Previous research has primarily focused on the cognitive error detection capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), often prompting them to analyze mistakes in reasoning chains. However, few studies have examined the meta-cognitive abilities of LLMs (e.g., their self-awareness of step errors), which are crucial for their reliability. While studies on LLM self-evaluation present some measures, such as perplexity, which can reflect the answer correctness and be viewed as the lens of meta-cognition, they lack step-level analysis and adaptation. This paper studies the evaluation of LLM meta-cognition using the current lenses and how to improve these lenses. Specifically, we propose AutoMeco, an Automated Meta-cognition Evaluation framework for benchmarking the existing lenses. Furthermore, a training-free Markovian Intrinsic Reward Adjustment strategy, MIRA, is proposed to boost current meta-cognition lenses. Experimental results on three mathematical reasoning datasets and three LLMs show the reasonableness of AutoMeco by comparing it with Best-of-N verification. Moreover, the meta-cognition ability of LLMs can be better evaluated using MIRA.

The increasing capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) have raised concerns about their misuse in AI-generated plagiarism and social engineering. While various AI-generated text detectors have been proposed to mitigate these risks, many remain vulnerable to simple evasion techniques such as paraphrasing. However, recent detectors have shown greater robustness against such basic attacks. In this work, we introduce Adversarial Paraphrasing, a training-free attack framework that universally humanizes any AI-generated text to evade detection more effectively. Our approach leverages an off-the-shelf instruction-following LLM to paraphrase AI-generated content under the guidance of an AI text detector, producing adversarial examples that are specifically optimized to bypass detection. Extensive experiments show that our attack is both broadly effective and highly transferable across several detection systems. For instance, compared to simple paraphrasing attack--which, ironically, increases the true positive at 1% false positive (T@1%F) by 8.57% on RADAR and 15.03% on Fast-DetectGPT--adversarial paraphrasing, guided by OpenAI-RoBERTa-Large, reduces T@1%F by 64.49% on RADAR and a striking 98.96% on Fast-DetectGPT. Across a diverse set of detectors--including neural network-based, watermark-based, and zero-shot approaches--our attack achieves an average T@1%F reduction of 87.88% under the guidance of OpenAI-RoBERTa-Large. We also analyze the tradeoff between text quality and attack success to find that our method can significantly reduce detection rates, with mostly a slight degradation in text quality. Our adversarial setup highlights the need for more robust and resilient detection strategies in the light of increasingly sophisticated evasion techniques.

This position paper argues that the theoretical inconsistency often observed among Responsible AI (RAI) metrics, such as differing fairness definitions or tradeoffs between accuracy and privacy, should be embraced as a valuable feature rather than a flaw to be eliminated. We contend that navigating these inconsistencies, by treating metrics as divergent objectives, yields three key benefits: (1) Normative Pluralism: Maintaining a full suite of potentially contradictory metrics ensures that the diverse moral stances and stakeholder values inherent in RAI are adequately represented. (2) Epistemological Completeness: The use of multiple, sometimes conflicting, metrics allows for a more comprehensive capture of multifaceted ethical concepts, thereby preserving greater informational fidelity about these concepts than any single, simplified definition. (3) Implicit Regularization: Jointly optimizing for theoretically conflicting objectives discourages overfitting to one specific metric, steering models towards solutions with enhanced generalization and robustness under real-world complexities. In contrast, efforts to enforce theoretical consistency by simplifying or pruning metrics risk narrowing this value diversity, losing conceptual depth, and degrading model performance. We therefore advocate for a shift in RAI theory and practice: from getting trapped in inconsistency to characterizing acceptable inconsistency thresholds and elucidating the mechanisms that permit robust, approximated consistency in practice.

The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) has stimulated interest in multi-agent collaboration for addressing complex medical tasks. However, the practical advantages of multi-agent collaboration approaches remain insufficiently understood. Existing evaluations often lack generalizability, failing to cover diverse tasks reflective of real-world clinical practice, and frequently omit rigorous comparisons against both single-LLM-based and established conventional methods. To address this critical gap, we introduce MedAgentBoard, a comprehensive benchmark for the systematic evaluation of multi-agent collaboration, single-LLM, and conventional approaches. MedAgentBoard encompasses four diverse medical task categories: (1) medical (visual) question answering, (2) lay summary generation, (3) structured Electronic Health Record (EHR) predictive modeling, and (4) clinical workflow automation, across text, medical images, and structured EHR data. Our extensive experiments reveal a nuanced landscape: while multi-agent collaboration demonstrates benefits in specific scenarios, such as enhancing task completeness in clinical workflow automation, it does not consistently outperform advanced single LLMs (e.g., in textual medical QA) or, critically, specialized conventional methods that generally maintain better performance in tasks like medical VQA and EHR-based prediction. MedAgentBoard offers a vital resource and actionable insights, emphasizing the necessity of a task-specific, evidence-based approach to selecting and developing AI solutions in medicine. It underscores that the inherent complexity and overhead of multi-agent collaboration must be carefully weighed against tangible performance gains. All code, datasets, detailed prompts, and experimental results are open-sourced at https://medagentboard.netlify.app/.

