Large language models for mathematical reasoning are typically trained with outcome-based rewards, which credit only the final answer. In our experiments, we observe that this paradigm is highly susceptible to reward hacking, leading to a substantial overestimation of a model's reasoning ability. This is evidenced by a high incidence of false positives - solutions that reach the correct final answer through an unsound reasoning process. Through a systematic analysis with human verification, we establish a taxonomy of these failure modes, identifying patterns like Miracle Steps - abrupt jumps to a correct output without a valid preceding derivation. Probing experiments suggest a strong association between these Miracle Steps and memorization, where the model appears to recall the answer directly rather than deriving it. To mitigate this systemic issue, we introduce the Rubric Reward Model (RRM), a process-oriented reward function that evaluates the entire reasoning trajectory against problem-specific rubrics. The generative RRM provides fine-grained, calibrated rewards (0-1) that explicitly penalize logical flaws and encourage rigorous deduction. When integrated into a reinforcement learning pipeline, RRM-based training consistently outperforms outcome-only supervision across four math benchmarks. Notably, it boosts Verified Pass@1024 on AIME2024 from 26.7% to 62.6% and reduces the incidence of Miracle Steps by 71%. Our work demonstrates that rewarding the solution process is crucial for building models that are not only more accurate but also more reliable.

This study presents a framework for automated evaluation of dynamically evolving topic models using Large Language Models (LLMs). Topic modeling is essential for organizing and retrieving scholarly content in digital library systems, helping users navigate complex and evolving knowledge domains. However, widely used automated metrics, such as coherence and diversity, often capture only narrow statistical patterns and fail to explain semantic failures in practice. We introduce a purpose-oriented evaluation framework that employs nine LLM-based metrics spanning four key dimensions of topic quality: lexical validity, intra-topic semantic soundness, inter-topic structural soundness, and document-topic alignment soundness. The framework is validated through adversarial and sampling-based protocols, and is applied across datasets spanning news articles, scholarly publications, and social media posts, as well as multiple topic modeling methods and open-source LLMs. Our analysis shows that LLM-based metrics provide interpretable, robust, and task-relevant assessments, uncovering critical weaknesses in topic models such as redundancy and semantic drift, which are often missed by traditional metrics. These results support the development of scalable, fine-grained evaluation tools for maintaining topic relevance in dynamic datasets. All code and data supporting this work are accessible at https://github.com/zhiyintan/topic-model-LLMjudgment.

Intrusion Detection and Prevention Systems (IDS/IPS) in large enterprises can generate hundreds of thousands of alerts per hour, overwhelming analysts with logs requiring rapidly evolving expertise. Conventional machine-learning detectors reduce alert volume but still yield many false positives, while standard Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) pipelines often retrieve irrelevant context and fail to justify predictions. We present CyberRAG, a modular agent-based RAG framework that delivers real-time classification, explanation, and structured reporting for cyber-attacks. A central LLM agent orchestrates: (i) fine-tuned classifiers specialized by attack family; (ii) tool adapters for enrichment and alerting; and (iii) an iterative retrieval-and-reason loop that queries a domain-specific knowledge base until evidence is relevant and self-consistent. Unlike traditional RAG, CyberRAG adopts an agentic design that enables dynamic control flow and adaptive reasoning. This architecture autonomously refines threat labels and natural-language justifications, reducing false positives and enhancing interpretability. It is also extensible: new attack types can be supported by adding classifiers without retraining the core agent. CyberRAG was evaluated on SQL Injection, XSS, and SSTI, achieving over 94\% accuracy per class and a final classification accuracy of 94.92\% through semantic orchestration. Generated explanations reached 0.94 in BERTScore and 4.9/5 in GPT-4-based expert evaluation, with robustness preserved against adversarial and unseen payloads. These results show that agentic, specialist-oriented RAG can combine high detection accuracy with trustworthy, SOC-ready prose, offering a flexible path toward partially automated cyber-defense workflows.

