The use of large language models (LLMs) is becoming common in political science and digital media research. While LLMs have demonstrated ability in labelling tasks, their effectiveness to classify Political Content (PC) from URLs remains underexplored. This article evaluates whether LLMs can accurately distinguish PC from non-PC using both the text and the URLs of news articles across five countries (France, Germany, Spain, the UK, and the US) and their different languages. Using cutting-edge models, we benchmark their performance against human-coded data to assess whether URL-level analysis can approximate full-text analysis. Our findings show that URLs embed relevant information and can serve as a scalable, cost-effective alternative to discern PC. However, we also uncover systematic biases: LLMs seem to overclassify centrist news as political, leading to false positives that may distort further analyses. We conclude by outlining methodological recommendations on the use of LLMs in political science research.

This study investigates zero-shot forecasting capabilities of Time Series Foundation Models (TSFMs) for macroeconomic indicators. We apply TSFMs to forecasting economic indicators under univariate conditions, bypassing the need for train bespoke econometric models using and extensive training datasets. Our experiments were conducted on a case study dataset, without additional customisation. We rigorously back-tested three state-of-the-art TSFMs (Chronos, TimeGPT and Moirai) under data-scarce conditions and structural breaks. Our results demonstrate that appropriately engineered TSFMs can internalise rich economic dynamics, accommodate regime shifts, and deliver well-behaved uncertainty estimates out of the box, while matching state-of-the-art multivariate models on this domain. Our findings suggest that, without any fine-tuning, TSFMs can match or exceed classical models during stable economic conditions. However, they are vulnerable to degradation in performances during periods of rapid shocks. The findings offer guidance to practitioners on when zero-shot deployments are viable for macroeconomic monitoring and strategic planning.

As AI becomes more personal, e.g., Agentic AI, there is an increasing need for personalizing models for various use cases. Personalized federated learning (PFL) enables each client to collaboratively leverage other clients' knowledge for better adaptation to the task of interest, without privacy risks. Despite its potential, existing PFL methods remain confined to rather simplified scenarios where data and models are the same across clients. To move towards realistic scenarios, we propose FedMosaic, a method that jointly addresses data and model heterogeneity with a task-relevance-aware model aggregation strategy to reduce parameter interference, and a dimension-invariant module that enables knowledge sharing across heterogeneous architectures without huge computational cost. To mimic the real-world task diversity, we propose a multi-modal PFL benchmark spanning 40 distinct tasks with distribution shifts over time. The empirical study shows that FedMosaic outperforms the state-of-the-art PFL methods, excelling in both personalization and generalization capabilities under challenging, realistic scenarios.

Reasoning has substantially improved the performance of large language models (LLMs) on complicated tasks. Central to the current reasoning studies, Process Reward Models (PRMs) offer a fine-grained evaluation of intermediate reasoning steps and guide the reasoning process. However, extending PRMs to multimodal large language models (MLLMs) introduces challenges. Since multimodal reasoning covers a wider range of tasks compared to text-only scenarios, the resulting distribution shift from the training to testing sets is more severe, leading to greater generalization difficulty. Training a reliable multimodal PRM, therefore, demands large and diverse datasets to ensure sufficient coverage. However, current multimodal reasoning datasets suffer from a marked quality imbalance, which degrades PRM performance and highlights the need for an effective data selection strategy. To address the issues, we introduce DreamPRM, a domain-reweighted training framework for multimodal PRMs which employs bi-level optimization. In the lower-level optimization, DreamPRM performs fine-tuning on multiple datasets with domain weights, allowing the PRM to prioritize high-quality reasoning signals and alleviating the impact of dataset quality imbalance. In the upper-level optimization, the PRM is evaluated on a separate meta-learning dataset; this feedback updates the domain weights through an aggregation loss function, thereby improving the generalization capability of trained PRM. Extensive experiments on multiple multimodal reasoning benchmarks covering both mathematical and general reasoning show that test-time scaling with DreamPRM consistently improves the performance of state-of-the-art MLLMs. Further comparisons reveal that DreamPRM's domain-reweighting strategy surpasses other data selection methods and yields higher accuracy gains than existing test-time scaling approaches.

Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in natural language tasks, but less is known about their reasoning capabilities over tabular data. Prior analyses devise evaluation strategies that poorly reflect an LLM's realistic performance on tabular queries. Moreover, we have a limited understanding of the robustness of LLMs towards realistic variations in tabular inputs. Therefore, we ask: Can general-purpose LLMs reason over tabular data, really?, and focus on two questions 1) are tabular reasoning capabilities of general-purpose LLMs robust to real-world characteristics of tabular inputs, and 2) how can we realistically evaluate an LLM's performance on analytical tabular queries? Building on a recent tabular reasoning benchmark, we first surface shortcomings of its multiple-choice prompt evaluation strategy, as well as commonly used free-form text metrics such as SacreBleu and BERT-score. We show that an LLM-as-a-judge procedure yields more reliable performance insights and unveil a significant deficit in tabular reasoning performance of LLMs. We then extend the tabular inputs reflecting three common characteristics in practice: 1) missing values, 2) duplicate entities, and 3) structural variations. Experiments show that the tabular reasoning capabilities of general-purpose LLMs suffer from these variations, stressing the importance of improving their robustness for realistic tabular inputs.

