Large-scale web-scraped text corpora used to train general-purpose AI models often contain harmful demographic-targeted social biases, creating a regulatory need for data auditing and developing scalable bias-detection methods. Although prior work has investigated biases in text datasets and related detection methods, these studies remain narrow in scope. They typically focus on a single content type (e.g., hate speech), cover limited demographic axes, overlook biases affecting multiple demographics simultaneously, and analyze limited techniques. Consequently, practitioners lack a holistic understanding of the strengths and limitations of recent large language models (LLMs) for automated bias detection. In this study, we present a comprehensive evaluation framework aimed at English texts to assess the ability of LLMs in detecting demographic-targeted social biases. To align with regulatory requirements, we frame bias detection as a multi-label task using a demographic-focused taxonomy. We then conduct a systematic evaluation with models across scales and techniques, including prompting, in-context learning, and fine-tuning. Using twelve datasets spanning diverse content types and demographics, our study demonstrates the promise of fine-tuned smaller models for scalable detection. However, our analyses also expose persistent gaps across demographic axes and multi-demographic targeted biases, underscoring the need for more effective and scalable auditing frameworks.

Counter-speech (CS) is a key strategy for mitigating online Hate Speech (HS), yet defining the criteria to assess its effectiveness remains an open challenge. We propose a novel computational framework for CS effectiveness classification, grounded in linguistics, communication and argumentation concepts. Our framework defines six core dimensions - Clarity, Evidence, Emotional Appeal, Rebuttal, Audience Adaptation, and Fairness - which we use to annotate 4,214 CS instances from two benchmark datasets, resulting in a novel linguistic resource released to the community. In addition, we propose two classification strategies, multi-task and dependency-based, achieving strong results (0.94 and 0.96 average F1 respectively on both expert- and user-written CS), outperforming standard baselines, and revealing strong interdependence among dimensions.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly deployed in legal contexts, where their opacity raises significant challenges for fairness, accountability, and trust. The so-called ``black box problem'' undermines the legitimacy of automated decision-making, as affected individuals often lack access to meaningful explanations. In response, the field of Explainable AI (XAI) has proposed a variety of methods to enhance transparency, ranging from example-based and rule-based techniques to hybrid and argumentation-based approaches. This paper promotes computational models of arguments and their role in providing legally relevant explanations, with particular attention to their alignment with emerging regulatory frameworks such as the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA). We analyze the strengths and limitations of different explanation strategies, evaluate their applicability to legal reasoning, and highlight how argumentation frameworks -- by capturing the defeasible, contestable, and value-sensitive nature of law -- offer a particularly robust foundation for explainable legal AI. Finally, we identify open challenges and research directions, including bias mitigation, empirical validation in judicial settings, and compliance with evolving ethical and legal standards, arguing that computational argumentation is best positioned to meet both technical and normative requirements of transparency in the law domain.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly under scrutiny for perpetuating identity-based discrimination in high-stakes domains such as hiring, particularly against people with disabilities (PwD). However, existing research remains largely Western-centric, overlooking how intersecting forms of marginalization--such as gender and caste--shape experiences of PwD in the Global South. We conduct a comprehensive audit of six LLMs across 2,820 hiring scenarios spanning diverse disability, gender, nationality, and caste profiles. To capture subtle intersectional harms and biases, we introduce ABLEIST (Ableism, Inspiration, Superhumanization, and Tokenism), a set of five ableism-specific and three intersectional harm metrics grounded in disability studies literature. Our results reveal significant increases in ABLEIST harms towards disabled candidates--harms that many state-of-the-art models failed to detect. These harms were further amplified by sharp increases in intersectional harms (e.g., Tokenism) for gender and caste-marginalized disabled candidates, highlighting critical blind spots in current safety tools and the need for intersectional safety evaluations of frontier models in high-stakes domains like hiring.

Recent AI regulations call for data that remain useful for innovation while resistant to misuse, balancing utility with protection at the model level. Existing approaches either perturb data to make it unlearnable or retrain models to suppress transfer, but neither governs inference by unknown models, and both typically require control over training. We propose non-transferable examples (NEs), a training-free and data-agnostic input-side usage-control mechanism. We recode inputs within a model-specific low-sensitivity subspace, preserving outputs for the authorized model while reducing performance on unauthorized models through subspace misalignment. We establish formal bounds that guarantee utility for the authorized model and quantify deviation for unauthorized ones, with the Hoffman-Wielandt inequality linking degradation to spectral differences. Empirically, NEs retain performance on diverse vision backbones and state-of-the-art vision-language models under common preprocessing, whereas non-target models collapse even with reconstruction attempts. These results establish NEs as a practical means to preserve intended data utility while preventing unauthorized exploitation. Our project is available at https://trusted-system-lab.github.io/model-specificity