Anomaly detection in large datasets is essential in astronomy and computer vision. However, due to a scarcity of labelled data, it is often infeasible to apply supervised methods to anomaly detection. We present AnomalyMatch, an anomaly detection framework combining the semi-supervised FixMatch algorithm using EfficientNet classifiers with active learning. AnomalyMatch is tailored for large-scale applications and integrated into the ESA Datalabs science platform. In this method, we treat anomaly detection as a binary classification problem and efficiently utilise limited labelled and abundant unlabelled images for training. We enable active learning via a user interface for verification of high-confidence anomalies and correction of false positives. Evaluations on the GalaxyMNIST astronomical dataset and the miniImageNet natural-image benchmark under severe class imbalance display strong performance. Starting from five to ten labelled anomalies, we achieve an average AUROC of 0.96 (miniImageNet) and 0.89 (GalaxyMNIST), with respective AUPRC of 0.82 and 0.77. After three active learning cycles, anomalies are ranked with 76% (miniImageNet) to 94% (GalaxyMNIST) precision in the top 1% of the highest-ranking images by score. We compare to the established Astronomaly software on selected 'odd' galaxies from the 'Galaxy Zoo - The Galaxy Challenge' dataset, achieving comparable performance with an average AUROC of 0.83. Our results underscore the exceptional utility and scalability of this approach for anomaly discovery, highlighting the value of specialised approaches for domains characterised by severe label scarcity.

AIs have made rapid progress on research-oriented benchmarks of knowledge and reasoning, but it remains unclear how these gains translate into economic value and automation. To measure this, we introduce the Remote Labor Index (RLI), a broadly multi-sector benchmark comprising real-world, economically valuable projects designed to evaluate end-to-end agent performance in practical settings. AI agents perform near the floor on RLI, with the highest-performing agent achieving an automation rate of 2.5%. These results help ground discussions of AI automation in empirical evidence, setting a common basis for tracking AI impacts and enabling stakeholders to proactively navigate AI-driven labor automation.

A vast majority of mass spectrometry data remains uncharacterized, leaving much of its biological and chemical information untapped. Recent advances in machine learning have begun to address this gap, particularly for tasks such as spectral identification in tandem mass spectrometry data. Here, we present the latest generation of LSM-MS2, a large-scale deep learning foundation model trained on millions of spectra to learn a semantic chemical space. LSM-MS2 achieves state-of-the-art performance in spectral identification, improving on existing methods by 30% in accuracy of identifying challenging isomeric compounds, yielding 42% more correct identifications in complex biological samples, and maintaining robustness under low-concentration conditions. Furthermore, LSM-MS2 produces rich spectral embeddings that enable direct biological interpretation from minimal downstream data, successfully differentiating disease states and predicting clinical outcomes across diverse translational applications.

Authorizing Large Language Model driven agents to dynamically invoke tools and access protected resources introduces significant risks, since current methods for delegating authorization grant overly broad permissions and give access to tools allowing agents to operate beyond the intended task scope. We introduce and assess a delegated authorization model enabling authorization servers to semantically inspect access requests to protected resources, and issue access tokens constrained to the minimal set of scopes necessary for the agents' assigned tasks. Given the unavailability of datasets centered on delegated authorization flows, particularly including both semantically appropriate and inappropriate scope requests for a given task, we introduce ASTRA, a dataset and data generation pipeline for benchmarking semantic matching between tasks and scopes. Our experiments show both the potential and current limitations of model-based matching, particularly as the number of scopes needed for task completion increases. Our results highlight the need for further research into semantic matching techniques enabling intent-aware authorization for multi-agent and tool-augmented applications, including fine-grained control, such as Task-Based Access Control (TBAC).

The use of ML in engineering has grown steadily to support a wide array of applications. Among these methods, deep neural networks have been widely adopted due to their performance and accessibility, but they require large, high-quality datasets. Experimental data are often sparse, noisy, or insufficient to build resilient data-driven models. Transfer learning, which leverages relevant data-abundant source domains to assist learning in data-scarce target domains, has shown efficacy. Parameter transfer, where pretrained weights are reused, is common but degrades under large domain shifts. Domain-adversarial neural networks (DANNs) help address this issue by learning domain-invariant representations, thereby improving transfer under greater domain shifts in a semi-supervised setting. However, DANNs can be unstable during training and lack a native means for uncertainty quantification. This study introduces a fully-supervised three-stage framework, the staged Bayesian domain-adversarial neural network (staged B-DANN), that combines parameter transfer and shared latent space adaptation. In Stage 1, a deterministic feature extractor is trained on the source domain. This feature extractor is then adversarially refined using a DANN in Stage 2. In Stage 3, a Bayesian neural network is built on the adapted feature extractor for fine-tuning on the target domain to handle conditional shifts and yield calibrated uncertainty estimates. This staged B-DANN approach was first validated on a synthetic benchmark, where it was shown to significantly outperform standard transfer techniques. It was then applied to the task of predicting critical heat flux in rectangular channels, leveraging data from tube experiments as the source domain. The results of this study show that the staged B-DANN method can improve predictive accuracy and generalization, potentially assisting other domains in nuclear engineering.

Dataset bias, where data points are skewed to certain concepts, is ubiquitous in machine learning datasets. Yet, systematically identifying these biases is challenging without costly, fine-grained attribute annotations. We present ConceptScope, a scalable and automated framework for analyzing visual datasets by discovering and quantifying human-interpretable concepts using Sparse Autoencoders trained on representations from vision foundation models. ConceptScope categorizes concepts into target, context, and bias types based on their semantic relevance and statistical correlation to class labels, enabling class-level dataset characterization, bias identification, and robustness evaluation through concept-based subgrouping. We validate that ConceptScope captures a wide range of visual concepts, including objects, textures, backgrounds, facial attributes, emotions, and actions, through comparisons with annotated datasets. Furthermore, we show that concept activations produce spatial attributions that align with semantically meaningful image regions. ConceptScope reliably detects known biases (e.g., background bias in Waterbirds) and uncovers previously unannotated ones (e.g, co-occurring objects in ImageNet), offering a practical tool for dataset auditing and model diagnostics.