comparative analysis of three prominent lightweight Transformer models - DistilBERT, MiniLM, and ALBERT - across three distinct domains: customer sentiment classification, news topic classification, and toxicity and hate speech detection. Utilizing datasets from IMDB, AG News, and the Measuring Hate Speech corpus, we evaluated performance using accuracy-based metrics including accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score, as well as efficiency metrics such as model size, inference time, throughput, and memory usage. Key findings reveal that no single model dominates all performance dimensions. ALBERT achieves the highest task-specific accuracy in multiple domains, MiniLM excels in inference speed and throughput, and DistilBERT demonstrates the most consistent accuracy across tasks while maintaining competitive efficiency. All results reflect controlled fine-tuning under fixed enterprise-oriented constraints rather than exhaustive hyperparameter optimization. These results highlight trade-offs between accuracy and efficiency, recommending MiniLM for latency-sensitive enterprise applications, DistilBERT for balanced performance, and ALBERT for resource-constrained environments.
As generative AI systems become integrated into real-world applications, organizations increasingly need to be able to understand and interpret their behavior. In particular, decision-makers need to understand what causes generative AI systems to exhibit specific output characteristics. Within this general topic, this paper examines a key question: what is it about the input -- the prompt -- that causes an LLM-based generative AI system to produce output that exhibits specific characteristics, such as toxicity, negative sentiment, or political bias. To examine this question, we adapt a common technique from the Explainable AI literature: counterfactual explanations. We explain why traditional counterfactual explanations cannot be applied directly to generative AI systems, due to several differences in how generative AI systems function. We then propose a flexible framework that adapts counterfactual explanations to non-deterministic, generative AI systems in scenarios where downstream classifiers can reveal key characteristics of their outputs. Based on this framework, we introduce an algorithm for generating prompt-counterfactual explanations (PCEs). Finally, we demonstrate the production of counterfactual explanations for generative AI systems with three case studies, examining different output characteristics (viz., political leaning, toxicity, and sentiment). The case studies further show that PCEs can streamline prompt engineering to suppress undesirable output characteristics and can enhance red-teaming efforts to uncover additional prompts that elicit undesirable outputs. Ultimately, this work lays a foundation for prompt-focused interpretability in generative AI: a capability that will become indispensable as these models are entrusted with higher-stakes tasks and subject to emerging regulatory requirements for transparency and accountability.
Modern enterprise retrieval systems must handle short, underspecified queries such as ``foreign transaction fee refund'' and ``recent check status''. In these cases, semantic nuance and metadata matter but per-query large language model (LLM) re-ranking and manual labeling are costly. We present Metadata-Aware Cross-Model Alignment (MACA), which distills a calibrated metadata aware LLM re-ranker into a compact student retriever, avoiding online LLM calls. A metadata-aware prompt verifies the teacher's trustworthiness by checking consistency under permutations and robustness to paraphrases, then supplies listwise scores, hard negatives, and calibrated relevance margins. The student trains with MACA's MetaFusion objective, which combines a metadata conditioned ranking loss with a cross model margin loss so it learns to push the correct answer above semantically similar candidates with mismatched topic, sub-topic, or entity. On a proprietary consumer banking FAQ corpus and BankFAQs, the MACA teacher surpasses a MAFA baseline at Accuracy@1 by five points on the proprietary set and three points on BankFAQs. MACA students substantially outperform pretrained encoders; e.g., on the proprietary corpus MiniLM Accuracy@1 improves from 0.23 to 0.48, while keeping inference free of LLM calls and supporting retrieval-augmented generation.
Large language models (LLMs) have made rapid progress in formal theorem proving, yet current benchmarks under-measure the kind of abstraction and library-mediated reasoning that organizes modern mathematics. In parallel with FATE's emphasis on frontier algebra, we introduce LeanCat, a Lean benchmark for category-theoretic formalization -- a unifying language for mathematical structure and a core layer of modern proof engineering -- serving as a stress test of structural, interface-level reasoning. Part I: 1-Categories contains 100 fully formalized statement-level tasks, curated into topic families and three difficulty tiers via an LLM-assisted + human grading process. The best model solves 8.25% of tasks at pass@1 (32.50%/4.17%/0.00% by Easy/Medium/High) and 12.00% at pass@4 (50.00%/4.76%/0.00%). We also evaluate LeanBridge which use LeanExplore to search Mathlib, and observe consistent gains over single-model baselines. LeanCat is intended as a compact, reusable checkpoint for tracking both AI and human progress toward reliable, research-level formalization in Lean.