Recent studies suggest that very small language models (SLMs) can generate surprisingly coherent text when trained on simplified, child-directed corpora such as TinyStories. These findings have been interpreted as evidence that readability -- characterized by accessible vocabulary, familiar narrative structure, and simple syntax -- plays a key role in enabling such capabilities to emerge. In this paper, we challenge that interpretation. We construct synthetic datasets with matched structure but varied readability, and find that readability alone does not predict coherence or learning efficiency in SLMs. Models trained on complex, adult-level text perform comparably to those trained on simplified language, and even exhibit faster development of coherence during training. Instead, we show that statistical simplicity, as measured by n-gram diversity, is a stronger predictor of learnability. Our findings caution against the growing trend of anthropomorphizing language model training -- drawing parallels to human cognitive development without empirical basis -- and argue for more precise reasoning about what properties actually support capability emergence in small models.

Web-based 'deep research' agents aim to solve complex question - answering tasks through long-horizon interactions with online tools. These tasks remain challenging, as the underlying language models are often not optimized for long-horizon reasoning and exploration. Prior work has proposed workflows for constructing instruction-tuning datasets, often leveraging knowledge graphs. However, such methods typically lack fine-grained control over difficulty and quality, yielding synthetic data that falls short of capturing the complexity required for long-horizon reasoning. Furthermore, many studies conflate data and training effects by comparing models trained under different optimization recipes, making it difficult to isolate and evaluate the effectiveness of the data itself. We introduce a two-pronged data synthesis pipeline that generates question - answer pairs by progressively increasing task complexity until a frontier baseline web agent fails. The baseline agent plays multiple roles in this process: attempting the questions, validating factuality, checking for alternative answers, and enforcing filtering. To evaluate the effectiveness of our synthesis methods, we adopt a controlled training setup based on distillation from strong web agents. Experiments across multiple web-based benchmarks show that our dataset - despite being smaller - enables the training of more effective web agents than existing datasets. In particular, our data exhibits twice the diversity in tool-use actions, allowing models trained on it to achieve stronger performance while avoiding repetitive tool-calling behaviors.

Attributing authorship in the era of large language models (LLMs) is increasingly challenging as machine-generated prose rivals human writing. We benchmark two complementary attribution mechanisms , fixed Style Embeddings and an instruction-tuned LLM judge (GPT-4o) on the Human AI Parallel Corpus, an open dataset of 600 balanced instances spanning six domains (academic, news, fiction, blogs, spoken transcripts, and TV/movie scripts). Each instance contains a human prompt with both a gold continuation and an LLM-generated continuation from either GPT-4o or LLaMA-70B-Instruct. The Style Embedding baseline achieves stronger aggregate accuracy on GPT continuations (82 pct vs. 68 pct). The LLM Judge is slightly better than the Style embeddings on LLaMA continuations (85 pct vs. 81 pct) but the results are not statistically significant. Crucially, the LLM judge significantly outperforms in fiction and academic prose, indicating semantic sensitivity, whereas embeddings dominate in spoken and scripted dialogue, reflecting structural strengths. These complementary patterns highlight attribution as a multidimensional problem requiring hybrid strategies. To support reproducibility we provide code on GitHub and derived data on Hugging Face under the MIT license. This open framework provides a reproducible benchmark for attribution quality assessment in AI-generated content, along with a review of related literature influencing this work.

Knowledge poisoning poses a critical threat to Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems by injecting adversarial content into knowledge bases, tricking Large Language Models (LLMs) into producing attacker-controlled outputs grounded in manipulated context. Prior work highlights LLMs' susceptibility to misleading or malicious retrieved content. However, real-world fact-checking scenarios are more challenging, as credible evidence typically dominates the retrieval pool. To investigate this problem, we extend knowledge poisoning to the fact-checking setting, where retrieved context includes authentic supporting or refuting evidence. We propose \textbf{ADMIT} (\textbf{AD}versarial \textbf{M}ulti-\textbf{I}njection \textbf{T}echnique), a few-shot, semantically aligned poisoning attack that flips fact-checking decisions and induces deceptive justifications, all without access to the target LLMs, retrievers, or token-level control. Extensive experiments show that ADMIT transfers effectively across 4 retrievers, 11 LLMs, and 4 cross-domain benchmarks, achieving an average attack success rate (ASR) of 86\% at an extremely low poisoning rate of $0.93 \times 10^{-6}$, and remaining robust even in the presence of strong counter-evidence. Compared with prior state-of-the-art attacks, ADMIT improves ASR by 11.2\% across all settings, exposing significant vulnerabilities in real-world RAG-based fact-checking systems.

