Construction safety research is a critical field in civil engineering, aiming to mitigate risks and prevent injuries through the analysis of site conditions and human factors. However, the limited volume and lack of diversity in existing construction safety datasets pose significant challenges to conducting in-depth analyses. To address this research gap, this paper introduces the Construction Safety Dataset (CSDataset), a well-organized comprehensive multi-level dataset that encompasses incidents, inspections, and violations recorded sourced from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). This dataset uniquely integrates structured attributes with unstructured narratives, facilitating a wide range of approaches driven by machine learning and large language models. We also conduct a preliminary approach benchmarking and various cross-level analyses using our dataset, offering insights to inform and enhance future efforts in construction safety. For example, we found that complaint-driven inspections were associated with a 17.3% reduction in the likelihood of subsequent incidents. Our dataset and code are released at https://github.com/zhenhuiou/Construction-Safety-Dataset-CSDataset.

Large Language Models (LLMs),such as ChatGPT, are increasingly used in research, ranging from simple writing assistance to complex data annotation tasks. Recently, some research has suggested that LLMs may even be able to simulate human psychology and can, hence, replace human participants in psychological studies. We caution against this approach. We provide conceptual arguments against the hypothesis that LLMs simulate human psychology. We then present empiric evidence illustrating our arguments by demonstrating that slight changes to wording that correspond to large changes in meaning lead to notable discrepancies between LLMs' and human responses, even for the recent CENTAUR model that was specifically fine-tuned on psychological responses. Additionally, different LLMs show very different responses to novel items, further illustrating their lack of reliability. We conclude that LLMs do not simulate human psychology and recommend that psychological researchers should treat LLMs as useful but fundamentally unreliable tools that need to be validated against human responses for every new application.

--Over the past few years, the size of language models has grown exponentially, as has the computational cost to train these large models. This rapid growth has motivated researchers to develop new techniques aimed at enhancing the efficiency of the training process. Despite these advancements, optimally predicting the model size or allocating optimal resources remains a challenge. Several efforts have addressed the challenge by proposing different scaling laws, but almost all of them are architecture-specific (dense or sparse). In this work we revisit existing scaling laws and propose a generalized scaling law to provide a unified framework that is applicable to both dense and sparse large language models. We evaluate and compare our proposed scaling law with existing scaling laws to demonstrate its effectiveness. In recent years, transformer architectures [1] have revolutionized the deep learning approach. These architectures are now the foundation for the majority of popular large language models (LLMs).

This technical report accompanies the LLM robustness leaderboard published by PRISM Eval for the Paris AI Action Summit. We introduce PRISM Eval Behavior Elicitation Tool (BET), an AI system performing automated red-teaming through Dynamic Adversarial Optimization that achieves 100% Attack Success Rate (ASR) against 37 of 41 state-of-the-art LLMs. Beyond binary success metrics, we propose a fine-grained robustness metric estimating the average number of attempts required to elicit harmful behaviors, revealing that attack difficulty varies by over 300-fold across models despite universal vulnerability. We introduce primitive-level vulnerability analysis to identify which jailbreaking techniques are most effective for specific hazard categories. Our collaborative evaluation with trusted third parties from the AI Safety Network demonstrates practical pathways for distributed robustness assessment across the community.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized content creation across digital platforms, offering unprecedented capabilities in natural language generation and understanding. These models enable beneficial applications such as content generation, question and answering (Q&A), programming, and code reasoning. Meanwhile, they also pose serious risks by inadvertently or intentionally producing toxic, offensive, or biased content. This dual role of LLMs, both as powerful tools for solving real-world problems and as potential sources of harmful language, presents a pressing sociotechnical challenge. In this survey, we systematically review recent studies spanning unintentional toxicity, adversarial jailbreaking attacks, and content moderation techniques. We propose a unified taxonomy of LLM-related harms and defenses, analyze emerging multimodal and LLM-assisted jailbreak strategies, and assess mitigation efforts, including reinforcement learning with human feedback (RLHF), prompt engineering, and safety alignment. Our synthesis highlights the evolving landscape of LLM safety, identifies limitations in current evaluation methodologies, and outlines future research directions to guide the development of robust and ethically aligned language technologies.

The integration of robotics and automation into self-driving laboratories (SDLs) can introduce additional safety complexities, in addition to those that already apply to conventional research laboratories. Personal protective equipment (PPE) is an essential requirement for ensuring the safety and well-being of workers in laboratories, self-driving or otherwise. Fires are another important risk factor in chemical laboratories. In SDLs, fires that occur close to mobile robots, which use flammable lithium batteries, could have increased severity. Here, we present Chemist Eye, a distributed safety monitoring system designed to enhance situational awareness in SDLs. The system integrates multiple stations equipped with RGB, depth, and infrared cameras, designed to monitor incidents in SDLs. Chemist Eye is also designed to spot workers who have suffered a potential accident or medical emergency, PPE compliance and fire hazards. To do this, Chemist Eye uses decision-making driven by a vision-language model (VLM). Chemist Eye is designed for seamless integration, enabling real-time communication with robots. Based on the VLM recommendations, the system attempts to drive mobile robots away from potential fire locations, exits, or individuals not wearing PPE, and issues audible warnings where necessary. It also integrates with third-party messaging platforms to provide instant notifications to lab personnel. We tested Chemist Eye with real-world data from an SDL equipped with three mobile robots and found that the spotting of possible safety hazards and decision-making performances reached 97 % and 95 %, respectively.

