Pixels or Positions? Benchmarking Modalities in Group Activity Recognition

Group Activity Recognition (GAR) is well studied on the video modality for surveillance and indoor team sports (e.g., volleyball, basketball). Yet, other modalities such as agent positions and trajectories over time, i.e. tracking, remain comparatively under-explored despite being compact, agent-centric signals that explicitly encode spatial interactions. Understanding whether pixel (video) or position (tracking) modalities leads to better group activity recognition is therefore important to drive further research on the topic. However, no standardized benchmark currently exists that aligns broadcast video and tracking data for the same group activities, leading to a lack of apples-to-apples comparison between these modalities for GAR. In this work, we introduce SoccerNet-GAR, a multimodal dataset built from the $64$ matches of the football World Cup 2022. Specifically, the broadcast videos and player tracking modalities for $94{,}285$ group activities are synchronized and annotated with $10$ categories. Furthermore, we define a unified evaluation protocol to benchmark two strong unimodal approaches: (i) a competitive video-based classifiers and (ii) a tracking-based classifiers leveraging graph neural networks. In particular, our novel role-aware graph architecture for tracking-based GAR directly encodes tactical structure through positional edges and temporal attention. Our tracking model achieves $67.2\%$ balanced accuracy compared to $58.1\%$ for the best video baseline, while training $4.25 \times$ faster with $438 \times$ fewer parameters ($197K$ \vs $86.3M$). This study provides new insights into the relative strengths of pixels and positions for group activity recognition. Overall, it highlights the importance of modality choice and role-aware modeling for GAR.

BiCA: Effective Biomedical Dense Retrieval with Citation-Aware Hard Negatives

Hard negatives are essential for training effective retrieval models. Hard-negative mining typically relies on ranking documents using cross-encoders or static embedding models based on similarity metrics such as cosine distance. Hard negative mining becomes challenging for biomedical and scientific domains due to the difficulty in distinguishing between source and hard negative documents. However, referenced documents naturally share contextual relevance with the source document but are not duplicates, making them well-suited as hard negatives. In this work, we propose BiCA: Biomedical Dense Retrieval with Citation-Aware Hard Negatives, an approach for hard-negative mining by utilizing citation links in 20,000 PubMed articles for improving a domain-specific small dense retriever. We fine-tune the GTE_small and GTE_Base models using these citation-informed negatives and observe consistent improvements in zero-shot dense retrieval using nDCG@10 for both in-domain and out-of-domain tasks on BEIR and outperform baselines on long-tailed topics in LoTTE using Success@5. Our findings highlight the potential of leveraging document link structure to generate highly informative negatives, enabling state-of-the-art performance with minimal fine-tuning and demonstrating a path towards highly data-efficient domain adaptation.

Culture Cartography: Mapping the Landscape of Cultural Knowledge

To serve global users safely and productively, LLMs need culture-specific knowledge that might not be learned during pre-training. How do we find such knowledge that is (1) salient to in-group users, but (2) unknown to LLMs? The most common solutions are single-initiative: either researchers define challenging questions that users passively answer (traditional annotation), or users actively produce data that researchers structure as benchmarks (knowledge extraction). The process would benefit from mixed-initiative collaboration, where users guide the process to meaningfully reflect their cultures, and LLMs steer the process towards more challenging questions that meet the researcher's goals. We propose a mixed-initiative methodology called CultureCartography. Here, an LLM initializes annotation with questions for which it has low-confidence answers, making explicit both its prior knowledge and the gaps therein. This allows a human respondent to fill these gaps and steer the model towards salient topics through direct edits. We implement this methodology as a tool called CultureExplorer. Compared to a baseline where humans answer LLM-proposed questions, we find that CultureExplorer more effectively produces knowledge that leading models like DeepSeek R1 and GPT-4o are missing, even with web search. Fine-tuning on this data boosts the accuracy of Llama-3.1-8B by up to 19.2% on related culture benchmarks.

