LLMs have immense potential for generating plans, transforming an initial world state into a desired goal state. A large body of research has explored the use of LLMs for various planning tasks, from web navigation to travel planning and database querying. However, many of these systems are tailored to specific problems, making it challenging to compare them or determine the best approach for new tasks. There is also a lack of clear and consistent evaluation criteria. Our survey aims to offer a comprehensive overview of current LLM planners to fill this gap. It builds on foundational work by Kartam and Wilkins (1990) and examines six key performance criteria: completeness, executability, optimality, representation, generalization, and efficiency. For each, we provide a thorough analysis of representative works and highlight their strengths and weaknesses. Our paper also identifies crucial future directions, making it a valuable resource for both practitioners and newcomers interested in leveraging LLM planning to support agentic workflows.

Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) is a life - threatening cardiovascular condition where early and accurate diagnosis is critical for effective treatment and improved patient outcomes. This study explores the use of ECG foundation models, specifically ST - MEM and ECG - FM, to enhance ACS risk assessment using prehospital ECG data collected in the ambulances . Both models leverage self - supervised learning (SSL), with ST - MEM using a reconstruction - based approach and ECG - FM employing contrastive learning, capt uring unique spatial and temporal ECG features. We evaluate the performance of these models individually and through a fusion approach, where their embeddings are combined for enhanced prediction. Results demonstrate that both foundation models outperform a baseline ResNet - 50 model, with the fusion - based approach achieving the highest perf ormance (AUROC: 0.843 0.006, AUCPR: 0.674 0.012). These findings highlight the potential of ECG foundation models for early ACS detection and motivate further exploration of advanced fusion strategies to maximize complementary feature utilization.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have become essential for offensive language detection, yet their ability to handle annotation disagreement remains underexplored. Disagreement samples, which arise from subjective interpretations, pose a unique challenge due to their ambiguous nature. Understanding how LLMs process these cases, particularly their confidence levels, can offer insight into their alignment with human annotators. This study systematically evaluates the performance of multiple LLMs in detecting offensive language at varying levels of annotation agreement. We analyze binary classification accuracy, examine the relationship between model confidence and human disagreement, and explore how disagreement samples influence model decision-making during few-shot learning and instruction fine-tuning. Our findings reveal that LLMs struggle with low-agreement samples, often exhibiting overconfidence in these ambiguous cases. However, utilizing disagreement samples in training improves both detection accuracy and model alignment with human judgment. These insights provide a foundation for enhancing LLM-based offensive language detection in real-world moderation tasks.

Bias issues of neural networks garner significant attention along with its promising advancement. Among various bias issues, mitigating two predominant biases is crucial in advancing fair and trustworthy AI: (1) ensuring neural networks yields even performance across demographic groups, and (2) ensuring algorithmic decision-making does not rely on protected attributes. However, upon the investigation of \pc papers in the relevant literature, we find that there exists a persistent, extensive but under-explored confusion regarding these two types of biases. Furthermore, the confusion has already significantly hampered the clarity of the community and subsequent development of debiasing methodologies. Thus, in this work, we aim to restore clarity by providing two mathematical definitions for these two predominant biases and leveraging these definitions to unify a comprehensive list of papers. Next, we highlight the common phenomena and the possible reasons for the existing confusion. To alleviate the confusion, we provide extensive experiments on synthetic, census, and image datasets, to validate the distinct nature of these biases, distinguish their different real-world manifestations, and evaluate the effectiveness of a comprehensive list of bias assessment metrics in assessing the mitigation of these biases. Further, we compare these two types of biases from multiple dimensions including the underlying causes, debiasing methods, evaluation protocol, prevalent datasets, and future directions. Last, we provide several suggestions aiming to guide researchers engaged in bias-related work to avoid confusion and further enhance clarity in the community.

Quality Estimation (QE) is estimating the quality of model output when the ground truth reference is not available. Looking at model uncertainty from its own output probabilities is the most trivial and low-effort way to estimate the output quality. However, for generative model, output probabilities might not be the best quality estimator. At an output step, there can be multiple correct options, making the probability distribution spread out more. Thus, lower token probability does not necessarily mean lower output quality. In other words, the model can be considered underconfident. In this paper, we propose a QE approach called Dominant Mass Probability (DMP}, that boosts the model confidence in cases where there are multiple viable output options. We show that, with no increase in complexity, DMP is notably better than sequence probability when estimating the quality of different models (Whisper, Llama, etc.) on different tasks (translation, summarization, etc.). Compared to sequence probability, DMP achieves on average +0.208 improvement in Pearson correlation to ground-truth quality.

