Until recently, robotics safety research was predominantly about collision avoidance and hazard reduction in the immediate vicinity of a robot. Since the advent of large vision and language models (VLMs), robots are now also capable of higher-level semantic scene understanding and natural language interactions with humans. Despite their known vulnerabilities (e.g. hallucinations or jail-breaking), VLMs are being handed control of robots capable of physical contact with the real world. This can lead to dangerous behaviors, making semantic safety for robots a matter of immediate concern. Our contributions in this paper are two fold: first, to address these emerging risks, we release the ASIMOV Benchmark, a large-scale and comprehensive collection of datasets for evaluating and improving semantic safety of foundation models serving as robot brains. Our data generation recipe is highly scalable: by leveraging text and image generation techniques, we generate undesirable situations from real-world visual scenes and human injury reports from hospitals. Secondly, we develop a framework to automatically generate robot constitutions from real-world data to steer a robot's behavior using Constitutional AI mechanisms. We propose a novel auto-amending process that is able to introduce nuances in written rules of behavior; this can lead to increased alignment with human preferences on behavior desirability and safety. We explore trade-offs between generality and specificity across a diverse set of constitutions of different lengths, and demonstrate that a robot is able to effectively reject unconstitutional actions. We measure a top alignment rate of 84.3% on the ASIMOV Benchmark using generated constitutions, outperforming no-constitution baselines and human-written constitutions. Data is available at asimov-benchmark.github.io

It has been roughly three years since the open-source release of Stable Diffusion ignited a Generative AI (GenAI) boom [Bengesi et al., 2023]. The proliferation of these technologies has since reshaped design practice and research. From early ideation to final implementation, these developments have significantly altered how design work is conceived, conducted, and evaluated [Hou et al., 2024]. This essay examines the critical juncture at which the design research community finds itself, seeking to understand and shape these developments while grappling with their implications for creative practice, design education, and professional identities. Popular discourse around GenAI often centers on simplified unequivocal narratives: AI as a threat to humanity, as a solution to global challenges, as a force of disruption, or as a replacement for humans [Gilardi et al., 2024]. While these narratives have sparked debate and interest, they can function as "semantic stopsigns"--conceptual framings that oversimplify complex issues, providing an illusion of resolution that hinders deeper inquiry [LessWrong Community, n.d., Lifton, 1961]. For instance, claims like "AI is unreliable" can lead to outright dismissal of its potential,

Evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) free-form generated responses remains a challenge due to their diverse and open-ended nature. Traditional supervised signal-based automatic metrics fail to capture semantic equivalence or handle the variability of open-ended responses, while human evaluation, though reliable, is resource-intensive. Leveraging LLMs as evaluators offers a promising alternative due to their strong language understanding and instruction-following capabilities. Taking advantage of these capabilities, we propose the Dynamic Arbitration Framework for Evaluation (DAFE), which employs two primary LLM-as-judges and engages a third arbitrator only in cases of disagreements. This selective arbitration prioritizes evaluation reliability while reducing unnecessary computational demands compared to conventional majority voting. DAFE utilizes task-specific reference answers with dynamic arbitration to enhance judgment accuracy, resulting in significant improvements in evaluation metrics such as Macro F1 and Cohen's Kappa. Through experiments, including a comprehensive human evaluation, we demonstrate DAFE's ability to provide consistent, scalable, and resource-efficient assessments, establishing it as a robust framework for evaluating free-form model outputs.

This paper introduces JurisTCU, a Brazilian Portuguese dataset for legal information retrieval (LIR). The dataset is freely available and consists of 16,045 jurisprudential documents from the Brazilian Federal Court of Accounts, along with 150 queries annotated with relevance judgments. It addresses the scarcity of Portuguese-language LIR datasets with query relevance annotations. The queries are organized into three groups: real user keyword-based queries, synthetic keyword-based queries, and synthetic question-based queries. Relevance judgments were produced through a hybrid approach combining LLM-based scoring with expert domain validation. We used JurisTCU in 14 experiments using lexical search (document expansion methods) and semantic search (BERT-based and OpenAI embeddings). We show that the document expansion methods significantly improve the performance of standard BM25 search on this dataset, with improvements exceeding 45% in P@10, R@10, and nDCG@10 metrics when evaluating short keyword-based queries. Among the embedding models, the OpenAI models produced the best results, with improvements of approximately 70% in P@10, R@10, and nDCG@10 metrics for short keyword-based queries, suggesting that these dense embeddings capture semantic relationships in this domain, surpassing the reliance on lexical terms. Besides offering a dataset for the Portuguese-language IR research community, suitable for evaluating search systems, the results also contribute to enhancing a search system highly relevant to Brazilian citizens.

Long-form writing agents require flexible integration and interaction across information retrieval, reasoning, and composition. Current approaches rely on predetermined workflows and rigid thinking patterns to generate outlines before writing, resulting in constrained adaptability during writing. In this paper we propose a general agent framework that achieves human-like adaptive writing through recursive task decomposition and dynamic integration of three fundamental task types, i.e. retrieval, reasoning, and composition. Our methodology features: 1) a planning mechanism that interleaves recursive task decomposition and execution, eliminating artificial restrictions on writing workflow; and 2) integration of task types that facilitates heterogeneous task decomposition. Evaluations on both fiction writing and technical report generation show that our method consistently outperforms state-of-the-art approaches across all automatic evaluation metrics, which demonstrate the effectiveness and broad applicability of our proposed framework.

