Traditional approaches to semantic polarity in computational linguistics treat sentiment as a unidimensional scale, overlooking the multidimensional structure of language. This work introduces TOPol (Topic-Orientation POLarity), a semi-unsupervised framework for reconstructing and interpreting multidimensional narrative polarity fields under human-on-the-loop (HoTL) defined contextual boundaries (CBs). The framework embeds documents using a transformer-based large language model (tLLM), applies neighbor-tuned UMAP projection, and segments topics via Leiden partitioning. Given a CB between discourse regimes A and B, TOPol computes directional vectors between corresponding topic-boundary centroids, yielding a polarity field that quantifies fine-grained semantic displacement during regime shifts. This vectorial representation enables assessing CB quality and detecting polarity changes, guiding HoTL CB refinement. To interpret identified polarity vectors, the tLLM compares their extreme points and produces contrastive labels with estimated coverage. Robustness analyses show that only CB definitions (the main HoTL-tunable parameter) significantly affect results, confirming methodological stability. We evaluate TOPol on two corpora: (i) U.S. Central Bank speeches around a macroeconomic breakpoint, capturing non-affective semantic shifts, and (ii) Amazon product reviews across rating strata, where affective polarity aligns with NRC valence. Results demonstrate that TOPol consistently captures both affective and non-affective polarity transitions, providing a scalable, generalizable, and interpretable framework for context-sensitive multidimensional discourse analysis.

Estimating the cognitive complexity of reading comprehension (RC) items is crucial for assessing item difficulty before it is administered to learners. Unlike syntactic and semantic features, such as passage length or semantic similarity between options, cognitive features that arise during answer reasoning are not readily extractable using existing NLP tools and have traditionally relied on human annotation. In this study, we examine whether large language models (LLMs) can estimate the cognitive complexity of RC items by focusing on two dimensions-Evidence Scope and Transformation Level-that indicate the degree of cognitive burden involved in reasoning about the answer. Our experimental results demonstrate that LLMs can approximate the cognitive complexity of items, indicating their potential as tools for prior difficulty analysis. Further analysis reveals a gap between LLMs' reasoning ability and their metacognitive awareness: even when they produce correct answers, they sometimes fail to correctly identify the features underlying their own reasoning process.

Scientific progress is driven by the deliberate articulation of what remains unknown. This study investigates the ability of large language models (LLMs) to identify research knowledge gaps in the biomedical literature. We define two categories of knowledge gaps: explicit gaps, clear declarations of missing knowledge; and implicit gaps, context-inferred missing knowledge. While prior work has focused mainly on explicit gap detection, we extend this line of research by addressing the novel task of inferring implicit gaps. We conducted two experiments on almost 1500 documents across four datasets, including a manually annotated corpus of biomedical articles. We benchmarked both closed-weight models (from OpenAI) and open-weight models (Llama and Gemma 2) under paragraph-level and full-paper settings. To address the reasoning of implicit gaps inference, we introduce \textbf{\small TABI}, a Toulmin-Abductive Bucketed Inference scheme that structures reasoning and buckets inferred conclusion candidates for validation. Our results highlight the robust capability of LLMs in identifying both explicit and implicit knowledge gaps. This is true for both open- and closed-weight models, with larger variants often performing better. This suggests a strong ability of LLMs for systematically identifying candidate knowledge gaps, which can support early-stage research formulation, policymakers, and funding decisions. We also report observed failure modes and outline directions for robust deployment, including domain adaptation, human-in-the-loop verification, and benchmarking across open- and closed-weight models.

The rapid progress and widespread deployment of LLMs and LLM-powered agents has outpaced our ability to evaluate them. Hand-crafted, static benchmarks are the primary tool for assessing model capabilities, but these quickly become saturated. In contrast, dynamic benchmarks evolve alongside the models they evaluate, but are expensive to create and continuously update. To address these challenges, we develop BeTaL (Benchmark Tuning with an LLM-in-the-loop), a framework that leverages environment design principles to automate the process of dynamic benchmark design. BeTaL works by parameterizing key design choices in base benchmark templates and uses LLMs to reason through the resulting parameter space to obtain target properties (such as difficulty and realism) in a cost-efficient manner. We validate this approach on its ability to create benchmarks with desired difficulty levels. Using BeTaL, we create two new benchmarks and extend a popular agentic benchmark $τ$-bench. Extensive evaluation on these three tasks and multiple target difficulty levels shows that BeTaL produces benchmarks much closer to the desired difficulty, with average deviations ranging from 5.3% to 13.2% -- a 2-4x improvement over the baselines.

The future of Requirements Engineering (RE) is increasingly driven by artificial intelligence (AI), reshaping how we elicit, analyze, and validate requirements. Traditional RE is based on labor-intensive manual processes prone to errors and complexity. AI-powered approaches, specifically large language models (LLMs), natural language processing (NLP), and generative AI, offer transformative solutions and reduce inefficiencies. However, the use of AI in RE also brings challenges like algorithmic bias, lack of explainability, and ethical concerns related to automation. To address these issues, this study introduces the Human-AI RE Synergy Model (HARE-SM), a conceptual framework that integrates AI-driven analysis with human oversight to improve requirements elicitation, analysis, and validation. The model emphasizes ethical AI use through transparency, explainability, and bias mitigation. We outline a multi-phase research methodology focused on preparing RE datasets, fine-tuning AI models, and designing collaborative human-AI workflows. This preliminary study presents the conceptual framework and early-stage prototype implementation, establishing a research agenda and practical design direction for applying intelligent data science techniques to semi-structured and unstructured RE data in collaborative environments.

