Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as agents, expected to decompose goals, invoke tools, and verify results in dynamic environments. Realizing these capabilities requires access to agentic data-structured interaction records that couple user intents with tool specifications, argument-grounded calls, and verifiable execution traces. However, collecting such data from human annotators is costly, time-consuming, and difficult to scale. We present a unified framework for synthesizing agentic data using only LLMs, without any human-in-the-loop supervision. This framework decomposes generation into modular pipelines that produce complete interaction records spanning task specifications, tool definitions, policy pseudocode, natural language exchanges, and execution traces. Records conform to strict syntactic and semantic constraints, ensuring machine-parseability and faithful alignment across inputs, outputs, and tool calls. Beyond single tasks, there is support for both multi-task and multi-turn agent interactions, enabling the construction of datasets that reflect the full spectrum of tool-use competencies. To ensure quality and consistency, the framework integrates constrained generation formats, JSON-schema validation, and judge-based filtering. This paper formalizes the schema for agentic records, details the prompt design principles that guide generation, and introduces scalable pipelines for high-quality synthetic data. By providing a reproducible, LLM-only alternative to manual collection, hence advancing the development of agentic LLMs capable of robust tool use.

Large-scale pre-trained machine learning models have reshaped our understanding of artificial intelligence across numerous domains, including our own field of geography. As with any new technology, trust has taken on an important role in this discussion. In this chapter, we examine the multifaceted concept of trust in foundation models, particularly within a geographic context. As reliance on these models increases and they become relied upon for critical decision-making, trust, while essential, has become a fractured concept. Here we categorize trust into three types: epistemic trust in the training data, operational trust in the model's functionality, and interpersonal trust in the model developers. Each type of trust brings with it unique implications for geographic applications. Topics such as cultural context, data heterogeneity, and spatial relationships are fundamental to the spatial sciences and play an important role in developing trust. The chapter continues with a discussion of the challenges posed by different forms of biases, the importance of transparency and explainability, and ethical responsibilities in model development. Finally, the novel perspective of geographic information scientists is emphasized with a call for further transparency, bias mitigation, and regionally-informed policies. Simply put, this chapter aims to provide a conceptual starting point for researchers, practitioners, and policy-makers to better understand trust in (generative) GeoAI.

Knowledge editing techniques promise to implant new factual knowledge into large language models (LLMs). But do LLMs really believe these facts? We develop a framework to measure belief depth and use it to evaluate the success of knowledge editing techniques. We operationalize belief depth as the extent to which implanted knowledge 1) generalizes to related contexts (e.g. Fermi estimates several logical steps removed), 2) is robust to self-scrutiny and direct challenge, and 3) is represented similarly to genuine knowledge (as measured by linear probes). Our evaluations show that simple prompting and mechanistic editing techniques fail to implant knowledge deeply. In contrast, Synthetic Document Finetuning (SDF) - where models are trained on LLM-generated documents consistent with a fact - often succeeds at implanting beliefs that behave similarly to genuine knowledge. However, SDF's success is not universal, as implanted beliefs that contradict basic world knowledge are brittle and representationally distinct from genuine knowledge. Overall, our work introduces measurable criteria for belief depth and enables the rigorous evaluation necessary for deploying knowledge editing in real-world applications.

This paper presents a comprehensive comparative analysis of Natural Language Processing (NLP) methods for automated toxicity detection in online gaming chats. Traditional machine learning models with embeddings, large language models (LLMs) with zero-shot and few-shot prompting, fine-tuned transformer models, and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) approaches are evaluated. The evaluation framework assesses three critical dimensions: classification accuracy, processing speed, and computational costs. A hybrid moderation system architecture is proposed that optimizes human moderator workload through automated detection and incorporates continuous learning mechanisms. The experimental results demonstrate significant performance variations across methods, with fine-tuned DistilBERT achieving optimal accuracy-cost trade-offs. The findings provide empirical evidence for deploying cost-effective, efficient content moderation systems in dynamic online gaming environments.

Data unlearning aims to remove the influence of specific training samples from a trained model without requiring full retraining. Unlike concept unlearning, data unlearning in diffusion models remains underexplored and often suffers from quality degradation or incomplete forgetting. To address this, we first observe that most existing methods attempt to unlearn the samples at all diffusion time steps equally, leading to poor-quality generation. We argue that forgetting occurs disproportionately across time and frequency, depending on the model and scenarios. By selectively focusing on specific time-frequency ranges during training, we achieve samples with higher aesthetic quality and lower noise. Finally, to evaluate both deletion and quality of unlearned data samples, we propose a simple normalized version of SSCD. Together, our analysis and methods establish a clearer understanding of the unique challenges in data unlearning for diffusion models, providing practical strategies to improve both evaluation and unlearning performance. The ability to remove the influence of training samples from a learned model, often referred to as machine unlearning (Bourtoule et al., 2021), has become increasingly important. Regulatory frameworks such as the "right to be forgotten" in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) by the European Union and growing concerns about sensitive or proprietary data have created demand for methods that allow models to forget without costly retraining from scratch. Recently, with the development of generative models such as diffusion models (Ho et al., 2020), unlearning the unsafe concept or memorization has been actively explored through training-free sampling (Kim et al., 2025), output filtering (Y oon et al., 2025), and fine-tuning (Wang et al., 2025a).

