This case study explores the potential of repurposing existing annotation guidelines to instruct a large language model (LLM) annotator in text annotation tasks. Traditional annotation projects invest significant resources--both time and cost--in developing comprehensive annotation guidelines. These are primarily designed for human annotators who will undergo training sessions to check and correct their understanding of the guidelines. While the results of the training are internalized in the human annotators, LLMs require the training content to be materialized. Thus, we introduce a method called moderation-oriented guideline repurposing, which adapts annotation guidelines to provide clear and explicit instructions through a process called LLM moderation. Using the NCBI Disease Corpus and its detailed guidelines, our experimental results demonstrate that, despite several remaining challenges, repurposing the guidelines can effectively guide LLM annotators. Our findings highlight both the promising potential and the limitations of leveraging the proposed workflow in automated settings, offering a new direction for a scalable and cost-effective refinement of annotation guidelines and the following annotation process.

As large language model (LLM) agents are deployed autonomously in diverse contexts, evaluating their capacity for strategic deception becomes crucial. While recent research has examined how AI systems scheme against human developers, LLM-to-LLM scheming remains underexplored. We investigate the scheming ability and propensity of frontier LLM agents through two game-theoretic frameworks: a Cheap Talk signaling game and a Peer Evaluation adversarial game. Testing four models (GPT-4o, Gemini-2.5-pro, Claude-3.7-Sonnet, and Llama-3.3-70b), we measure scheming performance with and without explicit prompting while analyzing scheming tactics through chain-of-thought reasoning. When prompted, most models, especially Gemini-2.5-pro and Claude-3.7-Sonnet, achieved near-perfect performance. Critically, models exhibited significant scheming propensity without prompting: all models chose deception over confession in Peer Evaluation (100% rate), while models choosing to scheme in Cheap Talk succeeded at 95-100% rates. These findings highlight the need for robust evaluations using high-stakes game-theoretic scenarios in multi-agent settings.

ETL (Extract, Transform, Load) tools such as IBM DataStage allow users to visually assemble complex data workflows, but configuring stages and their properties remains time consuming and requires deep tool knowledge. We propose a system that translates natural language descriptions into executable workflows, automatically predicting both the structure and detailed configuration of the flow. At its core lies a Classifier-Augmented Generation (CAG) approach that combines utterance decomposition with a classifier and stage-specific few-shot prompting to produce accurate stage predictions. These stages are then connected into non-linear workflows using edge prediction, and stage properties are inferred from sub-utterance context. We compare CAG against strong single-prompt and agentic baselines, showing improved accuracy and efficiency, while substantially reducing token usage. Our architecture is modular, interpretable, and capable of end-to-end workflow generation, including robust validation steps. To our knowledge, this is the first system with a detailed evaluation across stage prediction, edge layout, and property generation for natural-language-driven ETL authoring.

Traditional pet emotion recognition from vocalizations, based on discrete classification, struggles with ambiguity and capturing intensity variations. We propose a continuous Valence-Arousal (VA) model that represents emotions in a two-dimensional space. Our method uses an automatic VA label generation algorithm, enabling large-scale annotation of 42,553 pet vocalization samples. A multi-task learning framework jointly trains VA regression with auxiliary tasks (emotion, body size, gender) to enhance prediction by improving feature learning. Our Audio Transformer model achieves a validation Valence Pearson correlation of r = 0.9024 and an Arousal r = 0.7155, effectively resolving confusion between discrete categories like "territorial" and "happy." This work introduces the first continuous VA framework for pet vocalization analysis, offering a more expressive representation for human-pet interaction, veterinary diagnostics, and behavioral training. The approach shows strong potential for deployment in consumer products like AI pet emotion translators.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in clinical decision support, yet subtle demographic cues can influence their reasoning. Prior work has documented disparities in outputs across patient groups, but little is known about how internal reasoning shifts under controlled demographic changes. We introduce MEDEQUALQA, a counterfactual benchmark that perturbs only patient pronouns (he/him, she/her, they/them) while holding critical symptoms and conditions (CSCs) constant. Each clinical vignette is expanded into single-CSC ablations, producing three parallel datasets of approximately 23,000 items each (69,000 total). We evaluate a GPT-4.1 model and compute Semantic Textual Similarity (STS) between reasoning traces to measure stability across pronoun variants. Our results show overall high similarity (mean STS >0.80), but reveal consistent localized divergences in cited risk factors, guideline anchors, and differential ordering, even when final diagnoses remain unchanged. Our error analysis highlights certain cases in which the reasoning shifts, underscoring clinically relevant bias loci that may cascade into inequitable care. MEDEQUALQA offers a controlled diagnostic setting for auditing reasoning stability in medical AI.