Large Language Models (LLMs) enable dynamic game interactions but fail to follow essential procedural flows in rule-governed trading systems, eroding player trust. This work resolves the core tension between the creative flexibility of LLMs and the procedural demands of in-game trading (browse-offer-review-confirm). To this end, Autoregressive State-Tracking Prompting (ASTP) is introduced, a methodology centered on a strategically orchestrated prompt that compels an LLM to make its state-tracking process explicit and verifiable. Instead of relying on implicit contextual understanding, ASTP tasks the LLM with identifying and reporting a predefined state label from the previous turn. To ensure transactional integrity, this is complemented by a state-specific placeholder post-processing method for accurate price calculations. Evaluation across 300 trading dialogues demonstrates >99% state compliance and 99.3% calculation precision. Notably, ASTP with placeholder post-processing on smaller models (Gemini-2.5-Flash) matches larger models' (Gemini-2.5-Pro) performance while reducing response time from 21.2s to 2.4s, establishing a practical foundation that satisfies both real-time requirements and resource constraints of commercial games.

Mechanistic interpretability aims to reverse-engineer large language models (LLMs) into human-understandable computational circuits. However, the complexity of pretrained models often obscures the minimal mechanisms required for specific reasoning tasks. In this work, we train small, attention-only transformers from scratch on a symbolic version of the Indirect Object Identification (IOI) task -- a benchmark for studying coreference -- like reasoning in transformers. Surprisingly, a single-layer model with only two attention heads achieves perfect IOI accuracy, despite lacking MLPs and normalization layers. Through residual stream decomposition, spectral analysis, and embedding interventions, we find that the two heads specialize into additive and contrastive subcircuits that jointly implement IOI resolution. Furthermore, we show that a two-layer, one-head model achieves similar performance by composing information across layers through query-value interactions. These results demonstrate that task-specific training induces highly interpretable, minimal circuits, offering a controlled testbed for probing the computational foundations of transformer reasoning.

Evaluation and Management (E/M) coding, under the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) taxonomy, documents medical services provided to patients by physicians. Used primarily for billing purposes, it is in physicians' best interest to provide accurate CPT E/M codes. %While important, it is an auxiliary task that adds to physicians' documentation burden. Automating this coding task will help alleviate physicians' documentation burden, improve billing efficiency, and ultimately enable better patient care. However, a number of real-world complexities have made E/M encoding automation a challenging task. In this paper, we elaborate some of the key complexities and present ProFees, our LLM-based framework that tackles them, followed by a systematic evaluation. On an expert-curated real-world dataset, ProFees achieves an increase in coding accuracy of more than 36\% over a commercial CPT E/M coding system and almost 5\% over our strongest single-prompt baseline, demonstrating its effectiveness in addressing the real-world complexities.

Generative agents are rapidly advancing in sophistication, raising urgent questions about how they might coordinate when deployed in online ecosystems. This is particularly consequential in information operations (IOs), influence campaigns that aim to manipulate public opinion on social media. While traditional IOs have been orchestrated by human operators and relied on manually crafted tactics, agentic AI promises to make campaigns more automated, adaptive, and difficult to detect. This work presents the first systematic study of emergent coordination among generative agents in simulated IO campaigns. Using generative agent-based modeling, we instantiate IO and organic agents in a simulated environment and evaluate coordination across operational regimes, from simple goal alignment to team knowledge and collective decision-making. As operational regimes become more structured, IO networks become denser and more clustered, interactions more reciprocal and positive, narratives more homogeneous, amplification more synchronized, and hashtag adoption faster and more sustained. Remarkably, simply revealing to agents which other agents share their goals can produce coordination levels nearly equivalent to those achieved through explicit deliberation and collective voting. Overall, we show that generative agents, even without human guidance, can reproduce coordination strategies characteristic of real-world IOs, underscoring the societal risks posed by increasingly automated, self-organizing IOs.

Pressure ulcers (PUs) are a serious and prevalent healthcare concern. Accurate classification of PU severity (Stages I-IV) is essential for proper treatment but remains challenging due to subtle visual distinctions and subjective interpretation, leading to variability among clinicians. Prior AI-based approaches using Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) and Vision Transformers (ViTs) achieved promising accuracy but offered limited interpretability. We present FT-ARM (Fine-Tuned Agentic Reflection Multimodal model), a fine-tuned multimodal large language model (MLLM) with an agentic self-reflection mechanism for pressure ulcer severity classification. Inspired by clinician-style diagnostic reassessment, FT-ARM iteratively refines its predictions by reasoning over visual features and encoded clinical knowledge from text, enhancing both accuracy and consistency. On the publicly available Pressure Injury Image Dataset (PIID), FT-ARM, fine-tuned from LLaMA 3.2 90B, achieved 85% accuracy in classifying PU stages I-IV, surpassing prior CNN-based models by +4%. Unlike earlier CNN/ViT studies that relied solely on offline evaluations, FT-ARM is designed and tested for live inference, reflecting real-time deployment conditions. Furthermore, it produces clinically grounded natural-language explanations, improving interpretability and trust. By integrating fine-tuning and reflective reasoning across multimodal inputs, FT-ARM advances the reliability, transparency, and clinical applicability of automated wound assessment systems, addressing the critical need for consistent and explainable PU staging to support improved patient care.