LLMs and Cultural Values: the Impact of Prompt Language and Explicit Cultural Framing

Large Language Models (LLMs) are rapidly being adopted by users across the globe, who interact with them in a diverse range of languages. At the same time, there are well-documented imbalances in the training data and optimisation objectives of this technology, raising doubts as to whether LLMs can represent the cultural diversity of their broad user base. In this study, we look at LLMs and cultural values and examine how prompt language and cultural framing influence model responses and their alignment with human values in different countries. We probe 10 LLMs with 63 items from the Hofstede Values Survey Module and World Values Survey, translated into 11 languages, and formulated as prompts with and without different explicit cultural perspectives. Our study confirms that both prompt language and cultural perspective produce variation in LLM outputs, but with an important caveat: While targeted prompting can, to a certain extent, steer LLM responses in the direction of the predominant values of the corresponding countries, it does not overcome the models' systematic bias toward the values associated with a restricted set of countries in our dataset: the Netherlands, Germany, the US, and Japan. All tested models, regardless of their origin, exhibit remarkably similar patterns: They produce fairly neutral responses on most topics, with selective progressive stances on issues such as social tolerance. Alignment with cultural values of human respondents is improved more with an explicit cultural perspective than with a targeted prompt language. Unexpectedly, combining both approaches is no more effective than cultural framing with an English prompt. These findings reveal that LLMs occupy an uncomfortable middle ground: They are responsive enough to changes in prompts to produce variation, but too firmly anchored to specific cultural defaults to adequately represent cultural diversity.

IndicVisionBench: Benchmarking Cultural and Multilingual Understanding in VLMs

Vision-language models (VLMs) have demonstrated impressive generalization across multimodal tasks, yet most evaluation benchmarks remain Western-centric, leaving open questions about their performance in culturally diverse and multilingual settings. To address this gap, we introduce IndicVisionBench, the first large-scale benchmark centered on the Indian subcontinent. Covering English and 10 Indian languages, our benchmark spans 3 multimodal tasks, including Optical Character Recognition (OCR), Multimodal Machine Translation (MMT), and Visual Question Answering (VQA), covering 6 kinds of question types. Our final benchmark consists of a total of ~5K images and 37K+ QA pairs across 13 culturally grounded topics. In addition, we release a paired parallel corpus of annotations across 10 Indic languages, creating a unique resource for analyzing cultural and linguistic biases in VLMs. We evaluate a broad spectrum of 8 models, from proprietary closed-source systems to open-weights medium and large-scale models. Our experiments reveal substantial performance gaps, underscoring the limitations of current VLMs in culturally diverse contexts. By centering cultural diversity and multilinguality, IndicVisionBench establishes a reproducible evaluation framework that paves the way for more inclusive multimodal research.

Revisiting Multilingual Data Mixtures in Language Model Pretraining

The impact of different multilingual data mixtures in pretraining large language models (LLMs) has been a topic of ongoing debate, often raising concerns about potential trade-offs between language coverage and model performance (i.e., the curse of multilinguality). In this work, we investigate these assumptions by training 1.1B and 3B parameter LLMs on diverse multilingual corpora, varying the number of languages from 25 to 400. Our study challenges common beliefs surrounding multilingual training. First, we find that combining English and multilingual data does not necessarily degrade the in-language performance of either group, provided that languages have a sufficient number of tokens included in the pretraining corpus. Second, we observe that using English as a pivot language (i.e., a high-resource language that serves as a catalyst for multilingual generalization) yields benefits across language families, and contrary to expectations, selecting a pivot language from within a specific family does not consistently improve performance for languages within that family. Lastly, we do not observe a significant "curse of multilinguality" as the number of training languages increases in models at this scale. Our findings suggest that multilingual data, when balanced appropriately, can enhance language model capabilities without compromising performance, even in low-resource settings

Listening Between the Lines: Decoding Podcast Narratives with Language Modeling

Podcasts have become a central arena for shaping public opinion, making them a vital source for understanding contemporary discourse. Their typically unscripted, multi-themed, and conversational style offers a rich but complex form of data. To analyze how podcasts persuade and inform, we must examine their narrative structures -- specifically, the narrative frames they employ. The fluid and conversational nature of podcasts presents a significant challenge for automated analysis. We show that existing large language models, typically trained on more structured text such as news articles, struggle to capture the subtle cues that human listeners rely on to identify narrative frames. As a result, current approaches fall short of accurately analyzing podcast narratives at scale. To solve this, we develop and evaluate a fine-tuned BERT model that explicitly links narrative frames to specific entities mentioned in the conversation, effectively grounding the abstract frame in concrete details. Our approach then uses these granular frame labels and correlates them with high-level topics to reveal broader discourse trends. The primary contributions of this paper are: (i) a novel frame-labeling methodology that more closely aligns with human judgment for messy, conversational data, and (ii) a new analysis that uncovers the systematic relationship between what is being discussed (the topic) and how it is being presented (the frame), offering a more robust framework for studying influence in digital media.

