Large language models (LLMs) are known to generate politically biased text, yet how such biases arise remains unclear. A crucial step toward answering this question is the analysis of training data, whose political content remains largely underexplored in current LLM research. To address this gap, we present in this paper an analysis of the pre- and post-training corpora of OLMO2, the largest fully open-source model released together with its complete dataset. From these corpora, we draw large random samples, automatically annotate documents for political orientation, and analyze their source domains and content. We then assess how political content in the training data correlates with models' stance on specific policy issues. Our analysis shows that left-leaning documents predominate across datasets, with pre-training corpora containing significantly more politically engaged content than post-training data. We also find that left- and right-leaning documents frame similar topics through distinct values and sources of legitimacy. Finally, the predominant stance in the training data strongly correlates with models' political biases when evaluated on policy issues. These findings underscore the need to integrate political content analysis into future data curation pipelines as well as in-depth documentation of filtering strategies for transparency.

Large language models (LLMs) excel at operating at scale by leveraging social media and various data crawled from the web. Whereas existing corpora are diverse, their frequent lack of long-term temporal structure may however limit an LLM's ability to contextualize semantic and normative evolution of language and to capture diachronic variation. To support analysis and training for the latter, we introduce CHRONOBERG, a temporally structured corpus of English book texts spanning 250 years, curated from Project Gutenberg and enriched with a variety of temporal annotations. First, the edited nature of books enables us to quantify lexical semantic change through time-sensitive Valence-Arousal-Dominance (VAD) analysis and to construct historically calibrated affective lexicons to support temporally grounded interpretation. With the lexicons at hand, we demonstrate a need for modern LLM-based tools to better situate their detection of discriminatory language and contextualization of sentiment across various time-periods. In fact, we show how language models trained sequentially on CHRONOBERG struggle to encode diachronic shifts in meaning, emphasizing the need for temporally aware training and evaluation pipelines, and positioning CHRONOBERG as a scalable resource for the study of linguistic change and temporal generalization. Disclaimer: This paper includes language and display of samples that could be offensive to readers. Open Access: Chronoberg is available publicly on HuggingFace at ( https://huggingface.co/datasets/spaul25/Chronoberg). Code is available at (https://github.com/paulsubarna/Chronoberg).

The proliferation of Large Language Models (LLMs) has demonstrated remarkable capabilities, elevating the critical importance of LLM safety. However, existing safety methods rely on ad-hoc taxonomy and lack a rigorous, systematic protection, failing to ensure safety for the nuanced and complex behaviors of modern LLM systems. To address this problem, we solve LLM safety from legal compliance perspectives, named safety compliance. In this work, we posit relevant established legal frameworks as safety standards for defining and measuring safety compliance, including the EU AI Act and GDPR, which serve as core legal frameworks for AI safety and data security in Europe. To bridge the gap between LLM safety and legal compliance, we first develop a new benchmark for safety compliance by generating realistic LLM safety scenarios seeded with legal statutes. Subsequently, we align Qwen3-8B using Group Policy Optimization (GRPO) to construct a safety reasoner, Compliance Reasoner, which effectively aligns LLMs with legal standards to mitigate safety risks. Our comprehensive experiments demonstrate that the Compliance Reasoner achieves superior performance on the new benchmark, with average improvements of +10.45% for the EU AI Act and +11.85% for GDPR.

Equity in real-world sequential decision problems can be enforced using fairness-aware methods. Therefore, we require algorithms that can make suitable and transparent trade-offs between performance and the desired fairness notions. As the desired performance-fairness trade-off is hard to specify a priori, we propose a framework where multiple trade-offs can be explored. Insights provided by the reinforcement learning algorithm regarding the obtainable performance-fairness trade-offs can then guide stakeholders in selecting the most appropriate policy. To capture fairness, we propose an extended Markov decision process, $f$MDP, that explicitly encodes individuals and groups. Given this $f$MDP, we formalise fairness notions in the context of sequential decision problems and formulate a fairness framework that computes fairness measures over time. We evaluate our framework in two scenarios with distinct fairness requirements: job hiring, where strong teams must be composed while treating applicants equally, and fraud detection, where fraudulent transactions must be detected while ensuring the burden on customers is fairly distributed. We show that our framework learns policies that are more fair across multiple scenarios, with only minor loss in performance reward. Moreover, we observe that group and individual fairness notions do not necessarily imply one another, highlighting the benefit of our framework in settings where both fairness types are desired. Finally, we provide guidelines on how to apply this framework across different problem settings.

ABSTRACT Building compliance checking (BCC) is a critical process for ensuring that constructed facilities meet regulatory standards. A core component of BCC is the accurate enumeration of facility types and their spatial distribution. Despite its importance, this problem has been largely overlooked in the literature, posing a significant challenge for BCC and leaving a critical gap in existing workflows. Performing this task manually is time-consuming and labor-intensive. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) offer new opportunities to enhance automation by combining visual recognition with reasoning capabilities. In this paper, we introduce a new task for BCC: automated facility enumeration, which involves validating the quantity of each facility type against statutory requirements. To address it, we propose a novel method that integrates door detection with LLM-based reasoning. We are the first to apply LLMs to this task and further enhance their performance through a Chain-of-Thought (CoT) pipeline. Experiments on both real-world and synthetic floor plan data demonstrate the effectiveness and robustness of our method. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS This work demonstrates the potential of LLMs to achieve accurate and generalizable automated facility enumeration.