We introduce NeuCo-Bench, a novel benchmark framework for evaluating (lossy) neural compression and representation learning in the context of Earth Observation (EO). Our approach builds on fixed-size embeddings that act as compact, task-agnostic representations applicable to a broad range of downstream tasks. NeuCo-Bench comprises three core components: (i) an evaluation pipeline built around reusable embeddings, (ii) a new challenge mode with a hidden-task leaderboard designed to mitigate pretraining bias, and (iii) a scoring system that balances accuracy and stability. To support reproducibility, we release SSL4EO-S12-downstream, a curated multispectral, multitemporal EO dataset. We present initial results from a public challenge at the 2025 CVPR EARTHVISION workshop and conduct ablations with state-of-the-art foundation models. NeuCo-Bench provides a first step towards community-driven, standardized evaluation of neural embeddings for EO and beyond.

Large language models (LLMs) are entering legal workflows, yet we lack a jurisdiction-specific framework to assess their baseline competence therein. We use India's public legal examinations as a transparent proxy. Our multi-year benchmark assembles objective screens from top national and state exams and evaluates open and frontier LLMs under real-world exam conditions. To probe beyond multiple-choice questions, we also include a lawyer-graded, paired-blinded study of long-form answers from the Supreme Court's Advocate-on-Record exam. This is, to our knowledge, the first exam-grounded, India-specific yardstick for LLM court-readiness released with datasets and protocols. Our work shows that while frontier systems consistently clear historical cutoffs and often match or exceed recent top-scorer bands on objective exams, none surpasses the human topper on long-form reasoning. Grader notes converge on three reliability failure modes: procedural or format compliance, authority or citation discipline, and forum-appropriate voice and structure. These findings delineate where LLMs can assist (checks, cross-statute consistency, statute and precedent lookups) and where human leadership remains essential: forum-specific drafting and filing, procedural and relief strategy, reconciling authorities and exceptions, and ethical, accountable judgment.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into real-world applications, raising concerns about privacy, security and the need to remove undesirable knowledge. Machine Unlearning has emerged as a promising solution, yet faces two key challenges: (1) practical unlearning needs are often continuous and heterogeneous, and (2) they involve decentralized, sensitive data with asymmetric access. These factors result in inter-domain and intra-domain interference, which further amplifies the dilemma of unbalanced forgetting and retaining performance. In response, we propose a federated unlearning approach for LLMs that is scalable and privacy preserving. Our method decouples unlearning and retention via task-specific adapter learning and employs a hierarchical merging strategy to mitigate conflicting objectives and enables robust, adaptable unlearning updates. Comprehensive experiments on benchmarks of WMDP, MUSE, and TOFU showed that our approach effectively handles heterogeneous unlearning requests while maintaining strong LLM utility compared with baseline methods.

The exponential increase in scientific literature and online information necessitates efficient methods for extracting knowledge from textual data. Natural language processing (NLP) plays a crucial role in addressing this challenge, particularly in text classification tasks. While large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable success in NLP, their accuracy can suffer in domain-specific contexts due to specialized vocabulary, unique grammatical structures, and imbalanced data distributions. In this systematic literature review (SLR), we investigate the utilization of pre-trained language models (PLMs) for domain-specific text classification. We systematically review 41 articles published between 2018 and January 2024, adhering to the PRISMA statement (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses). This review methodology involved rigorous inclusion criteria and a multi-step selection process employing AI-powered tools. We delve into the evolution of text classification techniques and differentiate between traditional and modern approaches. We emphasize transformer-based models and explore the challenges and considerations associated with using LLMs for domain-specific text classification. Furthermore, we categorize existing research based on various PLMs and propose a taxonomy of techniques used in the field. To validate our findings, we conducted a comparative experiment involving BERT, SciBERT, and BioBERT in biomedical sentence classification. Finally, we present a comparative study on the performance of LLMs in text classification tasks across different domains. In addition, we examine recent advancements in PLMs for domain-specific text classification and offer insights into future directions and limitations in this rapidly evolving domain.

Large Language Model (LLM) agents are powering a growing share of interactive web applications, yet remain vulnerable to misuse and harm. Prior jailbreak research has largely focused on single-turn prompts, whereas real harassment often unfolds over multi-turn interactions. In this work, we present the Online Harassment Agentic Benchmark consisting of: (i) a synthetic multi-turn harassment conversation dataset, (ii) a multi-agent (e.g., harasser, victim) simulation informed by repeated game theory, (iii) three jailbreak methods attacking agents across memory, planning, and fine-tuning, and (iv) a mixed-methods evaluation framework. We utilize two prominent LLMs, LLaMA-3.1-8B-Instruct (open-source) and Gemini-2.0-flash (closed-source). Our results show that jailbreak tuning makes harassment nearly guaranteed with an attack success rate of 95.78--96.89% vs. 57.25--64.19% without tuning in Llama, and 99.33% vs. 98.46% without tuning in Gemini, while sharply reducing refusal rate to 1-2% in both models. The most prevalent toxic behaviors are Insult with 84.9--87.8% vs. 44.2--50.8% without tuning, and Flaming with 81.2--85.1% vs. 31.5--38.8% without tuning, indicating weaker guardrails compared to sensitive categories such as sexual or racial harassment. Qualitative evaluation further reveals that attacked agents reproduce human-like aggression profiles, such as Machiavellian/psychopathic patterns under planning, and narcissistic tendencies with memory. Counterintuitively, closed-source and open-source models exhibit distinct escalation trajectories across turns, with closed-source models showing significant vulnerability. Overall, our findings show that multi-turn and theory-grounded attacks not only succeed at high rates but also mimic human-like harassment dynamics, motivating the development of robust safety guardrails to ultimately keep online platforms safe and responsible.