Large language models (LLMs) are transforming everyday applications, yet deployment in cybersecurity lags due to a lack of high-quality, domain-specific models and training datasets. To address this gap, we present CyberPal 2.0, a family of cybersecurity-expert small language models (SLMs) ranging from 4B-20B parameters. To train CyberPal 2.0, we generate an enriched chain-of-thought cybersecurity instruction dataset built with our data enrichment and formatting pipeline, SecKnowledge 2.0, which integrates expert-in-the-loop steering of reasoning formats alongside LLM-driven multi-step grounding, yielding higher-fidelity, task-grounded reasoning traces for security tasks. Across diverse cybersecurity benchmarks, CyberPal 2.0 consistently outperforms its baselines and matches or surpasses various open and closed-source frontier models, while remaining a fraction of their size. On core cyber threat intelligence knowledge tasks, our models outperform almost all tested frontier models, ranking second only to Sec-Gemini v1. On core threat-investigation tasks, such as correlating vulnerabilities and bug tickets with weaknesses, our best 20B-parameter model outperforms GPT-4o, o1, o3-mini, and Sec-Gemini v1, ranking first, while our smallest 4B-parameter model ranks second.

Current frameworks for consensus statement generation with large language models lack the inherent structure needed to provide provable fairness guarantees when aggregating diverse free-form opinions. We model the task as a multi-objective, token-level Markov Decision Process (MDP), where each objective corresponds to an agent's preference. Token-level rewards for each agent are derived from their policy (e.g., a personalized language model). This approach utilizes the finding that such policies implicitly define optimal Q-functions, providing a principled way to quantify rewards at each generation step without a value function (Rafailov et al., 2024). This MDP formulation creates a formal structure amenable to analysis using principles from social choice theory. We propose two approaches grounded in social choice theory. First, we propose a stochastic generation policy guaranteed to be in the ex-ante core, extending core stability concepts from voting theory to text generation. This policy is derived from an underlying distribution over complete statements that maximizes proportional fairness (Nash Welfare). Second, for generating a single statement, we target the maximization of egalitarian welfare using search algorithms within the MDP framework. Empirically, experiments using language models to instantiate agent policies show that search guided by the egalitarian objective generates consensus statements with improved worst-case agent alignment compared to baseline methods, including the Habermas Machine (Tessler et al., 2024).

Recent proposals for regulating frontier AI models have sparked concerns about the cost of safety regulation, and most such regulations have been shelved due to the safety-innovation tradeoff. This paper argues for an alternative regulatory approach that ensures AI safety while actively promoting innovation: mandating that large AI laboratories release small, openly accessible analog models (scaled-down versions) trained similarly to and distilled from their largest proprietary models. Analog models serve as public proxies, allowing broad participation in safety verification, interpretability research, and algorithmic transparency without forcing labs to disclose their full-scale models. Recent research demonstrates that safety and interpretability methods developed using these smaller models generalize effectively to frontier-scale systems. By enabling the wider research community to directly investigate and innovate upon accessible analogs, our policy substantially reduces the regulatory burden and accelerates safety advancements. This mandate promises minimal additional costs, leveraging reusable resources like data and infrastructure, while significantly contributing to the public good. Our hope is not only that this policy be adopted, but that it illustrates a broader principle supporting fundamental research in machine learning: deeper understanding of models relaxes the safety-innovation tradeoff and lets us have more of both.

Large language model development relies on large-scale training corpora, yet most contain data of unclear licensing status, limiting the development of truly open models. This problem is exacerbated for non-English languages, where openly licensed text remains critically scarce. We introduce the German Commons, the largest collection of openly licensed German text to date. It compiles data from 41 sources across seven domains, encompassing legal, scientific, cultural, political, news, economic, and web text. Through systematic sourcing from established data providers with verifiable licensing, it yields 154.56 billion tokens of high-quality text for language model training. Our processing pipeline implements comprehensive quality filtering, deduplication, and text formatting fixes, ensuring consistent quality across heterogeneous text sources. All domain subsets feature licenses of at least CC-BY-SA 4.0 or equivalent, ensuring legal compliance for model training and redistribution. The German Commons therefore addresses the critical gap in openly licensed German pretraining data, and enables the development of truly open German language models. We also release code for corpus construction and data filtering tailored to German language text, rendering the German Commons fully reproducible and extensible.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied in biomedical domains, yet their reliability in drug-safety prediction remains underexplored. In this work, we investigate whether LLMs incorporate socio-demographic information into adverse event (AE) predictions, despite such attributes being clinically irrelevant. Using structured data from the United States Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) and a persona-based evaluation framework, we assess two state-of-the-art models, ChatGPT-4o and Bio-Medical-Llama-3.8B, across diverse personas defined by education, marital status, employment, insurance, language, housing stability, and religion. We further evaluate performance across three user roles (general practitioner, specialist, patient) to reflect real-world deployment scenarios where commercial systems often differentiate access by user type. Our results reveal systematic disparities in AE prediction accuracy. Disadvantaged groups (e.g., low education, unstable housing) were frequently assigned higher predicted AE likelihoods than more privileged groups (e.g., postgraduate-educated, privately insured). Beyond outcome disparities, we identify two distinct modes of bias: explicit bias, where incorrect predictions directly reference persona attributes in reasoning traces, and implicit bias, where predictions are inconsistent, yet personas are not explicitly mentioned. These findings expose critical risks in applying LLMs to pharmacovigilance and highlight the urgent need for fairness-aware evaluation protocols and mitigation strategies before clinical deployment.

