Sample size calculations for power analysis are critical for clinical research and trial design, yet their complexity and reliance on statistical expertise create barriers for many researchers. We introduce PowerGPT, an AI-powered system integrating large language models (LLMs) with statistical engines to automate test selection and sample size estimation in trial design. In a randomized trial to evaluate its effectiveness, PowerGPT significantly improved task completion rates (99.3% vs. 88.9% for test selection, 99.3% vs. 77.8% for sample size calculation) and accuracy (94.1% vs. 55.4% in sample size estimation, p < 0.001), while reducing average completion time (4.0 vs. 9.3 minutes, p < 0.001). These gains were consistent across various statistical tests and benefited both statisticians and non-statisticians as well as bridging expertise gaps. Already under deployment across multiple institutions, PowerGPT represents a scalable AI-driven approach that enhances accessibility, efficiency, and accuracy in statistical power analysis for clinical research.

Reasoning language models such as DeepSeek-R1 produce long chain-of-thought traces during inference time which make them costly to deploy at scale. We show that using compression techniques such as neural network pruning produces greater performance loss than in typical language modeling tasks, and in some cases can make the model slower since they cause the model to produce more thinking tokens but with worse performance. We show that this is partly due to the fact that standard LLM pruning methods often focus on input reconstruction, whereas reasoning is a decode-dominated task. We introduce a simple, drop-in fix: during pruning we jointly reconstruct activations from the input and the model's on-policy chain-of-thought traces. This "Reasoning-Aware Compression" (RAC) integrates seamlessly into existing pruning workflows such as SparseGPT, and boosts their performance significantly. Code reproducing the results in the paper can be found at: https://github.com/RyanLucas3/RAC

Despite advances in natural language generation and understanding, LM still struggle with fine grained linguistic phenomena such as tense, negation, voice, and modality which are the elements central to effective human communication. In the context of the United Nations SDG 4, where linguistic clarity is critical, the deployment of LMs in educational technologies demands careful scrutiny. As LMs are increasingly powering applications like tutoring systems, automated grading, and translation, their alignment with human linguistic interpretation becomes essential for effective learning. In this study, we conduct a evaluation of SOTA language models across these challenging contexts in both English and Bengali. To ensure a structured assessment, we introduce a new Route for Evaluation of Cognitive Inference in Systematic Environments guidelines. Our proposed LUCID dataset, composed of carefully crafted sentence pairs in English and Bengali, specifically challenges these models on critical aspects of language comprehension, including negation, tense, voice variations. We assess the performance of SOTA models including MISTRAL-SABA-24B, LLaMA-4-Scout-17B, LLaMA-3.3-70B, Gemma2-9B, and Compound-Beta using standard metrics like Pearson correlation, Spearman correlation, and Mean Absolute Error, as well as novel, linguistically inspired metric the HCE accuracy. The HCE accuracy measures how often model predictions fall within one standard deviation of the mean human rating, thus capturing human like tolerance for variability in language interpretation. Our findings highlight Compound-Beta as the most balanced model, consistently achieving high correlations and low MAEs across diverse language conditions. It records the highest Pearson correlation in English and demonstrates robust performance on mixed-language data, indicating a strong alignment with human judgments in cross lingual scenarios.

The effectiveness of in-context learning relies heavily on selecting demonstrations that provide all the necessary information for a given test input. To achieve this, it is crucial to identify and cover fine-grained knowledge requirements. However, prior methods often retrieve demonstrations based solely on embedding similarity or generation probability, resulting in irrelevant or redundant examples. In this paper, we propose TopicK, a topic coverage-based retrieval framework that selects demonstrations to comprehensively cover topic-level knowledge relevant to both the test input and the model. Specifically, TopicK estimates the topics required by the input and assesses the model's knowledge on those topics. TopicK then iteratively selects demonstrations that introduce previously uncovered required topics, in which the model exhibits low topical knowledge. We validate the effectiveness of TopicK through extensive experiments across various datasets and both open- and closed-source LLMs. Our source code is available at https://github.com/WonbinKweon/TopicK_EMNLP2025.

Understanding user intents from UI interaction trajectories remains a challenging, yet crucial, frontier in intelligent agent development. While massive, datacenter-based, multi-modal large language models (MLLMs) possess greater capacity to handle the complexities of such sequences, smaller models which can run on-device to provide a privacy-preserving, low-cost, and low-latency user experience, struggle with accurate intent inference. We address these limitations by introducing a novel decomposed approach: first, we perform structured interaction summarization, capturing key information from each user action. Second, we perform intent extraction using a fine-tuned model operating on the aggregated summaries. This method improves intent understanding in resource-constrained models, even surpassing the base performance of large MLLMs.

