When New Generators Arrive: Lifelong Machine-Generated Text Attribution via Ridge Feature Transfer

Machine-generated text (MGT) attribution aims to identify the specific generator responsible for a given text, thereby providing fine-grained evidence for model accountability and misuse investigation. As new large language models continue to emerge, attribution models must continuously incorporate new generators while preserving their ability to recognize previously seen ones. Prior works have shown that this lifelong MGT attribution setting is challenging, and existing methods often struggle to achieve a stable balance between adapting to new classes and retaining old ones. To address this issue, we propose RidgeFT, a lightweight analytic update framework that does not rely on exemplar replay. RidgeFT trains a task-aware encoder on the initial generator set, stores compact class-wise sufficient statistics when each generator class is first observed, and then freezes the encoder for replay-free closed-form updates. It then suppresses generator-irrelevant variation through covariance calibration, improves representation capacity with fixed random features, and updates new classes through closed-form ridge regression based on class-level sufficient statistics. Across multi-topic evaluations with varying initial generator setups, RidgeFT consistently outperforms baselines. It achieves the best macro-F1 across domains, backbones, and incremental protocols, while also improving both old-class retention and new-class adaptation. These results suggest that feature-stable analytic updates provide a simple yet effective approach to lifelong MGT attribution.

Fine-grained Fragment Retrieval in Multi-modal Long-form Dialogues

With the widespread adoption of multi-modal communication platforms, long-form dialogues interleaving text and images have become increasingly common. Users often need to retrieve coherent dialogue fragments related to specific topics, rather than isolated utterances. We propose Fine-grained Fragment Retrieval (FFR), which locates semantically relevant multi-utterance, multi-image fragments in multi-modal long-form dialogues. We explore two settings: (1) FFR within Single-Dialogue, retrieving fragments from a given dialogue; and (2) FFR within Dialogue Corpus, retrieving from a large-scale corpus for open-domain scenarios. For (1), we introduce F2RVLM, a generation-based retrieval model trained with reinforcement learning, using multi-objective rewards and difficulty-aware curriculum sampling to enhance fragment coherence. For (2), we develop FFRS, a two-stage system combining offline fragment-level indexing with online retrieval. Specifically, each dialogue is decomposed into minimal semantic fragments encoded by a Fragment Embedding Model (FEM) into a vector database; at inference, FEM rapidly recalls Top-K candidates, and F2RVLM performs fine-grained reasoning to identify the most relevant sub-content. To support FFR, we construct MLDR, the longest multi-modal dialogue retrieval dataset to date, and a WeChat-based real-world test set. Experiments on both benchmarks demonstrate that F2RVLM and FFRS consistently achieve superior performance across single-dialogue and corpus-level FFR.

Who Annotates in NLP? A Large-scale Assessment of Human Annotation Reporting between 2018 and 2025

Human annotation is the empirical foundation of much NLP research, from dataset construction to model evaluation, but papers often leave unclear who produced the annotations and how the annotation process was controlled. We provide the first large-scale, task-level audit of human annotation reporting across major NLP venues, asking which annotation details are documented, which are missing, and how reporting varies across time, topic, venue, and intended use of human judgment. We introduce a unified taxonomy of annotation-reporting practices and validate an LLM-assisted extraction pipeline against Annotated-gold, a human-adjudicated gold standard of 41 papers and 72 annotation tasks, where the best model reaches human-comparable agreement with adjudicated labels, with Krippendorff's alpha of 0.606 versus 0.585 for human-human agreement. Using this pipeline, we construct Annotated-llm, a dataset covering ACL-venue papers from 2018-2025, with 2,667 extracted annotation tasks from 1,603 papers, and find that papers frequently report operational details such as recruitment strategies, annotator expertise, and annotation volume, but often omit details needed to assess annotation validity, including training, language proficiency, compensation, socio-demographics, adjudication, and agreement values, especially in model-evaluation studies. Our results show that annotation reporting in NLP has improved over time but remains uneven, and they establish a scalable framework and bare-minimum reporting recommendations for making human annotation more reliable, reproducible, and interpretable.

