Despite advances in legal NLP, no comprehensive evaluation covering multiple legal-specific LLMs currently exists for contract classification tasks in contract understanding. To address this gap, we present an evaluation of 10 legal-specific LLMs on three English language contract understanding tasks and compare them with 7 general-purpose LLMs. The results show that legal-specific LLMs consistently outperform general-purpose models, especially on tasks requiring nuanced legal understanding. Legal-BERT and Contracts-BERT establish new SOTAs on two of the three tasks, despite having 69% fewer parameters than the best-performing general-purpose LLM. We also identify CaseLaw-BERT and LexLM as strong additional baselines for contract understanding. Our results provide a holistic evaluation of legal-specific LLMs and will facilitate the development of more accurate contract understanding systems.

--Recent progress in auditory intelligence has yielded high-performing systems for sound event detection (SED), acoustic scene classification (ASC), automated audio captioning (AAC), and audio question answering (AQA). Y et these tasks remain largely constrained to surface-level recognition--capturing what happened but not why, what it implies, or how it unfolds in context. I propose a conceptual reframing of auditory intelligence as a layered, situated process that encompasses perception, reasoning, and interaction. T o instantiate this view, I introduce four cognitively inspired task paradigms--ASPIRE, SODA, AUX, and AUGMENT--those structure auditory understanding across time-frequency pattern captioning, hierarchical event/scene description, causal explanation, and goal-driven interpretation, respectively. T ogether, these paradigms provide a roadmap toward more generalizable, explainable, and human-aligned auditory intelligence, and are intended to catalyze a broader discussion of what it means for machines to understand sound. Large language models (LLMs) have significantly augmented human capabilities by automating repetitive and tedious tasks [1]-[3]. With simple text or voice prompts, they can generate ideas, assist with research, create visual content, and engage in human-like conversation.

Textual data annotation, the process of labeling or tagging text with relevant information, is typically costly, time-consuming, and labor-intensive. While large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated their potential as direct alternatives to human annotators for general domains natural language processing (NLP) tasks, their effectiveness on annotation tasks in domains requiring expert knowledge remains underexplored. In this paper, we investigate: whether top-performing LLMs, which might be perceived as having expert-level proficiency in academic and professional benchmarks, can serve as direct alternatives to human expert annotators? To this end, we evaluate both individual LLMs and multi-agent approaches across three highly specialized domains: finance, biomedicine, and law. Specifically, we propose a multi-agent discussion framework to simulate a group of human annotators, where LLMs are tasked to engage in discussions by considering others' annotations and justifications before finalizing their labels. Additionally, we incorporate reasoning models (e.g., o3-mini) to enable a more comprehensive comparison. Our empirical results reveal that: (1) Individual LLMs equipped with inference-time techniques (e.g., chain-of-thought (CoT), self-consistency) show only marginal or even negative performance gains, contrary to prior literature suggesting their broad effectiveness. (2) Overall, reasoning models do not demonstrate statistically significant improvements over non-reasoning models in most settings. This suggests that extended long CoT provides relatively limited benefits for data annotation in specialized domains. (3) Certain model behaviors emerge in the multi-agent discussion environment. For instance, Claude 3.7 Sonnet with thinking rarely changes its initial annotations, even when other agents provide correct annotations or valid reasoning.

As large language models take on growing roles as automated evaluators in practical settings, a critical question arises: Can individuals persuade an LLM judge to assign unfairly high scores? This study is the first to reveal that strategically embedded persuasive language can bias LLM judges when scoring mathematical reasoning tasks, where correctness should be independent of stylistic variation. Grounded in Aristotle's rhetorical principles, we formalize seven persuasion techniques (Majority, Consistency, Flattery, Reciprocity, Pity, Authority, Identity) and embed them into otherwise identical responses. Across six math benchmarks, we find that persuasive language leads LLM judges to assign inflated scores to incorrect solutions, by up to 8% on average, with Consistency causing the most severe distortion. Notably, increasing model size does not substantially mitigate this vulnerability. Further analysis demonstrates that combining multiple persuasion techniques amplifies the bias, and pairwise evaluation is likewise susceptible. Moreover, the persuasive effect persists under counter prompting strategies, highlighting a critical vulnerability in LLM-as-a-Judge pipelines and underscoring the need for robust defenses against persuasion-based attacks.

The Mixture of Experts (MoE) architecture is a cornerstone of modern state-of-the-art (SOTA) large language models (LLMs). MoE models facilitate scalability by enabling sparse parameter activation. However, traditional MoE architecture uses homogeneous experts of a uniform size, activating a fixed number of parameters irrespective of input complexity and thus limiting computational efficiency. To overcome this limitation, we introduce Grove MoE, a novel architecture incorporating experts of varying sizes, inspired by the heterogeneous big.LITTLE CPU architecture. This architecture features novel adjugate experts with a dynamic activation mechanism, enabling model capacity expansion while maintaining manageable computational overhead. Building on this architecture, we present GroveMoE-Base and GroveMoE-Inst, 33B-parameter LLMs developed by applying an upcycling strategy to the Qwen3-30B-A3B-Base model during mid-training and post-training. GroveMoE models dynamically activate 3.14-3.28B parameters based on token complexity and achieve performance comparable to SOTA open-source models of similar or even larger size.

