Category: News

Feasible strategies in three-way conflict analysis with three-valued ratingscs.AI updates on arXiv.org arXiv:2512.21420v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Most existing work on three-way conflict analysis has focused on trisecting agent pairs, agents, or issues, which contributes to understanding the nature of conflicts but falls short in addressing their resolution. Specifically, the formulation of feasible strategies, as an essential component of conflict resolution and mitigation, has received insufficient scholarly attention. Therefore, this paper aims to investigate feasible strategies from two perspectives of consistency and non-consistency. Particularly, we begin with computing the overall rating of a clique of agents based on positive and negative similarity degrees. Afterwards, considering the weights of both agents and issues, we propose weighted consistency and non-consistency measures, which are respectively used to identify the feasible strategies for a clique of agents. Algorithms are developed to identify feasible strategies, $L$-order feasible strategies, and the corresponding optimal ones. Finally, to demonstrate the practicality, effectiveness, and superiority of the proposed models, we apply them to two commonly used case studies on NBA labor negotiations and development plans for Gansu Province and conduct a sensitivity analysis on parameters and a comparative analysis with existing state-of-the-art conflict analysis approaches. The comparison results demonstrate that our conflict resolution models outperform the conventional approaches by unifying weighted agent-issue evaluation with consistency and non-consistency measures to enable the systematic identification of not only feasible strategies but also optimal solutions.

 arXiv:2512.21420v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Most existing work on three-way conflict analysis has focused on trisecting agent pairs, agents, or issues, which contributes to understanding the nature of conflicts but falls short in addressing their resolution. Specifically, the formulation of feasible strategies, as an essential component of conflict resolution and mitigation, has received insufficient scholarly attention. Therefore, this paper aims to investigate feasible strategies from two perspectives of consistency and non-consistency. Particularly, we begin with computing the overall rating of a clique of agents based on positive and negative similarity degrees. Afterwards, considering the weights of both agents and issues, we propose weighted consistency and non-consistency measures, which are respectively used to identify the feasible strategies for a clique of agents. Algorithms are developed to identify feasible strategies, $L$-order feasible strategies, and the corresponding optimal ones. Finally, to demonstrate the practicality, effectiveness, and superiority of the proposed models, we apply them to two commonly used case studies on NBA labor negotiations and development plans for Gansu Province and conduct a sensitivity analysis on parameters and a comparative analysis with existing state-of-the-art conflict analysis approaches. The comparison results demonstrate that our conflict resolution models outperform the conventional approaches by unifying weighted agent-issue evaluation with consistency and non-consistency measures to enable the systematic identification of not only feasible strategies but also optimal solutions. Read More  

A Comparison of DeepSeek and Other LLMscs.AI updates on arXiv.org arXiv:2502.03688v3 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Recently, DeepSeek has been the focus of attention in and beyond the AI community. An interesting problem is how DeepSeek compares to other large language models (LLMs). There are many tasks an LLM can do, and in this paper, we use the task of “predicting an outcome using a short text” for comparison. We consider two settings, an authorship classification setting and a citation classification setting. In the first one, the goal is to determine whether a short text is written by human or AI. In the second one, the goal is to classify a citation to one of four types using the textual content. For each experiment, we compare DeepSeek with $4$ popular LLMs: Claude, Gemini, GPT, and Llama.
We find that, in terms of classification accuracy, DeepSeek outperforms Gemini, GPT, and Llama in most cases, but underperforms Claude. We also find that DeepSeek is comparably slower than others but with a low cost to use, while Claude is much more expensive than all the others. Finally, we find that in terms of similarity, the output of DeepSeek is most similar to those of Gemini and Claude (and among all $5$ LLMs, Claude and Gemini have the most similar outputs).
In this paper, we also present a fully-labeled dataset collected by ourselves, and propose a recipe where we can use the LLMs and a recent data set, MADStat, to generate new data sets. The datasets in our paper can be used as benchmarks for future study on LLMs.

 arXiv:2502.03688v3 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Recently, DeepSeek has been the focus of attention in and beyond the AI community. An interesting problem is how DeepSeek compares to other large language models (LLMs). There are many tasks an LLM can do, and in this paper, we use the task of “predicting an outcome using a short text” for comparison. We consider two settings, an authorship classification setting and a citation classification setting. In the first one, the goal is to determine whether a short text is written by human or AI. In the second one, the goal is to classify a citation to one of four types using the textual content. For each experiment, we compare DeepSeek with $4$ popular LLMs: Claude, Gemini, GPT, and Llama.
We find that, in terms of classification accuracy, DeepSeek outperforms Gemini, GPT, and Llama in most cases, but underperforms Claude. We also find that DeepSeek is comparably slower than others but with a low cost to use, while Claude is much more expensive than all the others. Finally, we find that in terms of similarity, the output of DeepSeek is most similar to those of Gemini and Claude (and among all $5$ LLMs, Claude and Gemini have the most similar outputs).
In this paper, we also present a fully-labeled dataset collected by ourselves, and propose a recipe where we can use the LLMs and a recent data set, MADStat, to generate new data sets. The datasets in our paper can be used as benchmarks for future study on LLMs. Read More  

FVA-RAG: Falsification-Verification Alignment for Mitigating Sycophantic Hallucinationscs.AI updates on arXiv.org arXiv:2512.07015v2 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) reduces hallucinations by grounding answers in retrieved evidence, yet standard retrievers often exhibit retrieval sycophancy: they preferentially surface evidence that supports a user’s premise, even when the premise is false. We propose FVA-RAG (Falsification-Verification Alignment RAG), a pipeline that inverts the standard RAG workflow by treating the initial response as a draft hypothesis and explicitly retrieving anti-context to stress-test it. We evaluate on the full TruthfulQA-Generation benchmark (N=817) under a fully frozen protocol with 0 live web calls and identical retrieval budgets across methods. Using gpt-4o for generation and deterministic judging, FVA-RAG achieves 79.80-80.05% accuracy across two independently built frozen corpora , significantly outperforming prompted variants of Self-RAG (71.11-72.22%) and CRAG (71.36-73.93%) with p < 10^-6 according to McNemar’s test. FVA-RAG triggers falsification on 24.5-29.3% of queries, demonstrating that targeted counter-evidence retrieval is decisive for mitigating premise-confirming hallucinations.

 arXiv:2512.07015v2 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) reduces hallucinations by grounding answers in retrieved evidence, yet standard retrievers often exhibit retrieval sycophancy: they preferentially surface evidence that supports a user’s premise, even when the premise is false. We propose FVA-RAG (Falsification-Verification Alignment RAG), a pipeline that inverts the standard RAG workflow by treating the initial response as a draft hypothesis and explicitly retrieving anti-context to stress-test it. We evaluate on the full TruthfulQA-Generation benchmark (N=817) under a fully frozen protocol with 0 live web calls and identical retrieval budgets across methods. Using gpt-4o for generation and deterministic judging, FVA-RAG achieves 79.80-80.05% accuracy across two independently built frozen corpora , significantly outperforming prompted variants of Self-RAG (71.11-72.22%) and CRAG (71.36-73.93%) with p < 10^-6 according to McNemar’s test. FVA-RAG triggers falsification on 24.5-29.3% of queries, demonstrating that targeted counter-evidence retrieval is decisive for mitigating premise-confirming hallucinations. Read More