Despite the increasing use of large language models (LLMs) in education, concerns have emerged about their potential to reduce deep thinking and active learning. This study investigates the impact of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools, specifically ChatGPT, on the cognitive engagement of students during academic writing tasks. The study employed an experimental design with participants randomly assigned to either an AI-assisted (ChatGPT) or a non-assisted (control) condition. Participants completed a structured argumentative writing task followed by a cognitive engagement scale (CES), the CES-AI, developed to assess mental effort, attention, deep processing, and strategic thinking. The results revealed significantly lower cognitive engagement scores in the ChatGPT group compared to the control group. These findings suggest that AI assistance may lead to cognitive offloading. The study contributes to the growing body of literature on the psychological implications of AI in education and raises important questions about the integration of such tools into academic practice. It calls for pedagogical strategies that promote active, reflective engagement with AI-generated content to avoid compromising self-regulated learning and deep cognitive involvement of students.

While large language models have demonstrated impressive capabilities in web navigation tasks, the extensive context of web pages, often represented as DOM or Accessibility Tree (AxTree) structures, frequently exceeds model context limits. Current approaches like bottom-up truncation or embedding-based retrieval lose critical information about page state and action history. This is particularly problematic for adaptive planning in web agents, where understanding the current state is essential for determining future actions. We hypothesize that embedding models lack sufficient capacity to capture plan-relevant information, especially when retrieving content that supports future action prediction. This raises a fundamental question: how can retrieval methods be optimized for adaptive planning in web navigation tasks? In response, we introduce \textit{LineRetriever}, a novel approach that leverages a language model to identify and retrieve observation lines most relevant to future navigation steps. Unlike traditional retrieval methods that focus solely on semantic similarity, \textit{LineRetriever} explicitly considers the planning horizon, prioritizing elements that contribute to action prediction. Our experiments demonstrate that \textit{LineRetriever} can reduce the size of the observation at each step for the web agent while maintaining consistent performance within the context limitations.

Implicit Sentiment Analysis (ISA) aims to infer sentiment that is implied rather than explicitly stated, requiring models to perform deeper reasoning over subtle contextual cues. While recent prompting-based methods using Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in ISA, they often rely on majority voting over chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning paths without evaluating their causal validity, making them susceptible to internal biases and spurious correlations. To address this challenge, we propose CAPITAL, a causal prompting framework that incorporates front-door adjustment into CoT reasoning. CAPITAL decomposes the overall causal effect into two components: the influence of the input prompt on the reasoning chains, and the impact of those chains on the final output. These components are estimated using encoder-based clustering and the NWGM approximation, with a contrastive learning objective used to better align the encoder's representation with the LLM's reasoning space. Experiments on benchmark ISA datasets with three LLMs demonstrate that CAPITAL consistently outperforms strong prompting baselines in both accuracy and robustness, particularly under adversarial conditions. This work offers a principled approach to integrating causal inference into LLM prompting and highlights its benefits for bias-aware sentiment reasoning. The source code and case study are available at: https://github.com/whZ62/CAPITAL.

The long-standing vision of intelligent cities is to create efficient, livable, and sustainable urban environments using big data and artificial intelligence technologies. Recently, the advent of Large Language Models (LLMs) has opened new ways toward realizing this vision. With powerful semantic understanding and reasoning capabilities, LLMs can be deployed as intelligent agents capable of autonomously solving complex problems across domains. In this article, we focus on Urban LLM Agents, which are LLM-powered agents that are semi-embodied within the hybrid cyber-physical-social space of cities and used for system-level urban decision-making. First, we introduce the concept of urban LLM agents, discussing their unique capabilities and features. Second, we survey the current research landscape from the perspective of agent workflows, encompassing urban sensing, memory management, reasoning, execution, and learning. Third, we categorize the application domains of urban LLM agents into five groups: urban planning, transportation, environment, public safety, and urban society, presenting representative works in each group. Finally, we discuss trustworthiness and evaluation issues that are critical for real-world deployment, and identify several open problems for future research. This survey aims to establish a foundation for the emerging field of urban LLM agents and to provide a roadmap for advancing the intersection of LLMs and urban intelligence. A curated list of relevant papers and open-source resources is maintained and continuously updated at https://github.com/usail-hkust/Awesome-Urban-LLM-Agents.

Large Language Models (LLMs) trained via Reinforcement Learning (RL) have recently achieved impressive results on reasoning benchmarks. Yet, growing evidence shows that these models often generate longer but ineffective chains of thought (CoTs), calling into question whether benchmark gains reflect real reasoning improvements. We present new evidence of overthinking, where models disregard correct solutions even when explicitly provided, instead continuing to generate unnecessary reasoning steps that often lead to incorrect conclusions. Experiments on three state-of-the-art models using the AIME2024 math benchmark reveal critical limitations in these models ability to integrate corrective information, posing new challenges for achieving robust and interpretable reasoning.

