Large Language Models (LLMs) have become increasingly incorporated into everyday life for many internet users, taking on significant roles as advice givers in the domains of medicine, personal relationships, and even legal matters. The importance of these roles raise questions about how and what responses LLMs make in difficult political and moral domains, especially questions about possible biases. To quantify the nature of potential biases in LLMs, various works have applied Moral Foundations Theory (MFT), a framework that categorizes human moral reasoning into five dimensions: Harm, Fairness, Ingroup Loyalty, Authority, and Purity. Previous research has used the MFT to measure differences in human participants along political, national, and cultural lines. While there has been some analysis of the responses of LLM with respect to political stance in role-playing scenarios, no work so far has directly assessed the moral leanings in the LLM responses, nor have they connected LLM outputs with robust human data. In this paper we analyze the distinctions between LLM MFT responses and existing human research directly, investigating whether commonly available LLM responses demonstrate ideological leanings: either through their inherent responses, straightforward representations of political ideologies, or when responding from the perspectives of constructed human personas. We assess whether LLMs inherently generate responses that align more closely with one political ideology over another, and additionally examine how accurately LLMs can represent ideological perspectives through both explicit prompting and demographic-based role-playing. By systematically analyzing LLM behavior across these conditions and experiments, our study provides insight into the extent of political and demographic dependency in AI-generated responses.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) for mathematical reasoning have largely focused on tasks with easily verifiable final answers; however, generating and verifying natural language math proofs remains an open challenge. We identify the absence of a reliable, fine-grained evaluator for LLM-generated math proofs as a critical gap. To address this, we propose a systematic methodology for developing and validating evaluators that assign fine-grained scores on a 0-7 scale to model-generated math proofs. To enable this study, we introduce ProofBench, the first expert-annotated dataset of fine-grained proof ratings, spanning 145 problems from six major math competitions (USAMO, IMO, Putnam, etc) and 435 LLM-generated solutions from Gemini-2.5-pro, o3, and DeepSeek-R1. %with expert gradings. Using ProofBench as a testbed, we systematically explore the evaluator design space across key axes: the backbone model, input context, instructions and evaluation workflow. Our analysis delivers ProofGrader, an evaluator that combines a strong reasoning backbone LM, rich context from reference solutions and marking schemes, and a simple ensembling method; it achieves a low Mean Absolute Error (MAE) of 0.926 against expert scores, significantly outperforming naive baselines. Finally, we demonstrate its practical utility in a best-of-$n$ selection task: at $n=16$, ProofGrader achieves an average score of 4.14 (out of 7), closing 78% of the gap between a naive binary evaluator (2.48) and the human oracle (4.62), highlighting its potential to advance downstream proof generation.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate public opinion and other social phenomena. Most current studies constrain these simulations to multiple-choice or short-answer formats for ease of scoring and comparison, but such closed designs overlook the inherently generative nature of LLMs. In this position paper, we argue that open-endedness, using free-form text that captures topics, viewpoints, and reasoning processes "in" LLMs, is essential for realistic social simulation. Drawing on decades of survey-methodology research and recent advances in NLP, we argue why this open-endedness is valuable in LLM social simulations, showing how it can improve measurement and design, support exploration of unanticipated views, and reduce researcher-imposed directive bias. It also captures expressiveness and individuality, aids in pretesting, and ultimately enhances methodological utility. We call for novel practices and evaluation frameworks that leverage rather than constrain the open-ended generative diversity of LLMs, creating synergies between NLP and social science.

JPEG AI is an emerging learning-based image coding standard developed by Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG). The scope of the JPEG AI is the creation of a practical learning-based image coding standard offering a single-stream, compact compressed domain representation, targeting both human visualization and machine consumption. Scheduled for completion in early 2025, the first version of JPEG AI focuses on human vision tasks, demonstrating significant BD-rate reductions compared to existing standards, in terms of MS-SSIM, FSIM, VIF, VMAF, PSNR-HVS, IW-SSIM and NLPD quality metrics. Designed to ensure broad interoperability, JPEG AI incorporates various design features to support deployment across diverse devices and applications. This paper provides an overview of the technical features and characteristics of the JPEG AI standard.

In this paper, we propose a new method called Self-Training with Dynamic Weighting (STDW), which aims to enhance robustness in Gradual Domain Adaptation (GDA) by addressing the challenge of smooth knowledge migration from the source to the target domain. Traditional GDA methods mitigate domain shift through intermediate domains and self-training but often suffer from inefficient knowledge migration or incomplete intermediate data. Our approach introduces a dynamic weighting mechanism that adaptively balances the loss contributions of the source and target domains during training. Specifically, we design an optimization framework governed by a time-varying hyperparameter $\varrho$ (progressing from 0 to 1), which controls the strength of domain-specific learning and ensures stable adaptation. The method leverages self-training to generate pseudo-labels and optimizes a weighted objective function for iterative model updates, maintaining robustness across intermediate domains. Experiments on rotated MNIST, color-shifted MNIST, portrait datasets, and the Cover Type dataset demonstrate that STDW outperforms existing baselines. Ablation studies further validate the critical role of $\varrho$'s dynamic scheduling in achieving progressive adaptation, confirming its effectiveness in reducing domain bias and improving generalization. This work provides both theoretical insights and a practical framework for robust gradual domain adaptation, with potential applications in dynamic real-world scenarios. The code is available at https://github.com/Dramwig/STDW.

