Pose estimation refers to tracking a human's full body posture, including their head, torso, arms, and legs. The problem is challenging in practical settings where the number of body sensors are limited. Past work has shown promising results using conditional diffusion models, where the pose prediction is conditioned on both measurements from the sensors. Unfortunately, nearly all these approaches generalize poorly across users, primarly because location measurements are highly influenced by the body size of the user. In this paper, we formulate pose estimation as an inverse problem and design an algorithm capable of zero-shot generalization. Our idea utilizes a pre-trained diffusion model and conditions it on rotational measurements alone; the priors from this model are then guided by a likelihood term, derived from the measured locations. Thus, given any user, our proposed InPose method generatively estimates the highly likely sequence of poses that best explains the sparse on-body measurements.

The scholarly publishing ecosystem faces a dual crisis of unmanageable submission volumes and unregulated AI, creating an urgent need for new governance models to safeguard scientific integrity. The traditional human-only peer review regime lacks a scalable, objective benchmark, making editorial processes opaque and difficult to audit. Here we investigate a deterministic simulation framework that provides the first stable, evidence-based standard for evaluating AI-generated peer review reports. Analyzing 352 peer-review simulation reports, we identify consistent system state indicators that demonstrate its reliability. First, the system is able to simulate calibrated editorial judgment, with 'Revise' decisions consistently forming the majority outcome (>50%) across all disciplines, while 'Reject' rates dynamically adapt to field-specific norms, rising to 45% in Health Sciences. Second, it maintains unwavering procedural integrity, enforcing a stable 29% evidence-anchoring compliance rate that remains invariant across diverse review tasks and scientific domains. These findings demonstrate a system that is predictably rule-bound, mitigating the stochasticity of generative AI. For the scientific community, this provides a transparent tool to ensure fairness; for publishing strategists, it offers a scalable instrument for auditing workflows, managing integrity risks, and implementing evidence-based governance. The framework repositions AI as an essential component of institutional accountability, providing the critical infrastructure to maintain trust in scholarly communication.

Online social media platforms are central to everyday communication and information seeking. While these platforms serve positive purposes, they also provide fertile ground for the spread of hate speech, offensive language, and bullying content targeting individuals, organizations, and communities. Such content undermines safety, participation, and equity online. Reliable detection systems are therefore needed, especially for low-resource languages where moderation tools are limited. In Bangla, prior work has contributed resources and models, but most are single-task (e.g., binary hate/offense) with limited coverage of multi-facet signals (type, severity, target). We address these gaps by introducing the first multi-task Bangla hate-speech dataset, BanglaMultiHate, one of the largest manually annotated corpus to date. Building on this resource, we conduct a comprehensive, controlled comparison spanning classical baselines, monolingual pretrained models, and LLMs under zero-shot prompting and LoRA fine-tuning. Our experiments assess LLM adaptability in a low-resource setting and reveal a consistent trend: although LoRA-tuned LLMs are competitive with BanglaBERT, culturally and linguistically grounded pretraining remains critical for robust performance. Together, our dataset and findings establish a stronger benchmark for developing culturally aligned moderation tools in low-resource contexts. For reproducibility, we will release the dataset and all related scripts.

Abstract--Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have enabled promising performance in unit test generation through in-context learning (ICL). However, the quality of in-context examples significantly influences the effectiveness of generated tests--poorly structured or semantically unclear test examples often lead to suboptimal outputs. In this paper, we propose CLAST, a novel technique that systematically refines unit tests to improve their semantic clarity, thereby enhancing their utility as in-context examples. The approach decomposes complex tests into logically clearer ones and improves semantic clarity through a combination of program analysis and LLM-based rewriting. We evaluated CLAST on four open-source and three industrial projects. The results demonstrate that CLAST largely outperforms UTgen, the state-of-the-art refinement technique, in both preserving test effectiveness and enhancing semantic clarity. Specifically, CLAST fully retains the original effectiveness of unit tests, while UTgen reduces compilation success rate (CSR), pass rate (PR), test coverage (Cov), and mutation score (MS) by an average of 12.90%, 35.82%, 4.65%, and 5.07%, respectively. Over 85.33% of participants in our user study preferred the semantic clarity of CLAST-refined tests. Notably, incorporating CLAST - refined tests as examples effectively improves ICL-based unit test generation approaches such as RAGGen and TELPA, resulting in an average increase of 25.97% in CSR, 28.22% in PR, and 45.99% in Cov for generated tests, compared to incorporating UTgen-refined tests. The insights from the follow-up user study not only reinforce CLAST's potential impact in software testing practice but also illuminate avenues for future research. Automated unit test generation is vital for enhancing software quality by producing tests to verify individual components. While search-based approaches that apply heuristic optimization methods to explore the test space have been extensively studied over the years [1]-[3], recent advances in large language models (LLMs) offer a new paradigm. By learning from vast code repositories, LLMs can infer semantic relationships between code and its corresponding tests, enabling the generation of more context-aware unit tests that address the limitations of traditional methods and enhance overall test effectiveness. In-Context Learning (ICL) has emerged as a key technique for harnessing LLMs' inference capabilities in automated test generation.

