Language Models (LMs) have revolutionized natural language processing, enabling high-quality text generation through prompting and in-context learning. However, models often struggle with long-context summarization due to positional biases, leading to suboptimal extraction of critical information. There are techniques to improve this with fine-tuning, pipelining, or using complex techniques, which have their own challenges. To solve these challenges, we propose QA-prompting - a simple prompting method for summarization that utilizes question-answering as an intermediate step prior to summary generation. Our method extracts key information and enriches the context of text to mitigate positional biases and improve summarization in a single LM call per task without requiring fine-tuning or pipelining. Experiments on multiple datasets belonging to different domains using ten state-of-the-art pre-trained models demonstrate that QA-prompting outperforms baseline and other state-of-the-art methods, achieving up to 29% improvement in ROUGE scores. This provides an effective and scalable solution for summarization and highlights the importance of domain-specific question selection for optimal performance.

Reinforcement Learning has emerged as the fundamental technique for enhancing reasoning in LLMs. However, existing algorithms apply uniform optimization to all tokens, ignoring their different roles in reasoning process. To address this limitation, we introduce Heterogeneous Adaptive Policy Optimization (HAPO), a comprehensive token-aware algorithm that dynamically adapts optimization based on token entropy. For rollout sampling, we propose Adaptive Temperature Sampling, which adjusts sampling temperature in real time, promoting exploration at high-entropy tokens while preserving coherence at low-entropy ones. For advantage calculation, we introduce Token Level Group Average that normalizes advantages at token level, jointly accounting for sequence-length as in token-mean loss while preserving non-biased treatment. We then develop Differential Advantage Redistribution that leverages entropy and importance ratios to modulate rewards-adjusting updates for tokens with clear signals. For clipping loss, we design Asymmetric Adaptive Clipping, allowing aggressive probability reduction for noisy low-entropy tokens while enabling exploration for high-entropy tokens. Through systematic investigation between entropy and training dynamics, we embedded token-level treatment into every stages to achieve fine-grained control. Extensive experiments demonstrate that HAPO consistently outperforms DAPO across multiple model scales. Our code can be found in https://github.com/starriver030515/HAPO.

Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at understanding natural language but struggle with explicit commonsense reasoning. A recent trend of research suggests that the combination of LLM with robust symbolic reasoning systems can overcome this problem on story-based question answering tasks. In this setting, existing approaches typically depend on human expertise to manually craft the symbolic component. We argue, however, that this component can also be automatically learned from examples. In this work, we introduce LLM2LAS, a hybrid system that effectively combines the natural language understanding capabilities of LLMs, the rule induction power of the Learning from Answer Sets (LAS) system ILASP, and the formal reasoning strengths of Answer Set Programming (ASP). LLMs are used to extract semantic structures from text, which ILASP then transforms into interpretable logic rules. These rules allow an ASP solver to perform precise and consistent reasoning, enabling correct answers to previously unseen questions. Empirical results outline the strengths and weaknesses of our automatic approach for learning and reasoning in a story-based question answering benchmark.

Grounding large language models (LLMs) in external knowledge sources is a promising method for faithful prediction. While existing grounding approaches work well for simple queries, many real-world information needs require synthesizing multiple pieces of evidence. We introduce "integrative grounding" -- the challenge of retrieving and verifying multiple inter-dependent pieces of evidence to support a hypothesis query. To systematically study this problem, we repurpose data from four domains for evaluating integrative grounding capabilities. Our investigation reveals two critical findings: First, in groundedness verification, while LLMs are robust to redundant evidence, they tend to rationalize using internal knowledge when information is incomplete. Second, in examining retrieval planning strategies, we find that undirected planning can degrade performance through noise introduction, while premise abduction emerges as a promising approach due to its logical constraints. Additionally, LLMs' zero-shot self-reflection capabilities consistently improve grounding quality. These insights provide valuable direction for developing more effective integrative grounding systems.

Large Language Models (LLMs) often exhibit sycophancy, distorting responses to align with user beliefs, notably by readily agreeing with user counterarguments. Paradoxically, LLMs are increasingly adopted as successful evaluative agents for tasks such as grading and adjudicating claims. This research investigates that tension: why do LLMs show sycophancy when challenged in subsequent conversational turns, yet perform well when evaluating conflicting arguments presented simultaneously? We empirically tested these contrasting scenarios by varying key interaction patterns. We find that state-of-the-art models: (1) are more likely to endorse a user's counterargument when framed as a follow-up from a user, rather than when both responses are presented simultaneously for evaluation; (2) show increased susceptibility to persuasion when the user's rebuttal includes detailed reasoning, even when the conclusion of the reasoning is incorrect; and (3) are more readily swayed by casually phrased feedback than by formal critiques, even when the casual input lacks justification. Our results highlight the risk of relying on LLMs for judgment tasks without accounting for conversational framing.

