Daily Papers

Despite their remarkable capabilities, Large Language Models (LLMs) are prone to generate responses that contradict verifiable facts, i.e., unfaithful hallucination content. Existing efforts generally focus on optimizing model parameters or editing semantic representations, which compromise the internal factual knowledge of target LLMs. In addition, hallucinations typically exhibit multifaceted patterns in downstream tasks, limiting the model's holistic performance across tasks. In this paper, we propose a Comparator-driven Decoding-Time (CDT) framework to alleviate the response hallucination. Firstly, we construct hallucinatory and truthful comparators with multi-task fine-tuning samples. In this case, we present an instruction prototype-guided mixture of experts strategy to enhance the ability of the corresponding comparators to capture different hallucination or truthfulness patterns in distinct task instructions. CDT constrains next-token predictions to factuality-robust distributions by contrasting the logit differences between the target LLMs and these comparators. Systematic experiments on multiple downstream tasks show that our framework can significantly improve the model performance and response factuality.

Reinforcement learning has become essential for strengthening the reasoning abilities of large language models, yet current exploration mechanisms remain fundamentally misaligned with how these models actually learn. Entropy bonuses and external semantic comparators encourage surface level variation but offer no guarantee that sampled trajectories differ in the update directions that shape optimization. We propose G2RL, a gradient guided reinforcement learning framework in which exploration is driven not by external heuristics but by the model own first order update geometry. For each response, G2RL constructs a sequence level feature from the model final layer sensitivity, obtainable at negligible cost from a standard forward pass, and measures how each trajectory would reshape the policy by comparing these features within a sampled group. Trajectories that introduce novel gradient directions receive a bounded multiplicative reward scaler, while redundant or off manifold updates are deemphasized, yielding a self referential exploration signal that is naturally aligned with PPO style stability and KL control. Across math and general reasoning benchmarks (MATH500, AMC, AIME24, AIME25, GPQA, MMLUpro) on Qwen3 base 1.7B and 4B models, G2RL consistently improves pass@1, maj@16, and pass@k over entropy based GRPO and external embedding methods. Analyzing the induced geometry, we find that G2RL expands exploration into substantially more orthogonal and often opposing gradient directions while maintaining semantic coherence, revealing that a policy own update space provides a far more faithful and effective basis for guiding exploration in large language model reinforcement learning.

Meta-analyses statistically aggregate the findings of different randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess treatment effectiveness. Because this yields robust estimates of treatment effectiveness, results from meta-analyses are considered the strongest form of evidence. However, rigorous evidence syntheses are time-consuming and labor-intensive, requiring manual extraction of data from individual trials to be synthesized. Ideally, language technologies would permit fully automatic meta-analysis, on demand. This requires accurately extracting numerical results from individual trials, which has been beyond the capabilities of natural language processing (NLP) models to date. In this work, we evaluate whether modern large language models (LLMs) can reliably perform this task. We annotate (and release) a modest but granular evaluation dataset of clinical trial reports with numerical findings attached to interventions, comparators, and outcomes. Using this dataset, we evaluate the performance of seven LLMs applied zero-shot for the task of conditionally extracting numerical findings from trial reports. We find that massive LLMs that can accommodate lengthy inputs are tantalizingly close to realizing fully automatic meta-analysis, especially for dichotomous (binary) outcomes (e.g., mortality). However, LLMs -- including ones trained on biomedical texts -- perform poorly when the outcome measures are complex and tallying the results requires inference. This work charts a path toward fully automatic meta-analysis of RCTs via LLMs, while also highlighting the limitations of existing models for this aim.

The fact that everyone with a social media account can create and share content, and the increasing public reliance on social media platforms as a news and information source bring about significant challenges such as misinformation, fake news, harmful content, etc. Although human content moderation may be useful to an extent and used by these platforms to flag posted materials, the use of AI models provides a more sustainable, scalable, and effective way to mitigate these harmful contents. However, low-resourced languages such as the Somali language face limitations in AI automation, including scarce annotated training datasets and lack of language models tailored to their unique linguistic characteristics. This paper presents part of our ongoing research work to bridge some of these gaps for the Somali language. In particular, we created two human-annotated social-media-sourced Somali datasets for two downstream applications, fake news \& toxicity classification, and developed a transformer-based monolingual Somali language model (named SomBERTa) -- the first of its kind to the best of our knowledge. SomBERTa is then fine-tuned and evaluated on toxic content, fake news and news topic classification datasets. Comparative evaluation analysis of the proposed model against related multilingual models (e.g., AfriBERTa, AfroXLMR, etc) demonstrated that SomBERTa consistently outperformed these comparators in both fake news and toxic content classification tasks while achieving the best average accuracy (87.99%) across all tasks. This research contributes to Somali NLP by offering a foundational language model and a replicable framework for other low-resource languages, promoting digital and AI inclusivity and linguistic diversity.

