Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated advanced capabilities in real-world agentic applications. Growing research efforts aim to develop LLM-based agents to address practical demands, introducing a new challenge: agentic scenarios often involve lengthy instructions with complex constraints, such as extended system prompts and detailed tool specifications. While adherence to such instructions is crucial for agentic applications, whether LLMs can reliably follow them remains underexplored. In this paper, we introduce AgentIF, the first benchmark for systematically evaluating LLM instruction following ability in agentic scenarios. AgentIF features three key characteristics: (1) Realistic, constructed from 50 real-world agentic applications. (2) Long, averaging 1,723 words with a maximum of 15,630 words. (3) Complex, averaging 11.9 constraints per instruction, covering diverse constraint types, such as tool specifications and condition constraints. To construct AgentIF, we collect 707 human-annotated instructions across 50 agentic tasks from industrial application agents and open-source agentic systems. For each instruction, we annotate the associated constraints and corresponding evaluation metrics, including code-based evaluation, LLM-based evaluation, and hybrid code-LLM evaluation. We use AgentIF to systematically evaluate existing advanced LLMs. We observe that current models generally perform poorly, especially in handling complex constraint structures and tool specifications. We further conduct error analysis and analytical experiments on instruction length and meta constraints, providing some findings about the failure modes of existing LLMs. We have released the code and data to facilitate future research.

The growing use of large language models (LLMs) for sensitive applications has highlighted the need for effective watermarking techniques to ensure the provenance and accountability of AI-generated text. However, most existing watermarking methods require access to the decoding process, limiting their applicability in real-world settings. One illustrative example is the use of LLMs by dishonest reviewers in the context of academic peer review, where conference organizers have no access to the model used but still need to detect AI-generated reviews. Motivated by this gap, we introduce In-Context Watermarking (ICW), which embeds watermarks into generated text solely through prompt engineering, leveraging LLMs' in-context learning and instruction-following abilities. We investigate four ICW strategies at different levels of granularity, each paired with a tailored detection method. We further examine the Indirect Prompt Injection (IPI) setting as a specific case study, in which watermarking is covertly triggered by modifying input documents such as academic manuscripts. Our experiments validate the feasibility of ICW as a model-agnostic, practical watermarking approach. Moreover, our findings suggest that as LLMs become more capable, ICW offers a promising direction for scalable and accessible content attribution.

Personally identifiable information (PII) anonymization is a high-stakes task that poses a barrier to many open-science data sharing initiatives. While PII identification has made large strides in recent years, in practice, error thresholds and the recall/precision trade-off still limit the uptake of these anonymization pipelines. We present PIIvot, a lighter-weight framework for PII anonymization that leverages knowledge of the data context to simplify the PII detection problem. To demonstrate its effectiveness, we also contribute QATD-2k, the largest open-source real-world tutoring dataset of its kind, to support the demand for quality educational dialogue data.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems have historically been used as tools that execute narrowly defined tasks. Yet recent advances in AI have unlocked possibilities for a new class of models that genuinely collaborate with humans in complex reasoning, from conceptualizing problems to brainstorming solutions. Such AI thought partners enable novel forms of collaboration and extended cognition, yet they also pose major risks-including and beyond risks of typical AI tools and agents. In this commentary, we systematically identify risks of AI thought partners through a novel framework that identifies risks at multiple levels of analysis, including Real-time, Individual, and Societal risks arising from collaborative cognition (RISc). We leverage this framework to propose concrete metrics for risk evaluation, and finally suggest specific mitigation strategies for developers and policymakers. As AI thought partners continue to proliferate, these strategies can help prevent major harms and ensure that humans actively benefit from productive thought partnerships.

Hallucinations -- plausible yet erroneous outputs -- remain a critical barrier to reliable deployment of large language models (LLMs). We present the first systematic study linking hallucination incidence to internal-state drift induced by incremental context injection. Using TruthfulQA, we construct two 16-round "titration" tracks per question: one appends relevant but partially flawed snippets, the other injects deliberately misleading content. Across six open-source LLMs, we track overt hallucination rates with a tri-perspective detector and covert dynamics via cosine, entropy, JS and Spearman drifts of hidden states and attention maps. Results reveal (1) monotonic growth of hallucination frequency and representation drift that plateaus after 5--7 rounds; (2) relevant context drives deeper semantic assimilation, producing high-confidence "self-consistent" hallucinations, whereas irrelevant context induces topic-drift errors anchored by attention re-routing; and (3) convergence of JS-Drift ($\sim0.69$) and Spearman-Drift ($\sim0$) marks an "attention-locking" threshold beyond which hallucinations solidify and become resistant to correction. Correlation analyses expose a seesaw between assimilation capacity and attention diffusion, clarifying size-dependent error modes. These findings supply empirical foundations for intrinsic hallucination prediction and context-aware mitigation mechanisms.

