Japan's Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper, one of the world's biggest by circulation, is suing U.S.-based AI firm Perplexity for allegedly "free-riding" on its content on its search engine. The lawsuit filed Thursday is one of a slew by media companies worldwide against AI firms using their material and is the first by a major Japanese news organization, Yomiuri said. It accuses Perplexity of "free-riding on the results of the activities of news organizations, which have invested a great deal of effort and expense." A spokesman for the paper added that this "could have a negative impact on accurate journalism ... and shake the foundations of democracy." The lawsuit filed in Tokyo seeks damages of 2.2 billion ( 14.7 million), equivalent to 120,000 Yomuiri articles used "without permission" between February and June.

Due to their ability to process long and complex contexts, LLMs can offer key benefits to the Legal domain, but their adoption has been hindered by their tendency to generate unfaithful, ungrounded, or hallucinatory outputs. While Retrieval-Augmented Generation offers a promising solution by grounding generations in external knowledge, it offers no guarantee that the provided context will be effectively integrated. To address this, context-aware decoding strategies have been proposed to amplify the influence of relevant context, but they usually do not explicitly enforce faithfulness to the context. In this work, we introduce Confidence-guided Copy-based Decoding for Legal Text Generation (CoCoLex)-a decoding strategy that dynamically interpolates the model produced vocabulary distribution with a distribution derived based on copying from the context. CoCoLex encourages direct copying based on the model's confidence, ensuring greater fidelity to the source. Experimental results on five legal benchmarks demonstrate that CoCoLex outperforms existing context-aware decoding methods, particularly in long-form generation tasks.

Accurate time-to-event prediction is integral to decision-making, informing medical guidelines, hiring decisions, and resource allocation. Survival analysis, the quantitative framework used to model time-to-event data, accounts for patients who do not experience the event of interest during the study period, known as censored patients. However, many patients experience events that prevent the observation of the outcome of interest. These competing risks are often treated as censoring, a practice frequently overlooked due to a limited understanding of its consequences. Our work theoretically demonstrates why treating competing risks as censoring introduces substantial bias in survival estimates, leading to systematic overestimation of risk and, critically, amplifying disparities. First, we formalize the problem of misclassifying competing risks as censoring and quantify the resulting error in survival estimates. Specifically, we develop a framework to estimate this error and demonstrate the associated implications for predictive performance and algorithmic fairness. Furthermore, we examine how differing risk profiles across demographic groups lead to group-specific errors, potentially exacerbating existing disparities. Our findings, supported by an empirical analysis of cardiovascular management, demonstrate that ignoring competing risks disproportionately impacts the individuals most at risk of these events, potentially accentuating inequity. By quantifying the error and highlighting the fairness implications of the common practice of considering competing risks as censoring, our work provides a critical insight into the development of survival models: practitioners must account for competing risks to improve accuracy, reduce disparities in risk assessment, and better inform downstream decisions.

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have extended their capabilities from basic text processing to complex reasoning tasks, including legal interpretation, argumentation, and strategic interaction. However, empirical understanding of LLM behavior in open-ended, multi-agent settings especially those involving deliberation over legal and ethical dilemmas remains limited. We introduce Nomi-cLaw, a structured multi-agent simulation where LLMs engage in collaborative law-making, responding to complex legal vignettes by proposing rules, justifying them, and voting on peer proposals. We quantitatively measure trust and reciprocity via voting patterns and qualitatively assess how agents use strategic language to justify proposals and influence outcomes. Experiments involving homogeneous and heterogeneous LLM groups demonstrate how agents spontaneously form alliances, betray trust, and adapt their rhetoric to shape collective decisions. Our results highlight the latent social reasoning and persuasive capabilities of ten open-source LLMs and provide insights into the design of future AI systems capable of autonomous negotiation, coordination and drafting legislation in legal settings.

This paper introduces a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating how Large Language Models (LLMs) respond to linguistic shibboleths: subtle linguistic markers that can inadvertently reveal demographic attributes such as gender, social class, or regional background. Through carefully constructed interview simulations using 100 validated question-response pairs, we demonstrate how LLMs systematically penalize certain linguistic patterns, particularly hedging language, despite equivalent content quality. Our benchmark generates controlled linguistic variations that isolate specific phenomena while maintaining semantic equivalence, which enables the precise measurement of demographic bias in automated evaluation systems. We validate our approach along multiple linguistic dimensions, showing that hedged responses receive 25.6% lower ratings on average, and demonstrate the benchmark's effectiveness in identifying model-specific biases. This work establishes a foundational framework for detecting and measuring linguistic discrimination in AI systems, with broad applications to fairness in automated decision-making contexts.

