Epidemic intervention policies are textual artefacts that human decision-makers interpret, justify, and revise through natural language, making large language models a natural candidate for epidemic policy reasoning. A naive LLM, however, lacks the epidemic dynamics needed to project intervention consequences, the quantitative surveillance signals required to assess severity, and the institutional constraints that define admissible actions. We present EpiWorld, a closed-loop framework that grounds an LLM policy actor in a learned action-conditioned epidemiological world model and a tiered skill library of public-health protocols, surveillance tools, and adaptive lessons accumulated through after-action analysis. Given a candidate intervention, the world model predicts regional epidemic evolution and enables fast counterfactual rollouts that provide feedback for policy selection and refinement. Outcomes of simulated futures are distilled into reusable lessons while protocol constraints remain fixed, allowing the decision process to improve without sacrificing interpretability or controllability. We evaluate both the world model and the end-to-end framework on retrospective COVID-19 and Influenza datasets: the world model achieves the best out-of-distribution Peak-MAE among all forecasting baselines, and the closed-loop framework reduces cumulative hospitalisation by up to 59% across datasets and by an average of ~16% across six LLM backbones, outperforming reinforcement-learning and optimal-control policy baselines.

Drug repurposing aims to identify new therapeutic uses for existing compounds and, compared with de novo drug discovery, offers a faster and more cost-effective path to clinical translation. However, the space of candidate drug–disease pairs is enormous and their underlying relationships often depend on complex multi-hop biological mechanisms, making it difficult to reliably predict which pairs represent true therapeutic relationships. Existing approaches tackle this from two directions: knowledge graph-based methods organize curated biomedical evidence into structured relational networks for grounded multi-hop reasoning, while LLM-based methods leverage pretrained knowledge to generate flexible mechanistic rationales. Yet neither is sufficient alone — KGs are confined to observed graph structure while LLMs lack factual grounding and risk hallucination. To address this gap, we propose DrugReason, a multi-view reasoning framework that integrates grounded KG reasoning with LLM-generated mechanistic inference for drug repurposing. DrugReason adaptively routes diverse reasoning paths to specialized experts conditioned on the query context, while a cross-expert distillation objective enables knowledge sharing without sacrificing expert specialization. Experiments on PharmaDB, DDInter, and DrugBank show that DrugReason improves average performance over strong single-view reasoning baselines and achieves competitive or superior results compared with graph-based alternatives, while providing interpretable routing-based predictions.

Computational argumentation, which involves generating answers or summaries for controversial topics like abortion bans and vaccination, has become increasingly important in today’s polarized environment. Sophisticated LLM capabilities offer the potential to provide nuanced, evidence-based answers to such questions through Retrieval-Augmented Argumentation (RAArg), leveraging real-world evidence for high-quality, grounded arguments. However, evaluating RAArg remains challenging, as human evaluation is costly and difficult for complex, lengthy answers on complicated topics. At the same time, re-using existing argumentation datasets is no longer sufficient, as they lack long, complex arguments and realistic evidence from potentially misleading sources, limiting holistic evaluation of retrieval effectiveness and argument quality. To address these gaps, we investigate automated evaluation methods using multiple fine-grained LLM judges, providing better and more interpretable assessments than traditional single-score metrics and even previously reported human crowdsourcing. To validate the proposed techniques, we introduce ConQRet, a new benchmark featuring long and complex human-authored arguments on debated topics, grounded in real-world websites, allowing an exhaustive evaluation across retrieval effectiveness, argument quality, and groundedness. We validate our LLM Judges on a prior dataset and the new ConQRet benchmark. Our proposed LLM Judges and the ConQRet benchmark can enable rapid progress in computational argumentation and can be naturally extended to other complex retrieval-augmented generation tasks.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are expected to provide helpful and harmless responses, yet they often exhibit sycophancy—conforming to user beliefs regardless of factual accuracy or ethical soundness. Prior research on sycophancy has primarily focused on single-turn factual correctness, overlooking the dynamics of real-world interactions. In this work, we introduce SYCON Bench (SYcophantic CONformity benchmark), a novel evaluation suite that assesses sycophantic behavior in multi-turn, free-form conversational settings. Our benchmark measures how quickly a model conforms to the user (Turn of Flip) and how frequently it shifts its stance under sustained user pressure (Number of Flip). Applying SYCON Bench to 17 LLMs across three real-world scenarios, we find that sycophancy remains a prevalent failure mode. Our analysis shows that alignment tuning amplifies sycophantic behavior, whereas model scaling and reasoning optimization strengthen the model’s ability to resist undesirable user views. Reasoning models generally outperform instruction-tuned models but often fail when they over-index on logical exposition instead of directly addressing the user’s underlying beliefs. Finally, we evaluate four additional prompting strategies and demonstrate that adopting a third-person perspective reduces sycophancy by up to 63.8% in debate scenario.

Assessment and evaluation have long been critical challenges in artificial intelligence (AI) and natural language processing (NLP). Traditional methods, usually matching-based or small model-based, often fall short in open-ended and dynamic scenarios. Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) inspire the “LLM-as-a-judge” paradigm, where LLMs are leveraged to perform scoring, ranking, or selection for various machine learning evaluation scenarios. This paper presents a comprehensive survey of LLM-based judgment and assessment, offering an in-depth overview to review this evolving field. We first provide the definition from both input and output perspectives. Then we introduce a systematic taxonomy to explore LLM-as-a-judge along three dimensions: what to judge, how to judge, and how to benchmark. Finally, we also highlight key challenges and promising future directions for this emerging area.

The ability to accurately identify authorship is crucial for verifying content authenticity and mitigating misinformation. Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional capacity for reasoning and problem-solving. However, their potential in authorship analysis remains under-explored. Traditional studies have depended on hand-crafted stylistic features, whereas state-of-the-art approaches leverage text embeddings from pre-trained language models. These methods, which typically require fine-tuning on labeled data, often suffer from performance degradation in cross-domain applications and provide limited explainability. This work seeks to address three research questions: (1) Can LLMs perform zero-shot, end-to-end authorship verification effectively? (2) Are LLMs capable of accurately attributing authorship among multiple candidates authors (e.g., 10 and 20)? (3) Can LLMs provide explainability in authorship analysis, particularly through the role of linguistic features? Moreover, we investigate the integration of explicit linguistic features to guide LLMs in their reasoning processes. Our assessment demonstrates LLMs’ proficiency in both tasks without the need for domain-specific fine-tuning, providing explanations into their decision making via a detailed analysis of linguistic features. This establishes a new benchmark for future research on LLM-based authorship analysis.