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.

The advent of powerful Large Language Models (LLMs) has ushered in an ``Age of the Agent,'' enabling autonomous systems to tackle complex goals. However, the transition from prototype to production is hindered by a pervasive ``crisis of craft,'' resulting in agents that are brittle, unpredictable, and ultimately untrustworthy in mission-critical applications. This paper argues this crisis stems from a fundamental paradigm mismatch -- attempting to command inherently probabilistic processors with the deterministic mental models of traditional software engineering. To solve this crisis, we introduce a governance-first paradigm for principled agent engineering, embodied in a formal architecture we call ArbiterOS.

This paper discusses the potential for integrating Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) into professional heritage practice with the aim of enhancing the accessibility of public-facing guidance documents. We developed HAZEL, a GenAI chatbot fine-tuned to assist with revising written guidance relating to heritage conservation and interpretation. Using quantitative assessments, we compare HAZEL's performance to that of ChatGPT (GPT-4) in a series of tasks related to the guidance writing process. The results of this comparison indicate a slightly better performance of HAZEL over ChatGPT, suggesting that the GenAI chatbot is more effective once the underlying large language model (LLM) has been fine-tuned. However, we also note significant limitations, particularly in areas requiring cultural sensitivity and more advanced technical expertise. These findings suggest that, while GenAI cannot replace human heritage professionals in technical authoring tasks, its potential to automate and expedite certain aspects of guidance writing could offer valuable benefits to heritage organisations, especially in resource-constrained contexts.

As Generative Artificial Intelligence is adopted across the financial services industry, a significant barrier to adoption and usage is measuring model performance. Historical machine learning metrics can oftentimes fail to generalize to GenAI workloads and are often supplemented using Subject Matter Expert (SME) Evaluation. Even in this combination, many projects fail to account for various unique risks present in choosing specific metrics. Additionally, many widespread benchmarks created by foundational research labs and educational institutions fail to generalize to industrial use. This paper explains these challenges and provides a Risk Assessment Framework to allow for better application of SME and machine learning Metrics

This survey provides the first systematic review of Arabic LLM benchmarks, analyzing 40+ evaluation benchmarks across NLP tasks, knowledge domains, cultural understanding, and specialized capabilities. We propose a taxonomy organizing benchmarks into four categories: Knowledge, NLP Tasks, Culture and Dialects, and Target-Specific evaluations. Our analysis reveals significant progress in benchmark diversity while identifying critical gaps: limited temporal evaluation, insufficient multi-turn dialogue assessment, and cultural misalignment in translated datasets. We examine three primary approaches: native collection, translation, and synthetic generation discussing their trade-offs regarding authenticity, scale, and cost. This work serves as a comprehensive reference for Arabic NLP researchers, providing insights into benchmark methodologies, reproducibility standards, and evaluation metrics while offering recommendations for future development.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed across high-impact domains, from clinical decision support and legal analysis to hiring and education, making fairness and bias evaluation before deployment critical. However, existing evaluations lack grounding in real-world scenarios and do not account for differences in harm severity, e.g., a biased decision in surgery should not be weighed the same as a stylistic bias in text summarization. To address this gap, we introduce HALF (Harm-Aware LLM Fairness), a deployment-aligned framework that assesses model bias in realistic applications and weighs the outcomes by harm severity. HALF organizes nine application domains into three tiers (Severe, Moderate, Mild) using a five-stage pipeline. Our evaluation results across eight LLMs show that (1) LLMs are not consistently fair across domains, (2) model size or performance do not guarantee fairness, and (3) reasoning models perform better in medical decision support but worse in education. We conclude that HALF exposes a clear gap between previous benchmarking success and deployment readiness.

Large language models (LLMs) that fluently converse with humans are a reality - but do LLMs experience human-like processing difficulties? We systematically compare human and LLM sentence comprehension across seven challenging linguistic structures. We collect sentence comprehension data from humans and five families of state-of-the-art LLMs, varying in size and training procedure in a unified experimental framework. Our results show LLMs overall struggle on the target structures, but especially on garden path (GP) sentences. Indeed, while the strongest models achieve near perfect accuracy on non-GP structures (93.7% for GPT-5), they struggle on GP structures (46.8% for GPT-5). Additionally, when ranking structures based on average performance, rank correlation between humans and models increases with parameter count. For each target structure, we also collect data for their matched baseline without the difficult structure. Comparing performance on the target vs. baseline sentences, the performance gap observed in humans holds for LLMs, with two exceptions: for models that are too weak performance is uniformly low across both sentence types, and for models that are too strong the performance is uniformly high. Together, these reveal convergence and divergence in human and LLM sentence comprehension, offering new insights into the similarity of humans and LLMs.

We introduce PETLP (Privacy-by-design Extract, Transform, Load, and Present), a compliance framework that embeds legal safeguards directly into extended ETL pipelines. Central to PETLP is treating Data Protection Impact Assessments as living documents that evolve from preregistration through dissemination. Through systematic Red-dit analysis, we demonstrate how extraction rights fundamentally differ between qualifying research organisations (who can invoke DSM Article 3 to override platform restrictions) and commercial entities (bound by terms of service), whilst GDPR obligations apply universally. We demonstrate why true anonymisation remains unachievable for social media data and expose the legal gap between permitted dataset creation and uncertain model distribution. By structuring compliance decisions into practical workflows and simplifying institutional data management plans, PETLP enables researchers to navigate regulatory complexity with confidence, bridging the gap between legal requirements and research practice.

Prior benchmarks for evaluating the domain-specific knowledge of large language models (LLMs) lack the scalability to handle complex academic tasks. To address this, we introduce \texttt{ScholarBench}, a benchmark centered on deep expert knowledge and complex academic problem-solving, which evaluates the academic reasoning ability of LLMs and is constructed through a three-step process. \texttt{ScholarBench} targets more specialized and logically complex contexts derived from academic literature, encompassing five distinct problem types. Unlike prior benchmarks, \texttt{ScholarBench} evaluates the abstraction, comprehension, and reasoning capabilities of LLMs across eight distinct research domains. To ensure high-quality evaluation data, we define category-specific example attributes and design questions that are aligned with the characteristic research methodologies and discourse structures of each domain. Additionally, this benchmark operates as an English-Korean bilingual dataset, facilitating simultaneous evaluation for linguistic capabilities of LLMs in both languages. The benchmark comprises 5,031 examples in Korean and 5,309 in English, with even state-of-the-art models like o3-mini achieving an average evaluation score of only 0.543, demonstrating the challenging nature of this benchmark.

We are grateful to the discussants, Levis and Kennedy [2025], Luo and Geng [2025], Wang and van der Laan [2025], and Yang and Kim [2025], for their thoughtful comments on our paper (Nabi et al., 2025). In this rejoinder, we summarize our main contributions and respond to each discussion in turn.