This work proposes a grammar-based chunking strategy that segments input streams into semantically complete units by parsing dependency relations (e.g., noun phrase boundaries, verb-object structures) and punctuation features. The method ensures chunk coherence and minimizes semantic fragmentation. Building on this mechanism, we present SASST (Syntax-Aware Simultaneous Speech Translation), an end-to-end framework integrating frozen Whisper encoder and decoder-only LLM. The unified architecture dynamically outputs translation tokens or symbols to jointly optimize translation timing and content, with target-side reordering addressing word-order divergence. Experiments on CoVoST2 multilingual corpus En-{De, Zh, Ja} demonstrate significant translation quality improvements across languages and validate the effectiveness of syntactic structures in LLM-driven SimulST systems.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in real-world applications that require careful balancing of multiple, often conflicting, objectives, such as informativeness versus conciseness, or helpfulness versus creativity. However, current alignment methods, primarily based on RLHF, optimize LLMs toward a single reward function, resulting in rigid behavior that fails to capture the complexity and diversity of human preferences. This limitation hinders the adaptability of LLMs to practical scenarios, making multi-objective alignment (MOA) a critical yet underexplored area. To bridge this gap, we propose Pareto Multi-Objective Alignment (PAMA), a principled and computationally efficient algorithm designed explicitly for MOA in LLMs. In contrast to computationally prohibitive multi-objective optimization (MOO) methods, PAMA transforms multi-objective RLHF into a convex optimization with a closed-form solution, significantly enhancing scalability. Traditional MOO approaches suffer from prohibitive O(n^2*d) complexity, where d represents the number of model parameters, typically in the billions for LLMs, rendering direct optimization infeasible. PAMA reduces this complexity to O(n) where n is the number of objectives, enabling optimization to be completed within milliseconds. We provide theoretical guarantees that PAMA converges to a Pareto stationary point, where no objective can be improved without degrading at least one other. Extensive experiments across language models ranging from 125M to 7B parameters demonstrate PAMA's robust and effective MOA capabilities, aligning with its theoretical advantages. PAMA provides a highly efficient solution to the MOA problem that was previously considered intractable, offering a practical and theoretically grounded approach to aligning LLMs with diverse human values, paving the way for versatile and adaptable real-world AI deployments.

Unlike bitmap images, scalable vector graphics (SVG) maintain quality when scaled, frequently employed in computer vision and artistic design in the representation of SVG code. In this era of proliferating AI-powered systems, enabling AI to understand and generate SVG has become increasingly urgent. However, AI-driven SVG understanding and generation (U&G) remain significant challenges. SVG code, equivalent to a set of curves and lines controlled by floating-point parameters, demands high precision in SVG U&G. Besides, SVG generation operates under diverse conditional constraints, including textual prompts and visual references, which requires powerful multi-modal processing for condition-to-SVG transformation. Recently, the rapid growth of Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have demonstrated capabilities to process multi-modal inputs and generate complex vector controlling parameters, suggesting the potential to address SVG U&G tasks within a unified model. To unlock MLLM's capabilities in the SVG area, we propose an SVG-centric dataset called UniSVG, comprising 525k data items, tailored for MLLM training and evaluation. To our best knowledge, it is the first comprehensive dataset designed for unified SVG generation (from textual prompts and images) and SVG understanding (color, category, usage, etc.). As expected, learning on the proposed dataset boosts open-source MLLMs' performance on various SVG U&G tasks, surpassing SOTA close-source MLLMs like GPT-4V. We release dataset, benchmark, weights, codes and experiment details on https://ryanlijinke.github.io/.

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable success in various tasks, yet they remain vulnerable to faithfulness hallucinations, where the output does not align with the input. In this study, we investigate whether social bias contributes to these hallucinations, a causal relationship that has not been explored. A key challenge is controlling confounders within the context, which complicates the isolation of causality between bias states and hallucinations. To address this, we utilize the Structural Causal Model (SCM) to establish and validate the causality and design bias interventions to control confounders. In addition, we develop the Bias Intervention Dataset (BID), which includes various social biases, enabling precise measurement of causal effects. Experiments on mainstream LLMs reveal that biases are significant causes of faithfulness hallucinations, and the effect of each bias state differs in direction. We further analyze the scope of these causal effects across various models, specifically focusing on unfairness hallucinations, which are primarily targeted by social bias, revealing the subtle yet significant causal effect of bias on hallucination generation.

Alignment methodologies have emerged as a critical pathway for enhancing language model alignment capabilities. While SFT (supervised fine-tuning) accelerates convergence through direct token-level loss intervention, its efficacy is constrained by offline policy trajectory. In contrast, RL(reinforcement learning) facilitates exploratory policy optimization, but suffers from low sample efficiency and stringent dependency on high-quality base models. To address these dual challenges, we propose GRAO (Group Relative Alignment Optimization), a unified framework that synergizes the respective strengths of SFT and RL through three key innovations: 1) A multi-sample generation strategy enabling comparative quality assessment via reward feedback; 2) A novel Group Direct Alignment Loss formulation leveraging intra-group relative advantage weighting; 3) Reference-aware parameter updates guided by pairwise preference dynamics. Our theoretical analysis establishes GRAO's convergence guarantees and sample efficiency advantages over conventional approaches. Comprehensive evaluations across complex human alignment tasks demonstrate GRAO's superior performance, achieving 57.70\%,17.65\% 7.95\% and 5.18\% relative improvements over SFT, DPO, PPO and GRPO baselines respectively. This work provides both a theoretically grounded alignment framework and empirical evidence for efficient capability evolution in language models.