We introduce AA-Omniscience, a benchmark designed to measure both factual recall and knowledge calibration across 6,000 questions. Questions are derived from authoritative academic and industry sources, and cover 42 economically relevant topics within six different domains. The evaluation measures a model's Omniscience Index, a bounded metric (-100 to 100) measuring factual recall that jointly penalizes hallucinations and rewards abstention when uncertain, with 0 equating to a model that answers questions correctly as much as it does incorrectly. Among evaluated models, Claude 4.1 Opus attains the highest score (4.8), making it one of only three models to score above zero. These results reveal persistent factuality and calibration weaknesses across frontier models. Performance also varies by domain, with the models from three different research labs leading across the six domains. This performance variability suggests models should be chosen according to the demands of the use case rather than general performance for tasks where knowledge is important.

The proliferation of generative AI has led to hyper-realistic synthetic videos, escalating misuse risks and outstripping binary real/fake detectors. We introduce SAGA (Source Attribution of Generative AI videos), the first comprehensive framework to address the urgent need for AI-generated video source attribution at a large scale. Unlike traditional detection, SAGA identifies the specific generative model used. It uniquely provides multi-granular attribution across five levels: authenticity, generation task (e.g., T2V/I2V), model version, development team, and the precise generator, offering far richer forensic insights. Our novel video transformer architecture, leveraging features from a robust vision foundation model, effectively captures spatio-temporal artifacts. Critically, we introduce a data-efficient pretrain-and-attribute strategy, enabling SAGA to achieve state-of-the-art attribution using only 0.5\% of source-labeled data per class, matching fully supervised performance. Furthermore, we propose Temporal Attention Signatures (T-Sigs), a novel interpretability method that visualizes learned temporal differences, offering the first explanation for why different video generators are distinguishable. Extensive experiments on public datasets, including cross-domain scenarios, demonstrate that SAGA sets a new benchmark for synthetic video provenance, providing crucial, interpretable insights for forensic and regulatory applications.

The performance of Machine Learning (ML) and Deep Learning (DL)-based Intrusion Detection and Prevention Systems (IDS/IPS) is critically dependent on the relevance and quality of the datasets used for training and evaluation. However, current AI model evaluation practices for developing IDS/IPS focus predominantly on accuracy metrics, often overlooking whether datasets represent industry-specific threats. To address this gap, we introduce a novel multi-dimensional framework that integrates the MITRE ATT&CK knowledge base for threat intelligence and employs five complementary metrics that together provide a comprehensive assessment of dataset suitability. Methodologically, this framework combines threat intelligence, natural language processing, and quantitative analysis to assess the suitability of datasets for specific industry contexts. Applying this framework to nine publicly available IDS/IPS datasets reveals significant gaps in threat coverage, particularly in the healthcare, energy, and financial sectors. In particular, recent datasets (e.g., CIC-IoMT, CIC-UNSW-NB15) align better with sector-specific threats, whereas others, like CICIoV-24, underperform despite their recency. Our findings provide a standardized, interpretable approach for selecting datasets aligned with sector-specific operational requirements, ultimately enhancing the real-world effectiveness of AI-driven IDS/IPS deployments. The efficiency and practicality of the framework are validated through deployment in a real-world case study, underscoring its capacity to inform dataset selection and enhance the effectiveness of AI-driven IDS/IPS in operational environments.

Automated red teaming frameworks for Large Language Models (LLMs) have become increasingly sophisticated, yet they share a fundamental limitation: their jailbreak logic is confined to selecting, combining, or refining pre-existing attack strategies. This binds their creativity and leaves them unable to autonomously invent entirely new attack mechanisms. To overcome this gap, we introduce \textbf{EvoSynth}, an autonomous framework that shifts the paradigm from attack planning to the evolutionary synthesis of jailbreak methods. Instead of refining prompts, EvoSynth employs a multi-agent system to autonomously engineer, evolve, and execute novel, code-based attack algorithms. Crucially, it features a code-level self-correction loop, allowing it to iteratively rewrite its own attack logic in response to failure. Through extensive experiments, we demonstrate that EvoSynth not only establishes a new state-of-the-art by achieving an 85.5\% Attack Success Rate (ASR) against highly robust models like Claude-Sonnet-4.5, but also generates attacks that are significantly more diverse than those from existing methods. We release our framework to facilitate future research in this new direction of evolutionary synthesis of jailbreak methods. Code is available at: https://github.com/dongdongunique/EvoSynth.

Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) is widely used to align large language models (LLMs) with human preferences. However, RLHF-trained reward models often exhibit length bias -- a systematic tendency to favor longer responses by conflating verbosity with quality. We propose a causal framework for analyzing and mitigating length bias in RLHF reward modeling. Central to our approach is a counterfactual data augmentation method that generates response pairs designed to isolate content quality from verbosity. These counterfactual examples are then used to train the reward model, enabling it to assess responses based on content quality independently of verbosity. Specifically, we construct (1) length-divergent pairs with similar content and (2) content-divergent pairs of similar length. Empirical evaluations show that our method reduces length bias in reward assignment and leads to more concise, content-focused outputs from the policy model. These findings demonstrate that the proposed approach effectively reduces length bias and improves the robustness and content sensitivity of reward modeling in RLHF pipelines.

We present SGuard-v1, a lightweight safety guardrail for Large Language Models (LLMs), which comprises two specialized models to detect harmful content and screen adversarial prompts in human-AI conversational settings. The first component, ContentFilter, is trained to identify safety risks in LLM prompts and responses in accordance with the MLCommons hazard taxonomy, a comprehensive framework for trust and safety assessment of AI. The second component, JailbreakFilter, is trained with a carefully designed curriculum over integrated datasets and findings from prior work on adversarial prompting, covering 60 major attack types while mitigating false-unsafe classification. SGuard-v1 is built on the 2B-parameter Granite-3.3-2B-Instruct model that supports 12 languages. We curate approximately 1.4 million training instances from both collected and synthesized data and perform instruction tuning on the base model, distributing the curated data across the two component according to their designated functions. Through extensive evaluation on public and proprietary safety benchmarks, SGuard-v1 achieves state-of-the-art safety performance while remaining lightweight, thereby reducing deployment overhead. SGuard-v1 also improves interpretability for downstream use by providing multi-class safety predictions and their binary confidence scores. We release the SGuard-v1 under the Apache-2.0 License to enable further research and practical deployment in AI safety.

Summarization of legal judgments poses a heavy cognitive burden on law practitioners due to the complexity of the language, context-sensitive legal jargon, and the length of the document. Therefore, the automatic summarization of legal documents has attracted serious attention from natural language processing researchers. Since the abstractive summaries of legal documents generated by deep neural methods remain prone to the risk of misrepresenting nuanced legal jargon or overlooking key contextual details, we envisage a rising trend toward the use of extractive case summarizers. Given the high cost of human annotation for gold standard extractive summaries, we engineer a light and transparent pipeline that leverages existing abstractive gold standard summaries to create the corresponding extractive gold standard versions. The approach ensures that the experts` opinions ensconced in the original gold standard abstractive summaries are carried over to the transformed extractive summaries. We aim to augment seven existing case summarization datasets, which include abstractive summaries, by incorporating corresponding extractive summaries and create an enriched data resource for case summarization research community. To ensure the quality of the augmented extractive summaries, we perform an extensive comparative evaluation with the original abstractive gold standard summaries covering structural, lexical, and semantic dimensions. We also compare the domain-level information of the two summaries. We commit to release the augmented datasets in the public domain for use by the research community and believe that the resource will offer opportunities to advance the field of automatic summarization of legal documents.