Recent studies suggest that very small language models (SLMs) can generate surprisingly coherent text when trained on simplified, child-directed corpora such as TinyStories. These findings have been interpreted as evidence that readability -- characterized by accessible vocabulary, familiar narrative structure, and simple syntax -- plays a key role in enabling such capabilities to emerge. In this paper, we challenge that interpretation. We construct synthetic datasets with matched structure but varied readability, and find that readability alone does not predict coherence or learning efficiency in SLMs. Models trained on complex, adult-level text perform comparably to those trained on simplified language, and even exhibit faster development of coherence during training. Instead, we show that statistical simplicity, as measured by n-gram diversity, is a stronger predictor of learnability. Our findings caution against the growing trend of anthropomorphizing language model training -- drawing parallels to human cognitive development without empirical basis -- and argue for more precise reasoning about what properties actually support capability emergence in small models.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have become increasingly incorporated into everyday life for many internet users, taking on significant roles as advice givers in the domains of medicine, personal relationships, and even legal matters. The importance of these roles raise questions about how and what responses LLMs make in difficult political and moral domains, especially questions about possible biases. To quantify the nature of potential biases in LLMs, various works have applied Moral Foundations Theory (MFT), a framework that categorizes human moral reasoning into five dimensions: Harm, Fairness, Ingroup Loyalty, Authority, and Purity. Previous research has used the MFT to measure differences in human participants along political, national, and cultural lines. While there has been some analysis of the responses of LLM with respect to political stance in role-playing scenarios, no work so far has directly assessed the moral leanings in the LLM responses, nor have they connected LLM outputs with robust human data. In this paper we analyze the distinctions between LLM MFT responses and existing human research directly, investigating whether commonly available LLM responses demonstrate ideological leanings: either through their inherent responses, straightforward representations of political ideologies, or when responding from the perspectives of constructed human personas. We assess whether LLMs inherently generate responses that align more closely with one political ideology over another, and additionally examine how accurately LLMs can represent ideological perspectives through both explicit prompting and demographic-based role-playing. By systematically analyzing LLM behavior across these conditions and experiments, our study provides insight into the extent of political and demographic dependency in AI-generated responses.

Jailbreaking techniques pose a significant threat to the safety of Large Language Models (LLMs). Existing defenses typically focus on single-turn attacks, lack coverage across languages, and rely on limited taxonomies that either fail to capture the full diversity of attack strategies or emphasize risk categories rather than the jailbreaking techniques. To advance the understanding of the effectiveness of jailbreaking techniques, we conducted a structured red-teaming challenge. The outcome of our experiments are manifold. First, we developed a comprehensive hierarchical taxonomy of 50 jailbreak strategies, consolidating and extending prior classifications into seven broad families, including impersonation, persuasion, privilege escalation, cognitive overload, obfuscation, goal conflict, and data poisoning. Second, we analyzed the data collected from the challenge to examine the prevalence and success rates of different attack types, providing insights into how specific jailbreak strategies exploit model vulnerabilities and induce misalignment. Third, we benchmark a popular LLM for jailbreak detection, evaluating the benefits of taxonomy-guided prompting for improving automatic detection. Finally, we compiled a new Italian dataset of 1364 multi-turn adversarial dialogues, annotated with our taxonomy, enabling the study of interactions where adversarial intent emerges gradually and succeeds in bypassing traditional safeguards.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate public opinion and other social phenomena. Most current studies constrain these simulations to multiple-choice or short-answer formats for ease of scoring and comparison, but such closed designs overlook the inherently generative nature of LLMs. In this position paper, we argue that open-endedness, using free-form text that captures topics, viewpoints, and reasoning processes "in" LLMs, is essential for realistic social simulation. Drawing on decades of survey-methodology research and recent advances in NLP, we argue why this open-endedness is valuable in LLM social simulations, showing how it can improve measurement and design, support exploration of unanticipated views, and reduce researcher-imposed directive bias. It also captures expressiveness and individuality, aids in pretesting, and ultimately enhances methodological utility. We call for novel practices and evaluation frameworks that leverage rather than constrain the open-ended generative diversity of LLMs, creating synergies between NLP and social science.

Under-resourced languages, such as Quechuas, face data and resource scarcity, hindering their development in speech technology. To address this issue, Common Voice presents a crucial opportunity to foster an open and community-driven speech dataset creation. This paper examines the integration of Quechua languages into Common Voice. We detail the current 17 Quechua languages, presenting Puno Quechua (ISO 639-3: qxp) as a focused case study that includes language onboarding and corpus collection of both reading and spontaneous speech data. Our results demonstrate that Common Voice now hosts 191.1 hours of Quechua speech (86\% validated), with Puno Quechua contributing 12 hours (77\% validated), highlighting the Common Voice's potential. We further propose a research agenda addressing technical challenges, alongside ethical considerations for community engagement and indigenous data sovereignty. Our work contributes towards inclusive voice technology and digital empowerment of under-resourced language communities.