Here is today's selection of cs.CL papers focusing on advancements in natural language processing and evaluation platforms. The papers explore robust document categorization, innovative evaluation methodologies, multilingual language models, and reasoning benchmarks, highlighting the ongoing efforts to enhance machine translation and comprehension in diverse contexts.

Natural Language Processing Models for Robust Document Categorization

This article presents an evaluation of several machine learning methods applied to automated text classification, alongside the design of a demonstrative system for unbalanced document categorization and distribution. The study focuses on balancing classification accuracy with computational efficiency, a key consideration when integrating AI into real world automation pipelines. Three models of varying complexity were examined: a Naive Bayes classifier, a bidirectional LSTM network, and a fine tuned transformer based BERT model. The experiments reveal substantial differences in performance. BERT achieved the highest accuracy, consistently exceeding 99\%, but required significantly longer training times and greater computational resources. The BiLSTM model provided a strong compromise, reaching approximately 98.56\% accuracy while maintaining moderate training costs and offering robust contextual understanding. Naive Bayes proved to be the fastest to train, on the order of milliseconds, yet delivered the lowest accuracy, averaging around 94.5\%. Class imbalance influenced all methods, particularly in the recognition of minority categories. A fully functional demonstrative system was implemented to validate practical applicability, enabling automated routing of technical requests with throughput unattainable through manual processing. The study concludes that BiLSTM offers the most balanced solution for the examined scenario, while also outlining opportunities for future improvements and further exploration of transformer architectures.

DEEP: Docker-based Execution and Evaluation Platform

Comparative evaluation of several systems is a recurrent task in researching. It is a key step before deciding which system to use for our work, or, once our research has been conducted, to demonstrate the potential of the resulting model. Furthermore, it is the main task of competitive, public challenges evaluation. Our proposed software (DEEP) automates both the execution and scoring of machine translation and optical character recognition models. Furthermore, it is easily extensible to other tasks. DEEP is prepared to receive dockerized systems, run them (extracting information at that same time), and assess hypothesis against some references. With this approach, evaluators can achieve a better understanding of the performance of each model. Moreover, the software uses a clustering algorithm based on a statistical analysis of the significance of the results yielded by each model, according to the evaluation metrics. As a result, evaluators are able to identify clusters of performance among the swarm of proposals and have a better understanding of the significance of their differences. Additionally, we offer a visualization web-app to ensure that the results can be adequately understood and interpreted. Finally, we present an exemplary case of use of DEEP.

BabyLM Turns 4 and Goes Multilingual: Call for Papers for the 2026 BabyLM Workshop

The goal of the BabyLM is to stimulate new research connections between cognitive modeling and language model pretraining. We invite contributions in this vein to the BabyLM Workshop, which will also include the 4th iteration of the BabyLM Challenge. As in previous years, the challenge features two ``standard'' tracks (Strict and Strict-Small), in which participants must train language models on under 100M or 10M words of data, respectively. This year, we move beyond our previous English-only pretraining datasets with a new Multilingual track, focusing on English, Dutch, and Chinese. For the workshop, we call for papers related to the overall theme of BabyLM, which includes training efficiency, small-scale training datasets, cognitive modeling, model evaluation, and architecture innovation.

Classroom Final Exam: An Instructor-Tested Reasoning Benchmark

We introduce \CFE{} (\textbf{C}lassroom \textbf{F}inal \textbf{E}xam), a multimodal benchmark for evaluating the reasoning capabilities of large language models across more than 20 STEM domains. \CFE{} is curated from repeatedly used, authentic university homework and exam problems, together with reference solutions provided by course instructors. \CFE{} presents a significant challenge even for frontier models: the newly released Gemini-3.1-pro-preview achieves an overall accuracy of 59.69\%, while the second-best model, Gemini-3-flash-preview, reaches 55.46\%, leaving considerable room for improvement. Beyond leaderboard results, we perform a diagnostic analysis by decomposing reference solutions into reasoning flows. We find that although frontier models can often answer intermediate sub-questions correctly, they struggle to reliably derive and maintain correct intermediate states throughout multi-step solutions. We further observe that model-generated solutions typically have more reasoning steps than those provided by the instructor, indicating suboptimal step efficiency and a higher risk of error accumulation. The data and code are available at https://github.com/Analogy-AI/CFE_Bench.

To Reason or Not to: Selective Chain-of-Thought in Medical Question Answering

Objective: To improve the efficiency of medical question answering (MedQA) with large language models (LLMs) by avoiding unnecessary reasoning while maintaining accuracy. Methods: We propose Selective Chain-of-Thought (Selective CoT), an inference-time strategy that first predicts whether a question requires reasoning and generates a rationale only when needed. Two open-source LLMs (Llama-3.1-8B and Qwen-2.5-7B) were evaluated on four biomedical QA benchmarks-HeadQA, MedQA-USMLE, MedMCQA, and PubMedQA. Metrics included accuracy, total generated tokens, and inference time. Results: Selective CoT reduced inference time by 13-45% and token usage by 8-47% with minimal accuracy loss ($\leq$4\%). In some model-task pairs, it achieved both higher accuracy and greater efficiency than standard CoT. Compared with fixed-length CoT, Selective CoT reached similar or superior accuracy at substantially lower computational cost. Discussion: Selective CoT dynamically balances reasoning depth and efficiency by invoking explicit reasoning only when beneficial, reducing redundancy on recall-type questions while preserving interpretability. Conclusion: Selective CoT provides a simple, model-agnostic, and cost-effective approach for medical QA, aligning reasoning effort with question complexity to enhance real-world deployability of LLM-based clinical systems.