Recent progress in large language models (LLMs) has focused on producing responses that meet human expectations and align with shared values - a process coined alignment. However, aligning LLMs remains challenging due to the inherent disconnect between the complexity of human values and the narrow nature of the technological approaches designed to address them. Current alignment methods often lead to misspecified objectives, reflecting the broader issue of incomplete contracts, the impracticality of specifying a contract between a model developer, and the model that accounts for every scenario in LLM alignment. In this paper, we argue that improving LLM alignment requires incorporating insights from societal alignment frameworks, including social, economic, and contractual alignment, and discuss potential solutions drawn from these domains. Given the role of uncertainty within societal alignment frameworks, we then investigate how it manifests in LLM alignment. We end our discussion by offering an alternative view on LLM alignment, framing the underspecified nature of its objectives as an opportunity rather than perfect their specification. Beyond technical improvements in LLM alignment, we discuss the need for participatory alignment interface designs.

Video generation models have rapidly progressed, positioning themselves as video world models capable of supporting decision-making applications like robotics and autonomous driving. However, current benchmarks fail to rigorously evaluate these claims, focusing only on general video quality, ignoring important factors to world models such as physics adherence. To bridge this gap, we propose WorldModelBench, a benchmark designed to evaluate the world modeling capabilities of video generation models in application-driven domains. WorldModelBench offers two key advantages: (1) Against to nuanced world modeling violations: By incorporating instruction-following and physics-adherence dimensions, WorldModelBench detects subtle violations, such as irregular changes in object size that breach the mass conservation law - issues overlooked by prior benchmarks. (2) Aligned with large-scale human preferences: We crowd-source 67K human labels to accurately measure 14 frontier models. Using our high-quality human labels, we further fine-tune an accurate judger to automate the evaluation procedure, achieving 8.6% higher average accuracy in predicting world modeling violations than GPT-4o with 2B parameters. In addition, we demonstrate that training to align human annotations by maximizing the rewards from the judger noticeably improve the world modeling capability. The website is available at https://worldmodelbench-team.github.io.

Most LLM-driven conversational AI systems operate reactively, responding to user prompts without guiding the interaction. Most LLM-driven conversational AI systems operate reactively, responding to user prompts without guiding the interaction. However, many real-world applications-such as psychiatric diagnosis, consulting, and interviews-require AI to take a proactive role, asking the right questions and steering conversations toward specific objectives. Using mental health differential diagnosis as an application context, we introduce ProAI, a goal-oriented, proactive conversational AI framework. ProAI integrates structured knowledge-guided memory, multi-agent proactive reasoning, and a multi-faceted evaluation strategy, enabling LLMs to engage in clinician-style diagnostic reasoning rather than simple response generation. Through simulated patient interactions, user experience assessment, and professional clinical validation, we demonstrate that ProAI achieves up to 83.3% accuracy in mental disorder differential diagnosis while maintaining professional and empathetic interaction standards. These results highlight the potential for more reliable, adaptive, and goal-driven AI diagnostic assistants, advancing LLMs beyond reactive dialogue systems.

While large language models (LLMs) have made significant strides in generating coherent and contextually relevant text, they often function as opaque black boxes, trained on vast unlabeled datasets with statistical objectives, lacking an interpretable framework for responsible control. In this paper, we introduce JAM (Just A Move), a novel framework that interprets and controls text generation by integrating cause-effect analysis within the latent space of LLMs. Based on our observations, we uncover the inherent causality in LLM generation, which is critical for producing responsible and realistic outputs. Moreover, we explore latent vectors as fundamental components in LLM architectures, aiming to understand and manipulate them for more effective and efficient controllable text generation. We evaluate our framework using a range of tools, including the HHH criteria, toxicity reduction benchmarks, and GPT-4 alignment measures. Our results show that JAM achieves up to a 22% improvement over previous Controllable Text Generation (CTG) methods across multiple quantitative metrics and human-centric evaluations. Furthermore, JAM demonstrates greater computational efficiency compared to other CTG methods. These results highlight the effectiveness and efficiency of JAM for responsible and realistic text generation, paving the way for more interpretable and controllable models.

