In Figure 1 we demonstrate the common neighbor (CN) distribution among positive and negative test samples for ogbl-collab, ogbl-ppa, and ogbl-citation2. These results demonstrate that a vast majority of negative samples have no CNs. Since CNs is a typically good heuristic, this makes it easy to identify most negative samples. We further present the CN distribution of Cora, Citeseer, Pubmed, and ogbl-ddi in Figure 3. The CN distribution of Cora, Citeseer, and Pubmed are consistent with our previous observations on the OGB datasets in Figure 1.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) show impressive performance in open-ended story generation, but fine-grained stylistic control remains limited. Existing methods often rely on shallow cues (e.g., names or topics) to simulate authorial style, without robust evaluation. In this work, we present a training framework for style-conditioned story generation using Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) and a custom multi-reward setup. The style reward is derived from a fine-tuned sentence transformer using authorship verification (AV) signals, combined with content and completeness scores to stabilize long-form narrative generation. We conduct experiments using fiction by Mark Twain, a prominent 19th-century American author, with The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn serving as the reference style exemplar. Our 8B model outperforms larger baselines such as GPT-4o and Claude Sonnet 4 in AV-style metrics, achieving a style score of 0.628 and competitive content quality. Results demonstrate the feasibility of agentic stylistic generation with moderate model size and task-specific training. While the output is clearly style-aligned, narrative completeness remains a challenge, indicating future work is needed to better model global coherence and story resolution.

With the exponential growth of research facilitated by modern technology and improved accessibility, scientific discoveries have become increasingly fragmented within and across fields. This makes it challenging to assess the significance, novelty, incremental findings, and equivalent ideas between related works, particularly those from different research communities. Large language models (LLMs) have recently demonstrated strong quantitative and qualitative reasoning abilities, and multi-agent LLM debates have shown promise in handling complex reasoning tasks by exploring diverse perspectives and reasoning paths. Inspired by this, we introduce Tree-of-Debate (ToD), a framework which converts scientific papers into LLM personas that debate their respective novelties. To emphasize structured, critical reasoning rather than focusing solely on outcomes, ToD dynamically constructs a debate tree, enabling fine-grained analysis of independent novelty arguments within scholarly articles. Through experiments on scientific literature across various domains, evaluated by expert researchers, we demonstrate that ToD generates informative arguments, effectively contrasts papers, and supports researchers in their literature review.

We present Gram2Vec, a grammatical style embedding algorithm that embeds documents into a higher dimensional space by extracting the normalized relative frequencies of grammatical features present in the text. Compared to neural approaches, Gram2Vec offers inherent interpretability based on how the feature vectors are generated. In our demo, we present a way to visualize a mapping of authors to documents based on their Gram2Vec vectors and highlight the ability to drop or add features to view which authors make certain linguistic choices. Next, we use authorship attribution as an application to show how Gram2Vec can explain why a document is attributed to a certain author, using cosine similarities between the Gram2Vec feature vectors to calculate the distances between candidate documents and a query document.

This study explores how discussing metaphors for AI can help build awareness of the frames that shape our understanding of AI systems, particularly large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT. Given the pressing need to teach "critical AI literacy", discussion of metaphor provides an opportunity for inquiry and dialogue with space for nuance, playfulness, and critique. Using a collaborative autoethnographic methodology, we analyzed metaphors from a range of sources, and reflected on them individually according to seven questions, then met and discussed our interpretations. We then analyzed how our reflections contributed to the three kinds of literacies delineated in Selber's multiliteracies framework: functional, critical, and rhetorical. These allowed us to analyze questions of ethics, equity, and accessibility in relation to AI. We explored each metaphor along the dimension of whether or not it was promoting anthropomorphizing, and to what extent such metaphors imply that AI is sentient. Our findings highlight the role of metaphor reflection in fostering a nuanced understanding of AI, suggesting that our collaborative autoethnographic approach as well as the heuristic model of plotting AI metaphors on dimensions of anthropomorphism and multiliteracies, might be useful for educators and researchers in the pursuit of advancing critical AI literacy.

Expert finding is an information retrieval task concerned with the search for the most knowledgeable people, in some topic, with basis on documents describing peoples activities. The task involves taking a user query as input and returning a list of people sorted by their level of expertise regarding the user query. This paper introduces a novel approach for combining multiple estimators of expertise based on a multisensor data fusion framework together with the Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence and Shannon's entropy. More specifically, we defined three sensors which detect heterogeneous information derived from the textual contents, from the graph structure of the citation patterns for the community of experts, and from profile information about the academic experts. Given the evidences collected, each sensor may define different candidates as experts and consequently do not agree in a final ranking decision. To deal with these conflicts, we applied the Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence combined with Shannon's Entropy formula to fuse this information and come up with a more accurate and reliable final ranking list. Experiments made over two datasets of academic publications from the Computer Science domain attest for the adequacy of the proposed approach over the traditional state of the art approaches. We also made experiments against representative supervised state of the art algorithms. Results revealed that the proposed method achieved a similar performance when compared to these supervised techniques, confirming the capabilities of the proposed framework.