Large language models are increasingly influencing human moral decisions, yet current approaches focus primarily on evaluating rather than actively steering their moral decisions. We formulate this as an out-of-distribution moral alignment problem, where LLM agents must learn to apply consistent moral reasoning frameworks to scenarios beyond their training distribution. We introduce Moral-Reason-QA, a novel dataset extending 680 human-annotated, high-ambiguity moral scenarios with framework-specific reasoning traces across utilitarian, deontological, and virtue ethics, enabling systematic evaluation of moral generalization in realistic decision contexts. Our learning approach employs Group Relative Policy Optimization with composite rewards that simultaneously optimize decision alignment and framework-specific reasoning processes to facilitate learning of the underlying moral frameworks. Experimental results demonstrate successful generalization to unseen moral scenarios, with softmax-normalized alignment scores improving by +0.757 for utilitarian and +0.450 for deontological frameworks when tested on out-of-distribution evaluation sets. The experiments also reveal training challenges and promising directions that inform future research. These findings establish that LLM agents can be systematically trained to internalize and apply specific moral frameworks to novel situations, providing a critical foundation for AI safety as language models become more integrated into human decision-making processes.

This study introduces a hybrid neuro-symbolic framework that achieves deterministic detection of statutory inconsistency in complex law. We use the U.S. Internal Revenue Code (IRC) as a case study because its complexity makes it a fertile domain for identifying conflicts. Our research offers a solution for detecting inconsistent provisions by combining Large Language Models (LLMs) with symbolic logic. LLM-based methods can support compliance, fairness, and statutory drafting, yet tax-specific applications remain sparse. A key challenge is that such models struggle with hierarchical processing and deep structured reasoning, especially over long text. This research addresses these gaps through experiments using GPT-4o, GPT-5, and Prolog. GPT-4o was first used to translate Section 121 into Prolog rules and refine them in SWISH. These rules were then incorporated into prompts to test whether Prolog-augmented prompting improved GPT-4o's inconsistency detection. GPT-4o, whether prompted with natural language alone or with Prolog augmentation, detected the inconsistency in only one of three strategies (33 percent accuracy), but its reasoning quality differed: natural-language prompting achieved 100 percent rule coverage, while Prolog-augmented prompting achieved 66 percent, indicating more incomplete statutory analysis. In contrast to probabilistic prompting, the hybrid Prolog model produced deterministic and reproducible results. Guided by GPT-5 for refinement, the model formalized the IRC section's competing interpretations and successfully detected an inconsistency zone. Validation tests confirm that the Prolog implementation is accurate, internally consistent, deterministic, and capable of autonomously identifying inconsistencies. These findings show that LLM-assisted formalization, anchored in symbolic logic, enables transparent and reliable statutory inconsistency detection.

Generative vision-language models like Stable Diffusion demonstrate remarkable capabilities in creative media synthesis, but they also pose substantial risks of producing unsafe, offensive, or culturally inappropriate content when prompted adversarially. Current defenses struggle to align outputs with human values without sacrificing generation quality or incurring high costs. To address these challenges, we introduce VALOR (Value-Aligned LLM-Overseen Rewriter), a modular, zero-shot agentic framework for safer and more helpful text-to-image generation. VALOR integrates layered prompt analysis with human-aligned value reasoning: a multi-level NSFW detector filters lexical and semantic risks; a cultural value alignment module identifies violations of social norms, legality, and representational ethics; and an intention disambiguator detects subtle or indirect unsafe implications. When unsafe content is detected, prompts are selectively rewritten by a large language model under dynamic, role-specific instructions designed to preserve user intent while enforcing alignment. If the generated image still fails a safety check, VALOR optionally performs a stylistic regeneration to steer the output toward a safer visual domain without altering core semantics. Experiments across adversarial, ambiguous, and value-sensitive prompts show that VALOR significantly reduces unsafe outputs by up to 100.00% while preserving prompt usefulness and creativity. These results highlight VALOR as a scalable and effective approach for deploying safe, aligned, and helpful image generation systems in open-world settings.