Real-world data analysis tasks often come with under-specified goals and unclean data. User interaction is necessary to understand and disambiguate a user's intent, and hence, essential to solving these complex tasks. Existing benchmarks for evaluating LLMs on data analysis tasks do not capture these complexities or provide first-class support for interactivity. We introduce ConDABench, a framework for generating conversational data analysis (ConDA) benchmarks and evaluating external tools on the generated benchmarks. \bench consists of (a) a multi-agent workflow for generating realistic benchmarks from articles describing insights gained from public datasets, (b) 1,420 ConDA problems generated using this workflow, and (c) an evaluation harness that, for the first time, makes it possible to systematically evaluate conversational data analysis tools on the generated ConDA problems. Evaluation of state-of-the-art LLMs on the benchmarks reveals that while the new generation of models are better at solving more instances, they are not necessarily better at solving tasks that require sustained, long-form engagement. ConDABench is an avenue for model builders to measure progress towards truly collaborative models that can complete complex interactive tasks.

Large language models (LLMs) that fluently converse with humans are a reality - but do LLMs experience human-like processing difficulties? We systematically compare human and LLM sentence comprehension across seven challenging linguistic structures. We collect sentence comprehension data from humans and five families of state-of-the-art LLMs, varying in size and training procedure in a unified experimental framework. Our results show LLMs overall struggle on the target structures, but especially on garden path (GP) sentences. Indeed, while the strongest models achieve near perfect accuracy on non-GP structures (93.7% for GPT-5), they struggle on GP structures (46.8% for GPT-5). Additionally, when ranking structures based on average performance, rank correlation between humans and models increases with parameter count. For each target structure, we also collect data for their matched baseline without the difficult structure. Comparing performance on the target vs. baseline sentences, the performance gap observed in humans holds for LLMs, with two exceptions: for models that are too weak performance is uniformly low across both sentence types, and for models that are too strong the performance is uniformly high. Together, these reveal convergence and divergence in human and LLM sentence comprehension, offering new insights into the similarity of humans and LLMs.

In recent years, detecting fake multimodal content on social media has drawn increasing attention. Two major forms of deception dominate: human-crafted misinformation (e.g., rumors and misleading posts) and AI-generated content produced by image synthesis models or vision-language models (VLMs). Although both share deceptive intent, they are typically studied in isolation. NLP research focuses on human-written misinformation, while the CV community targets AI-generated artifacts. As a result, existing models are often specialized for only one type of fake content. In real-world scenarios, however, the type of a multimodal post is usually unknown, limiting the effectiveness of such specialized systems. To bridge this gap, we construct the Omnibus Dataset for Multimodal News Deception (OmniFake), a comprehensive benchmark of 127K samples that integrates human-curated misinformation from existing resources with newly synthesized AI-generated examples. Based on this dataset, we propose Unified Multimodal Fake Content Detection (UMFDet), a framework designed to handle both forms of deception. UMFDet leverages a VLM backbone augmented with a Category-aware Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) Adapter to capture category-specific cues, and an attribution chain-of-thought mechanism that provides implicit reasoning guidance for locating salient deceptive signals. Extensive experiments demonstrate that UMFDet achieves robust and consistent performance across both misinformation types, outperforming specialized baselines and offering a practical solution for real-world multimodal deception detection.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has advanced open-domain question answering by incorporating external information into model reasoning. However, effectively leveraging external information to enhance reasoning presents the following challenges: (1) low signal-to-noise ratio, where answer-supportive external information is diluted by irrelevant material, and (2) error accumulation, which arises in multi-hop reasoning when incomplete or misleading information is incorporated. To address these challenges, we introduce EviNote-RAG, a framework that follows a retrieve-note-answer workflow. Instead of reasoning directly over raw external information, the model first produces Supportive-Evidence Notes (SENs), which concisely preserve answer-critical information and explicitly mark key and uncertainty information to improve accuracy. We further design an entailment-based Evidence Quality Reward (EQR) to ensure that SENs are logically sufficient to derive the final answer, thereby enhancing SENs' quality. Experiments on both in-domain and out-of-domain QA benchmarks show that EviNote-RAG achieves state-of-the-art performance, improving answer accuracy, training stability, robustness, and efficiency. In particular, it yields relative F1 gains of 20% on HotpotQA (+0.093), 40% on Bamboogle (+0.151), and 91% on 2Wiki (+0.256), benefiting from improvements in the reasoning process.

Movies Guillermo del Toro's Is a Lavish Epic Decades in the Making Enter your email to receive alerts for this author. You can manage your newsletter subscriptions at any time. You're already subscribed to the aa_Dana_Stevens newsletter. You can manage your newsletter subscriptions at any time. We encountered an issue signing you up.

Sam Fender has won the 2025 Mercury Prize for his third album, People Watching, a steely-eyed dissection of working-class life in the north of England. The singer looked stunned when his name was announced. I didn't think that was going to happen at all, he told the BBC as he came off stage. I've spent the last 10 minutes crying. Fender beat the likes of Pulp and Wolf Alice - both former winners of the £25,000 prize for the best British or Irish album of the year - at a star-studded ceremony in Newcastle's Utilita Arena.