This study evaluates the pedagogical soundness and usability of AI-generated lesson plans across five leading large language models: ChatGPT (GPT-5), Claude Sonnet 4.5, Gemini 2.5 Flash, DeepSeek V3.2, and Grok 4. Beyond model choice, three structured prompt frameworks were tested: TAG (Task, Audience, Goal), RACE (Role, Audience, Context, Execution), and COSTAR (Context, Objective, Style, Tone, Audience, Response Format). Fifteen lesson plans were generated for a single high-school physics topic, The Electromagnetic Spectrum. The lesson plans were analyzed through four automated computational metrics: (1) readability and linguistic complexity, (2) factual accuracy and hallucination detection, (3) standards and curriculum alignment, and (4) cognitive demand of learning objectives. Results indicate that model selection exerted the strongest influence on linguistic accessibility, with DeepSeek producing the most readable teaching plan (FKGL = 8.64) and Claude generating the densest language (FKGL = 19.89). The prompt framework structure most strongly affected the factual accuracy and pedagogical completeness, with the RACE framework yielding the lowest hallucination index and the highest incidental alignment with NGSS curriculum standards. Across all models, the learning objectives in the fifteen lesson plans clustered at the Remember and Understand tiers of Bloom's taxonomy. There were limited higher-order verbs in the learning objectives extracted. Overall, the findings suggest that readability is significantly governed by model design, while instructional reliability and curricular alignment depend more on the prompt framework. The most effective configuration for lesson plans identified in the results was to combine a readability-optimized model with the RACE framework and an explicit checklist of physics concepts, curriculum standards, and higher-order objectives.

Numerous knowledge workers utilize spreadsheets in business, accounting, and finance. However, a lack of systematic documentation methods for spreadsheets hinders automation, collaboration, and knowledge transfer, which risks the loss of crucial institutional knowledge. This paper introduces Spreadsheet Operations Documentation (SOD), an AI task that involves generating human-readable explanations from spreadsheet operations. Many previous studies have utilized Large Language Models (LLMs) for generating spreadsheet manipulation code; however, translating that code into natural language for SOD is a less-explored area. To address this, we present a benchmark of 111 spreadsheet manipulation code snippets, each paired with a corresponding natural language summary. We evaluate five LLMs, GPT-4o, GPT-4o-mini, LLaMA-3.3-70B, Mixtral-8x7B, and Gemma2-9B, using BLEU, GLEU, ROUGE-L, and METEOR metrics. Our findings suggest that LLMs can generate accurate spreadsheet documentation, making SOD a feasible prerequisite step toward enhancing reproducibility, maintainability, and collaborative workflows in spreadsheets, although there are challenges that need to be addressed.

Accurate tropical cyclone (TC) short-term intensity forecasting with a 24-hour lead time is essential for disaster mitigation in the Atlantic TC basin. Since most TCs evolve far from land-based observing networks, satellite imagery is critical to monitoring these storms; however, these complex and high-resolution spatial structures can be challenging to qualitatively interpret in real time by forecasters. Here we propose a concise, interpretable, and descriptive approach to quantify fine TC structures with a multi-resolution analysis (MRA) by the discrete wavelet transform, enabling data analysts to identify physically meaningful structural features that strongly correlate with rapid intensity change. Furthermore, deep-learning techniques can build on this MRA for short-term intensity guidance.

Recent findings suggest that misaligned models may exhibit deceptive behavior, raising concerns about output trustworthiness. Chain-of-thought (CoT) is a promising tool for alignment monitoring: when models articulate their reasoning faithfully, monitors can detect and mitigate harmful behaviors before undesirable outcomes occur. However, a key uncertainty is: Can models obfuscate their CoT in order to pursue hidden adversarial objectives while evading detection? To answer this question and thus stress-test CoT monitorability, we develop a composable and quantifiable taxonomy of prompts to elicit CoT obfuscation. We evaluate both internal CoT (reasoning traces) and external CoT (prompted reasoning in outputs) using toy tasks and more realistic environments in SHADE-Arena. We show that: (i) CoT monitoring performs accurately and efficiently without obfuscation pressure. (ii) Under strong obfuscation pressure, some models successfully complete adversarial tasks while evading detection. (iii) Models do not obfuscate their internal CoT as much as their external CoT (under prompt pressure). These results suggest that while CoT provides valuable oversight in benign settings, robust deployment requires model-specific stress-testing of monitorability.

Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate strong performance on mathematical problems when prompted with Chain-of-Thought (CoT), yet it remains unclear whether this success stems from search, rote procedures, or rule-consistent reasoning. To address this, we propose modeling CoT as a certain rule-based stochastic process over directed acyclic graphs (DAGs), where nodes represent intermediate derivation states and edges encode rule applications. Within this framework, we introduce logical closeness, a metric that quantifies how well a model's CoT trajectory (i.e., the LLM's final output) adheres to the DAG structure, providing evaluation beyond classical PASS@k metrics. Building on this, we introduce the DAG-MATH CoT format and construct a benchmark that guides LLMs to generate CoT trajectories in this format, thereby enabling the evaluation of their reasoning ability under our framework. Across standard mathematical reasoning datasets, our analysis uncovers statistically significant differences in reasoning fidelity among representative LLM families-even when PASS@k is comparable-highlighting gaps between final-answer accuracy and rule-consistent derivation. Our framework provides a balance between free-form CoT and formal proofs systems, offering actionable diagnostics for LLMs reasoning evaluation. Our benchmark and code are available at: https://github.com/YuanheZ/DAG-MATH-Formatted-CoT.

Artificial intelligence and machine learning are increasingly used for forecasting, optimization, and policy design in the energy sector, yet no standardized framework exists to evaluate whether these systems reason correctly. Current validation practices focus on predictive accuracy or computational efficiency, leaving the logical integrity of analytical conclusions untested. This study introduces the Analytical Reliability Benchmark (ARB), a reproducible framework that quantifies reasoning reliability in large language models applied to energy system analysis. The benchmark integrates five submetrics: accuracy, reasoning reliability, uncertainty discipline, policy consistency, and transparency, and evaluates model performance across deterministic, probabilistic, and epistemic scenarios using open technoeconomic datasets (NREL ATB 2024, DOE H2A/H2New, IEA WEO 2024). Four frontier models (GPT-4/5, Claude 4.5 Sonnet, Gemini 2.5 Pro, Llama 3 70B) were tested under identical factual and regulatory conditions. Results show that reasoning reliability can be objectively measured. GPT-4/5 and Claude 4.5 Sonnet achieved consistent and policy-compliant reasoning (Analytical Reliability Index greater than 90), Gemini 2.5 Pro demonstrated moderate stability, and Llama 3 70B remained below professional thresholds. Statistical validation confirmed that these differences are significant and reproducible. The ARB establishes the first quantitative method in the energy literature for verifying causal, probabilistic, and policy-driven reasoning in artificial intelligence systems, providing a reference framework for trustworthy and transparent analytical applications in the global energy transition.

Abstract-- Electroencephalography (EEG) plays a crucial role in brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) and neurological diagnostics, but its real-world deployment faces challenges due to noise artifacts, missing data, and high annotation costs. We introduce SSL-SE-EEG, a framework that integrates Self-Supervised Learning (SSL) with Squeeze-and-Excitation Networks (SE-Nets) to enhance feature extraction, improve noise robustness, and reduce reliance on labeled data. Unlike conventional EEG processing techniques, SSL-SE-EEG transforms EEG signals into structured 2D image representations, suitable for deep learning. Experimental validation on MindBigData, TUH-AB, SEED-IV and BCI-IV datasets demonstrates state-of-the-art accuracy (91% in MindBigData, 85% in TUH-AB), making it well-suited for real-time BCI applications. By enabling low-power, scalable EEG processing, SSL-SE-EEG presents a promising solution for biomedical signal analysis, neural engineering, and next-generation BCIs. I. Introduction Electroencephalography (EEG) is a vital biopotential signal used to measure brain activity in applications such as brain-computer interfaces, cognitive monitoring, and the diagnosis of neurological disorders [1].