Formal reasoning and automated theorem proving constitute a challenging subfield of machine learning, in which machines are tasked with proving mathematical theorems using formal languages like Lean. A formal verification system can check whether a formal proof is correct or not almost instantaneously, but generating a completely correct formal proof with large language models (LLMs) remains a formidable task. The usual approach in the literature is to prompt the LLM many times (up to several thousands) until one of the generated proofs passes the verification system. In this work, we present APOLLO (Automated PrOof repair viaLLM and Lean cOllaboration), a modular, model-agnostic agentic framework that combines the strengths of the Lean compiler with an LLM's reasoning abilities to achieve better proof-generation results at a low token and sampling budgets. Apollo directs a fully automated process in which the LLM generates proofs for theorems, a set of agents analyze the proofs, fix the syntax errors, identify the mistakes in the proofs using Lean, isolate failing sub-lemmas, utilize automated solvers, and invoke an LLM on each remaining goal with a low top-K budget. The repaired sub-proofs are recombined and reverified, iterating up to a user-controlled maximum number of attempts. On the miniF2F benchmark, we establish a new state-of-the-art accuracy of 84.9% among sub 8B-parameter models (as of August 2025) while keeping the sampling budget below one hundred. Moreover, Apollo raises the state-of-the-art accuracy for Goedel-Prover-SFT to 65.6% while cutting sample complexity from 25,600 to a few hundred. General-purpose models (o3-mini, o4-mini) jump from 3-7% to over 40% accuracy. Our results demonstrate that targeted, compiler-guided repair of LLM outputs yields dramatic gains in both efficiency and correctness, suggesting a general paradigm for scalable automated theorem proving.

Peer review is central to academic publishing, but the growing volume of submissions is straining the process. This motivates the development of computational approaches to support peer review. While each review is tailored to a specific paper, reviewers often make assessments according to certain aspects such as Novelty, which reflect the values of the research community. This alignment creates opportunities for standardizing the reviewing process, improving quality control, and enabling computational support. While prior work has demonstrated the potential of aspect analysis for peer review assistance, the notion of aspect remains poorly formalized. Existing approaches often derive aspects from review forms and guidelines, yet data-driven methods for aspect identification are underexplored. To address this gap, our work takes a bottom-up approach: we propose an operational definition of aspect and develop a data-driven schema for deriving aspects from a corpus of peer reviews. We introduce a dataset of peer reviews augmented with aspects and show how it can be used for community-level review analysis. We further show how the choice of aspects can impact downstream applications, such as LLM-generated review detection. Our results lay a foundation for a principled and data-driven investigation of review aspects, and pave the path for new applications of NLP to support peer review.

As AI deployments become more complex and high-stakes, it becomes increasingly important to be able to estimate their risk. AI control is one framework for doing so. However, good control evaluations require eliciting strong attack policies. This can be challenging in complex agentic environments where compute constraints leave us data-poor. In this work, we show how to optimize attack policies in SHADE-Arena, a dataset of diverse realistic control environments. We do this by decomposing attack capability into five constituent skills -- suspicion modeling, attack selection, plan synthesis, execution and subtlety -- and optimizing each component individually. To get around the constraint of limited data, we develop a probabilistic model of attack dynamics, optimize our attack hyperparameters using this simulation, and then show that the results transfer to SHADE-Arena. This results in a substantial improvement in attack strength, reducing safety score from a baseline of 0.87 to 0.41 using our scaffold.

As model context lengths continue to grow, concerns about whether models effectively use the full context length have persisted. While several carefully designed long-context evaluations have recently been released, these evaluations tend to rely on retrieval from one or more sections of the context, which allows nearly all of the context tokens to be disregarded as noise. This represents only one type of task that might be performed with long context. We introduce Oolong, a benchmark of long-context reasoning tasks that require analyzing individual chunks of text on an atomic level, and then aggregating these analyses to answer distributional questions. Oolong is separated into two task sets: Oolong-synth, a set of naturalistic synthetic tasks, where we can easily ablate components of the reasoning problem; and Oolong-real, a downstream setting which requires reasoning over real-world conversational data. Oolong requires models to reason over large quantities of examples, to perform both classification and counting in-context, and to reason over temporal and user relations. Even frontier models struggle on Oolong, with GPT-5, Claude-Sonnet-4, and Gemini-2.5-Pro all achieving less than 50% accuracy on both splits at 128K. We release the data and evaluation harness for Oolong to enable further development of models that can reason over large quantities of text.

In contrast, using only the current turn avoids this overhead but discards essential information. This trade-off limits the scalability of search agents. To address this challenge, we propose MemSearcher, an agent workflow that iteratively maintains a compact memory and combines the current turn with it. At each turn, MemSearcher fuses the user's question with the memory to generate reasoning traces, perform search actions, and update memory to retain only information essential for solving the task. This design stabilizes context length across multi-turn interactions, improving efficiency without sacrificing accuracy. To optimize this workflow, we introduce multi-context GRPO, an end-to-end RL framework that jointly optimize reasoning, search strategies, and memory management of MemSearcher Agents. Trained on the same dataset as Search-R1, MemSearcher achieves significant improvements over strong baselines on seven public benchmarks: +11% on Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct and +12% on Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct Notably, the 3B-based Mem-Searcher even outperforms 7B-based baselines, demonstrating that striking a balance between information integrity and efficiency yields both higher accuracy and lower computational overhead.