Multi-Objective Reinforcement Learning (MORL) presents significant challenges and opportunities for optimizing multiple objectives in Large Language Models (LLMs). We introduce a MORL taxonomy and examine the advantages and limitations of various MORL methods when applied to LLM optimization, identifying the need for efficient and flexible approaches that accommodate personalization functionality and inherent complexities in LLMs and RL. We propose a vision for a MORL benchmarking framework that addresses the effects of different methods on diverse objective relationships. As future research directions, we focus on meta-policy MORL development that can improve efficiency and flexibility through its bi-level learning paradigm, highlighting key research questions and potential solutions for improving LLM performance.

Accurate and interpretable survival analysis remains a core challenge in oncology. With growing multimodal data and the clinical need for transparent models to support validation and trust, this challenge increases in complexity. We propose an interpretable multimodal AI framework to automate survival analysis by integrating clinical variables and computed tomography imaging. Our MultiFIX-based framework uses deep learning to infer survival-relevant features that are further explained: imaging features are interpreted via Grad-CAM, while clinical variables are modeled as symbolic expressions through genetic programming. Risk estimation employs a transparent Cox regression, enabling stratification into groups with distinct survival outcomes. Using the open-source RADCURE dataset for head and neck cancer, MultiFIX achieves a C-index of 0.838 (prediction) and 0.826 (stratification), outperforming the clinical and academic baseline approaches and aligning with known prognostic markers. These results highlight the promise of interpretable multimodal AI for precision oncology with MultiFIX.

This study presents a comprehensive comparative analysis of two prominent self-supervised learning architectures for video action recognition: DINOv3, which processes frames independently through spatial feature extraction, and V-JEPA2, which employs joint temporal modeling across video sequences. We evaluate both approaches on the UCF Sports dataset, examining feature quality through multiple dimensions including classification accuracy, clustering performance, intra-class consistency, and inter-class discrimination. Our analysis reveals fundamental architectural trade-offs: DINOv3 achieves superior clustering performance (Silhouette score: 0.31 vs 0.21) and demonstrates exceptional discrimination capability (6.16x separation ratio) particularly for pose-identifiable actions, while V-JEPA2 exhibits consistent reliability across all action types with significantly lower performance variance (0.094 vs 0.288). Through action-specific evaluation, we identify that DINOv3's spatial processing architecture excels at static pose recognition but shows degraded performance on motion-dependent actions, whereas V-JEPA2's temporal modeling provides balanced representation quality across diverse action categories. These findings contribute to the understanding of architectural design choices in video analysis systems and provide empirical guidance for selecting appropriate feature extraction methods based on task requirements and reliability constraints.

Efficient training strategies for large-scale diffusion models have recently emphasized the importance of improving discriminative feature representations in these models. A central line of work in this direction is representation alignment with features obtained from powerful external encoders, which improves the representation quality as assessed through linear probing. Alignment-based approaches show promise but depend on large pretrained encoders, which are computationally expensive to obtain. In this work, we propose an alternative regularization for training, based on promoting the Linear SEParability (LSEP) of intermediate layer representations. LSEP eliminates the need for an auxiliary encoder and representation alignment, while incorporating linear probing directly into the network's learning dynamics rather than treating it as a simple post-hoc evaluation tool. Our results demonstrate substantial improvements in both training efficiency and generation quality on flow-based transformer architectures such as SiTs, achieving an FID of 1.46 on $256 \times 256$ ImageNet dataset.

Climate data science faces persistent barriers stemming from the fragmented nature of data sources, heterogeneous formats, and the steep technical expertise required to identify, acquire, and process datasets. These challenges limit participation, slow discovery, and reduce the reproducibility of scientific workflows. In this paper, we present a proof of concept for addressing these barriers through the integration of a curated knowledge graph (KG) with AI agents designed for cloud-native scientific workflows. The KG provides a unifying layer that organizes datasets, tools, and workflows, while AI agents -- powered by generative AI services -- enable natural language interaction, automated data access, and streamlined analysis. Together, these components drastically lower the technical threshold for engaging in climate data science, enabling non-specialist users to identify and analyze relevant datasets. By leveraging existing cloud-ready API data portals, we demonstrate that "a knowledge graph is all you need" to unlock scalable and agentic workflows for scientific inquiry. The open-source design of our system further supports community contributions, ensuring that the KG and associated tools can evolve as a shared commons. Our results illustrate a pathway toward democratizing access to climate data and establishing a reproducible, extensible framework for human--AI collaboration in scientific research.

