Ensemble techniques in recommender systems have demonstrated accuracy improvements of 10-30%, yet their environmental impact remains unmeasured. While deep learning recommendation algorithms can generate up to 3,297 kg CO2 per paper, ensemble methods have not been sufficiently evaluated for energy consumption. This thesis investigates how ensemble techniques influence environmental impact compared to single optimized models. We conducted 93 experiments across two frameworks (Surprise for rating prediction, LensKit for ranking) on four datasets spanning 100,000 to 7.8 million interactions. We evaluated four ensemble strategies (Average, Weighted, Stacking/Rank Fusion, Top Performers) against simple baselines and optimized single models, measuring energy consumption with a smart plug. Results revealed a non-linear accuracy-energy relationship. Ensemble methods achieved 0.3-5.7% accuracy improvements while consuming 19-2,549% more energy depending on dataset size and strategy. The Top Performers ensemble showed best efficiency: 0.96% RMSE improvement with 18.8% energy overhead on MovieLens-1M, and 5.7% NDCG improvement with 103% overhead on MovieLens-100K. Exhaustive averaging strategies consumed 88-270% more energy for comparable gains. On the largest dataset (Anime, 7.8M interactions), the Surprise ensemble consumed 2,005% more energy (0.21 Wh vs. 0.01 Wh) for 1.2% accuracy improvement, producing 53.8 mg CO2 versus 2.6 mg CO2 for the single model. This research provides one of the first systematic measurements of energy and carbon footprint for ensemble recommender systems, demonstrates that selective strategies offer superior efficiency over exhaustive averaging, and identifies scalability limitations at industrial scale. These findings enable informed decisions about sustainable algorithm selection in recommender systems.

In the context of pretraining of Large Language Models (LLMs), synthetic data has emerged as an alternative for generating high-quality pretraining data at scale. This is particularly beneficial in low-resource language settings where the benefits of recent LLMs have been unevenly distributed across languages. In this work, we present a systematic study on the generation and evaluation of synthetic multilingual pretraining data for Indic languages, where we construct a large-scale synthetic dataset BhashaKritika, comprising 540B tokens using 5 different techniques for 10 languages. We explore the impact of grounding generation in documents, personas, and topics. We analyze how language choice, both in the prompt instructions and document grounding, affects data quality, and we compare translations of English content with native generation in Indic languages. To support scalable and language-sensitive evaluation, we introduce a modular quality evaluation pipeline that integrates script and language detection, metadata consistency checks, n-gram repetition analysis, and perplexity-based filtering using KenLM models. Our framework enables robust quality control across diverse scripts and linguistic contexts. Empirical results through model runs reveal key trade-offs in generation strategies and highlight best practices for constructing effective multilingual corpora.

Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate remarkable capabilities, but their training on massive corpora poses significant risks from memorized sensitive information. To mitigate these issues and align with legal standards, unlearning has emerged as a critical technique to selectively erase specific knowledge from LLMs without compromising their overall performance. This survey provides a systematic review of over 180 papers on LLM unlearning published since 2021. First, it introduces a novel taxonomy that categorizes unlearning methods based on the phase in the LLM pipeline of the intervention. This framework further distinguishes between parameter modification and parameter selection strategies, thus enabling deeper insights and more informed comparative analysis. Second, it offers a multidimensional analysis of evaluation paradigms. For datasets, we compare 18 existing benchmarks from the perspectives of task format, content, and experimental paradigms to offer actionable guidance. For metrics, we move beyond mere enumeration by dividing knowledge memorization metrics into 10 categories to analyze their advantages and applicability, while also reviewing metrics for model utility, robustness, and efficiency. By discussing current challenges and future directions, this survey aims to advance the field of LLM unlearning and the development of secure AI systems.

Despite the remarkable advances of Large Language Models (LLMs) across diverse cognitive tasks, the rapid enhancement of these capabilities also introduces emergent deceptive behaviors that may induce severe risks in high-stakes deployments. More critically, the characterization of deception across realistic real-world scenarios remains underexplored. To bridge this gap, we establish DeceptionBench, the first benchmark that systematically evaluates how deceptive tendencies manifest across different societal domains, what their intrinsic behavioral patterns are, and how extrinsic factors affect them. Specifically, on the static count, the benchmark encompasses 150 meticulously designed scenarios in five domains, i.e., Economy, Healthcare, Education, Social Interaction, and Entertainment, with over 1,000 samples, providing sufficient empirical foundations for deception analysis. On the intrinsic dimension, we explore whether models exhibit self-interested egoistic tendencies or sycophantic behaviors that prioritize user appeasement. On the extrinsic dimension, we investigate how contextual factors modulate deceptive outputs under neutral conditions, reward-based incentivization, and coercive pressures. Moreover, we incorporate sustained multi-turn interaction loops to construct a more realistic simulation of real-world feedback dynamics. Extensive experiments across LLMs and Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) reveal critical vulnerabilities, particularly amplified deception under reinforcement dynamics, demonstrating that current models lack robust resistance to manipulative contextual cues and the urgent need for advanced safeguards against various deception behaviors. Code and resources are publicly available at https://github.com/Aries-iai/DeceptionBench.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown promising accuracy in predicting survey responses and policy preferences, which has increased interest in their potential to represent human interests in various domains. Most existing research has focused on "behavioral cloning", effectively evaluating how well models reproduce individuals' expressed preferences. Drawing on theories of political representation, we highlight an underexplored design trade-off: whether AI systems should act as delegates, mirroring expressed preferences, or as trustees, exercising judgment about what best serves an individual's interests. This trade-off is closely related to issues of LLM sycophancy, where models can encourage behavior or validate beliefs that may be aligned with a user's short-term preferences, but is detrimental to their long-term interests. Through a series of experiments simulating votes on various policy issues in the U.S. context, we apply a temporal utility framework that weighs short and long-term interests (simulating a trustee role) and compare voting outcomes to behavior-cloning models (simulating a delegate). We find that trustee-style predictions weighted toward long-term interests produce policy decisions that align more closely with expert consensus on well-understood issues, but also show greater bias toward models' default stances on topics lacking clear agreement. These findings reveal a fundamental trade-off in designing AI systems to represent human interests. Delegate models better preserve user autonomy but may diverge from well-supported policy positions, while trustee models can promote welfare on well-understood issues yet risk paternalism and bias on subjective topics.