We investigate how Large Language Models (LLMs) behave when simulating political discourse on social media. Leveraging 21 million interactions on X during the 2024 U.S. presidential election, we construct LLM agents based on 1,186 real users, prompting them to reply to politically salient tweets under controlled conditions. Agents are initialized either with minimal ideological cues (Zero Shot) or recent tweet history (Few Shot), allowing one-to-one comparisons with human replies. We evaluate three model families (Gemini, Mistral, and DeepSeek) across linguistic style, ideological consistency, and toxicity. We find that richer contextualization improves internal consistency but also amplifies polarization, stylized signals, and harmful language. We observe an emergent distortion that we call "generation exaggeration": a systematic amplification of salient traits beyond empirical baselines. Our analysis shows that LLMs do not emulate users, they reconstruct them. Their outputs, indeed, reflect internal optimization dynamics more than observed behavior, introducing structural biases that compromise their reliability as social proxies. This challenges their use in content moderation, deliberative simulations, and policy modeling.

Computer manufacturers offer platforms for users to describe device faults using textual reports such as "My screen is flickering". Identifying the faulty component from the report is essential for automating tests and improving user experience. However, such reports are often ambiguous and lack detail, making this task challenging. Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in addressing such issues. This study evaluates 27 open-source models (1B-72B parameters) and 2 proprietary LLMs using four prompting strategies: Zero-Shot, Few-Shot, Chain-of-Thought (CoT), and CoT+Few-Shot (CoT+FS). W e conducted 98,948 inferences, processing over 51 million input tokens and generating 13 million output tokens. W e achieve f1-score up to 0.76. Results show that three models offer the best balance between size and performance: mistral-small-24b-instruct and two smaller models, llama-3.2-1b-instruct

--Compound AI (cAI) systems chain multiple AI models to solve complex problems. Deploying cAI services on mobile edge platforms poses a significant challenge in scheduling concurrent DNN-transformer inference tasks, which arrive dynamically in an unknown sequence. Existing mobile edge AI inference strategies manage multi-DNN or transformer-only workloads, relying on design-time profiling, and cannot handle concurrent inference of DNNs and transformers required by cAI systems. In this work, we address the challenge of scheduling cAI systems on heterogeneous mobile edge platforms. We present Twill, a run-time framework to handle concurrent inference requests of cAI workloads through task affinity-aware cluster mapping and migration, priority-aware task freezing/unfreezing, and Dynamic V oltage/Frequency Scaling (DVFS), while minimizing inference latency within power budgets. We implement and deploy our Twill framework on the Nvidia Jetson Orin NX platform. We evaluate Twill against state-of-the-art edge AI inference techniques over contemporary DNNs and LLMs, reducing inference latency by 54% on average, while honoring power budgets. AI applications are rapidly evolving from monolithic models towards Compound Artificial Intelligence (cAI) systems, which integrate multiple task-specific models and components to solve complex problems [1]-[3]. Emerging cAI systems combine Large Language Models (LLMs) with Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) for providing novel services such as conversational language agents [2]-[5], augmented and virtual reality (AR/VR) gear, and interactive autonomous vehicles [6]. In this example, DNN models ( D1: VGG-19 and D2: ResNet-152) are used for image classification, and object detection, transformer models ( T1: Bert-base and T2: Bert-large) are used for text summarizing and classification, and generative transformers ( T3: OPT-350M and LLM: Deepseek-R1) are used for reasoning and report generation. Each model is responsible for extracting key features from the given input and sending the output to the subsequent models to perform collaborative tasks. T1, D1, and D2 are exclusive inference tasks that can run simultaneously, while T2, T3, and LLM are dependent on the outputs of other models. We deployed the exemplar cAI system on the Nvidia Jetson Orin NX platform.

The aim of this paper is to review the use of GenAI in scientometrics, and to begin a debate on the broader implications for the field. First, we provide an introduction on GenAI's generative and probabilistic nature as rooted in distributional linguistics. And we relate this to the debate on the extent to which GenAI might be able to mimic human 'reasoning'. Second, we leverage this distinction for a critical engagement with recent experiments using GenAI in scientometrics, including topic labelling, the analysis of citation contexts, predictive applications, scholars' profiling, and research assessment. GenAI shows promise in tasks where language generation dominates, such as labelling, but faces limitations in tasks that require stable semantics, pragmatic reasoning, or structured domain knowledge. However, these results might become quickly outdated. Our recommendation is, therefore, to always strive to systematically compare the performance of different GenAI models for specific tasks. Third, we inquire whether, by generating large amounts of scientific language, GenAI might have a fundamental impact on our field by affecting textual characteristics used to measure science, such as authors, words, and references. We argue that careful empirical work and theoretical reflection will be essential to remain capable of interpreting the evolving patterns of knowledge production.

Topic model and document-clustering evaluations either use automated metrics that align poorly with human preferences or require expert labels that are intractable to scale. We design a scalable human evaluation protocol and a corresponding automated approximation that reflect practitioners' real-world usage of models. Annotators -- or an LLM-based proxy -- review text items assigned to a topic or cluster, infer a category for the group, then apply that category to other documents. Using this protocol, we collect extensive crowdworker annotations of outputs from a diverse set of topic models on two datasets. We then use these annotations to validate automated proxies, finding that the best LLM proxies are statistically indistinguishable from a human annotator and can therefore serve as a reasonable substitute in automated evaluations. Package, web interface, and data are at https://github.com/ahoho/proxann