In recent years, natural language processing (NLP) has become integral to educational data mining, particularly in the analysis of student-generated language products. For research and assessment purposes, so-called embedding models are typically employed to generate numeric representations of text that capture its semantic content for use in subsequent quantitative analyses. Y et when it comes to science-related language, symbolic expressions such as equations and formulas introduce challenges that current embedding models struggle to address. Existing research studies and practical applications often either overlook these challenges or remove symbolic expressions altogether, potentially leading to biased research findings and diminished performance of practical applications. This study therefore explores how contemporary embedding models differ in their capability to process and interpret science-related symbolic expressions. To this end, various embedding models are evaluated using physics-specific symbolic expressions drawn from authentic student responses, with performance assessed via two approaches: 1) similarity-based analyses and 2) integration into a machine learning pipeline. Our findings reveal significant differences in model performance, with OpenAI's GPT-text-embedding-3-large outperforming all other examined models, though its advantage over other models was moderate rather than decisive. Overall, this study underscores the importance for educational data mining researchers and practitioners of carefully selecting NLP embedding models when working with science-related language products that include symbolic expressions. The code and (partial) data are available at https: //doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/6XQVG.

Neural networks are often described as black boxes, reflecting the significant challenge of understanding their internal workings and interactions. We propose a different perspective that challenges the prevailing view: rather than being inscrutable, neural networks exhibit patterns in their raw population activity that mirror regularities in the training data. We refer to this as the Reflection Hypothesis and provide evidence for this phenomenon in both simple recurrent neural networks (RNNs) and complex large language models (LLMs). Building on this insight, we propose to leverage our cognitive tendency of chunking to segment high-dimensional neural population dynamics into interpretable units that reflect underlying concepts. We propose three methods to extract recurring chunks on a neural population level, complementing each other based on label availability and neural data dimensionality. Discrete sequence chunking (DSC) learns a dictionary of entities in a lower-dimensional neural space; population averaging (PA) extracts recurring entities that correspond to known labels; and unsupervised chunk discovery (UCD) can be used when labels are absent. We demonstrate the effectiveness of these methods in extracting concept-encoding entities agnostic to model architectures. These concepts can be both concrete (words), abstract (POS tags), or structural (narrative schema). Additionally, we show that extracted chunks play a causal role in network behavior, as grafting them leads to controlled and predictable changes in the model's behavior. Our work points to a new direction for interpretability, one that harnesses both cognitive principles and the structure of naturalistic data to reveal the hidden computations of complex learning systems, gradually transforming them from black boxes into systems we can begin to understand.

Public and nonprofit organizations often hesitate to adopt AI tools because most models are opaque even though standard approaches typically analyze aggregate patterns rather than offering actionable, case-level guidance. This study tests a practitioner-in-the-loop workflow that pairs transparent decision-tree models with large language models (LLMs) to improve predictive accuracy, interpretability, and the generation of practical insights. Using data from an ongoing college-success program, we build interpretable decision trees to surface key predictors. We then provide each tree's structure to an LLM, enabling it to reproduce case-level predictions grounded in the transparent models. Practitioners participate throughout feature engineering, model design, explanation review, and usability assessment, ensuring that field expertise informs the analysis at every stage. Results show that integrating transparent models, LLMs, and practitioner input yields accurate, trustworthy, and actionable case-level evaluations, offering a viable pathway for responsible AI adoption in the public and nonprofit sectors.

Membership inference attacks (MIAs) have emerged as the standard tool for evaluating the privacy risks of AI models. However, state-of-the-art attacks require training numerous, often computationally expensive, reference models, limiting their practicality. We present a novel approach for estimating model-level vulnerability, the TPR at low FPR, to membership inference attacks without requiring reference models. Empirical analysis shows loss distributions to be asymmetric and heavy-tailed and suggests that most points at risk from MIAs have moved from the tail (high-loss region) to the head (low-loss region) of the distribution after training. We leverage this insight to propose a method to estimate model-level vulnerability from the training and testing distribution alone: using the absence of outliers from the high-loss region as a predictor of the risk. We evaluate our method, the TNR of a simple loss attack, across a wide range of architectures and datasets and show it to accurately estimate model-level vulnerability to the SOTA MIA attack (LiRA). We also show our method to outperform both low-cost (few reference models) attacks such as RMIA and other measures of distribution difference. We finally evaluate the use of non-linear functions to evaluate risk and show the approach to be promising to evaluate the risk in large-language models.

