Present day LLMs face the challenge of managing affordance-based safety risks-situations where outputs inadvertently facilitate harmful actions due to overlooked logical implications. Traditional safety solutions, such as scalar outcome-based reward models, parameter tuning, or heuristic decoding strategies, lack the granularity and proactive nature needed to reliably detect and intervene during subtle yet crucial reasoning steps. Addressing this fundamental gap, we introduce AURA, an innovative, multi-layered framework centered around Process Reward Models (PRMs), providing comprehensive, step level evaluations across logical coherence and safety-awareness. Our framework seamlessly combines introspective self-critique, fine-grained PRM assessments, and adaptive safety-aware decoding to dynamically and proactively guide models toward safer reasoning trajectories. Empirical evidence clearly demonstrates that this approach significantly surpasses existing methods, significantly improving the logical integrity and affordance-sensitive safety of model outputs. This research represents a pivotal step toward safer, more responsible, and contextually aware AI, setting a new benchmark for alignment-sensitive applications.

Evaluating the capabilities and risks of foundation models is paramount, yet current methods demand extensive domain expertise, hindering their scalability as these models rapidly evolve. We introduce SKATE: a novel evaluation framework in which large language models (LLMs) compete by generating and solving verifiable tasks for one another. Our core insight is to treat evaluation as a game: models act as both task-setters and solvers, incentivized to create questions which highlight their own strengths while exposing others' weaknesses. SKATE offers several key advantages, balancing scalability, open-endedness, and objectivity. It is fully automated, data-free, and scalable, requiring no human input or domain expertise. By using verifiable tasks rather than LLM judges, scoring is objective. Unlike domain-limited programmatically-generated benchmarks (e.g. chess-playing or spatial reasoning), having LLMs creatively pose challenges enables open-ended and scalable evaluation. As a proof of concept, we introduce LLM-set code-output-prediction (COP) challenges as a verifiable and extensible framework in which to test our approach. Using a TrueSkill-based ranking system, we evaluate six frontier LLMs and find that: (1) weaker models can reliably differentiate and score stronger ones, (2) LLM-based systems are capable of self-preferencing behavior, generating questions that align with their own capabilities, and (3) SKATE automatically surfaces fine-grained capability differences between models. Our findings are an important step towards general, scalable evaluation frameworks which can keep pace with LLM progress.

--This paper presents two effective approaches for Extractive Question Answering (QA) on the Qur'an. It addresses challenges related to complex language, unique terminology, and deep meaning in the text. The second uses few-shot prompting with instruction-tuned large language models such as Gemini and DeepSeek. A specialized Arabic prompt framework is developed for span extraction. A strong post-processing system integrates subword alignment, overlap suppression, and semantic filtering. This improves precision and reduces hallucinations. Evaluations show that large language models with Arabic instructions outperform traditional fine-tuned models. The best configuration achieves a pAP@10 score of 0.637. The results confirm that prompt-based instruction tuning is effective for low-resource, semantically rich QA tasks.

Evaluating the abilities of large models and manifesting their gaps are challenging. Current benchmarks adopt either ground-truth-based score-form evaluation on static datasets or indistinct textual chatbot-style human preferences collection, which may not provide users with immediate, intuitive, and perceptible feedback on performance differences. In this paper, we introduce BioMotion Arena, a novel framework for evaluating large language models (LLMs) and multimodal large language models (MLLMs) via visual animation. Our methodology draws inspiration from the inherent visual perception of motion patterns characteristic of living organisms that utilizes point-light source imaging to amplify the performance discrepancies between models. Specifically, we employ a pairwise comparison evaluation and collect more than 45k votes for 53 mainstream LLMs and MLLMs on 90 biological motion variants. Data analyses show that the crowd-sourced human votes are in good agreement with those of expert raters, demonstrating the superiority of our BioMotion Arena in offering discriminative feedback. We also find that over 90\% of evaluated models, including the cutting-edge open-source InternVL3 and proprietary Claude-4 series, fail to produce fundamental humanoid point-light groups, much less smooth and biologically plausible motions. This enables BioMotion Arena to serve as a challenging benchmark for performance visualization and a flexible evaluation framework without restrictions on ground-truth.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly expected to handle complex decision-making tasks, yet their ability to perform structured resource allocation remains underexplored. Evaluating their reasoning is also difficult due to data contamination and the static nature of existing benchmarks. We present a dual-purpose framework leveraging Participatory Budgeting (PB) both as (i) a practical setting for LLM-based resource allocation and (ii) an adaptive benchmark for evaluating their reasoning capabilities. We task LLMs with selecting project subsets under feasibility (e.g., budget) constraints via three prompting strategies: greedy selection, direct optimization, and a hill-climbing-inspired refinement. We benchmark LLMs' allocations against a utility-maximizing oracle. Interestingly, we also test whether LLMs can infer structured preferences from natural-language voter input or metadata, without explicit votes. By comparing allocations based on inferred preferences to those from ground-truth votes, we evaluate LLMs' ability to extract preferences from open-ended input. Our results underscore the role of prompt design and show that LLMs hold promise for mechanism design with unstructured inputs.

Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) is closer than ever to becoming a reality, sparking widespread enthusiasm in the research community to collect and work with various modalities, including text, image, video, and audio. Despite recent efforts, satellite spectral imagery, as an additional modality, has yet to receive the attention it deserves. This area presents unique challenges, but also holds great promise in advancing the capabilities of AGI in understanding the natural world. In this paper, we argue why Earth Observation data is useful for an intelligent model, and then we review existing benchmarks and highlight their limitations in evaluating the generalization ability of foundation models in this domain. This paper emphasizes the need for a more comprehensive benchmark to evaluate earth observation models. To facilitate this, we propose a comprehensive set of tasks that a benchmark should encompass to effectively assess a model's ability to understand and interact with Earth observation data.

Although the effectiveness of Large Language Models (LLMs) as judges (LLM-as-a-judge) has been validated, their performance remains limited in open-ended tasks, particularly in story evaluation. Accurate story evaluation is crucial not only for assisting human quality judgment but also for providing key signals to guide story generation. However, existing methods face a dilemma: prompt engineering for closed-source models suffers from poor adaptability, while fine-tuning approaches for open-source models lack the rigorous reasoning capabilities essential for story evaluation. To address this, we propose the Self-Evolving Pairwise Reasoning (EvolvR) framework. Grounded in pairwise comparison, the framework first self-synthesizes score-aligned Chain-of-Thought (CoT) data via a multi-persona strategy. To ensure data quality, these raw CoTs undergo a self-filtering process, utilizing multi-agents to guarantee their logical rigor and robustness. Finally, the evaluator trained on the refined data is deployed as a reward model to guide the story generation task. Experimental results demonstrate that our framework achieves state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance on three evaluation benchmarks including StoryER, HANNA and OpenMEVA. Furthermore, when served as a reward model, it significantly enhances the quality of generated stories, thereby fully validating the superiority of our self-evolving approach.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently demonstrated impressive action sequence prediction capabilities but often struggle with dynamic, long-horizon tasks such as real-time strategic games. In a game such as StarCraftII (SC2), agents need to manage resource constraints and adapt to evolving battlefield situations in a partially observable environment. This often overwhelms exisiting LLM-based approaches. To address these challenges, we propose a hierarchical multi-agent framework that employs specialized imitation learning agents under a meta-controller called Strategic Planner (SP). By expert demonstrations, each specialized agent learns a distinctive strategy, such as aerial support or defensive maneuvers, and produces coherent, structured multistep action sequences. The SP then orchestrates these proposals into a single, environmentally adaptive plan that ensures local decisions aligning with long-term strategies. We call this HIMA (Hierarchical Imitation Multi-Agent). We also present TEXTSCII-ALL, a comprehensive SC2 testbed that encompasses all race match combinations in SC2. Our empirical results show that HIMA outperforms state of the arts in strategic clarity, adaptability, and computational efficiency, underscoring the potential of combining specialized imitation modules with meta-level orchestration to develop more robust, general-purpose AI agents.

Self-Rewarding Language Models propose an architecture in which the Large Language Models(LLMs) both generates responses and evaluates its own outputs via LLM-as-a-Judge prompting, dynamically improving its generative capabilities through iterative Direct Preference Optimization (DPO). However, our analysis reveals a critical limitation in existing Self-Rewarding paradigms: the synchronized improvement of chosen and rejected responses progressively narrows the representational difference between contrasting samples, undermining effective preference learning. We propose \textbf{Temporal Self-Rewarding Language Models} that strategically coordinate past, present, and future model generations to sustain learning signals. Our dual-phase framework introduces: (1) \textit{Anchored Rejection} - fixing rejected responses using the past initial model's outputs and (2) \textit{Future-Guided Chosen} - dynamically curating chosen samples using next-generation model predictions. Extensive experiments across three model families (Llama, Qwen, Mistral) and different model sizes (Llama3B/8B/70B) demonstrate significant improvements when trained with our method compared to Self-Rewarding using same computation resources. For example, Llama3.1-8B reaches a 29.44 win rate on AlpacaEval 2.0 with our method, outperforming the Self-Rewarding baseline (19.69) by 9.75. Notably, our method also demonstrates superior out-of-distribution generalization across mathematical reasoning (GSM8K), knowledge-based QA (ARC, TruthfulQA), and code generation (HumanEval) tasks, even though we do not specifically collect such training data.

Intelligent coding systems are transforming software development by enabling users to specify code behavior in natural language. However, the opaque decision-making of AI-driven coders raises trust and usability concerns, particularly for non-expert users who cannot inspect low-level implementations. We argue that these systems should not only generate code but also produce clear, consistent justifications that bridge model reasoning and user understanding. To this end, we identify two critical justification properties-cognitive alignment and semantic faithfulness-and highlight the limitations of existing methods, including formal verification, static analysis, and post-hoc explainability. We advocate exploring neuro-symbolic approaches for justification generation, where symbolic constraints guide model behavior during training and program semantics are enriched through neural representations, enabling automated consistency checks at inference time.