Schema design, particularly normalization, is a critical yet often overlooked factor in natural language to SQL (NL2SQL) systems. Most prior research evaluates models on fixed schemas, overlooking the influence of design on performance. We present the first systematic study of schema normalization's impact, evaluating eight leading large language models on synthetic and real-world datasets with varied normalization levels. We construct controlled synthetic datasets with formal normalization (1NF-3NF) and real academic paper datasets with practical schemes. Our results show that denormalized schemas offer high accuracy on simple retrieval queries, even with cost-effective models in zero-shot settings. In contrast, normalized schemas (2NF/3NF) introduce challenges such as errors in base table selection and join type prediction; however, these issues are substantially mitigated by providing few-shot examples. For aggregation queries, normalized schemas yielded better performance, mainly due to their robustness against the data duplication and NULL value issues that cause errors in denormalized schemas. These findings suggest that the optimal schema design for NL2SQL applications depends on the types of queries to be supported. Our study demonstrates the importance of considering schema design when developing NL2SQL interfaces and integrating adaptive schema selection for real-world scenarios.

Our interpretation of value concepts is shaped by our sociocultural background and lived experiences, and is thus subjective. Recognizing individual value interpretations is important for developing AI systems that can align with diverse human perspectives and avoid bias toward majority viewpoints. To this end, we investigate whether a language model can predict individual value interpretations by leveraging multi-dimensional subjective annotations as a proxy for their interpretive lens. That is, we evaluate whether providing examples of how an individual annotates Sentiment, Emotion, Argument, and Topics (SEAT dimensions) helps a language model in predicting their value interpretations. Our experiment across different zero- and few-shot settings demonstrates that providing all SEAT dimensions simultaneously yields superior performance compared to individual dimensions and a baseline where no information about the individual is provided. Furthermore, individual variations across annotators highlight the importance of accounting for the incorporation of individual subjective annotators. To the best of our knowledge, this controlled setting, although small in size, is the first attempt to go beyond demographics and investigate the impact of annotation behavior on value prediction, providing a solid foundation for future large-scale validation.

The current landscape of defensive mechanisms for LLMs is fragmented and underdeveloped, unlike prior work on classifiers. To further promote adversarial robustness in LLMs, we propose Inverse Language Modeling (ILM), a unified framework that simultaneously 1) improves the robustness of LLMs to input perturbations, and, at the same time, 2) enables native grounding by inverting model outputs to identify potentially toxic or unsafe input triggers. ILM transforms LLMs from static generators into analyzable and robust systems, potentially helping RED teaming. ILM can lay the foundation for next-generation LLMs that are not only robust and grounded but also fundamentally more controllable and trustworthy. The code is publicly available at github.com/davegabe/pag-llm.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to model and augment collective decision-making, it is critical to examine their alignment with human social reasoning. We present an empirical framework for assessing collective alignment, in contrast to prior work on the individual level. Using the Lost at Sea social psychology task, we conduct a large-scale online experiment (N=748), randomly assigning groups to leader elections with either visible demographic attributes (e.g. name, gender) or pseudonymous aliases. We then simulate matched LLM groups conditioned on the human data, benchmarking Gemini 2.5, GPT 4.1, Claude Haiku 3.5, and Gemma 3. LLM behaviors diverge: some mirror human biases; others mask these biases and attempt to compensate for them. We empirically demonstrate that human-AI alignment in collective reasoning depends on context, cues, and model-specific inductive biases. Understanding how LLMs align with collective human behavior is critical to advancing socially-aligned AI, and demands dynamic benchmarks that capture the complexities of collective reasoning.

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) are widely adopted in Web-related applications, serving as a core technique for learning from graph-structured data, such as text-attributed graphs. Yet in real-world scenarios, such graphs exhibit deficiencies that substantially undermine GNN performance. While prior GNN-based augmentation studies have explored robustness against individual imperfections, a systematic understanding of how graph-native and Large Language Models (LLMs) enhanced methods behave under compound deficiencies is still missing. Specifically, there has been no comprehensive investigation comparing conventional approaches and recent LLM-on-graph frameworks, leaving their merits unclear. To fill this gap, we conduct the first empirical study that benchmarks these two lines of methods across diverse graph deficiencies, revealing overlooked vulnerabilities and challenging the assumption that LLM augmentation is consistently superior. Building on empirical findings, we propose Robust Graph Learning via Retrieval-Augmented Contrastive Refinement (RoGRAD) framework. Unlike prior one-shot LLM-as-Enhancer designs, RoGRAD is the first iterative paradigm that leverages Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) to inject retrieval-grounded augmentations by supplying class-consistent, diverse augmentations and enforcing discriminative representations through iterative graph contrastive learning. It transforms LLM augmentation for graphs from static signal injection into dynamic refinement. Extensive experiments demonstrate RoGRAD's superiority over both conventional GNN- and LLM-enhanced baselines, achieving up to 82.43% average improvement.

Language Models (LMs) are increasingly used in applications where generated outputs must satisfy strict semantic or syntactic constraints. Existing approaches to constrained generation fall along a spectrum: greedy constrained decoding methods enforce validity during decoding but distort the LM's distribution, while rejection sampling (RS) preserves fidelity but wastes computation by discarding invalid outputs. Both extremes are problematic in domains such as program fuzzing, where both validity and diversity of samples are essential. We present Constrained Adaptive Rejection Sampling (CARS), an approach that strictly improves the sample-efficiency of RS without distributional distortion. CARS begins with unconstrained LM sampling and adaptively rules out constraint-violating continuations by recording them in a trie and subtracting their probability mass from future draws. This adaptive pruning ensures that prefixes proven invalid are never revisited, acceptance rates improve monotonically, and the resulting samples exactly follow the constrained distribution. In experiments on a variety of domains -- e.g., program fuzzing and molecular generation -- CARS consistently achieves higher efficiency -- measured in the number of LM forward passes per valid sample -- while also producing stronger sample diversity than both GCD and methods that approximate the LM's distribution.