Capped-usage SaaS products -- LLM subscriptions such as Claude Code and ChatGPT, cloud platforms such as Vercel and Cloudflare Workers, corporate benefit platforms, identity-verification services with liability transfer -- share a structural signature with insurance products: a fixed premium decoupled from realized consumption, stochastic per-user demand with heavy-tailed severity, a non-fungible cap that resets on a fixed schedule, and a portfolio-level exposure that requires reserve adequacy under tail risk. We argue that this is not an analogy. It is the same operational problem actuarial science has been tooled for decades to address, restated with new dependent variables (tokens, bandwidth bytes, function-invocations, gym check-ins) in place of medical claims. This paper proposes a modeling framework for capped-usage SaaS pricing built from frequency-severity decomposition, premium calculation principles, and Monte Carlo reserve adequacy. We map the framework to publicly observable subscription tiers in two domains (LLM services and cloud platforms), ground it in canonical health-insurance economics (Arrow 1963; Pauly 1968; Manning et al. 1987; Brot-Goldberg et al. 2017), and demonstrate divergence from traditional unit economics through a worked example. The contribution is operational rather than theoretical: not a new theorem, but vocabulary and tools currently absent from cs.LG/stat.ML practice.

Novel object captioning (NOC) aims to describe images containing objects without observing their ground truth captions during training.

Adaptive learning often diagnoses precisely yet intervenes weakly, yielding help that is mistimed or misaligned. This study presents evidence supporting an instructor-governed feedback loop that converts concept-level assessment evidence into vetted micro-interventions. The adaptive learning algorithm contains three safeguards: adequacy as a hard guarantee of gap closure, attention as a budgeted constraint for time and redundancy, and diversity as protection against overfitting to a single resource. We formalize intervention assignment as a binary integer program with constraints for coverage, time, difficulty windows informed by ability estimates, prerequisites encoded by a concept matrix, and anti-redundancy enforced through diversity. Greedy selection serves low-richness and tight-latency regimes, gradient-based relaxation serves rich repositories, and a hybrid method transitions along a richness-latency frontier. In simulation and in an introductory physics deployment with one thousand two hundred four students, both solvers achieved full skill coverage for essentially all learners within bounded watch time. The gradient-based method reduced redundant coverage by approximately twelve percentage points relative to greedy and harmonized difficulty across slates, while greedy delivered comparable adequacy with lower computational cost in scarce settings. Slack variables localized missing content and supported targeted curation, sustaining sufficiency across subgroups. The result is a tractable and auditable controller that closes the diagnostic-pedagogical loop and delivers equitable, load-aware personalization at classroom scale.

The impact of Large Language Models (LLMs) has extended into literary domains. However, existing evaluation metrics for literature prioritize mechanical accuracy over artistic expression and tend to overrate machine translation as being superior to human translation from experienced professionals. In the long run, this bias could result in an irreversible decline in translation quality and cultural authenticity. In response to the urgent need for a specialized literary evaluation metric, we introduce LITRANSPROQA, a novel, reference-free, LLM-based question-answering framework designed for literary translation evaluation. LITRANSPROQA integrates humans in the loop to incorporate insights from professional literary translators and researchers, focusing on critical elements in literary quality assessment such as literary devices, cultural understanding, and authorial voice. Our extensive evaluation shows that while literary-finetuned XCOMET-XL yields marginal gains, LITRANSPROQA substantially outperforms current metrics, achieving up to 0.07 gain in correlation and surpassing the best state-of-the-art metrics by over 15 points in adequacy assessments. Incorporating professional translator insights as weights further improves performance, highlighting the value of translator inputs. Notably, LITRANSPROQA reaches an adequacy performance comparable to trained linguistic student evaluators, though it still falls behind experienced professional translators. LITRANSPROQA shows broad applicability to open-source models like LLaMA3.3-70b and Qwen2.5-32b, indicating its potential as an accessible and training-free tool for evaluating literary translations that require local processing due to copyright or ethical considerations.

