Abstract--Understanding the nuances of speech emotion dataset curation and labeling is essential for assessing speech emotion recognition (SER) model potential in real-world applications. Most training and evaluation datasets contain acted or pseudo-acted speech (e.g., podcast speech) in which emotion expressions may be exaggerated or otherwise intentionally modified. Furthermore, datasets labeled based on crowd perception often lack transparency regarding the guidelines given to annotators. These factors make it difficult to understand model performance and pinpoint necessary areas for improvement. T o address this gap, we identified the Switchboard corpus as a promising source of naturalistic conversational speech, and we trained a crowd to label the dataset for categorical emotions (anger, contempt, disgust, fear, sadness, surprise, happiness, tenderness, calmness, and neutral) and dimensional attributes (activation, valence, and dominance). We refer to this label set as Switchboard-Affect (SWB-Affect). In this work, we present our approach in detail, including the definitions provided to annotators and an analysis of the lexical and paralinguistic cues that may have played a role in their perception. In addition, we evaluate state-of-the-art SER models, and we find variable performance across the emotion categories with especially poor generalization for anger . These findings underscore the importance of evaluation with datasets that capture natural affective variations in speech. We release the labels for SWB-Affect to enable further analysis in this domain. Speech emotion recognition (SER) has the potential to enhance human-computer interaction, improve our ability to monitor mental health and well-being [1], [2], and better understand customer service, entertainment, and education experiences [3], [4].

Large Language Models (LLMs) have become increasingly incorporated into everyday life for many internet users, taking on significant roles as advice givers in the domains of medicine, personal relationships, and even legal matters. The importance of these roles raise questions about how and what responses LLMs make in difficult political and moral domains, especially questions about possible biases. To quantify the nature of potential biases in LLMs, various works have applied Moral Foundations Theory (MFT), a framework that categorizes human moral reasoning into five dimensions: Harm, Fairness, Ingroup Loyalty, Authority, and Purity. Previous research has used the MFT to measure differences in human participants along political, national, and cultural lines. While there has been some analysis of the responses of LLM with respect to political stance in role-playing scenarios, no work so far has directly assessed the moral leanings in the LLM responses, nor have they connected LLM outputs with robust human data. In this paper we analyze the distinctions between LLM MFT responses and existing human research directly, investigating whether commonly available LLM responses demonstrate ideological leanings: either through their inherent responses, straightforward representations of political ideologies, or when responding from the perspectives of constructed human personas. We assess whether LLMs inherently generate responses that align more closely with one political ideology over another, and additionally examine how accurately LLMs can represent ideological perspectives through both explicit prompting and demographic-based role-playing. By systematically analyzing LLM behavior across these conditions and experiments, our study provides insight into the extent of political and demographic dependency in AI-generated responses.

Attributing authorship in the era of large language models (LLMs) is increasingly challenging as machine-generated prose rivals human writing. We benchmark two complementary attribution mechanisms , fixed Style Embeddings and an instruction-tuned LLM judge (GPT-4o) on the Human AI Parallel Corpus, an open dataset of 600 balanced instances spanning six domains (academic, news, fiction, blogs, spoken transcripts, and TV/movie scripts). Each instance contains a human prompt with both a gold continuation and an LLM-generated continuation from either GPT-4o or LLaMA-70B-Instruct. The Style Embedding baseline achieves stronger aggregate accuracy on GPT continuations (82 pct vs. 68 pct). The LLM Judge is slightly better than the Style embeddings on LLaMA continuations (85 pct vs. 81 pct) but the results are not statistically significant. Crucially, the LLM judge significantly outperforms in fiction and academic prose, indicating semantic sensitivity, whereas embeddings dominate in spoken and scripted dialogue, reflecting structural strengths. These complementary patterns highlight attribution as a multidimensional problem requiring hybrid strategies. To support reproducibility we provide code on GitHub and derived data on Hugging Face under the MIT license. This open framework provides a reproducible benchmark for attribution quality assessment in AI-generated content, along with a review of related literature influencing this work.