ProfOlaf: Semi-Automated Tool for Systematic Literature Reviews

Systematic reviews and mapping studies are critical for synthesizing research, identifying gaps, and guiding future work, but they are often labor-intensive and time-consuming. Existing tools provide partial support for specific steps, leaving much of the process manual and error-prone. We present ProfOlaf, a semi-automated tool designed to streamline systematic reviews while maintaining methodological rigor. ProfOlaf supports iterative snowballing for article collection with human-in-the-loop filtering and uses large language models to assist in analyzing articles, extracting key topics, and answering queries about the content of papers. By combining automation with guided manual effort, ProfOlaf enhances the efficiency, quality, and reproducibility of systematic reviews across research fields. A video describing and demonstrating ProfOlaf is available at: https://youtu.be/4noUXfcmxsE

Computational Turing Test Reveals Systematic Differences Between Human and AI Language

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in the social sciences to simulate human behavior, based on the assumption that they can generate realistic, human-like text. Yet this assumption remains largely untested. Existing validation efforts rely heavily on human-judgment-based evaluations -- testing whether humans can distinguish AI from human output -- despite evidence that such judgments are blunt and unreliable. As a result, the field lacks robust tools for assessing the realism of LLM-generated text or for calibrating models to real-world data. This paper makes two contributions. First, we introduce a computational Turing test: a validation framework that integrates aggregate metrics (BERT-based detectability and semantic similarity) with interpretable linguistic features (stylistic markers and topical patterns) to assess how closely LLMs approximate human language within a given dataset. Second, we systematically compare nine open-weight LLMs across five calibration strategies -- including fine-tuning, stylistic prompting, and context retrieval -- benchmarking their ability to reproduce user interactions on X (formerly Twitter), Bluesky, and Reddit. Our findings challenge core assumptions in the literature. Even after calibration, LLM outputs remain clearly distinguishable from human text, particularly in affective tone and emotional expression. Instruction-tuned models underperform their base counterparts, and scaling up model size does not enhance human-likeness. Crucially, we identify a trade-off: optimizing for human-likeness often comes at the cost of semantic fidelity, and vice versa. These results provide a much-needed scalable framework for validation and calibration in LLM simulations -- and offer a cautionary note about their current limitations in capturing human communication.

ROSBag MCP Server: Analyzing Robot Data with LLMs for Agentic Embodied AI Applications

Agentic AI systems and Physical or Embodied AI systems have been two key research verticals at the forefront of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics, with Model Context Protocol (MCP) increasingly becoming a key component and enabler of agentic applications. However, the literature at the intersection of these verticals, i.e., Agentic Embodied AI, remains scarce. This paper introduces an MCP server for analyzing ROS and ROS 2 bags, allowing for analyzing, visualizing and processing robot data with natural language through LLMs and VLMs. We describe specific tooling built with robotics domain knowledge, with our initial release focused on mobile robotics and supporting natively the analysis of trajectories, laser scan data, transforms, or time series data. This is in addition to providing an interface to standard ROS 2 CLI tools ("ros2 bag list" or "ros2 bag info"), as well as the ability to filter bags with a subset of topics or trimmed in time. Coupled with the MCP server, we provide a lightweight UI that allows the benchmarking of the tooling with different LLMs, both proprietary (Anthropic, OpenAI) and open-source (through Groq). Our experimental results include the analysis of tool calling capabilities of eight different state-of-the-art LLM/VLM models, both proprietary and open-source, large and small. Our experiments indicate that there is a large divide in tool calling capabilities, with Kimi K2 and Claude Sonnet 4 demonstrating clearly superior performance. We also conclude that there are multiple factors affecting the success rates, from the tool description schema to the number of arguments, as well as the number of tools available to the models. The code is available with a permissive license at https://github.com/binabik-ai/mcp-rosbags.