arXiv:2606. 24890v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Can a small group of volunteers shape how AI systems discuss animal welfare, just by editing Wikipedia?
arXiv:2608.21829v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation treats the document store as a frozen input, and the systems that instead let an agent curate one never measure what c...
arXiv:2606. 19625v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: We use training-data attribution as an interpretable tool for capability discovery, mapping which regions of the pretraining corpus support social-reasoning versus STEM-reasoning in OLMo3-7B.
The paper investigates how large language models can extract contextualized data from scientific literature. It presents four workflows: expert‑written prompts, self‑generated prompts, autonomous literature discovery, and dataset creation from guidelines. While models perform well with prompts, they struggle with context, hallucinate references, and still need human oversight for final validation.
arXiv:2606. 28358v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) aims to enhance the trustworthiness of Large Language Models (LLMs) by grounding their outputs in external documents, often using inline citations for verifiability.
arXiv:2606. 26102v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Standard post-training pipelines apply supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and reinforcement learning (RL) to make language models helpful, but these processes may inadvertently degrade values instilled during pre-training.
arXiv:2606. 19625v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We use training-data attribution as an interpretable tool for capability discovery, mapping which regions of the pretraining corpus support social-reasoning versus STEM-reasoning in OLMo3-7B.
arXiv:2607. 20433v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: While language models remain frozen at their training state, the world evolves continuously.
arXiv:2512. 04144v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Targeted interventions on language models, such as unlearning or model editing, aim to modify specific information, but their effects often propagate to related, unintended areas (e.
The paper evaluates browser-based large language models (LLMs) for extracting detailed, contextualized data from scientific papers. It presents four workflows: (1) expert-curated prompts yield good extraction but struggle with nuance; (2) LLMs can generate effective prompts from simple instructions; (3) autonomous literature discovery is challenging, with missing or hallucinated references; (4) LLMs can build new datasets from guidelines that align closely with human experts, yet still need human oversight. The study outlines a practical, auditable workflow where experts set standards, models cross-check extractions, and researchers resolve disputes, enabling scalable scientific data curation.
arXiv:2607. 16232v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The growing use of statistical learning algorithms to infer human preferences from high-dimensional choice data runs up against a fundamental challenge: choice alternatives typically differ in many ways simultaneously, so it is generally unclear which factors actually drove an observed decision and should be credited as preferences.
arXiv:2608. 07208v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Existing measures of how much a text is about a concept read the surface of the text: dictionary word shares, topic proportions, embedding similarities.
arXiv:2606. 26130v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to guide research methodology, yet their default methodological tendencies under minimal prompting remain unclear.