In this paper, we study the worst-case frontier risks of releasing gpt-oss. We introduce malicious fine-tuning (MFT), where we attempt to elicit maximum capabilities by fine-tuning gpt-oss to be as capable as possible in two domains: biology and cybersecurity. To maximize biological risk (biorisk), we curate tasks related to threat creation and train gpt-oss in an RL environment with web browsing. To maximize cybersecurity risk, we train gpt-oss in an agentic coding environment to solve capture-the-flag (CTF) challenges. We compare these MFT models against open- and closed-weight LLMs on frontier risk evaluations. Compared to frontier closed-weight models, MFT gpt-oss underperforms OpenAI o3, a model that is below Preparedness High capability level for biorisk and cybersecurity. Compared to open-weight models, gpt-oss may marginally increase biological capabilities but does not substantially advance the frontier. Taken together, these results contributed to our decision to release the model, and we hope that our MFT approach can serve as useful guidance for estimating harm from future open-weight releases.

With the growing complexity of cyberattacks targeting critical infrastructures such as water treatment networks, there is a pressing need for robust anomaly detection strategies that account for both system vulnerabilities and evolving attack patterns. Traditional methods -- statistical, density-based, and graph-based models struggle with distribution shifts and class imbalance in multivariate time series, often leading to high false positive rates. To address these challenges, we propose CGAD, a Causal Graph-based Anomaly Detection framework designed for reliable cyberattack detection in public infrastructure systems. CGAD follows a two-phase supervised framework -- causal profiling and anomaly scoring. First, it learns causal invariant graph structures representing the system's behavior under "Normal" and "Attack" states using Dynamic Bayesian Networks. Second, it employs structural divergence to detect anomalies via causal graph comparison by evaluating topological deviations in causal graphs over time. By leveraging causal structures, CGAD achieves superior adaptability and accuracy in non-stationary and imbalanced time series environments compared to conventional machine learning approaches. By uncovering causal structures beneath volatile sensor data, our framework not only detects cyberattacks with markedly higher precision but also redefines robustness in anomaly detection, proving resilience where traditional models falter under imbalance and drift. Our framework achieves substantial gains in F1 and ROC-AUC scores over best-performing baselines across four industrial datasets, demonstrating robust detection of delayed and structurally complex anomalies.

The task of ethical Medical Image Synthesis (MISyn) is to ensure that the MISyn techniques are researched and developed ethically throughout their entire lifecycle, which is essential to prevent the negative impacts of MISyn. To address the ever-increasing needs and requirements for ethical practice of MISyn research and development, we first conduct a theoretical analysis that identifies the key properties of ethical MISyn and intrinsic limits of MISyn. We identify that synthetic images lack inherent grounding in real medical phenomena, cannot fully represent the training medical images, and inevitably introduce new distribution shifts and biases. Ethical risks can arise from not acknowledging the intrinsic limits and weaknesses of synthetic images compared to medical images, with the extreme form manifested as misinformation of MISyn that substitutes synthetic images for medical images without acknowledgment. The resulting ethical harms include eroding trust in the medical imaging dataset environment and causing algorithmic discrimination towards stakeholders and the public. To facilitate collective efforts towards ethical MISyn within and outside the medical image analysis community, we then propose practical supports for ethical practice in MISyn based on the theoretical analysis, including ethical practice recommendations that adapt the existing technical standards, problem formulation, design, and evaluation practice of MISyn to the ethical challenges; and oversight recommendations to facilitate checks and balances from stakeholders and the public. We also present two case studies that demonstrate how to apply the ethical practice recommendations in practice, and identify gaps between existing practice and the ethical practice recommendations.

Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) systems now mediate countless human-technology interactions, yet research on their fairness implications remains surprisingly limited. This paper examines ASR bias through a philosophical lens, arguing that systematic misrecognition of certain speech varieties constitutes more than a technical limitation -- it represents a form of disrespect that compounds historical injustices against marginalized linguistic communities. We distinguish between morally neutral classification (discriminate1) and harmful discrimination (discriminate2), demonstrating how ASR systems can inadvertently transform the former into the latter when they consistently misrecognize non-standard dialects. We identify three unique ethical dimensions of speech technologies that differentiate ASR bias from other algorithmic fairness concerns: the temporal burden placed on speakers of non-standard varieties ("temporal taxation"), the disruption of conversational flow when systems misrecognize speech, and the fundamental connection between speech patterns and personal/cultural identity. These factors create asymmetric power relationships that existing technical fairness metrics fail to capture. The paper analyzes the tension between linguistic standardization and pluralism in ASR development, arguing that current approaches often embed and reinforce problematic language ideologies. We conclude that addressing ASR bias requires more than technical interventions; it demands recognition of diverse speech varieties as legitimate forms of expression worthy of technological accommodation. This philosophical reframing offers new pathways for developing ASR systems that respect linguistic diversity and speaker autonomy.