Electronic health records contain inconsistently structured or free-text data, requiring efficient preprocessing to enable predictive health care models. Although artificial intelligence-driven natural language processing tools show promise for automating diagnosis classification, their comparative performance and clinical reliability require systematic evaluation. The aim of this study is to evaluate the performance of 4 large language models (GPT-3.5, GPT-4o, Llama 3.2, and Gemini 1.5) and BioBERT in classifying cancer diagnoses from structured and unstructured electronic health records data. We analyzed 762 unique diagnoses (326 International Classification of Diseases (ICD) code descriptions, 436free-text entries) from 3456 records of patients with cancer. Models were tested on their ability to categorize diagnoses into 14predefined categories. Two oncology experts validated classifications. BioBERT achieved the highest weighted macro F1-score for ICD codes (84.2) and matched GPT-4o in ICD code accuracy (90.8). For free-text diagnoses, GPT-4o outperformed BioBERT in weighted macro F1-score (71.8 vs 61.5) and achieved slightly higher accuracy (81.9 vs 81.6). GPT-3.5, Gemini, and Llama showed lower overall performance on both formats. Common misclassification patterns included confusion between metastasis and central nervous system tumors, as well as errors involving ambiguous or overlapping clinical terminology. Although current performance levels appear sufficient for administrative and research use, reliable clinical applications will require standardized documentation practices alongside robust human oversight for high-stakes decision-making.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across numerous languages; however, their effectiveness in low-resource languages like Persian requires thorough investigation. This paper presents a comprehensive benchmark of several open-source LLMs for Persian Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks, utilizing both zero-shot and few-shot learning paradigms. We evaluate models across a range of tasks including sentiment analysis, named entity recognition, reading comprehension, and question answering, using established Persian datasets such as ParsiNLU and ArmanEmo. Our methodology encompasses rigorous experimental setups for both zero-shot and few-shot scenarios, employing metrics such as Accuracy, F1-score, BLEU, and ROUGE for performance evaluation. The results reveal that Gemma 2 consistently outperforms other models across nearly all tasks in both learning paradigms, with particularly strong performance in complex reasoning tasks. However, most models struggle with token-level understanding tasks like Named Entity Recognition, highlighting specific challenges in Persian language processing. This study contributes to the growing body of research on multilingual LLMs, providing valuable insights into their performance in Persian and offering a benchmark for future model development.

Writing competitive programming problems is exacting. Authors must: set constraints, input distributions, and edge cases that rule out shortcuts; target specific algorithms (e.g., max-flow, dynamic programming, data structures); and calibrate complexity beyond the reach of most competitors. We argue that this makes for an ideal test of general large language model capabilities and study whether they can do this reliably. We introduce AutoCode, which uses multiple rounds of validation to yield competition-grade problem statements and test cases. On held-out problems, AutoCode test suites approach 99% consistency with official judgments, a significant improvement over current state-of-the-art methods like HardTests, which achieve less than 81%. Furthermore, starting with a random seed problem, AutoCode can create novel variants with reference and brute-force solutions. By cross-verifying these generated solutions against test cases, we can further filter out malformed problems. Our system ensures high correctness, as verified by human experts. AutoCode successfully produces novel problems judged by Grandmaster-level (top 0.3%) competitive programmers to be of contest quality.

We present ACADATA, a high-quality parallel dataset for academic translation, that consists of two subsets: ACAD-TRAIN, which contains approximately 1.5 million author-generated paragraph pairs across 96 language directions and ACAD-BENCH, a curated evaluation set of almost 6,000 translations covering 12 directions. To validate its utility, we fine-tune two Large Language Models (LLMs) on ACAD-TRAIN and benchmark them on ACAD-BENCH against specialized machine-translation systems, general-purpose, open-weight LLMs, and several large-scale proprietary models. Experimental results demonstrate that fine-tuning on ACAD-TRAIN leads to improvements in academic translation quality by +6.1 and +12.4 d-BLEU points on average for 7B and 2B models respectively, while also improving long-context translation in a general domain by up to 24.9% when translating out of English. The fine-tuned top-performing model surpasses the best propietary and open-weight models on academic translation domain. By releasing ACAD-TRAIN, ACAD-BENCH and the fine-tuned models, we provide the community with a valuable resource to advance research in academic domain and long-context translation.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have demonstrated impressive performance on complex tasks, including logical puzzle games that require deriving solutions satisfying all constraints. However, whether they can flexibly apply appropriate rules to varying conditions, particularly when faced with non-canonical game variants, remains an open question. Existing corpora focus on popular puzzles like 9x9 Sudoku, risking overfitting to canonical formats and memorization of solution patterns, which can mask deficiencies in understanding novel rules or adapting strategies to new variants. To address this, we introduce HardcoreLogic, a challenging benchmark of over 5,000 puzzles across 10 games, designed to test the robustness of LRMs on the "long-tail" of logical games. HardcoreLogic systematically transforms canonical puzzles through three dimensions: Increased Complexity (IC), Uncommon Elements (UE), and Unsolvable Puzzles (UP), reducing reliance on shortcut memorization. Evaluations on a diverse set of LRMs reveal significant performance drops, even for models achieving top scores on existing benchmarks, indicating heavy reliance on memorized stereotypes. While increased complexity is the dominant source of difficulty, models also struggle with subtle rule variations that do not necessarily increase puzzle difficulty. Our systematic error analysis on solvable and unsolvable puzzles further highlights gaps in genuine reasoning. Overall, HardcoreLogic exposes the limitations of current LRMs and establishes a benchmark for advancing high-level logical reasoning.