Large Language Models (LLMs) with hundreds of billions of parameters have exhibited human-like intelligence by learning from vast amounts of internet-scale data. However, the uninterpretability of large-scale neural networks raises concerns about the reliability of LLM. Studies have attempted to assess the psychometric properties of LLMs by borrowing concepts from human psychology to enhance their interpretability, but they fail to account for the fundamental differences between LLMs and humans. This results in high rejection rates when human scales are reused directly. Furthermore, these scales do not support the measurement of LLM psychological property variations in different languages. This paper introduces AIPsychoBench, a specialized benchmark tailored to assess the psychological properties of LLM. It uses a lightweight role-playing prompt to bypass LLM alignment, improving the average effective response rate from 70.12% to 90.40%. Meanwhile, the average biases are only 3.3% (positive) and 2.1% (negative), which are significantly lower than the biases of 9.8% and 6.9%, respectively, caused by traditional jailbreak prompts. Furthermore, among the total of 112 psychometric subcategories, the score deviations for seven languages compared to English ranged from 5% to 20.2% in 43 subcategories, providing the first comprehensive evidence of the linguistic impact on the psychometrics of LLM.

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved promising results in tabular data generation. However, inherent historical biases in tabular datasets often cause LLMs to exacerbate fairness issues, particularly when multiple advantaged and protected features are involved. In this work, we introduce a universal debiasing framework that minimizes group-level dependencies by simultaneously reducing the mutual information between advantaged and protected attributes. By leveraging the autoregressive structure and analytic sampling distributions of LLM-based tabular data generators, our approach efficiently computes mutual information, reducing the need for cumbersome numerical estimations. Building on this foundation, we propose two complementary methods: a direct preference optimization (DPO)-based strategy, namely UDF-DPO, that integrates seamlessly with existing models, and a targeted debiasing technique, namely UDF-MIX, that achieves debiasing without tuning the parameters of LLMs. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our framework effectively balances fairness and utility, offering a scalable and practical solution for debiasing in high-stakes applications.

Language-driven generative agents have enabled large-scale social simulations with transformative uses, from interpersonal training to aiding global policy-making. However, recent studies indicate that generative agent behaviors often deviate from expert expectations and real-world data--a phenomenon we term the Behavior-Realism Gap. To address this, we introduce a theoretical framework called Persona-Environment Behavioral Alignment (PEBA), formulated as a distribution matching problem grounded in Lewin's behavior equation stating that behavior is a function of the person and their environment. Leveraging PEBA, we propose PersonaEvolve (PEvo), an LLM-based optimization algorithm that iteratively refines agent personas, implicitly aligning their collective behaviors with realistic expert benchmarks within a specified environmental context. We validate PEvo in an active shooter incident simulation we developed, achieving an 84% average reduction in distributional divergence compared to no steering and a 34% improvement over explicit instruction baselines. Results also show PEvo-refined personas generalize to novel, related simulation scenarios. Our method greatly enhances behavioral realism and reliability in high-stakes social simulations. More broadly, the PEBA-PEvo framework provides a principled approach to developing trustworthy LLM-driven social simulations.

Video-to-text and text-to-video retrieval are dominated by English benchmarks (e.g. DiDeMo, MSR-VTT) and recent multilingual corpora (e.g. RUDDER), yet Arabic remains underserved, lacking localized evaluation metrics. We introduce a three-stage framework, AutoArabic, utilizing state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) to translate non-Arabic benchmarks into Modern Standard Arabic, reducing the manual revision required by nearly fourfold. The framework incorporates an error detection module that automatically flags potential translation errors with 97% accuracy. Applying the framework to DiDeMo, a video retrieval benchmark produces DiDeMo-AR, an Arabic variant with 40,144 fluent Arabic descriptions. An analysis of the translation errors is provided and organized into an insightful taxonomy to guide future Arabic localization efforts. We train a CLIP-style baseline with identical hyperparameters on the Arabic and English variants of the benchmark, finding a moderate performance gap (about 3 percentage points at Recall@1), indicating that Arabic localization preserves benchmark difficulty. We evaluate three post-editing budgets (zero/ flagged-only/ full) and find that performance improves monotonically with more post-editing, while the raw LLM output (zero-budget) remains usable. To ensure reproducibility to other languages, we made the code available at https://github.com/Tahaalshatiri/AutoArabic.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in socially complex, interaction-driven tasks, yet their ability to mirror human behavior in emotionally and strategically complex contexts remains underexplored. This study assesses the behavioral alignment of personality-prompted LLMs in adversarial dispute resolution by simulating multi-turn conflict dialogues that incorporate negotiation. Each LLM is guided by a matched Five-Factor personality profile to control for individual variation and enhance realism. We evaluate alignment across three dimensions: linguistic style, emotional expression (e.g., anger dynamics), and strategic behavior. GPT-4.1 achieves the closest alignment with humans in linguistic style and emotional dynamics, while Claude-3.7-Sonnet best reflects strategic behavior. Nonetheless, substantial alignment gaps persist. Our findings establish a benchmark for alignment between LLMs and humans in socially complex interactions, underscoring both the promise and the limitations of personality conditioning in dialogue modeling.