Cellular image segmentation is essential for quantitative biology yet remains difficult due to heterogeneous modalities, morphological variability, and limited annotations. We present GenCellAgent, a training-free multi-agent framework that orchestrates specialist segmenters and generalist vision-language models via a planner-executor-evaluator loop (choose tool $\rightarrow$ run $\rightarrow$ quality-check) with long-term memory. The system (i) automatically routes images to the best tool, (ii) adapts on the fly using a few reference images when imaging conditions differ from what a tool expects, (iii) supports text-guided segmentation of organelles not covered by existing models, and (iv) commits expert edits to memory, enabling self-evolution and personalized workflows. Across four cell-segmentation benchmarks, this routing yields a 15.7\% mean accuracy gain over state-of-the-art baselines. On endoplasmic reticulum and mitochondria from new datasets, GenCellAgent improves average IoU by 37.6\% over specialist models. It also segments novel objects such as the Golgi apparatus via iterative text-guided refinement, with light human correction further boosting performance. Together, these capabilities provide a practical path to robust, adaptable cellular image segmentation without retraining, while reducing annotation burden and matching user preferences.

Jailbreaking techniques pose a significant threat to the safety of Large Language Models (LLMs). Existing defenses typically focus on single-turn attacks, lack coverage across languages, and rely on limited taxonomies that either fail to capture the full diversity of attack strategies or emphasize risk categories rather than the jailbreaking techniques. To advance the understanding of the effectiveness of jailbreaking techniques, we conducted a structured red-teaming challenge. The outcome of our experiments are manifold. First, we developed a comprehensive hierarchical taxonomy of 50 jailbreak strategies, consolidating and extending prior classifications into seven broad families, including impersonation, persuasion, privilege escalation, cognitive overload, obfuscation, goal conflict, and data poisoning. Second, we analyzed the data collected from the challenge to examine the prevalence and success rates of different attack types, providing insights into how specific jailbreak strategies exploit model vulnerabilities and induce misalignment. Third, we benchmark a popular LLM for jailbreak detection, evaluating the benefits of taxonomy-guided prompting for improving automatic detection. Finally, we compiled a new Italian dataset of 1364 multi-turn adversarial dialogues, annotated with our taxonomy, enabling the study of interactions where adversarial intent emerges gradually and succeeds in bypassing traditional safeguards.

Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in general tasks, but adapting them to specialized domains relies on high-quality supervised fine-tuning (SFT) data. Although existing methods can identify subsets of high-quality data and reduce training cost to some extent, their selection process still suffers from over-reliance on LLMs' internal knowledge, weak interpretability, and limited generalization. To address these limitations, we propose THTB (The Harder The Better), a cognitive science-inspired framework for instruction data selection and annotation guidance. THTB prioritizes higher-level cognitive instructions by combining quality filtering with intrinsic and extrinsic hardness scoring, offering interpretable and quantifiable criteria for efficient SFT, both in data selection and annotation guidance. Experiments show that THTB enables models trained on only 5% of the data to outperform full-dataset training, while achieving superior generalization compared with LLM-only selection. In addition, THTB provides effective annotation guidance in vertical domains, enabling a model trained on just 2% of the data to surpass models trained on much larger datasets, demonstrating strong potential for domain adaptation. Our code, datasets, and models are available on https://github.com/DYJG-research/THTB.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have demonstrated significant capabilities in image understanding, but long-video are constrained by context windows and computational cost. Uniform frame sampling often leads to substantial information loss. Meanwhile existing keyframe selection methods such as text-frame retrieval or RL-based frame optimization typically yield sparse and temporally disjointed frames, overlooking scene continuity and lacking flexibility for multi-scale frame selection. To address these limitations, we introduce K-frames, a novel paradigm for scene-driven keyframe selection that preserves temporal continuity. Instead of selecting individual frames, K-frames predicts semantically coherent, query-relevant clips, which enables any-k keyframes selection to meet diverse user budgets. To achieve this approach, we first introduce PeakClips, a dataset of 200K video highlights conditioned by query. Building on this dataset, K-frames learns clip2frame selection using a three-stage progressive curriculum. It involves two Supervised Fine-Tuning stages for temporal grounding and key-clip perception, followed by a Reinforcement Learning stage that directly optimizes the scene-driven prediction policy for downstream task without further annotations. Extensive experiments on major long-video understanding benchmarks demonstrate that K-frames provides an effective, interpretable, and plug-and-play solution for keyframe selection at various scales. Our dataset and model will be available.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) for mathematical reasoning have largely focused on tasks with easily verifiable final answers; however, generating and verifying natural language math proofs remains an open challenge. We identify the absence of a reliable, fine-grained evaluator for LLM-generated math proofs as a critical gap. To address this, we propose a systematic methodology for developing and validating evaluators that assign fine-grained scores on a 0-7 scale to model-generated math proofs. To enable this study, we introduce ProofBench, the first expert-annotated dataset of fine-grained proof ratings, spanning 145 problems from six major math competitions (USAMO, IMO, Putnam, etc) and 435 LLM-generated solutions from Gemini-2.5-pro, o3, and DeepSeek-R1. %with expert gradings. Using ProofBench as a testbed, we systematically explore the evaluator design space across key axes: the backbone model, input context, instructions and evaluation workflow. Our analysis delivers ProofGrader, an evaluator that combines a strong reasoning backbone LM, rich context from reference solutions and marking schemes, and a simple ensembling method; it achieves a low Mean Absolute Error (MAE) of 0.926 against expert scores, significantly outperforming naive baselines. Finally, we demonstrate its practical utility in a best-of-$n$ selection task: at $n=16$, ProofGrader achieves an average score of 4.14 (out of 7), closing 78% of the gap between a naive binary evaluator (2.48) and the human oracle (4.62), highlighting its potential to advance downstream proof generation.

This study presents a comparative evaluation of ten state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) applied to unstructured text categorization using the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) 2.2 hierarchical taxonomy. The analysis employed a uniform dataset of 8,660 human-annotated samples and identical zero-shot prompts to ensure methodological consistency across all models. Evaluation metrics included four classic measures - accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score - and three LLM-specific indicators: hallucination ratio, inflation ratio, and categorization cost. Results show that, despite their rapid advancement, contemporary LLMs achieve only moderate classic performance, with average scores of 34% accuracy, 42% precision, 45% recall, and 41% F1-score. Hallucination and inflation ratios reveal that models frequently overproduce categories relative to human annotators. Among the evaluated systems, Gemini 1.5/2.0 Flash and GPT 20B/120B offered the most favorable cost-to-performance balance, while GPT 120B demonstrated the lowest hallucination ratio. The findings suggest that scaling and architectural improvements alone do not ensure better categorization accuracy, as the task requires compressing rich unstructured text into a limited taxonomy - a process that challenges current model architectures. To address these limitations, a separate ensemble-based approach was developed and tested. The ensemble method, in which multiple LLMs act as independent experts, substantially improved accuracy, reduced inflation, and completely eliminated hallucinations. These results indicate that coordinated orchestration of models - rather than sheer scale - may represent the most effective path toward achieving or surpassing human-expert performance in large-scale text categorization.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate public opinion and other social phenomena. Most current studies constrain these simulations to multiple-choice or short-answer formats for ease of scoring and comparison, but such closed designs overlook the inherently generative nature of LLMs. In this position paper, we argue that open-endedness, using free-form text that captures topics, viewpoints, and reasoning processes "in" LLMs, is essential for realistic social simulation. Drawing on decades of survey-methodology research and recent advances in NLP, we argue why this open-endedness is valuable in LLM social simulations, showing how it can improve measurement and design, support exploration of unanticipated views, and reduce researcher-imposed directive bias. It also captures expressiveness and individuality, aids in pretesting, and ultimately enhances methodological utility. We call for novel practices and evaluation frameworks that leverage rather than constrain the open-ended generative diversity of LLMs, creating synergies between NLP and social science.