This paper presents the third edition of AutoMin, a shared task on automatic meeting summarization into minutes. In 2025, AutoMin featured the main task of minuting, the creation of structured meeting minutes, as well as a new task: question answering (QA) based on meeting transcripts. The minuting task covered two languages, English and Czech, and two domains: project meetings and European Parliament sessions. The QA task focused solely on project meetings and was available in two settings: monolingual QA in English, and cross-lingual QA, where questions were asked and answered in Czech based on English meetings. Participation in 2025 was more limited compared to previous years, with only one team joining the minuting task and two teams participating in QA. However, as organizers, we included multiple baseline systems to enable a comprehensive evaluation of current (2025) large language models (LLMs) on both tasks.

Code documentation is useful, but writing it is time-consuming. Different techniques for generating code summaries have emerged, but comparing them is difficult because human evaluation is expensive and automatic metrics are unreliable. In this paper, we introduce a simple new baseline in which we ask an LLM to give an overall score to a summary. Unlike n-gram and embedding-based baselines, our approach is able to consider the code when giving a score. This allows us to also make a variant that does not consider the reference summary at all, which could be used for other tasks, e.g., to evaluate the quality of documentation in code bases. We find that our method is as good or better than prior metrics, though we recommend using it in conjunction with embedding-based methods to avoid the risk of LLM-specific bias.

Uniform Meaning Representation (UMR) is a recently developed graph-based semantic representation, which expands on Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) in a number of ways, in particular through the inclusion of document-level information and multilingual flexibility. In order to effectively adopt and leverage UMR for downstream tasks, efforts must be placed toward developing a UMR technological ecosystem. Though still limited amounts of UMR annotations have been produced to date, in this work, we investigate the first approaches to producing text from multilingual UMR graphs: (1) a pipeline conversion of UMR to AMR, then using AMR-to-text generation models, (2) fine-tuning large language models with UMR data, and (3) fine-tuning existing AMR-to-text generation models with UMR data. Our best performing model achieves a multilingual BERTscore of 0.825 for English and 0.882 for Chinese when compared to the reference, which is a promising indication of the effectiveness of fine-tuning approaches for UMR-to-text generation with even limited amounts of UMR data.

A significant debate has emerged in response to a paper written by Steven Piantadosi (Piantadosi, 2023) and uploaded to the LingBuzz platform, the open archive for generative linguistics. Piantadosi's dismissal of Chomsky's approach is ruthless, but generative linguists deserve it. In this paper, I will adopt three idealized perspectives -- computational, theoretical, and experimental -- to focus on two fundamental issues that lend partial support to Piantadosi's critique: (a) the evidence challenging the Poverty of Stimulus (PoS) hypothesis and (b) the notion of simplicity as conceived within mainstream Minimalism. In conclusion, I argue that, to reclaim a central role in language studies, generative linguistics -- representing a prototypical theoretical perspective on language -- needs a serious update leading to (i) more precise, consistent, and complete formalizations of foundational intuitions and (ii) the establishment and utilization of a standardized dataset of crucial empirical evidence to evaluate the theory's adequacy. On the other hand, ignoring the formal perspective leads to major drawbacks in both computational and experimental approaches. Neither descriptive nor explanatory adequacy can be easily achieved without the precise formulation of general principles that can be challenged empirically.

Test-driven development (TDD) is the practice of writing tests first and coding later, and the proponents of TDD expound its numerous benefits. For instance, given an issue on a source code repository, tests can clarify the desired behavior among stake-holders before anyone writes code for the agreed-upon fix. Although there has been a lot of work on automated test generation for the practice "write code first, test later", there has been little such automation for TDD. Ideally, tests for TDD should be fail-to-pass (i.e., fail before the issue is resolved and pass after) and have good adequacy with respect to covering the code changed during issue resolution. This paper introduces TDD-Bench Verified, a high-quality benchmark suite of 449 issues mined from real-world GitHub code repositories. The benchmark's evaluation harness runs only relevant tests in isolation for simple yet accurate coverage measurements, and the benchmark's dataset is filtered both by human judges and by execution in the harness. This paper also presents Auto-TDD, an LLM-based solution that takes as input an issue description and a codebase (prior to issue resolution) and returns as output a test that can be used to validate the changes made for resolving the issue. Our evaluation shows that Auto-TDD yields a better fail-to-pass rate than the strongest prior work while also yielding high coverage adequacy. Overall, we hope that this work helps make developers more productive at resolving issues while simultaneously leading to more robust fixes.