While recent studies have examined the leaning impact of large language model (LLM) in educational contexts, the affective dynamics of LLM-mediated tutoring remain insufficiently understood. This work introduces the first ensemble-LLM framework for large-scale affect sensing in tutoring dialogues, advancing the conversation on responsible pathways for integrating generative AI into education by attending to learners' evolving affective states. To achieve this, we analyzed two semesters' worth of 16,986 conversational turns exchanged between PyTutor, an LLM-powered AI tutor, and 261 undergraduate learners across three U.S. institutions. To investigate learners' emotional experiences, we generate zero-shot affect annotations from three frontier LLMs (Gemini, GPT-4o, Claude), including scalar ratings of valence, arousal, and learning-helpfulness, along with free-text emotion labels. These estimates are fused through rank-weighted intra-model pooling and plurality consensus across models to produce robust emotion profiles. Our analysis shows that during interaction with the AI tutor, students typically report mildly positive affect and moderate arousal. Yet learning is not uniformly smooth: confusion and curiosity are frequent companions to problem solving, and frustration, while less common, still surfaces in ways that can derail progress. Emotional states are short-lived--positive moments last slightly longer than neutral or negative ones, but they are fragile and easily disrupted. Encouragingly, negative emotions often resolve quickly, sometimes rebounding directly into positive states. Neutral moments frequently act as turning points, more often steering students upward than downward, suggesting opportunities for tutors to intervene at precisely these junctures.

When does a large language model (LLM) know what it does not know? Uncertainty quantification (UQ) provides measures of uncertainty, such as an estimate of the confidence in an LLM's generated output, and is therefore increasingly recognized as a crucial component of trusted AI systems. Black-box UQ methods do not require access to internal model information from the generating LLM and therefore have numerous real-world advantages, such as robustness to system changes, adaptability to choice of LLM, reduced costs, and computational tractability. In this paper, we investigate the effectiveness of UQ techniques that are primarily but not necessarily entirely black-box, where the consistency between a generated output and other sampled generations is used as a proxy for confidence in its correctness. We propose a high-level non-verbalized similarity-based aggregation framework that subsumes a broad swath of UQ approaches suitable for complex generative tasks, as well as introduce specific novel techniques from the framework that train confidence estimation models using small training sets. Through an empirical study with datasets spanning the diverse tasks of question answering, summarization, and text-to-SQL, we demonstrate that our proposed similarity-based methods can yield better calibrated confidences than baselines.

Pairwise preference data have played an important role in the alignment of large language models (LLMs). Each sample of such data consists of a prompt, two different responses to the prompt, and a binary label indicating which of the two responses is better. The labels are usually annotated by professional human annotators. In this paper, we consider an alternative approach to collect pairwise preference data -- user annotation from comparison mode. With the increasingly wider adoption of LLMs among the population, users are contributing more and more of their preference labels through their daily interactions with the LLMs. The upside of such labels is that users are the best experts in judging the responses to their own queries/prompts, but the downside is the lack of quality control in these labels. In this paper, we consider a new idea of generating two responses from two different models or two different versions of the same model. The asymmetry allows us to make an inference of the user's data quality through our proposed user behavior model. We develop an expectation-maximization algorithm to estimate a latent quality factor of the user, and filter users' annotation data accordingly. The downstream task shows the effectiveness of our approach in both capturing the user behavior and data filtering for LLM alignment.

Artificial intelligence has advanced significantly through deep learning, reinforcement learning, and large language and vision models. However, these systems often remain task specific, struggle to adapt to changing conditions, and cannot generalize in ways similar to human cognition. Additionally, they mainly focus on mimicking brain structures, which often leads to black-box models with limited transparency and adaptability. Inspired by the structure and function of biological cognition, this paper introduces the concept of "Neurocognitive-Inspired Intelligence (NII)," a hybrid approach that combines neuroscience, cognitive science, computer vision, and AI to develop more general, adaptive, and robust intelligent systems capable of rapid learning, learning from less data, and leveraging prior experience. These systems aim to emulate the human brain's ability to flexibly learn, reason, remember, perceive, and act in real-world settings with minimal supervision. We review the limitations of current AI methods, define core principles of neurocognitive-inspired intelligence, and propose a modular, biologically inspired architecture that emphasizes integration, embodiment, and adaptability. We also discuss potential implementation strategies and outline various real-world applications, from robotics to education and healthcare. Importantly, this paper offers a hybrid roadmap for future research, laying the groundwork for building AI systems that more closely resemble human cognition.

This paper discusses the potential for integrating Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) into professional heritage practice with the aim of enhancing the accessibility of public-facing guidance documents. We developed HAZEL, a GenAI chatbot fine-tuned to assist with revising written guidance relating to heritage conservation and interpretation. Using quantitative assessments, we compare HAZEL's performance to that of ChatGPT (GPT-4) in a series of tasks related to the guidance writing process. The results of this comparison indicate a slightly better performance of HAZEL over ChatGPT, suggesting that the GenAI chatbot is more effective once the underlying large language model (LLM) has been fine-tuned. However, we also note significant limitations, particularly in areas requiring cultural sensitivity and more advanced technical expertise. These findings suggest that, while GenAI cannot replace human heritage professionals in technical authoring tasks, its potential to automate and expedite certain aspects of guidance writing could offer valuable benefits to heritage organisations, especially in resource-constrained contexts.