Data preparation is a foundational yet notoriously challenging component of the machine learning lifecycle, characterized by a vast combinatorial search space. While reinforcement learning (RL) offers a promising direction, state-of-the-art methods suffer from a critical limitation: to manage the search space, they rely on rigid ``hard constraints'' that prematurely prune the search space and often preclude optimal solutions. To address this, we introduce SoftPipe, a novel RL framework that replaces these constraints with a flexible ``soft guidance'' paradigm. SoftPipe formulates action selection as a Bayesian inference problem. A high-level strategic prior, generated by a Large Language Model (LLM), probabilistically guides exploration. This prior is combined with empirical estimators from two sources through a collaborative process: a fine-grained quality score from a supervised Learning-to-Rank (LTR) model and a long-term value estimate from the agent's Q-function. Through extensive experiments on 18 diverse datasets, we demonstrate that SoftPipe achieves up to a 13.9\% improvement in pipeline quality and 2.8$\times$ faster convergence compared to existing methods.

The advancement of powerful yet opaque large language models (LLMs) necessitates a fundamental revision of the philosophical criteria used to evaluate artificial moral agents (AMAs). Pre-LLM frameworks often relied on the assumption of transparent architectures, which LLMs defy due to their stochastic outputs and opaque internal states. This paper argues that traditional ethical criteria are pragmatically obsolete for LLMs due to this mismatch. Engaging with core themes in the philosophy of technology, this paper proffers a revised set of ten functional criteria to evaluate LLM-based artificial moral agents: moral concordance, context sensitivity, normative integrity, metaethical awareness, system resilience, trustworthiness, corrigibility, partial transparency, functional autonomy, and moral imagination. These guideposts, applied to what we term "SMA-LLS" (Simulating Moral Agency through Large Language Systems), aim to steer AMAs toward greater alignment and beneficial societal integration in the coming years. We illustrate these criteria using hypothetical scenarios involving an autonomous public bus (APB) to demonstrate their practical applicability in morally salient contexts.

Understanding the sources of variability in annotations is crucial for developing fair NLP systems, especially for tasks like sexism detection where demographic bias is a concern. This study investigates the extent to which annotator demographic features influence labeling decisions compared to text content. Using a Generalized Linear Mixed Model, we quantify this inf luence, finding that while statistically present, demographic factors account for a minor fraction ( 8%) of the observed variance, with tweet content being the dominant factor. We then assess the reliability of Generative AI (GenAI) models as annotators, specifically evaluating if guiding them with demographic personas improves alignment with human judgments. Our results indicate that simplistic persona prompting often fails to enhance, and sometimes degrades, performance compared to baseline models. Furthermore, explainable AI (XAI) techniques reveal that model predictions rely heavily on content-specific tokens related to sexism, rather than correlates of demographic characteristics. We argue that focusing on content-driven explanations and robust annotation protocols offers a more reliable path towards fairness than potentially persona simulation.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly rely on reinforcement learning (RL) to enhance their reasoning capabilities through feedback. A critical challenge is verifying the consistency of model-generated responses and reference answers, since these responses are often lengthy, diverse, and nuanced. Rule-based verifiers struggle with complexity, prompting the use of model-based verifiers. However, specialized verifiers lack flexibility, while general LLM judges can be inconsistent. Existing research primarily focuses on building better verifiers, yet a systematic evaluation of different types of verifiers' performance across domains remains lacking, severely constraining the reliable development of Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Reward (RLVR). To address this, we propose VerifyBench--a cross-domain comprehensive benchmark for systematically evaluating verifiers. We construct 4,000 expert-level questions covering mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology. Each question is equipped with reference answers and diverse responses. The reliability of the evaluation is ensured through a rigorous annotation process conducted by a multidisciplinary expert team. We design a four-dimensional experimental framework to comprehensively compare the performance boundaries of specialized verifiers and general LLMs under combined conditions of extracted answers vs. complete responses, and short vs. long outputs. Our evaluation uncovers fundamental trade-offs in verifiers: while specialized verifiers achieve leading accuracy, they exhibit deficiencies in recall; general models show stronger inclusivity but unstable precision. More importantly, we discover verifiers' high sensitivity to input structure and inherent limitations in cross-domain generalization, providing critical insights into the bottlenecks of current verifier technology.