Do Neural Retrievers Prefer Certain Documents? Evidence of Learned Relevance Priors

Neural retrievers are trained to estimate query-document relevance from annotated query-document pairs. Yet annotation protocols may not purely reflect relevance: they select only a subset of documents for labeling, and this selection can favor certain document types over others. We investigate whether supervised bi-encoder retrievers implicitly learn a document-level relevance prior: a query-independent signal encoded in their representation space as a side effect of training on annotated data. We estimate this prior by training simple classifiers on frozen document embeddings and evaluate three state-of-the-art retrievers across multiple IR benchmarks. We find that supervised neural retrievers encode relevance priors that generalize to unseen documents and are consistent across models. These priors create a findability gap: documents with lower prior are systematically harder to retrieve, even when genuinely relevant. This effect appears in supervised dense retrievers but is weaker and less consistent in BM25, and it persists under controlled matched-document comparisons. Using LLM-based explanations, we find that judged-relevant documents tend to be comprehensive, self-contained summaries of mainstream topics, while niche, fragmentary, or highly technical content is often left unjudged. Retrievers internalize this bias, ranking documents with these favored features higher than documents that lack them, independently of their actual relevance. Our findings expose a structural limitation of supervised retrieval: models trained on annotated data do not just learn relevance, but also the implicit document preferences in their training data.

Beyond Waveform Robustness: Robust Feature-Vocoder Adversarial Attacks on Automatic Speech Recognition

Automatic speech recognition (ASR) systems have become widely used for multilingual speech-to-text transcription. Their robustness to adversarial attacks has become an important topic for the community. Existing adversarial attacks directly add adversarial noise to the speech audio. However, prior work has shown that existing adversarial attacks face two limitations: they often transfer poorly to black-box ASR systems and are increasingly mitigated by defenses tailored to input-space perturbations. In this work, we propose a Clean-Referenced Feature-Vocoder Attack, a surrogate-based black-box attack that moves the adversarial search space from raw waveforms to self-supervised learning (SSL) representations. To address the transferability limitation, we perturb more generalizable acoustic-phonetic representations rather than low-level waveform samples, reducing dependence on surrogate-specific waveform gradients and encouraging adversarial perturbations that generalize across ASR systems. To bypass different defenses, we shift the adversarial signal from explicit additive waveform noise to SSL feature-space perturbations and reconstruct them through a vocoder into speech-like waveform adversarial signals, making the resulting samples less aligned with waveform-bounded defenses. Extensive experiments show that, when optimized only on raw Whisper-small as a public surrogate model, our attack transfers effectively to black-box ASR models with a +26.6 WER improvement over the SOTA baseline, while also remaining effective against multiple training defenses with a +36.2 WER improvement. These results reveal a blind spot in current ASR robustness evaluation.

Ten Headache Specialists versus Artificial Intelligence for Clinical Literature Summarization: A Critical Evaluation and Comparison

Summarizing the latest medical literature to guide clinical decision-making is essential for evidence-based medicine and high-quality patient care. Yet clinicians face increasing challenges due to limited time with patients and a rapidly growing volume of published articles. Although retrieval-augmented large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in clinical summarization, human evaluations of their effectiveness in synthesizing broader scientific literature and direct comparisons to expert-written syntheses remain scarce. We constructed a RAG-based agentic AI framework using three state-of-the-art LLMs: Sonnet, GPT-4o, and Llama 3.1. A headache specialist created 13 questions, three for prompt optimization and ten for evaluation. Ten headache specialists across the United States and Canada each wrote a summary for one question, yielding four summaries per question (expert, Sonnet, GPT-4o, and Llama). The experts, blinded to authorship, critically evaluated the summaries, excluding the topic for which they wrote a summary, based on correctness, completeness, conciseness, and clinical utility, scoring each from 1 to 10 using standardized rubrics. They also ranked the summaries by preference and indicated whether they believed each summary was written by an expert or an LLM. Our study, comparing LLM- and expert-written literature summaries evaluated by headache specialists, showed that expert-written summaries were preferred, although experts sometimes found it challenging to distinguish between human- and AI-generated summaries. We also identified key expert-valued features beyond standard evaluation metrics that can guide future refinement of both human and AI literature summarization pipelines.

A Comparative Evaluation of Structural Topic Models and BERTopic for Short, Open-Ended Survey Responses

Topic modeling in applied psychology increasingly spans two methodological traditions: probabilistic bag-of-words models and newer embedding-based approaches. Yet many evaluations of these methods rely on longer and cleaner benchmark corpora, leaving less guidance for short, open-ended survey responses. This paper compares Structural Topic Models (STM), a probabilistic topic model, and BERTopic, an embedding-based model, for analyzing open-ended survey responses. We evaluated three STM conditions and five BERTopic conditions, varying typographical correction, stemming, embedding choice, and contextual augmentation, a strategy we introduced to provide additional semantic context for very short responses. Results indicate that BERTopic consistently produced higher topic coherence than STM, with contextual augmentation yielding the strongest performance gains. In contrast, higher-dimensional embeddings alone did not improve coherence and were associated with greater data loss. Qualitative evaluation showed that BERTopic generated more interpretable and stable topics, while STM topics were often broader and more mixed. However, STM provides stronger support for inferential covariate analysis, whereas BERTopic covariate comparisons are primarily descriptive. These findings suggest that STM and BERTopic offer complementary strengths. We conclude with practical guidance for selecting and combining topic modeling approaches in applied social science research.