With the growing success of reasoning models across complex natural language tasks, researchers in the Information Retrieval (IR) community have begun exploring how similar reasoning capabilities can be integrated into passage rerankers built on Large Language Models (LLMs). These methods typically employ an LLM to produce an explicit, step-by-step reasoning process before arriving at a final relevance prediction. But, does reasoning actually improve reranking accuracy? In this paper, we dive deeper into this question, studying the impact of the reasoning process by comparing reasoning-based pointwise rerankers (ReasonRR) to standard, non-reasoning pointwise rerankers (StandardRR) under identical training conditions, and observe that StandardRR generally outperforms ReasonRR. Building on this observation, we then study the importance of reasoning to ReasonRR by disabling its reasoning process (ReasonRR-NoReason), and find that ReasonRR-NoReason is surprisingly more effective than ReasonRR. Examining the cause of this result, our findings reveal that reasoning-based rerankers are limited by the LLM's reasoning process, which pushes it toward polarized relevance scores and thus fails to consider the partial relevance of passages, a key factor for the accuracy of pointwise rerankers.

Efficiently managing compute resources for Large Language Model (LLM) inference remains challenging due to the inherently stochastic and variable lengths of autoregressive text generation. Accurately estimating response lengths in advance enables proactive resource allocation, yet existing approaches either bias text generation towards certain lengths or rely on assumptions that ignore model- and prompt-specific variability. We introduce CASTILLO, a dataset characterizing response length distributions across 13 widely-used open-source LLMs evaluated on seven distinct instruction-following corpora. For each $\langle$prompt, model$\rangle$ sample pair, we generate 10 independent completions using fixed decoding hyper-parameters, record the token length of each response, and publish summary statistics (mean, std-dev, percentiles), along with the shortest and longest completions, and the exact generation settings. Our analysis reveals significant inter- and intra-model variability in response lengths (even under identical generation settings), as well as model-specific behaviors and occurrences of partial text degeneration in only subsets of responses. CASTILLO enables the development of predictive models for proactive scheduling and provides a systematic framework for analyzing model-specific generation behaviors. We publicly release the dataset and code to foster research at the intersection of generative language modeling and systems.

Uncertainty quantification in Knowledge Graph Embedding (KGE) methods is crucial for ensuring the reliability of downstream applications. A recent work applies conformal prediction to KGE methods, providing uncertainty estimates by generating a set of answers that is guaranteed to include the true answer with a predefined confidence level. However, existing methods provide probabilistic guarantees averaged over a reference set of queries and answers (marginal coverage guarantee). In high-stakes applications such as medical diagnosis, a stronger guarantee is often required: the predicted sets must provide consistent coverage per query (conditional coverage guarantee). We propose CondKGCP, a novel method that approximates predicate-conditional coverage guarantees while maintaining compact prediction sets. CondKGCP merges predicates with similar vector representations and augments calibration with rank information. We prove the theoretical guarantees and demonstrate empirical effectiveness of CondKGCP by comprehensive evaluations.

Continual post-training adapts a single text-to-image diffusion model to learn new tasks without incurring the cost of separate models, but naive post-training causes forgetting of pretrained knowledge and undermines zero-shot compositionality. We observe that the absence of a standardized evaluation protocol hampers related research for continual post-training. To address this, we introduce T2I-ConBench, a unified benchmark for continual post-training of text-to-image models. T2I-ConBench focuses on two practical scenarios, item customization and domain enhancement, and analyzes four dimensions: (1) retention of generality, (2) target-task performance, (3) catastrophic forgetting, and (4) cross-task generalization. It combines automated metrics, human-preference modeling, and vision-language QA for comprehensive assessment. We benchmark ten representative methods across three realistic task sequences and find that no approach excels on all fronts. Even joint "oracle" training does not succeed for every task, and cross-task generalization remains unsolved. We release all datasets, code, and evaluation tools to accelerate research in continual post-training for text-to-image models.

This paper introduces a method for detecting inappropriately targeting language in online conversations by integrating crowd and expert annotations with ChatGPT. We focus on English conversation threads from Reddit, examining comments that target individuals or groups. Our approach involves a comprehensive annotation framework that labels a diverse data set for various target categories and specific target words within the conversational context. We perform a comparative analysis of annotations from human experts, crowd annotators, and ChatGPT, revealing strengths and limitations of each method in recognizing both explicit hate speech and subtler discriminatory language. Our findings highlight the significant role of contextual factors in identifying hate speech and uncover new categories of targeting, such as social belief and body image. We also address the challenges and subjective judgments involved in annotation and the limitations of ChatGPT in grasping nuanced language. This study provides insights for improving automated content moderation strategies to enhance online safety and inclusivity.