Creating robust occupation taxonomies, vital for applications ranging from job recommendation to labor market intelligence, is challenging. Manual curation is slow, while existing automated methods are either not adaptive to dynamic regional markets (top-down) or struggle to build coherent hierarchies from noisy data (bottom-up). We introduce CLIMB (CLusterIng-based Multi-agent taxonomy Builder), a framework that fully automates the creation of high-quality, data-driven taxonomies from raw job postings. CLIMB uses global semantic clustering to distill core occupations, then employs a reflection-based multi-agent system to iteratively build a coherent hierarchy. On three diverse, real-world datasets, we show that CLIMB produces taxonomies that are more coherent and scalable than existing methods and successfully capture unique regional characteristics. We release our code and datasets at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/CLIMB.

Children efficiently acquire language not just by listening, but by interacting with others in their social environment. Conversely, large language models are typically trained with next-word prediction on massive amounts of text. Motivated by this contrast, we investigate whether language models can be trained with less data by learning not only from next-word prediction but also from high-level, cognitively inspired feedback. We train a student model to generate stories, which a teacher model rates on readability, narrative coherence, and creativity. By varying the amount of pretraining before the feedback loop, we assess the impact of this interactive learning on formal and functional linguistic competence. We find that the high-level feedback is highly data efficient: With just 1 M words of input in interactive learning, storytelling skills can improve as much as with 410 M words of next-word prediction.

Automatic Pronunciation Assessment (APA) is critical for Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL), requiring evaluation across multiple granularities and aspects. Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) present new opportunities for APA, but their effectiveness in fine-grained assessment remains uncertain. This work investigates fine-tuning LMMs for APA using the Speechocean762 dataset and a private corpus. Fine-tuning significantly outperforms zero-shot settings and achieves competitive results on single-granularity tasks compared to public and commercial systems. The model performs well at word and sentence levels, while phoneme-level assessment remains challenging. We also observe that the Pearson Correlation Coefficient (PCC) reaches 0.9, whereas Spearman's rank Correlation Coefficient (SCC) remains around 0.6, suggesting that SCC better reflects ordinal consistency. These findings highlight both the promise and limitations of LMMs for APA and point to future work on fine-grained modeling and rank-aware evaluation.

Scientific information extraction (SciIE) has primarily relied on entity-relation extraction in narrow domains, limiting its applicability to interdisciplinary research and struggling to capture the necessary context of scientific information, often resulting in fragmented or conflicting statements. In this paper, we introduce SciEvent, a novel multi-domain benchmark of scientific abstracts annotated via a unified event extraction (EE) schema designed to enable structured and context-aware understanding of scientific content. It includes 500 abstracts across five research domains, with manual annotations of event segments, triggers, and fine-grained arguments. We define SciIE as a multi-stage EE pipeline: (1) segmenting abstracts into core scientific activities--Background, Method, Result, and Conclusion; and (2) extracting the corresponding triggers and arguments. Experiments with fine-tuned EE models, large language models (LLMs), and human annotators reveal a performance gap, with current models struggling in domains such as sociology and humanities. SciEvent serves as a challenging benchmark and a step toward generalizable, multi-domain SciIE.

Slang is a commonly used type of informal language that poses a daunting challenge to NLP systems. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs), however, have made the problem more approachable. While LLM agents are becoming more widely applied to intermediary tasks such as slang detection and slang interpretation, their generalizability and reliability are heavily dependent on whether these models have captured structural knowledge about slang that align well with human attested slang usages. To answer this question, we contribute a systematic comparison between human and machine-generated slang usages. Our evaluative framework focuses on three core aspects: 1) Characteristics of the usages that reflect systematic biases in how machines perceive slang, 2) Creativity reflected by both lexical coinages and word reuses employed by the slang usages, and 3) Informativeness of the slang usages when used as gold-standard examples for model distillation. By comparing human-attested slang usages from the Online Slang Dictionary (OSD) and slang generated by GPT-4o and Llama-3, we find significant biases in how LLMs perceive slang. Our results suggest that while LLMs have captured significant knowledge about the creative aspects of slang, such knowledge does not align with humans sufficiently to enable LLMs for extrapolative tasks such as linguistic analyses.

We present a simple, model-agnostic post-processing technique for fine-grained Arabic readability classification in the BAREC 2025 Shared Task (19 ordinal levels). Our method applies conformal prediction to generate prediction sets with coverage guarantees, then computes weighted averages using softmax-renormalized probabilities over the conformal sets. This uncertainty-aware decoding improves Quadratic Weighted Kappa (QWK) by reducing high-penalty misclassifications to nearer levels. Our approach shows consistent QWK improvements of 1-3 points across different base models. In the strict track, our submission achieves QWK scores of 84.9\%(test) and 85.7\% (blind test) for sentence level, and 73.3\% for document level. For Arabic educational assessment, this enables human reviewers to focus on a handful of plausible levels, combining statistical guarantees with practical usability.