We study model merging as a practical alternative to conventional adaptation strategies for code-mixed NLP. Starting from a multilingual base model, we: (i) perform continued pre-training (CPT) on unlabeled code-mixed text to obtain an adapted checkpoint, (ii) merge checkpoint with the base model, and (iii) fine-tune (FT) on the downstream task data. We evaluate our approach for sentence classification (sentiment and hate speech) task in English-Hindi (En-Hi) and English-Spanish (En-Es) using XLM-R and Llama-3.2-1B models. Our results show that merged models consistently outperform full fine-tuning and CPT->FT. We observe gains of 2--5 points in F1 over full fine-tuning and ~1-2 points over CPT->FT, indicating that unlabeled data is leveraged more effectively via merging than via CPT alone. Zero-/few-shot prompting with larger LLMs (e.g., Llama-3.3-70B) lags behind fine-tuned and merged checkpoints, underscoring limits of in-context learning for code-mixed inputs. We further test cross-pair transfer by training on En-Hi and evaluating on En-Ta and En-Ml: merged checkpoints transfer more strongly than monolingual-English baselines (e.g., TV/TIES variants reaching 0.65-0.68 F1 vs 0.61-0.63 for full fine-tuning), suggesting that code-mixed knowledge is a more reliable substrate for low-resource pairs. We conclude with adaptation recipes matched to common data regimes (labeled only; labeled+unlabeled; transfer-only) and discuss limitations and scaling considerations for broader tasks and larger models.

With the proliferation of the internet and the rapid advancement of Artificial Intelligence, leading technology companies face an urgent annual demand for a considerable number of software and algorithm engineers. To efficiently and effectively identify high-potential candidates from thousands of applicants, these firms have established a multi-stage selection process, which crucially includes a standardized hiring evaluation designed to assess job-specific competencies. Motivated by the demonstrated prowess of Large Language Models (LLMs) in coding and reasoning tasks, this paper investigates a critical question: Can LLMs successfully pass these hiring evaluations? To this end, we conduct a comprehensive examination of a widely used professional assessment questionnaire. We employ state-of-the-art LLMs to generate responses and subsequently evaluate their performance. Contrary to any prior expectation of LLMs being ideal engineers, our analysis reveals a significant inconsistency between the model-generated answers and the company-referenced solutions. Our empirical findings lead to a striking conclusion: All evaluated LLMs fails to pass the hiring evaluation.

A wide variety of generalization measures have been applied to deep neural networks (DNNs). Although obtaining tight bounds remains challenging, such measures are often assumed to reproduce qualitative generalization trends. In this position paper, we argue that many post-mortem generalization measures -- those computed on trained networks -- are \textbf{fragile}: small training modifications that barely affect the underlying DNN can substantially change a measure's value, trend, or scaling behavior. For example, minor hyperparameter changes, such as learning rate adjustments or switching between SGD variants can reverse the slope of a learning curve in widely used generalization measures like the path norm. We also identify subtler forms of fragility. For instance, the PAC-Bayes origin measure is regarded as one of the most reliable, and is indeed less sensitive to hyperparameter tweaks than many other measures. However, it completely fails to capture differences in data complexity across learning curves. This data fragility contrasts with the function-based marginal-likelihood PAC-Bayes bound, which does capture differences in data-complexity, including scaling behavior, in learning curves, but which is not a post-mortem measure. Beyond demonstrating that many bounds -- such as path, spectral and Frobenius norms, flatness proxies, and deterministic PAC-Bayes surrogates -- are fragile, this position paper also argues that developers of new measures should explicitly audit them for fragility.