Evaluating natural language generation (NLG) systems in the medical domain presents unique challenges due to the critical demands for accuracy, relevance, and domain-specific expertise. Traditional automatic evaluation metrics, such as BLEU, ROUGE, and BERTScore, often fall short in distinguishing between high-quality outputs, especially given the open-ended nature of medical question answering (QA) tasks where multiple valid responses may exist. In this work, we introduce MORQA (Medical Open-Response QA), a new multilingual benchmark designed to assess the effectiveness of NLG evaluation metrics across three medical visual and text-based QA datasets in English and Chinese. Unlike prior resources, our datasets feature 2-4+ gold-standard answers authored by medical professionals, along with expert human ratings for three English and Chinese subsets. We benchmark both traditional metrics and large language model (LLM)-based evaluators, such as GPT-4 and Gemini, finding that LLM-based approaches significantly outperform traditional metrics in correlating with expert judgments. We further analyze factors driving this improvement, including LLMs' sensitivity to semantic nuances and robustness to variability among reference answers. Our results provide the first comprehensive, multilingual qualitative study of NLG evaluation in the medical domain, highlighting the need for human-aligned evaluation methods. All datasets and annotations will be publicly released to support future research.

Large language models have shown impressive performance in various domains, including code generation across diverse open-source domains. However, their applicability in proprietary industrial settings, where domain-specific constraints and code interdependencies are prevalent, remains largely unexplored. We present a case study conducted in collaboration with the leveling department at ASML to investigate the performance of LLMs in generating functional, maintainable code within a closed, highly specialized software environment. We developed an evaluation framework tailored to ASML's proprietary codebase and introduced a new benchmark. Additionally, we proposed a new evaluation metric, build@k, to assess whether LLM-generated code successfully compiles and integrates within real industrial repositories. We investigate various prompting techniques, compare the performance of generic and code-specific LLMs, and examine the impact of model size on code generation capabilities, using both match-based and execution-based metrics. The findings reveal that prompting techniques and model size have a significant impact on output quality, with few-shot and chain-of-thought prompting yielding the highest build success rates. The difference in performance between the code-specific LLMs and generic LLMs was less pronounced and varied substantially across different model families.

As LLMs excel on standard reading comprehension benchmarks, attention is shifting toward evaluating their capacity for complex abstract reasoning and inference. Literature-based benchmarks, with their rich narrative and moral depth, provide a compelling framework for evaluating such deeper comprehension skills. Here, we present MORABLES, a human-verified benchmark built from fables and short stories drawn from historical literature. The main task is structured as multiple-choice questions targeting moral inference, with carefully crafted distractors that challenge models to go beyond shallow, extractive question answering. To further stress-test model robustness, we introduce adversarial variants designed to surface LLM vulnerabilities and shortcuts due to issues such as data contamination. Our findings show that, while larger models outperform smaller ones, they remain susceptible to adversarial manipulation and often rely on superficial patterns rather than true moral reasoning. This brittleness results in significant self-contradiction, with the best models refuting their own answers in roughly 20% of cases depending on the framing of the moral choice. Interestingly, reasoning-enhanced models fail to bridge this gap, suggesting that scale - not reasoning ability - is the primary driver of performance.

Recently, embedding resources, including models, benchmarks, and datasets, have been widely released to support a variety of languages. However, the Dutch language remains underrepresented, typically comprising only a small fraction of the published multilingual resources. To address this gap and encourage the further development of Dutch embeddings, we introduce new resources for their evaluation and generation. First, we introduce the Massive Text Embedding Benchmark for Dutch (MTEB-NL), which includes both existing Dutch datasets and newly created ones, covering a wide range of tasks. Second, we provide a training dataset compiled from available Dutch retrieval datasets, complemented with synthetic data generated by large language models to expand task coverage beyond retrieval. Finally, we release a series of E5-NL models compact yet efficient embedding models that demonstrate strong performance across multiple tasks. We make our resources publicly available through the Hugging Face Hub and the MTEB package.

Advances in AI-assisted research have introduced powerful tools for literature retrieval, hypothesis generation, experimentation, and manuscript preparation. However, systems remain fragmented and lack human-centred workflows. To address these gaps, we introduce AIssistant, an agentic, open-source Human-AI collaborative framework designed to simplify the end-to-end creation of scientific workflows. Since our development is still in an early stage, we present here the first experiments with AIssistant for perspective and review research papers in machine learning. Our system integrates modular tools and agents for literature synthesis, section-wise experimentation, citation management, and automatic LaTeX paper text generation, while maintaining human oversight at every stage to ensure accuracy, coherence, and scholarly rigour. We conducted a comprehensive evaluation across three layers: (1) Independent Human Review, following NeurIPS double-blind standards; (2) Automated LLM Review, using GPT-5 as a scalable human review proxy; and (3) Program Chair Oversight, where the chair monitors the entire review process and makes final validation and acceptance decisions. The results demonstrate that AIssistant improves drafting efficiency and thematic consistency. Nonetheless, Human-AI collaboration remains essential for maintaining factual correctness, methodological soundness, and ethical compliance. Despite its effectiveness, we identify key limitations, including hallucinated citations, difficulty adapting to dynamic paper structures, and incomplete integration of multimodal content.