Questions in political interviews and hearings serve strategic purposes beyond information gathering including advancing partisan narratives and shaping public perceptions. However, these strategic aspects remain understudied due to the lack of large-scale datasets for studying such discourse. Congressional hearings provide an especially rich and tractable site for studying political questioning: Interactions are structured by formal rules, witnesses are obliged to respond, and members with different political affiliations are guaranteed opportunities to ask questions, enabling comparisons of behaviors across the political spectrum. We develop a pipeline to extract question-answer pairs from unstructured hearing transcripts and construct a novel dataset of committee hearings from the 108th--117th Congress. Our analysis reveals systematic differences in questioning strategies across parties, by showing the party affiliation of questioners can be predicted from their questions alone. Our dataset and methods not only advance the study of congressional politics, but also provide a general framework for analyzing question-answering across interview-like settings.

The possibility of LLM self-awareness and even sentience is gaining increasing public attention and has major safety and policy implications, but the science of measuring them is still in a nascent state. Here we introduce a novel methodology for quantitatively evaluating metacognitive abilities in LLMs. Taking inspiration from research on metacognition in nonhuman animals, our approach eschews model self-reports and instead tests to what degree models can strategically deploy knowledge of internal states. Using two experimental paradigms, we demonstrate that frontier LLMs introduced since early 2024 show increasingly strong evidence of certain metacognitive abilities, specifically the ability to assess and utilize their own confidence in their ability to answer factual and reasoning questions correctly and the ability to anticipate what answers they would give and utilize that information appropriately. We buttress these behavioral findings with an analysis of the token probabilities returned by the models, which suggests the presence of an upstream internal signal that could provide the basis for metacognition. We further find that these abilities 1) are limited in resolution, 2) emerge in context-dependent manners, and 3) seem to be qualitatively different from those of humans. We also report intriguing differences across models of similar capabilities, suggesting that LLM post-training may have a role in developing metacognitive abilities.

Interactive intelligent agents are being integrated across society. Despite achieving human-like capabilities, humans' responses to these agents remain poorly understood, with research fragmented across disciplines. We conducted a first systematic synthesis comparing a range of psychological and behavioural responses in matched human-agent vs. human-human dyadic interactions. A total of 162 eligible studies (146 contributed to the meta-analysis; 468 effect sizes) were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, which integrated frequentist and Bayesian approaches. Our results indicate that individuals exhibited less prosocial behaviour and moral engagement when interacting with agents vs. humans. They attributed less agency and responsibility to agents, perceiving them as less competent, likeable, and socially present. In contrast, individuals' social alignment (i.e., alignment or adaptation of internal states and behaviours with partners), trust in partners, personal agency, task performance, and interaction experiences were generally comparable when interacting with agents vs. humans. We observed high effect-size heterogeneity for many subjective responses (i.e., social perceptions of partners, subjective trust, and interaction experiences), suggesting context-dependency of partner effects. By examining the characteristics of studies, participants, partners, interaction scenarios, and response measures, we also identified several moderators shaping partner effects. Overall, functional behaviours and interactive experiences with agents can resemble those with humans, whereas fundamental social attributions and moral/prosocial concerns lag in human-agent interactions. Agents are thus afforded instrumental value on par with humans but lack comparable intrinsic value, providing practical implications for agent design and regulation.

Data augmentation is a widely used strategy to improve model robustness and generalization by enriching training datasets with synthetic examples. While large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong generative capabilities for this purpose, their applications in high-stakes domains like healthcare present unique challenges due to the risk of generating clinically incorrect or misleading information. In this work, we propose a novel query-based model collaboration framework that integrates expert-level domain knowledge to guide the augmentation process to preserve critical medical information. Experiments on clinical prediction tasks demonstrate that our lightweight collaboration-based approach consistently outperforms existing LLM augmentation methods while improving safety through reduced factual errors. This framework addresses the gap between LLM augmentation potential and the safety requirements of specialized domains.

Large language models (LLMs) are now ubiquitous in everyday tools, raising urgent safety concerns about their tendency to generate harmful content. The dominant safety approach -- reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) -- effectively shapes model behavior during training but offers no safeguards at inference time, where unsafe continuations may still arise. We propose BRT-Align, a reachability-based framework that brings control-theoretic safety tools to LLM inference. BRT-Align models autoregressive generation as a dynamical system in latent space and learn a safety value function via backward reachability, estimating the worst-case evolution of a trajectory. This enables two complementary mechanisms: (1) a runtime monitor that forecasts unsafe completions several tokens in advance, and (2) a least-restrictive steering filter that minimally perturbs latent states to redirect generation away from unsafe regions. Experiments across multiple LLMs and toxicity benchmarks demonstrate that BRT-Align provides more accurate and earlier detection of unsafe continuations than baselines. Moreover, for LLM safety alignment, BRT-Align substantially reduces unsafe generations while preserving sentence diversity and coherence. Qualitative results further highlight emergent alignment properties: BRT-Align consistently produces responses that are less violent, less profane, less offensive, and less politically biased. Together, these findings demonstrate that reachability analysis provides a principled and practical foundation for inference-time LLM safety.