Large language models have achieved remarkable progress across many languages. However, Tibetan, as a representative low-resource language, is particularly underrepresented in existing models due to the scarcity of high-quality training corpora. To address this gap, we curate the largest Tibetan pre-training corpus to date, aggregating data from diverse sources and applying a dedicated data cleaning and processing pipeline tailored for Tibetan. With the curated data, we continue pre/post-training a multilingual base model to enhance its generative capabilities in Tibetan. To evaluate the Tibetan capabilities of the model, we create new high-quality Tibetan benchmarks, and complement them with existing public benchmarks. Experimental results demonstrate that our model consistently and significantly outperforms both open-source models of similar scale and Tibetan-tailored models across a wide range of tasks.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has emerged as a crucial framework in natural language processing (NLP), improving factual consistency and reducing hallucinations by integrating external document retrieval with large language models (LLMs). However, the effectiveness of RAG is often hindered by coreferential complexity in retrieved documents, introducing ambiguity that disrupts in-context learning. In this study, we systematically investigate how entity coreference affects both document retrieval and generative performance in RAG-based systems, focusing on retrieval relevance, contextual understanding, and overall response quality. We demonstrate that coreference resolution enhances retrieval effectiveness and improves question-answering (QA) performance. Through comparative analysis of different pooling strategies in retrieval tasks, we find that mean pooling demonstrates superior context capturing ability after applying coreference resolution. In QA tasks, we discover that smaller models benefit more from the disambiguation process, likely due to their limited inherent capacity for handling referential ambiguity. With these findings, this study aims to provide a deeper understanding of the challenges posed by coreferential complexity in RAG, providing guidance for improving retrieval and generation in knowledge-intensive AI applications.

Automated text evaluation has long been a central issue in Natural Language Processing (NLP). Recently, the field has shifted toward using Large Language Models (LLMs) as evaluators-a trend known as the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm. While promising and easily adaptable across tasks, this approach has seen limited exploration in multilingual contexts. Existing multilingual studies often rely on proprietary models or require extensive training data for fine-tuning, raising concerns about cost, time, and efficiency. In this paper, we propose Checklist Engineering based LLM-as-a-Judge (CE-Judge), a training-free framework that uses checklist intuition for multilingual evaluation with an open-source model. Experiments across multiple languages and three benchmark datasets, under both pointwise and pairwise settings, show that our method generally surpasses the baselines and performs on par with the GPT-4o model.

Slide animations, such as fade-in, fly-in, and wipe, are critical for audience engagement, efficient information delivery, and vivid visual expression. However, most AI-driven slide-generation tools still lack native animation support, and existing vision-language models (VLMs) struggle with animation tasks due to the absence of public datasets and limited temporal-reasoning capabilities. To address this gap, we release the first public dataset for slide-animation modeling: 12,000 triplets of natural-language descriptions, animation JSON files, and rendered videos, collectively covering every built-in PowerPoint effect. Using this resource, we fine-tune Qwen-2.5-VL-7B with Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) and achieve consistent improvements over GPT-4.1 and Gemini-2.5-Pro in BLEU-4, ROUGE-L, SPICE, and our Coverage-Order-Detail Assessment (CODA) metric, which evaluates action coverage, temporal order, and detail fidelity. On a manually created test set of slides, the LoRA model increases BLEU-4 by around 60%, ROUGE-L by 30%, and shows significant improvements in CODA-detail. This demonstrates that low-rank adaptation enables reliable temporal reasoning and generalization beyond synthetic data. Overall, our dataset, LoRA-enhanced model, and CODA metric provide a rigorous benchmark and foundation for future research on VLM-based dynamic slide generation.

Achieving human-like reasoning capabilities in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) has long been a goal. Current methods primarily focus on synthesizing positive rationales, typically relying on manual annotations or complex systems. Moreover, they often overlook negative reasoning, which limits the model's generalization ability and robustness in multimodal inference. To address this gap, we propose a novel framework: \textbf{S}elf-Aligning \textbf{M}ultimodal Reasoning with \textbf{A}nswer-O\textbf{r}iented Chain-of-\textbf{T}hought (SMART). SMART employs an answer-oriented chain-of-thought (AoT) prompt to automatically construct high-quality data. Drawing inspiration from human proof-based strategies, AoT leverages both correct and incorrect answers to extract key visual information that links questions and answers. When provided with correct answers, the model produces strong positive rationales. Conversely, when correct answers are replaced with incorrect alternatives, the model generates an erroneous yet compelling reasoning path, serving as a form of discriminative negative rationale. Models trained with AoT-generated data outperform those trained on manually annotated datasets, demonstrating superior reasoning capabilities. Consequently, SMART establishes an iterative generation-optimization method that continually enhances the model's reasoning skills. Experiments indicate that the SMART framework significantly improves various MLLMs, regardless of model architecture, parameter size, or pre-training dataset. The code is available at https://github.com/WentaoTan/SMART.

Hate speech targeting children on social media is a serious and growing problem, yet current NLP systems struggle to detect it effectively. This gap exists mainly because existing datasets focus on adults, lack age specific labels, miss nuanced linguistic cues, and are often too small for robust modeling. To address this, we introduce ChildGuard, the first large scale English dataset dedicated to hate speech aimed at children. It contains 351,877 annotated examples from X (formerly Twitter), Reddit, and YouTube, labeled by three age groups: younger children (under 11), pre teens (11--12), and teens (13--17). The dataset is split into two subsets for fine grained analysis: a contextual subset (157K) focusing on discourse level features, and a lexical subset (194K) emphasizing word-level sentiment and vocabulary. Benchmarking state of the art hate speech models on ChildGuard reveals notable drops in performance, highlighting the challenges of detecting child directed hate speech.