Violence descriptions in literature offer valuable insights for a wide range of research in the humanities. For historians, depictions of violence are of special interest for analyzing the societal dynamics surrounding large wars and individual conflicts of influential people. Harvesting data for violence research manually is laborious and time-consuming. This study is the first one to evaluate the effectiveness of large language models (LLMs) in identifying violence in ancient texts and categorizing it across multiple dimensions. Our experiments identify LLMs as a valuable tool to scale up the accurate analysis of historical texts and show the effect of fine-tuning and data augmentation, yielding an F1-score of up to 0.93 for violence detection and 0.86 for fine-grained violence categorization.

Lexical Semantic Change (LSC) offers insights into cultural and social dynamics. Yet, the validity of methods for measuring kinds of LSC has yet to be established due to the absence of historical benchmark datasets. To address this gap, we develop a novel three-stage evaluation framework that involves: 1) creating a scalable, domain-general methodology for generating synthetic datasets that simulate theory-driven LSC across time, leveraging In-Context Learning and a lexical database; 2) using these datasets to evaluate the effectiveness of various methods; and 3) assessing their suitability for specific dimensions and domains. We apply this framework to simulate changes across key dimensions of LSC (SIB: Sentiment, Intensity, and Breadth) using examples from psychology, and evaluate the sensitivity of selected methods to detect these artificially induced changes. Our findings support the utility of the synthetic data approach, validate the efficacy of tailored methods for detecting synthetic changes in SIB, and reveal that a state-of-the-art LSC model faces challenges in detecting affective dimensions of LSC. This framework provides a valuable tool for dimension- and domain-specific bench-marking and evaluation of LSC methods, with particular benefits for the social sciences.

In this report, we introduce our first-generation reasoning model, LexPro-1.0, a large language model designed for the highly specialized Chinese legal domain, offering comprehensive capabilities to meet diverse realistic needs. Existing legal LLMs face two primary challenges. Firstly, their design and evaluation are predominantly driven by computer science perspectives, leading to insufficient incorporation of legal expertise and logic, which is crucial for high-precision legal applications, such as handling complex prosecutorial tasks. Secondly, these models often underperform due to a lack of comprehensive training data from the legal domain, limiting their ability to effectively address real-world legal scenarios. To address this, we first compile millions of legal documents covering over 20 types of crimes from 31 provinces in China for model training. From the extensive dataset, we further select high-quality for supervised fine-tuning, ensuring enhanced relevance and precision. The model further undergoes large-scale reinforcement learning without additional supervision, emphasizing the enhancement of its reasoning capabilities and explainability. To validate its effectiveness in complex legal applications, we also conduct human evaluations with legal experts. We develop fine-tuned models based on DeepSeek-R1-Distilled versions, available in three dense configurations: 14B, 32B, and 70B.

Climate change has intensified the need for transparency and accountability in organizational practices, making Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) reporting increasingly crucial. Frameworks like the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the new European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) aim to standardize ESG reporting, yet generating comprehensive reports remains challenging due to the considerable length of ESG documents and variability in company reporting styles. To facilitate ESG report automation, Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems can be employed, but their development is hindered by a lack of labeled data suitable for training retrieval models. In this paper, we leverage an underutilized source of weak supervision -- the disclosure content index found in past ESG reports -- to create a comprehensive dataset, ESG-CID, for both GRI and ESRS standards. By extracting mappings between specific disclosure requirements and corresponding report sections, and refining them using a Large Language Model as a judge, we generate a robust training and evaluation set. We benchmark popular embedding models on this dataset and show that fine-tuning BERT-based models can outperform commercial embeddings and leading public models, even under temporal data splits for cross-report style transfer from GRI to ESRS

The AI community usually focuses on "how" to develop AI techniques, but lacks thorough open discussions on "why" we develop AI. Lacking critical reflections on the general visions and purposes of AI may make the community vulnerable to manipulation. In this position paper, we explore the "why" question of AI. We denote answers to the "why" question the imaginations of AI, which depict our general visions, frames, and mindsets for the prospects of AI. We identify that the prevailing vision in the AI community is largely a monoculture that emphasizes objectives such as replacing humans and improving productivity. Our critical examination of this mainstream imagination highlights its underpinning and potentially unjust assumptions. We then call to diversify our collective imaginations of AI, embedding ethical assumptions from the outset in the imaginations of AI. To facilitate the community's pursuit of diverse imaginations, we demonstrate one process for constructing a new imagination of "AI for just work," and showcase its application in the medical image synthesis task to make it more ethical. We hope this work will help the AI community to open dialogues with civil society on the visions and purposes of AI, and inspire more technical works and advocacy in pursuit of diverse and ethical imaginations to restore the value of AI for the public good.