Text-to-image diffusion models have revolutionized visual content generation, but current safety mechanisms apply uniform standards that often fail to account for individual user preferences. These models overlook the diverse safety boundaries shaped by factors like age, mental health, and personal beliefs. To address this, we propose Personalized Safety Alignment (PSA), a framework that allows user-specific control over safety behaviors in generative models. PSA integrates personalized user profiles into the diffusion process, adjusting the model's behavior to match individual safety preferences while preserving image quality. We introduce a new dataset, Sage, which captures user-specific safety preferences and incorporates these profiles through a cross-attention mechanism. Experiments show that PSA outperforms existing methods in harmful content suppression and aligns generated content better with user constraints, achieving higher Win Rate and Pass Rate scores.

In real-world machine learning deployments, models must be continually updated, composed, and when required, selectively undone. However, existing approaches to model merging and continual learning often suffer from task interference, catastrophic forgetting, or lack of reversibility. We propose Modular Delta Merging with Orthogonal Constraints (MDM-OC), a novel framework that enables scalable, interference-free, and reversible composition of fine-tuned models. Each task-specific model is encoded as a delta from a shared base and projected into an orthogonal subspace to eliminate conflict. These projected deltas are then merged via gradient-based optimization to form a unified model that retains performance across tasks. Our approach supports continual integration of new models, structured unmerging for compliance such as GDPR requirements, and model stability via elastic weight consolidation and synthetic replay. Extensive experiments on vision and natural language processing benchmarks demonstrate that MDM-OC outperforms prior baselines in accuracy, backward transfer, and unmerge fidelity, while remaining memory-efficient and computationally tractable. This framework offers a principled solution for modular and compliant AI system design.

We introduce SafeWork-R1, a cutting-edge multimodal reasoning model that demonstrates the coevolution of capabilities and safety. It is developed by our proposed SafeLadder framework, which incorporates large-scale, progressive, safety-oriented reinforcement learning post-training, supported by a suite of multi-principled verifiers. Unlike previous alignment methods such as RLHF that simply learn human preferences, SafeLadder enables SafeWork-R1 to develop intrinsic safety reasoning and self-reflection abilities, giving rise to safety `aha' moments. Notably, SafeWork-R1 achieves an average improvement of $46.54\%$ over its base model Qwen2.5-VL-72B on safety-related benchmarks without compromising general capabilities, and delivers state-of-the-art safety performance compared to leading proprietary models such as GPT-4.1 and Claude Opus 4. To further bolster its reliability, we implement two distinct inference-time intervention methods and a deliberative search mechanism, enforcing step-level verification. Finally, we further develop SafeWork-R1-InternVL3-78B, SafeWork-R1-DeepSeek-70B, and SafeWork-R1-Qwen2.5VL-7B. All resulting models demonstrate that safety and capability can co-evolve synergistically, highlighting the generalizability of our framework in building robust, reliable, and trustworthy general-purpose AI.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to various NLP tasks, their inherent biases are gradually disclosed. Therefore, measuring biases in LLMs is crucial to mitigate its ethical risks. However, most existing bias evaluation datasets focus on English and North American culture, and their bias categories are not fully applicable to other cultures. The datasets grounded in the Chinese language and culture are scarce. More importantly, these datasets usually only support single evaluation tasks and cannot evaluate the bias from multiple aspects in LLMs. To address these issues, we present a Multi-task Chinese Bias Evaluation Benchmark (McBE) that includes 4,077 bias evaluation instances, covering 12 single bias categories, 82 subcategories and introducing 5 evaluation tasks, providing extensive category coverage, content diversity, and measuring comprehensiveness. Additionally, we evaluate several popular LLMs from different series and with parameter sizes. In general, all these LLMs demonstrated varying degrees of bias. We conduct an in-depth analysis of results, offering novel insights into bias in LLMs.

The ongoing evolution of AI paradigms has propelled AI research into the agentic AI stage. Consequently, the focus of research has shifted from single agents and simple applications towards multi-agent autonomous decision-making and task collaboration in complex environments. As Large Language Models (LLMs) advance, their applications become more diverse and complex, leading to increasing situational and systemic risks. This has brought significant attention to value alignment for agentic AI systems, which aims to ensure that an agent's goals, preferences, and behaviors align with human values and societal norms. Addressing socio-governance demands through a Multi-level Value framework, this study comprehensively reviews value alignment in LLM-based multi-agent systems as the representative archetype of agentic AI systems. Our survey systematically examines three interconnected dimensions: First, value principles are structured via a top-down hierarchy across macro, meso, and micro levels. Second, application scenarios are categorized along a general-to-specific continuum explicitly mirroring these value tiers. Third, value alignment methods and evaluation are mapped to this tiered framework through systematic examination of benchmarking datasets and relevant methodologies. Additionally, we delve into value coordination among multiple agents within agentic AI systems. Finally, we propose several potential research directions in this field.