A Model of Multi-turn Human Persuadability Using Probabilistic Belief Tracing

Large language models can shift human beliefs across high-stakes domains, but most persuasion studies rely on pre/post belief change. These endpoint measures identify whether persuasion occurred, yet miss where and how beliefs moved within a dialogue. We present PERSUASIONTRACE, a framework for studying persuasion in human-LLM interaction. Built on a web-based experimental platform, PERSUASIONTRACE contributes a tool for multi-turn persuasion studies and a process-level evaluation protocol: it records multi-turn belief reports from human or simulated targets of persuasion, annotates persuader turns with rhetorical dimensions (logos/pathos/ethos), and evaluates simulators by fidelity to real human belief dynamics. Using this framework, we find that human targets group into two clusters of multi-turn belief updates and exhibit susceptibility to rhetorical strategies, and that LLMs are persuasive across generic and personalized topics, text and audio modalities, and multi-turn interactions. Prior work has chiefly used vanilla-prompted LLMs to simulate human targets, but we show that these simulators fail to replicate human belief dynamics. We introduce a Bayesian-network simulated target that maintains an explicit latent belief state over time so each persuader message yields cognitively realistic belief updates. In human-likeness evaluation, our Bayesian target scores near a human reference (81 vs 80), while baseline LLM targets score substantially lower (64). PERSUASIONTRACE reframes persuasion evaluation from endpoint movement alone to process fidelity, providing a stronger basis for scientific analysis and safer optimization of persuasive systems.

A Multi-Agent LLM Framework for Rating the Quality of Surgical Feedback

Verbal feedback delivered by attending surgeons in the operating room plays a critical formative role in resident trainee skill acquisition. Yet, assessing the quality of trainer feedback and its effectiveness in influencing trainee behavior during live surgery remains a challenge. Prior studies assessed feedback content relying on extensive manual annotation by expert human raters and focused on developing broad taxonomies that overlook the qualitative aspects of feedback delivery such as clarity or urgency. Limited existing automated methods, including keyword analysis and topic modeling, also fail to capture these nuanced aspects. We introduce a two-stage LLM-based framework that discovers interpretable feedback quality criteria grounded in the context of surgical training. Our method uses multi-agent prompting and surgical domain knowledge injection to discover a small set of human interpretable scoring criteria (e.g., Encouraging, Urgent, Clear). These criteria are then used to automatically score live surgical feedback via an LLM-as-a-judge approach. Evaluation on 4.2k trainer feedback instances demonstrates that our AI-discovered criteria outperform prior content-based frameworks in predicting feedback effectiveness, including observed trainee behavioral adjustments and trainer approval. This work advances scalable, human-aligned assessment of communication quality in the operating room and provides a foundation for improving surgical teaching practices.

ProjectionBench: Evaluating Scientific Hypothesis Generation in LLMs Under Progressive Information Disclosure

Scientific discovery is an inherently creative and uncertain process, requiring reasoning beyond the recall of known knowledge. While many benchmarks have been proposed to evaluate large language model (LLM) performance on deep research tasks via multi-hop retrieval, their innovative reasoning abilities essential for true scientific discovery remain largely untested. We introduce a benchmark framework for evaluating model performance in scientific discovery and reasoning, building up from a raw problem to the classical null hypothesis test. In our framework, models initially receive only the topic and research question from a recent paper, with technical details progressively revealed. At each stage of information disclosure, the model is tasked with generating hypotheses that address the research question, which is compared with the conclusions from the original paper and evaluated via automated semantic similarity of constituent atomic claims. This progressive evaluation of semantic divergence from ground-truth conclusions enables assessment of a model's innovativeness (under minimal information) to grounded reasoning capabilities (under full experimental details), both critical for using LLMs for scientific discovery purposes. Our framework provides a foundation for systematically evaluating scientific reasoning and discovery capabilities in LLMs, crucial for advancing the development of next-generation AI scientist/co-scientist systems. Specifically, here we evaluate GPT-5, GPT-5.4, Gemini 2.5 pro, and Gemini 3.1 pro preview across 45 papers spanning bioactive materials, mechanical materials, and nanomaterials. We find that GPT-5.4 and Gemini 3.1 pro outperform their previous generation counterparts as expected, and GPT-5.4 in particular maintains 0.7 F1 score alignment with ground truth conclusions even under minimal context.