Hate speech remains prevalent in human society and continues to evolve in its forms and expressions. Modern advancements in internet and online anonymity accelerate its rapid spread and complicate its detection. However, hate speech datasets exhibit diverse characteristics primarily because they are constructed from different sources and platforms, each reflecting different linguistic styles and social contexts. Despite this diversity, prior studies on hate speech detection often rely on fixed methodologies without adapting to data-specific features. We introduce RV-HATE, a detection framework designed to account for the dataset-specific characteristics of each hate speech dataset. RV-HATE consists of multiple specialized modules, where each module focuses on distinct linguistic or contextual features of hate speech. The framework employs reinforcement learning to optimize weights that determine the contribution of each module for a given dataset. A voting mechanism then aggregates the module outputs to produce the final decision. RV-HATE offers two primary advantages: (1)~it improves detection accuracy by tailoring the detection process to dataset-specific attributes, and (2)~it also provides interpretable insights into the distinctive features of each dataset. Consequently, our approach effectively addresses implicit hate speech and achieves superior performance compared to conventional static methods. Our code is available at https://github.com/leeyejin1231/RV-HATE.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is becoming increasingly essential for Question Answering (QA) in the financial sector, where accurate and contextually grounded insights from complex public disclosures are crucial. However, existing financial RAG systems face two significant challenges: (1) they struggle to process heterogeneous data formats, such as text, tables, and figures; and (2) they encounter difficulties in balancing general-domain applicability with company-specific adaptation. To overcome these challenges, we present VeritasFi, an innovative hybrid RAG framework that incorporates a multi-modal preprocessing pipeline alongside a cutting-edge two-stage training strategy for its re-ranking component. VeritasFi enhances financial QA through three key innovations: (1) A multi-modal preprocessing pipeline that seamlessly transforms heterogeneous data into a coherent, machine-readable format. (2) A tripartite hybrid retrieval engine that operates in parallel, combining deep multi-path retrieval over a semantically indexed document corpus, real-time data acquisition through tool utilization, and an expert-curated memory bank for high-frequency questions, ensuring comprehensive scope, accuracy, and efficiency. (3) A two-stage training strategy for the document re-ranker, which initially constructs a general, domain-specific model using anonymized data, followed by rapid fine-tuning on company-specific data for targeted applications. By integrating our proposed designs, VeritasFi presents a groundbreaking framework that greatly enhances the adaptability and robustness of financial RAG systems, providing a scalable solution for both general-domain and company-specific QA tasks. Code accompanying this work is available at https://github.com/simplew4y/VeritasFi.git.

-- W e present a n approach to software testing automation using Agentic Retrieval - Augmented Generation (RAG) systems for Quality Engineering (QE) artifact creation. We combine autonomous AI agents with hybrid vector - graph knowledge systems to automate test plan, case, and Q E metric generation. The system achieves remarkable accuracy improvements from 65% to 94.8% while ensuring comprehensive document traceability throughout the quality engineering lifecycle. Experimental validat ion of enterprise Corporate Systems Engineering and SAP migration projects demonstrates an 85% reduction in testing timeline, a n 85% improvement in test suite efficiency, and projected 35% cost savings, resulting in a 2 - month acceleration of go - live . Index Terms -- agentic systems, retrieval - augmented generation, software testing, quality engineering, multi - agent orchestration, hybrid vector - graph, test automation, SAP testing, en terprise systems These limitations become particularly pronounced in enterprise software testing, where maintaining traceability between requirements, test cases, and business logic is paramount for regulatory compliance and quality assurance.

Systematic reviews are crucial for synthesizing scientific evidence but remain labor-intensive, especially when extracting detailed methodological information. Large language models (LLMs) offer potential for automating methodological assessments, promising to transform evidence synthesis. Here, using causal mediation analysis as a representative methodological domain, we benchmarked state-of-the-art LLMs against expert human reviewers across 180 full-text scientific articles. Model performance closely correlated with human judgments (accuracy correlation 0.71; F1 correlation 0.97), achieving near-human accuracy on straightforward, explicitly stated methodological criteria. However, accuracy sharply declined on complex, inference-intensive assessments, lagging expert reviewers by up to 15%. Errors commonly resulted from superficial linguistic cues -- for instance, models frequently misinterpreted keywords like "longitudinal" or "sensitivity" as automatic evidence of rigorous methodological approache, leading to systematic misclassifications. Longer documents yielded lower model accuracy, whereas publication year showed no significant effect. Our findings highlight an important pattern for practitioners using LLMs for methods review and synthesis from full texts: current LLMs excel at identifying explicit methodological features but require human oversight for nuanced interpretations. Integrating automated information extraction with targeted expert review thus provides a promising approach to enhance efficiency and methodological rigor in evidence synthesis across diverse scientific fields.

Safety alignment in large language models (LLMs) induces over-refusals -- where LLMs decline benign requests due to aggressive safety filters. We analyze this phenomenon in retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), where both the query intent and retrieved context properties influence refusal behavior. We construct RagRefuse, a domain-stratified benchmark spanning medical, chemical, and open domains, pairing benign and harmful queries with controlled context contamination patterns and sizes. Our analysis shows that context arrangement / contamination, domain of query and context, and harmful-text density trigger refusals even on benign queries, with effects depending on model-specific alignment choices. To mitigate over-refusals, we introduce \textsc{SafeRAG-Steering}, a model-centric embedding intervention that steers the embedding regions towards the confirmed safe, non-refusing output regions at inference time. This reduces over-refusals in contaminated RAG pipelines while preserving legitimate refusals.