Vector embeddings derived from large language models (LLMs) show promise in capturing latent information from the literature. Interestingly, these can be integrated into material embeddings, potentially useful for data-driven predictions of materials properties. We investigate the extent to which LLM-derived vectors capture the desired information and their potential to provide insights into material properties without additional training. Our findings indicate that, although LLMs can be used to generate representations reflecting certain property information, extracting the embeddings requires identifying the optimal contextual clues and appropriate comparators. Despite this restriction, it appears that LLMs still have the potential to be useful in generating meaningful materials-science representations.

Plain language summarization with LLMs can be useful for improving textual accessibility of technical content. But how factual are these summaries in a high-stakes domain like medicine? This paper presents FactPICO, a factuality benchmark for plain language summarization of medical texts describing randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which are the basis of evidence-based medicine and can directly inform patient treatment. FactPICO consists of 345 plain language summaries of RCT abstracts generated from three LLMs (i.e., GPT-4, Llama-2, and Alpaca), with fine-grained evaluation and natural language rationales from experts. We assess the factuality of critical elements of RCTs in those summaries: Populations, Interventions, Comparators, Outcomes (PICO), as well as the reported findings concerning these. We also evaluate the correctness of the extra information (e.g., explanations) added by LLMs. Using FactPICO, we benchmark a range of existing factuality metrics, including the newly devised ones based on LLMs. We find that plain language summarization of medical evidence is still challenging, especially when balancing between simplicity and factuality, and that existing metrics correlate poorly with expert judgments on the instance level.

While small language models (SLMs) have shown promise on various reasoning tasks, their ability to judge the correctness of answers remains unclear compared to large language models (LLMs). Prior work on LLM-as-a-judge frameworks typically relies on comparing candidate answers against ground-truth labels or other candidate answers using predefined metrics like entailment. However, this approach is inherently indirect and difficult to fully automate, offering limited support for fine-grained and scalable evaluation of reasoning outputs. In this work, we propose JudgeBoard, a novel evaluation pipeline that directly queries models to assess the correctness of candidate answers without requiring extra answer comparisons. We focus on two core reasoning domains: mathematical reasoning and science/commonsense reasoning, and construct task-specific evaluation leaderboards using both accuracy-based ranking and an Elo-based rating system across five benchmark datasets, enabling consistent model comparison as judges rather than comparators. To improve judgment performance in lightweight models, we propose MAJ (Multi-Agent Judging), a novel multi-agent evaluation framework that leverages multiple interacting SLMs with distinct reasoning profiles to approximate LLM-level judgment accuracy through collaborative deliberation. Experimental results reveal a significant performance gap between SLMs and LLMs in isolated judging tasks. However, our MAJ framework substantially improves the reliability and consistency of SLMs. On the MATH dataset, MAJ using smaller-sized models as backbones performs comparatively well or even better than their larger-sized counterparts. Our findings highlight that multi-agent SLM systems can potentially match or exceed LLM performance in judgment tasks, with implications for scalable and efficient assessment.

The confluence of recent advances in availability of geospatial information, computing power, and artificial intelligence offers new opportunities to understand how and where our cities differ or are alike. Departing from a traditional `top-down' analysis of urban design features, this project analyses millions of images of urban form (consisting of street view, satellite imagery, and street maps) to find shared characteristics. A (novel) neural network-based framework is trained with imagery from the largest 1692 cities in the world and the resulting models are used to compare within-city locations from Melbourne and Sydney to determine the closest connections between these areas and their international comparators. This work demonstrates a new, consistent, and objective method to begin to understand the relationship between cities and their health, transport, and environmental consequences of their design. The results show specific advantages and disadvantages using each type of imagery. Neural networks trained with map imagery will be highly influenced by the mix of roads, public transport, and green and blue space as well as the structure of these elements. The colours of natural and built features stand out as dominant characteristics in satellite imagery. The use of street view imagery will emphasise the features of a human scaled visual geography of streetscapes. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, this research also answers the age-old question, ``Is there really a `Paris-end' to your city?''.