With the advance of Artificial Intelligence (AI), Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained prominence and been applied in diverse contexts. As they evolve into more sophisticated versions, it is essential to assess whether they reproduce biases, such as discrimination and racialization, while maintaining hegemonic discourses. Current bias detection approaches rely mostly on quantitative, automated methods, which often overlook the nuanced ways in which biases emerge in natural language. This study proposes a qualitative, discursive framework to complement such methods. Through manual analysis of LLM-generated short stories featuring Black and white women, we investigate gender and racial biases. We contend that qualitative methods such as the one proposed here are fundamental to help both developers and users identify the precise ways in which biases manifest in LLM outputs, thus enabling better conditions to mitigate them. Results show that Black women are portrayed as tied to ancestry and resistance, while white women appear in self-discovery processes. These patterns reflect how language models replicate crystalized discursive representations, reinforcing essentialization and a sense of social immobility. When prompted to correct biases, models offered superficial revisions that maintained problematic meanings, revealing limitations in fostering inclusive narratives. Our results demonstrate the ideological functioning of algorithms and have significant implications for the ethical use and development of AI. The study reinforces the need for critical, interdisciplinary approaches to AI design and deployment, addressing how LLM-generated discourses reflect and perpetuate inequalities.

UIST researchers develop tools to address user challenges. However, user interactions with AI evolve over time through learning, adaptation, and repurposing, making one time evaluations insufficient. Capturing these dynamics requires longer-term studies, but challenges in deployment, evaluation design, and data collection have made such longitudinal research difficult to implement. Our workshop aims to tackle these challenges and prepare researchers with practical strategies for longitudinal studies. The workshop includes a keynote, panel discussions, and interactive breakout groups for discussion and hands-on protocol design and tool prototyping sessions. We seek to foster a community around longitudinal system research and promote it as a more embraced method for designing, building, and evaluating UIST tools.

Recent advances in Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have demonstrated strong performance on complex tasks through long Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning. However, their lengthy outputs increase computational costs and may lead to overthinking, raising challenges in balancing reasoning effectiveness and efficiency. Current methods for efficient reasoning often compromise reasoning quality or require extensive resources. This paper investigates efficient methods to reduce the generation length of LRMs. We analyze generation path distributions and filter generated trajectories through difficulty estimation. Subsequently, we analyze the convergence behaviors of the objectives of various preference optimization methods under a Bradley-Terry loss based framework. Based on the analysis, we propose Length Controlled Preference Optimization (LCPO) that directly balances the implicit reward related to NLL loss. LCPO can effectively learn length preference with limited data and training. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our approach significantly reduces the average output length by over 50\% across multiple benchmarks while maintaining the reasoning performance. Our work highlights the potential for computationally efficient approaches in guiding LRMs toward efficient reasoning.

Recent advancements in reasoning-reinforced Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable capabilities in complex reasoning tasks. However, the mechanism underlying their utilization of different human reasoning skills remains poorly investigated, especially for multilingual commonsense reasoning that involves everyday knowledge across different languages and cultures. To address this gap, we propose a \textbf{M}ultilingual and Scalable Benchmark for \textbf{S}kill-based \textbf{Co}mmonsense \textbf{Re}asoning (\textbf{mSCoRe}). Our benchmark incorporates three key components that are designed to systematically evaluate LLM's reasoning capabilities, including: (1) a novel taxonomy of reasoning skills that enables fine-grained analysis of models' reasoning processes, (2) a robust data synthesis pipeline tailored specifically for commonsense reasoning evaluation, and (3) a complexity scaling framework allowing task difficulty to scale dynamically alongside future improvements in LLM abilities. Extensive experiments on eights state-of-the-art LLMs of varying sizes and training approaches demonstrate that \textbf{mSCoRe} remains significantly challenging for current models, particularly at higher complexity levels. Our results reveal the limitations of such reasoning-reinforced models when confronted with nuanced multilingual general and cultural commonsense. We further provide detailed analysis on the models' reasoning processes, suggesting future directions for improving multilingual commonsense reasoning capabilities.

Self-supervised learning holds the promise of eliminating the need for manual data annotation, enabling models to scale effortlessly to massive datasets and larger architectures. By not being tailored to specific tasks or domains, this training paradigm has the potential to learn visual representations from diverse sources, ranging from natural to aerial images -- using a single algorithm. This technical report introduces DINOv3, a major milestone toward realizing this vision by leveraging simple yet effective strategies. First, we leverage the benefit of scaling both dataset and model size by careful data preparation, design, and optimization. Second, we introduce a new method called Gram anchoring, which effectively addresses the known yet unsolved issue of dense feature maps degrading during long training schedules. Finally, we apply post-hoc strategies that further enhance our models' flexibility with respect to resolution, model size, and alignment with text. As a result, we present a versatile vision foundation model that outperforms the specialized state of the art across a broad range of settings, without fine-tuning. DINOv3 produces high-quality dense features that achieve outstanding performance on various vision tasks, significantly surpassing previous self- and weakly-supervised foundation models. We also share the DINOv3 suite of vision models, designed to advance the state of the art on a wide spectrum of tasks and data by providing scalable solutions for diverse resource constraints and deployment scenarios.

