Process reward models (PRMs) have demonstrated significant efficacy in enhancing the mathematical reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) by leveraging test-time scaling (TTS). However, while most PRMs exhibit substantial gains in mathematical domains, the scarcity of domain-specific training data and knowledge-based learning patterns limits their generalization ability when faced with other domains. T o address this limitation, we shift the learning objective from verifying domain-specific knowledge to modeling domain-agnostic logical flow. Centering on contextual coherence between chain-of-thought (CoT) steps, our approach is realized through a novel data annotation and training framework, which enhances the model's generalization capabilities across diverse domains. F or instance, our resulting model, ContextPRM, achieves a notable 6.5% average accuracy improvement over the majority voting baseline via weighted majority voting across nine non-mathematical domains in MMLU-Pro, including law, history, and philosophy, significantly surpassing the 2.2% improvement from V ersaPRM and 0.5% gains from other mathematics-focused PRMs, demonstrating consistent performance across both mathematical and non-mathematical domains.

Although Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have progressed in solving complex problems, their chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning often contains harmful content that can persist even when the final responses appear safe. We show that this issue still remains in existing methods which overlook the unique significance of safe reasoning, undermining their trustworthiness and posing potential risks in applications if unsafe reasoning is accessible for and exploited by malicious users. We therefore shift our focus to aligning the safety of reasoning itself in this paper and explore process supervision as the solution. However, simply rewarding safe reasoning proves inadequate due to low rollout diversity and limited training signals. To tackle this challenge, we first delve into the characteristics of safe reasoning and uncover several critical insights that 1) safe reasoning is often consolidated by a few critical steps of safety triggers; 2) compliance cues strongly correlate with unsafe continuations; and 3) corrective interventions reliably steer unsafe trajectories towards safer traces. Motivated by these, we propose Intervened Preference Optimization (IPO), an alignment method that enforces safe reasoning by substituting compliance steps with safety triggers and constructing pairs for preference learning with strong signals. Experiments on jailbreak and adversarial safety benchmarks demonstrate that IPO remarkably improves overall safety regarding both reasoning and responses, outperforming SFT-based and RL-based baselines with a relative reduction of over 30% in harmfulness, while preserving excellent performance across diverse reasoning tasks. The results highlight the importance of explicit alignment for reasoning and provide a practical path to safer LRMs.

Identifying human morals and values embedded in language is essential to empirical studies of communication. However, researchers often face substantial difficulty navigating the diversity of theoretical frameworks and data available for their analysis. Here, we contribute MoVa, a well-documented suite of resources for generalizable classification of human morals and values, consisting of (1) 16 labeled datasets and benchmarking results from four theoretically-grounded frameworks; (2) a lightweight LLM prompting strategy that outperforms fine-tuned models across multiple domains and frameworks; and (3) a new application that helps evaluate psychological surveys. In practice, we specifically recommend a classification strategy, all@once, that scores all related concepts simultaneously, resembling the well-known multi-label classifier chain. The data and methods in MoVa can facilitate many fine-grained interpretations of human and machine communication, with potential implications for the alignment of machine behavior.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) exhibit unprecedented capabilities in solving complex problems through Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning. However, recent studies reveal that their final answers often contradict their own reasoning traces. We hypothesize that this inconsistency stems from two competing mechanisms for generating answers: CoT reasoning and memory retrieval. To test this hypothesis, we conduct controlled experiments that challenge LRMs with misleading cues during reasoning and/or corrupted answers during retrieval. Our results across models and datasets confirm that both mechanisms operate simultaneously, with their relative dominance influenced by multiple factors: problem domains, model scales, and fine-tuning approaches (e.g., reinforcement learning vs. distillation). The findings reveal a critical limitation in current reasoning fine-tuning paradigms: models can exploit the retrieval mechanism as a shortcut, effectively "hacking" the reward signal and undermining genuine reasoning development. To address this challenge, we introduce FARL, a novel fine-tuning framework that integrates memory unlearning with reinforcement learning. By carefully suppressing retrieval shortcuts during the fine-tuning process, FARL promotes reasoning-dominant behavior and enhances generalizable reasoning capabilities.

Context-grounded hallucinations are cases where model outputs contain information not verifiable against the source text. We study the applicability of LLMs for localizing such hallucinations, as a more practical alternative to existing complex evaluation pipelines. In the absence of established benchmarks for meta-evaluation of hallucinations localization, we construct one tailored to LLMs, involving a challenging human annotation of over 1,000 examples. We complement the benchmark with an LLM-based evaluation protocol, verifying its quality in a human evaluation. Since existing representations of hallucinations limit the types of errors that can be expressed, we propose a new representation based on free-form textual descriptions, capturing the full range of possible errors. We conduct a comprehensive study, evaluating four large-scale LLMs, which highlights the benchmark's difficulty, as the best model achieves an F1 score of only 0.67. Through careful analysis, we offer insights into optimal prompting strategies for the task and identify the main factors that make it challenging for LLMs: (1) a tendency to incorrectly flag missing details as inconsistent, despite being instructed to check only facts in the output; and (2) difficulty with outputs containing factually correct information absent from the source - and thus not verifiable - due to alignment with the model's parametric knowledge.