Navigating dilemmas involving conflicting values is challenging even for humans in high-stakes domains, let alone for AI, yet prior work has been limited to everyday scenarios. To close this gap, we introduce CLASH (Character perspective-based LLM Assessments in Situations with High-stakes), a meticulously curated dataset consisting of 345 high-impact dilemmas along with 3,795 individual perspectives of diverse values. CLASH enables the study of critical yet underex-plored aspects of value-based decision-making processes, including understanding of decision ambivalence and psychological discomfort as well as capturing the temporal shifts of values in the perspectives of characters. By benchmarking 14 non-thinking and thinking models, we uncover several key findings. Instead, new failure patterns emerge, including early commitment and overcom-mitment. This paper aims to address a core question: Can LLMs make proper judgments in high-stakes dilemmas according to different perspectives?

The state-of-the-art researches indicate that analytic algorithms are promising in handling complex floorplanning scenarios. However, it is challenging to generate compact floorplans with excellent wirelength optimization effect due to the local convergence of gradient-based optimization algorithms designed for constructed smooth optimization models. Accordingly, we propose to construct a nonsmooth analytic floorplanning model addressed by the conjugate subgradient algorithm (CSA), which is accelerated by a population-based scheme adaptively regulating the stepsize with the assistance of Q-learning. In this way, the proposed CSA assisted by Q-learning (CSAQ) can strike a good balance on exploration and exploitation. Experimental results on the MCNC and GSRC benchmarks demonstrate that the proposed fixed-outline floorplanning algorithm based on CSAQ (CSF) not only address global floorplanning effectively, but also get legal floorplans more efficiently than the constraint graph-based legalization algorithm as well as its improved variants. It is also demonstrated that the CSF is competitive to the state-of-the-art algorithms on floorplanning scenarios only containing hard modules.

Legal Article Prediction (LAP) is a critical task in legal text classification, leveraging natural language processing (NLP) techniques to automatically predict relevant legal articles based on the fact descriptions of cases. As a foundational step in legal decision-making, LAP plays a pivotal role in determining subsequent judgments, such as charges and penalties. Despite its importance, existing methods face significant challenges in addressing the complexities of LAP. Supervised classification models (SCMs), such as CNN and BERT, struggle to fully capture intricate fact patterns due to their inherent limitations. Conversely, large language models (LLMs), while excelling in generative tasks, perform suboptimally in predictive scenarios due to the abstract and ID-based nature of legal articles. Furthermore, the diversity of legal systems across jurisdictions exacerbates the issue, as most approaches are tailored to specific countries and lack broader applicability. To address these limitations, we propose Uni-LAP, a universal framework for legal article prediction that integrates the strengths of SCMs and LLMs through tight collaboration. Specifically, in Uni-LAP, the SCM is enhanced with a novel Top-K loss function to generate accurate candidate articles, while the LLM employs syllogism-inspired reasoning to refine the final predictions. We evaluated Uni-LAP on datasets from multiple jurisdictions, and empirical results demonstrate that our approach consistently outperforms existing baselines, showcasing its effectiveness and generalizability.

Activation steering is a promising technique for controlling LLM behavior by adding semantically meaningful vectors directly into a model's hidden states during inference. It is often framed as a precise, interpretable, and potentially safer alternative to fine-tuning. We demonstrate the opposite: steering systematically breaks model alignment safeguards, making it comply with harmful requests. Through extensive experiments on different model families, we show that even steering in a random direction can increase the probability of harmful compliance from 0% to 2-27%. Alarmingly, steering benign features from a sparse autoencoder (SAE), a common source of interpretable directions, increases these rates by a further 2-4%. Finally, we show that combining 20 randomly sampled vectors that jailbreak a single prompt creates a universal attack, significantly increasing harmful compliance on unseen requests. These results challenge the paradigm of safety through interpretability, showing that precise control over model internals does not guarantee precise control over model behavior.

Prior work has shown that two NLP evaluation experiments that report results for the same quality criterion name (e.g. Fluency) do not necessarily evaluate the same aspect of quality, and the comparability implied by the name can be misleading. Not knowing when two evaluations are comparable in this sense means we currently lack the ability to draw reliable conclusions about system quality on the basis of multiple, independently conducted evaluations. This in turn hampers the ability of the field to progress scientifically as a whole, a pervasive issue in NLP since its beginning (Sparck Jones, 1981). It is hard to see how the issue of unclear comparability can be fully addressed other than by the creation of a standard set of quality criterion names and definitions that the several hundred quality criterion names actually in use in the field can be mapped to, and grounded in. Taking a strictly descriptive approach, the QCET Quality Criteria for Evaluation Taxonomy derives a standard set of quality criterion names and definitions from three surveys of evaluations reported in NLP, and structures them into a hierarchy where each parent node captures common aspects of its child nodes. We present QCET and the resources it consists of, and discuss its three main uses in (i) establishing comparability of existing evaluations, (ii) guiding the design of new evaluations, and (iii) assessing regulatory compliance.