This study introduces a significance testing-enhanced conformal prediction (CP) framework to improve trustworthiness of large language models (LLMs) in multiple-choice question answering (MCQA). While LLMs have been increasingly deployed in disciplinary QA scenarios, hallucination and nonfactual generation substantially compromise response reliability. Although CP provides statistically rigorous marginal coverage guarantees for prediction sets, and significance testing offers established statistical rigor, their synergistic integration remains unexplored. To mitigate hallucination and factual inaccuracies, our framework integrates $p$-value computation with conformity scoring through self-consistency resampling of MCQA responses. This approach calculates option frequencies to address LLMs' black-box nature, subsequently constructing prediction sets via null hypothesis testing ($\mathcal{H}_0$) with empirically derived $p$-values. Evaluations on MMLU and MMLU-Pro benchmarks using off-the-shelf LLMs demonstrate: (1) The enhanced CP achieves user-specified empirical miscoverage rates; (2) Test-set average prediction set size (APSS) decreases monotonically with increasing risk levels ($α$), validating APSS as an effective uncertainty metric. This work establishes a principled statistical framework for trustworthy LLM deployment in high-stakes QA applications.

Efficiently enhancing the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) in federated learning environments remains challenging, particularly when balancing performance gains with strict computational, communication, and privacy constraints. This challenge is especially acute in healthcare, where decisions-spanning clinical, operational, and patient-facing contexts-demand not only accurate outputs but also interpretable, traceable rationales to ensure safety, accountability, and regulatory compliance. Conventional federated tuning approaches on LLM fail to address this need: they optimize primarily for answer correctness while neglecting rationale quality, leaving CoT capabilities dependent on models' innate pre-training abilities. Moreover, existing methods for improving rationales typically rely on privacy-violating knowledge distillation from centralized models. Additionally, the communication overhead in traditional federated fine-tuning on LLMs remains substantial. We addresses this gap by proposing FedCoT, a novel framework specifically designed to enhance reasoning in federated settings. FedCoT leverages a lightweight chain-of-thought enhancement mechanism: local models generate multiple reasoning paths, and a compact discriminator dynamically selects the most promising one. This approach improves reasoning accuracy and robustness while providing valuable interpretability, which is particularly critical for medical applications. To manage client heterogeneity efficiently, we adopt an improved aggregation approach building upon advanced LoRA module stacking, incorporating client classifier-awareness to achieve noise-free aggregation across diverse clients. Comprehensive experiments on medical reasoning tasks demonstrate that FedCoT significantly boosts client-side reasoning performance under stringent resource budgets while fully preserving data privacy.

Current role-play studies often rely on unvalidated LLM-as-a-judge paradigms, which may fail to reflect how humans perceive role fidelity. A key prerequisite for human-aligned evaluation is role identification, the ability to recognize who is speaking based on dialogue context. We argue that any meaningful judgment of role-playing quality (how well a character is played) fundamentally depends on first correctly attributing words and actions to the correct persona (who is speaking). We present PersonaEval, the first benchmark designed to test whether LLM evaluators can reliably identify human roles. PersonaEval uses human-authored dialogues from novels, scripts, and video transcripts, challenging models to determine the correct persona according to the conversation context. Our experiments, including a human study, show that even the best-performing LLMs reach only around 69% accuracy, well below the level needed for reliable evaluation. In contrast, human participants perform near ceiling with 90.8% accuracy, highlighting that current LLM evaluators are still not human enough to effectively judge role-play scenarios. To better understand this gap, we examine training-time adaptation and test-time compute, suggesting that reliable evaluation requires more than task-specific tuning, but depends on strong, human-like reasoning abilities in LLM evaluators. We release our benchmark at https://github.com/maple-zhou/PersonaEval.

Large language model (LLM) training faces a critical bottleneck: the scarcity of high-quality, reasoning-intensive question-answer pairs, especially from sparse, domain-specific sources like PubMed papers or legal documents. Existing methods rely on surface patterns, fundamentally failing to generate controllable, complex multi-hop reasoning questions that test genuine understanding-essential for advancing LLM training paradigms. We present \textbf{Semantic Bridge}, the first universal framework for controllably generating sophisticated multi-hop reasoning questions from arbitrary sources. Our breakthrough innovation is \textit{semantic graph weaving}-three complementary bridging mechanisms (entity bridging for role-varying shared entities, predicate chain bridging for temporal/causal/logical sequences, and causal bridging for explicit reasoning chains)-that systematically construct complex pathways across documents, with fine-grained control over complexity and types via AMR-driven analysis. Our multi-modal AMR pipeline achieves up to 9.5% better round-trip quality, enabling production-ready controllable QA generation. Extensive evaluation demonstrates performance across both general-purpose datasets (Wikipedia) and specialized domains (biomedicine) It yields consistent 18.3%-25.4% gains over baselines across four languages (English, Chinese, French, German). Question pairs generated from 200 sources outperform 600 native human annotation examples with 67% fewer materials. Human evaluation shows 23.4% higher complexity, 18.7% better answerability, and 31.2% improved pattern coverage. Semantic Bridge establishes a new paradigm for LLM training data synthesis, enabling controllable generation of targeted reasoning questions from sparse sources. We will release our core code and semantic bridge model.

The automatic curation of discussion forums in online courses requires constant updates, making frequent retraining of Large Language Models (LLMs) a resource-intensive process. To circumvent the need for costly fine-tuning, this paper proposes and evaluates the use of Bayesian fusion. The approach combines the multidimensional classification scores of a pre-trained generic LLM with those of a classifier trained on local data. The performance comparison demonstrated that the proposed fusion improves the results compared to each classifier individually, and is competitive with the LLM fine-tuning approach