Plantar pressure mapping is essential in clinical diagnostics and sports science, yet large heterogeneous datasets often contain outliers from technical errors or procedural inconsistencies. Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM) provides interpretable analyses but is sensitive to alignment and its capacity for robust outlier detection remains unclear. This study compares an SPM approach with an explainable machine learning (ML) approach to establish transparent quality-control pipelines for plantar pressure datasets. Data from multiple centers were annotated by expert consensus and enriched with synthetic anomalies resulting in 798 valid samples and 2000 outliers. We evaluated (i) a non-parametric, registration-dependent SPM approach and (ii) a convolutional neural network (CNN), explained using SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP). Performance was assessed via nested cross-validation; explanation quality via a semantic differential survey with domain experts. The ML model reached high accuracy and outperformed SPM, which misclassified clinically meaningful variations and missed true outliers. Experts perceived both SPM and SHAP explanations as clear, useful, and trustworthy, though SPM was assessed less complex. These findings highlight the complementary potential of SPM and explainable ML as approaches for automated outlier detection in plantar pressure data, and underscore the importance of explainability in translating complex model outputs into interpretable insights that can effectively inform decision-making.

AI-based recommender systems increasingly influence recruitment decisions. Thus, transparency and responsible adoption in Human Resource Management (HRM) are critical. This study examines how HR managers' AI literacy influences their subjective perception and objective understanding of explainable AI (XAI) elements in recruiting recommender dashboards. In an online experiment, 410 German-based HR managers compared baseline dashboards to versions enriched with three XAI styles: important features, counterfactuals, and model criteria. Our results show that the dashboards used in practice do not explain AI results and even keep AI elements opaque. However, while adding XAI features improves subjective perceptions of helpfulness and trust among users with moderate or high AI literacy, it does not increase their objective understanding. It may even reduce accurate understanding, especially with complex explanations. Only overlays of important features significantly aided the interpretations of high-literacy users. Our findings highlight that the benefits of XAI in recruitment depend on users' AI literacy, emphasizing the need for tailored explanation strategies and targeted literacy training in HRM to ensure fair, transparent, and effective adoption of AI.

Predictive Coding (PC) offers a biologically plausible alternative to backpropagation for neural network training, yet struggles with deeper architectures. This paper identifies the root cause and provides a principled solution. We uncover that the canonical state-based formulation of PC (sPC) is, by design, deeply inefficient on digital hardware, due to an inherent signal decay problem that scales exponentially with depth. To address this fundamental limitation, we introduce a novel reparameterization of PC, named error-based PC (ePC), which does not suffer from signal decay. By optimizing over prediction errors rather than states, ePC enables signals to reach all layers simultaneously and unattenuated, converging orders of magnitude faster than sPC. Experiments across multiple architectures and datasets demonstrate that ePC matches backpropagation's performance even for deeper models where sPC struggles. Besides practical improvements, our work provides theoretical insight into PC dynamics and establishes a foundation for scaling bio-inspired learning to deeper architectures on digital hardware and beyond.

A prominent issue in aligning language models (LMs) to personalized preferences is underspecification -- the lack of information from users about their preferences. A popular trend of injecting such specification is adding a prefix (e.g. prior relevant conversations) to the current user's conversation to steer preference distribution. Most methods passively model personal preferences with prior example preferences pairs. We ask whether models benefit from actively inferring preference descriptions, and address this question by creating a synthetic personalized alignment dataset based on famous people with known public preferences. We then test how effective finetuned 1-8B size models are at inferring and aligning to personal preferences. Results show that higher-quality active prefixes lead to better generalization, more contextually faithful models, and less systematic biases across different protected attributes. All our results suggest active alignment can lead to a more controllable and efficient path for personalized alignment.

Evaluating open-ended outputs of Multimodal Large Language Models has become a bottleneck as model capabilities, task diversity, and modality rapidly expand. Existing ``MLLM-as-a-Judge'' evaluators, though promising, remain constrained to specific tasks and aspects. In this paper, we argue that, on one hand, based on the interconnected nature of aspects, learning specific aspects can generalize to unseen aspects; on the other hand, jointly learning to assess multiple visual aspects and tasks may foster a synergistic effect. To this end, we propose UFEval, the first unified fine-grained evaluator with task and aspect generalization for four evaluation tasks -- Natural Language Generation, Image Understanding, Image Generation, and Interleaved Text-and-Image Generation. However, training such a unified evaluator is hindered by the lack of a large-scale, multi-modal, and aspect-level resource. To address this gap, we introduce FRABench, a comprehensive fine-grained evaluation dataset. Specifically, (1) We first construct a hierarchical aspect taxonomy encompassing 112 distinct aspects across the aforementioned four tasks. (2) Based on this taxonomy, we create FRABench, comprising 60.4k pairwise samples with 325k evaluation labels obtained from a combination of human and GPT-4o annotations. (3) Finally, leveraging FRABench, we develop UFEval, a unified fine-grained evaluator. Experiments show that learning on specific aspects enables UFEval to generalize to unseen aspects, and joint learning to assess diverse visual tasks and aspects can lead to substantial mutual benefits.