Deep learning-based computational methods have achieved promising results in predicting protein-protein interactions (PPIs). However, existing benchmarks predominantly focus on isolated pairwise evaluations, overlooking a model's capability to reconstruct biologically meaningful PPI networks, which is crucial for biology research. To address this gap, we introduce PRING, the first comprehensive benchmark that evaluates protein-protein interaction prediction from a graph-level perspective. PRING curates a high-quality, multi-species PPI network dataset comprising 21,484 proteins and 186,818 interactions, with well-designed strategies to address both data redundancy and leakage. Building on this golden-standard dataset, we establish two complementary evaluation paradigms: (1) topology-oriented tasks, which assess intra and cross-species PPI network construction, and (2) function-oriented tasks, including protein complex pathway prediction, GO module analysis, and essential protein justification. These evaluations not only reflect the model's capability to understand the network topology but also facilitate protein function annotation, biological module detection, and even disease mechanism analysis. Extensive experiments on four representative model categories, consisting of sequence similarity-based, naive sequence-based, protein language model-based, and structure-based approaches, demonstrate that current PPI models have potential limitations in recovering both structural and functional properties of PPI networks, highlighting the gap in supporting real-world biological applications. We believe PRING provides a reliable platform to guide the development of more effective PPI prediction models for the community. The dataset and source code of PRING are available at https://github.com/SophieSarceau/PRING.

Ensuring fairness in machine learning models is a critical challenge. Existing debiasing methods often compromise performance, rely on static correction strategies, and struggle with data sparsity, particularly within minority groups. Furthermore, their utilization of sensitive attributes is often suboptimal, either depending excessively on complete attribute labeling or disregarding these attributes entirely. To overcome these limitations, we propose FairNet, a novel framework for dynamic, instance-level fairness correction. FairNet integrates a bias detector with conditional low-rank adaptation (LoRA), which enables selective activation of the fairness correction mechanism exclusively for instances identified as biased, and thereby preserve performance on unbiased instances. A key contribution is a new contrastive loss function for training the LoRA module, specifically designed to minimize intra-class representation disparities across different sensitive groups and effectively address underfitting in minority groups. The FairNet framework can flexibly handle scenarios with complete, partial, or entirely absent sensitive attribute labels. Theoretical analysis confirms that, under moderate TPR/FPR for the bias detector, FairNet can enhance the performance of the worst group without diminishing overall model performance, and potentially yield slight performance improvements. Comprehensive empirical evaluations across diverse vision and language benchmarks validate the effectiveness of FairNet.

Pre-training Graph Foundation Models (GFMs) on text-attributed graphs (TAGs) is central to web-scale applications such as search, recommendation, and knowledge discovery. However, existing CLIP-style graph-text aligners face two key limitations: they assume strict one-to-one correspondences between nodes and texts, overlooking the inherent many-to-many relations in real-world graphs; and they rely on static alignment objectives that cannot adapt to varying data quality, making them brittle under noisy supervision. Together, these limitations expose a core dilemma: embracing expressive many-to-many alignment amplifies noise, while reverting to strict one-to-one strategies sacrifices semantic diversity and fails to handle inherently mismatched pairs. To address these challenges, we propose ADAligner, a dynamic, quality-aware graph-text alignment framework that dynamically adjusts between expressive many-to-many and conservative one-to-one objectives according to supervision quality. ADAligner estimates batch-level alignment reliability in real time and adapts its optimization accordingly, promoting soft, subgraph-level many-to-many alignment when supervision is clean, while emphasizing reliable one-to-one alignment by dynamically filtering low-confidence pairs under noise. Theoretically, we prove that this dynamic mechanism forms a stable negative feedback process, ensuring convergence and robustness. Comprehensive experiments on nine diverse TAG datasets demonstrate that ADAligner consistently outperforms prior graph-text aligners on zero-/few-shot node classification, link prediction and cross-modal retrieval tasks. It maintains strong robustness under noisy supervision and accelerates pre-training by approximately 2 to 3 times compared to multimodal baselines, establishing a scalable and reliable foundation for graph-text representation learning in real-world web environments.