Given the rapid development of Legal AI, a lot of attention has been paid to one of the most important legal AI tasks--similar case retrieval, especially with language models to use. In our paper, however, we try to improve the ranking performance of current models from the perspective of learning to rank instead of language models. Specifically, we conduct experiments using a pairwise method--RankSVM as the classifier to substitute a fully connected layer, combined with commonly used language models on similar case retrieval datasets LeCaRDv1 and LeCaRDv2. We finally come to the conclusion that RankSVM could generally help improve the retrieval performance on the LeCaRDv1 and LeCaRDv2 datasets compared with original classifiers by optimizing the precise ranking. It could also help mitigate overfitting owing to class imbalance. Our code is available in https://github.com/liuyuqi123study/RankSVM_for_SLR

Housing and household characteristics are key determinants of social and economic well-being, yet our understanding of their interrelationships remains limited. This study addresses this knowledge gap by developing a deep contrastive learning (DCL) model to infer housing-household relationships using the American Community Survey (ACS) Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS). More broadly, the proposed model is suitable for a class of problems where the goal is to learn joint relationships between two distinct entities without explicitly labeled ground truth data. Our proposed dual-encoder DCL approach leverages co-occurrence patterns in PUMS and introduces a bisect K-means clustering method to overcome the absence of ground truth labels. The dual-encoder DCL architecture is designed to handle the semantic differences between housing (building) and household (people) features while mitigating noise introduced by clustering. To validate the model, we generate a synthetic ground truth dataset and conduct comprehensive evaluations. The model further demonstrates its superior performance in capturing housing-household relationships in Delaware compared to state-of-the-art methods. A transferability test in North Carolina confirms its generalizability across diverse sociodemographic and geographic contexts. Finally, the post-hoc explainable AI analysis using SHAP values reveals that tenure status and mortgage information play a more significant role in housing-household matching than traditionally emphasized factors such as the number of persons and rooms.

Language is far more than a communication tool. A wealth of information - including but not limited to the identities, psychological states, and social contexts of its users - can be gleaned through linguistic markers, and such insights are routinely leveraged across diverse fields ranging from product development and marketing to healthcare. In four studies utilizing experimental and observational methods, we demonstrate that the widespread adoption of large language models (LLMs) as writing assistants is linked to notable declines in linguistic diversity and may interfere with the societal and psychological insights language provides. We show that while the core content of texts is retained when LLMs polish and rewrite texts, not only do they homogenize writing styles, but they also alter stylistic elements in a way that selectively amplifies certain dominant characteristics or biases while suppressing others - emphasizing conformity over individuality. By varying LLMs, prompts, classifiers, and contexts, we show that these trends are robust and consistent. Our findings highlight a wide array of risks associated with linguistic homogenization, including compromised diagnostic processes and personalization efforts, the exacerbation of existing divides and barriers to equity in settings like personnel selection where language plays a critical role in assessing candidates' qualifications, communication skills, and cultural fit, and the undermining of efforts for cultural preservation.

As artificial intelligence surpasses human capabilities in text generation, the necessity to authenticate the origins of AI-generated content has become paramount. Unbiased watermarks offer a powerful solution by embedding statistical signals into language model-generated text without distorting the quality. In this paper, we introduce MCmark, a family of unbiased, Multi-Channel-based watermarks. MCmark works by partitioning the model's vocabulary into segments and promoting token probabilities within a selected segment based on a watermark key. We demonstrate that MCmark not only preserves the original distribution of the language model but also offers significant improvements in detectability and robustness over existing unbiased watermarks. Our experiments with widely-used language models demonstrate an improvement in detectability of over 10% using MCmark, compared to existing state-of-the-art unbiased watermarks. This advancement underscores MCmark's potential in enhancing the practical application of watermarking in AI-generated texts.

Detecting texts generated by Large Language Models (LLMs) could cause grave mistakes due to incorrect decisions, such as undermining student's academic dignity. LLM text detection thus needs to ensure the interpretability of the decision, which can help users judge how reliably correct its prediction is. When humans verify whether a text is human-written or LLM-generated, they intuitively investigate with which of them it shares more similar spans. However, existing interpretable detectors are not aligned with the human decision-making process and fail to offer evidence that users easily understand. To bridge this gap, we introduce ExaGPT, an interpretable detection approach grounded in the human decision-making process for verifying the origin of a text. ExaGPT identifies a text by checking whether it shares more similar spans with human-written vs. with LLM-generated texts from a datastore. This approach can provide similar span examples that contribute to the decision for each span in the text as evidence. Our human evaluation demonstrates that providing similar span examples contributes more effectively to judging the correctness of the decision than existing interpretable methods. Moreover, extensive experiments in four domains and three generators show that ExaGPT massively outperforms prior powerful detectors by up to +40.9 points of accuracy at a false positive rate of 1%.