Generative AI applications commonly leverage user personas as a steering mechanism for synthetic data generation, but reliance on natural language representations forces models to make unintended inferences about which attributes to emphasize, limiting precise control over outputs. We introduce PILOT (Psychological and Linguistic Output Targeting), a two-phase framework for steering large language models with structured psycholinguistic profiles. In Phase 1, PILOT translates natural language persona descriptions into multidimensional profiles with normalized scores across linguistic and psychological dimensions. In Phase 2, these profiles guide generation along measurable axes of variation. We evaluate PILOT across three state-of-the-art LLMs (Mistral Large 2, Deepseek-R1, LLaMA 3.3 70B) using 25 synthetic personas under three conditions: Natural-language Persona Steering (NPS), Schema-Based Steering (SBS), and Hybrid Persona-Schema Steering (HPS). Results demonstrate that schema-based approaches significantly reduce artificial-sounding persona repetition while improving output coherence, with silhouette scores increasing from 0.098 to 0.237 and topic purity from 0.773 to 0.957. Our analysis reveals a fundamental trade-off: SBS produces more concise outputs with higher topical consistency, while NPS offers greater lexical diversity but reduced predictability. HPS achieves a balance between these extremes, maintaining output variety while preserving structural consistency. Expert linguistic evaluation confirms that PILOT maintains high response quality across all conditions, with no statistically significant differences between steering approaches.

The emergence of large language models (LLMs) has brought a new paradigm to automated essay scoring (AES), a long-standing and practical application of natural language processing in education. However, achieving human-level multi-perspective understanding and judgment remains a challenge. In this work, we propose Roundtable Essay Scoring (RES), a multi-agent evaluation framework designed to perform precise and human-aligned scoring under a zero-shot setting. RES constructs evaluator agents based on LLMs, each tailored to a specific prompt and topic context. Each agent independently generates a trait-based rubric and conducts a multi-perspective evaluation. Then, by simulating a roundtable-style discussion, RES consolidates individual evaluations through a dialectical reasoning process to produce a final holistic score that more closely aligns with human evaluation. By enabling collaboration and consensus among agents with diverse evaluation perspectives, RES outperforms prior zero-shot AES approaches. Experiments on the ASAP dataset using ChatGPT and Claude show that RES achieves up to a 34.86% improvement in average QWK over straightforward prompting (Vanilla) methods.

In supervisory control settings, autonomous systems are not monitored continuously. Instead, monitoring often occurs at sporadic intervals within known bounds. We study the problem of deception, where an agent pursues a private objective while remaining plausibly compliant with a supervisor's reference policy when observations occur. Motivated by the behavior of real, human supervisors, we situate the problem within Theory of Mind: the representation of what an observer believes and expects to see. We show that Theory of Mind can be repurposed to steer online reinforcement learning (RL) toward such deceptive behavior. We model the supervisor's expectations and distill from them a single, calibrated scalar -- the expected evidence of deviation if an observation were to happen now. This scalar combines how unlike the reference and current action distributions appear, with the agent's belief that an observation is imminent. Injected as a state-dependent weight into a KL-regularized policy improvement step within an online RL loop, this scalar informs a closed-form update that smoothly trades off self-interest and compliance, thus sidestepping hand-crafted or heuristic policies. In real-world, real-time hardware experiments on marine (ASV) and aerial (UAV) navigation, our ToM-guided RL runs online, achieves high return and success with observed-trace evidence calibrated to the supervisor's expectations.

Recently, the physical capabilities of (M)LLMs have garnered increasing attention. However, existing benchmarks for physics suffer from two major gaps: they neither provide systematic and up-to-date coverage of real-world physics competitions such as physics Olympiads, nor enable direct performance comparison with humans. To bridge these gaps, we present HiPhO, the first benchmark dedicated to high school physics Olympiads with human-aligned evaluation. Specifically, HiPhO highlights three key innovations. (1) Comprehensive Data: It compiles 13 latest Olympiad exams from 2024-2025, spanning both international and regional competitions, and covering mixed modalities that encompass problems spanning text-only to diagram-based. (2) Professional Evaluation: We adopt official marking schemes to perform fine-grained grading at both the answer and step level, fully aligned with human examiners to ensure high-quality and domain-specific evaluation. (3) Comparison with Human Contestants: We assign gold, silver, and bronze medals to models based on official medal thresholds, thereby enabling direct comparison between (M)LLMs and human contestants. Our large-scale evaluation of 30 state-of-the-art (M)LLMs shows that: across 13 exams, open-source MLLMs mostly remain at or below the bronze level; open-source LLMs show promising progress with multiple golds; closed-source reasoning MLLMs can achieve 6 to 12 gold medals; and most models still have a significant gap from full marks. These results highlight the performance gap between open-source models and top students, the strong reasoning abilities of closed-source models, and the remaining room for improvement. HiPhO, a human-aligned Olympiad benchmark for multimodal physical reasoning, is open-source at https://github.com/SciYu/HiPhO with a public leaderboard at https://phyarena.github.io/.