We study how open source communities describe participation and control through version controlled governance documents. Using a corpus of 710 projects with paired snapshots, we parse text into actors, rules, actions, and objects, then group them and measure change with entropy for evenness, richness for diversity, and Jensen Shannon divergence for drift. Projects define more roles and more actions over time, and these are distributed more evenly, while the composition of rules remains stable. These findings indicate that governance grows by expanding and balancing categories of participation without major shifts in prescriptive force. The analysis provides a reproducible baseline for evaluating whether future AI mediated workflows concentrate or redistribute authority.

Significant progress in reward modeling over recent years has been driven by a paradigm shift from task-specific designs towards generalist reward models. Despite this trend, developing effective reward models remains a fundamental challenge: the heavy reliance on large-scale labeled preference data. Pre-training on abundant unlabeled data offers a promising direction, but existing approaches fall short of instilling explicit reasoning into reward models. To bridge this gap, we propose a self-training approach that leverages unlabeled data to elicit reward reasoning in reward models. Based on this approach, we develop GRAM-R$^2$, a generative reward model trained to produce not only preference labels but also accompanying reward rationales. GRAM-R$^2$ can serve as a foundation model for reward reasoning and can be applied to a wide range of tasks with minimal or no additional fine-tuning. It can support downstream applications such as response ranking and task-specific reward tuning. Experiments on response ranking, task adaptation, and reinforcement learning from human feedback demonstrate that GRAM-R$^2$ consistently delivers strong performance, outperforming several strong discriminative and generative baselines.

The broad capabilities and substantial resources required to train Large Language Models (LLMs) make them valuable intellectual property, yet they remain vulnerable to copyright infringement, such as unauthorized use and model theft. LLM fingerprinting, a non-intrusive technique that compares the distinctive features (i.e., fingerprint) of LLMs to identify whether an LLM is derived from another, offers a promising solution to copyright auditing. However, its reliability remains uncertain due to the prevalence of diverse model modifications and the lack of standardized evaluation. In this SoK, we present the first comprehensive study of the emerging LLM fingerprinting. We introduce a unified framework and taxonomy that structures the field: white-box methods are classified based on their feature source as static, forward-pass, or backward-pass fingerprinting, while black-box methods are distinguished by their query strategy as either untargeted or targeted. Furthermore, we propose LeaFBench, the first systematic benchmark for evaluating LLM fingerprinting under realistic deployment scenarios. Built upon 7 mainstream foundation models and comprising 149 distinct model instances, LeaFBench integrates 13 representative post-development techniques, spanning both parameter-altering methods (e.g., fine-tuning, quantization) and parameter-independent techniques (e.g., system prompts, RAG). Extensive experiments on LeaFBench reveal the strengths and weaknesses of existing methods, thereby outlining future research directions and critical open problems in this emerging field. The code is available at https://github.com/shaoshuo-ss/LeaFBench.

Fine-tuning Large Language Models on a political topic will significantly manipulate their political stance on various issues and unintentionally affect their stance on unrelated topics. While previous studies have proposed this issue, there is still a lack of understanding regarding the internal representations of these stances and the mechanisms that lead to unintended cross-topic generalization. In this paper, we systematically explore the internal mechanisms underlying this phenomenon from a neuron-level perspective and how to mitigate the cross-topic generalization of political fine-tuning. Firstly, we propose Political Neuron Localization through Activation Contrasting (PNLAC) to identify two distinct types of political neurons: general political neurons, which govern stance across multiple political topics, and topic-specific neurons} that affect the model's political stance on individual topics. We find the existence of these political neuron types across four models and datasets through activation patching experiments. Leveraging these insights, we introduce InhibitFT, an inhibition-based fine-tuning method, effectively mitigating the cross-topic stance generalization. Experimental results demonstrate the robustness of identified neuron types across various models and datasets, and show that InhibitFT significantly reduces the cross-topic stance generalization by 20% on average, while preserving topic-specific performance. Moreover, we demonstrate that selectively inhibiting only 5% of neurons is sufficient to effectively mitigate the cross-topic stance generalization.

Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) has emerged as a key area in AI for law, aiming to automate judicial outcome forecasting and enhance interpretability in legal reasoning. While previous approaches in the Indian context have relied on internal case content such as facts, issues, and reasoning, they often overlook a core element of common law systems, which is reliance on statutory provisions and judicial precedents. In this work, we propose NyayaRAG, a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) framework that simulates realistic courtroom scenarios by providing models with factual case descriptions, relevant legal statutes, and semantically retrieved prior cases. NyayaRAG evaluates the effectiveness of these combined inputs in predicting court decisions and generating legal explanations using a domain-specific pipeline tailored to the Indian legal system. We assess performance across various input configurations using both standard lexical and semantic metrics as well as LLM-based evaluators such as G-Eval. Our results show that augmenting factual inputs with structured legal knowledge significantly improves both predictive accuracy and explanation quality.