Prediction of item difficulty based on its text content is of substantial interest. In this paper, we focus on the related problem of recovering IRT-based difficulty when the data originally reported item p-value (percent correct responses). We model this item difficulty using a repository of reading passages and student data from US standardized tests from New York and Texas for grades 3-8 spanning the years 2017-23. This repository is annotated with meta-data on (1) linguistic features of the reading items, (2) test features of the passage, and (3) context features. A penalized regression prediction model with all these features can predict item difficulty with RMSE 0.52 compared to baseline RMSE of 0.92, and with a correlation of 0.77 between true and predicted difficulty. We supplement these features with embeddings from LLMs (ModernBERT, BERT, and LlAMA), which marginally improve item difficulty prediction. When models use only item linguistic features or LLM embeddings, prediction performance is similar, which suggests that only one of these feature categories may be required. This item difficulty prediction model can be used to filter and categorize reading items and will be made publicly available for use by other stakeholders.

In the context of the Text-to-SQL task, table and column descriptions are crucial for bridging the gap between natural language and database schema. This report proposes a method for automatically generating effective database descriptions when explicit descriptions are unavailable. The proposed method employs a dual-process approach: a coarse-to-fine process, followed by a fine-to-coarse process. The coarse-to-fine approach leverages the inherent knowledge of LLM to guide the understanding process from databases to tables and finally to columns. This approach provides a holistic understanding of the database structure and ensures contextual alignment. Conversely, the fine-to-coarse approach starts at the column level, offering a more accurate and nuanced understanding when stepping back to the table level. Experimental results on the Bird benchmark indicate that using descriptions generated by the proposed improves SQL generation accuracy by 0.93\% compared to not using descriptions, and achieves 37\% of human-level performance. The source code is publicly available at https://github.com/XGenerationLab/XiYan-DBDescGen.

Text summarizing is a critical Natural Language Processing (NLP) task with applications ranging from information retrieval to content generation. Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable promise in generating fluent abstractive summaries but they can produce hallucinated details not grounded in the source text. Regardless of the method of generating a summary, high quality automated evaluations remain an open area of investigation. This paper embarks on an exploration of text summarization with a diverse set of techniques, including TextRank, BART, Mistral-7B-Instruct, and OpenAI GPT-3.5-Turbo. The generated summaries are evaluated using traditional metrics such as the Recall-Oriented Understudy for Gisting Evaluation (ROUGE) Score and Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) Score, as well as LLM-powered evaluation methods that directly assess a generated summary's consistency with the source text. We introduce a meta evaluation score which directly assesses the performance of the LLM evaluation system (prompt + model). We find that that all summarization models produce consistent summaries when tested on the XL-Sum dataset, exceeding the consistency of the reference summaries.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has proven highly effective in improving large language models (LLMs) across various domains. However, there is no benchmark specifically designed to assess the effectiveness of RAG in the legal domain, which restricts progress in this area. To fill this gap, we propose LexRAG, the first benchmark to evaluate RAG systems for multi-turn legal consultations. LexRAG consists of 1,013 multi-turn dialogue samples and 17,228 candidate legal articles. Each sample is annotated by legal experts and consists of five rounds of progressive questioning. LexRAG includes two key tasks: (1) Conversational knowledge retrieval, requiring accurate retrieval of relevant legal articles based on multi-turn context. (2) Response generation, focusing on producing legally sound answers. To ensure reliable reproducibility, we develop LexiT, a legal RAG toolkit that provides a comprehensive implementation of RAG system components tailored for the legal domain. Additionally, we introduce an LLM-as-a-judge evaluation pipeline to enable detailed and effective assessment. Through experimental analysis of various LLMs and retrieval methods, we reveal the key limitations of existing RAG systems in handling legal consultation conversations. LexRAG establishes a new benchmark for the practical application of RAG systems in the legal domain, with its code and data available at https://github.com/CSHaitao/LexRAG.

EXplainable machine learning (XML) has recently emerged to address the mystery mechanisms of machine learning (ML) systems by interpreting their 'black box' results. Despite the development of various explanation methods, determining the most suitable XML method for specific ML contexts remains unclear, highlighting the need for effective evaluation of explanations. The evaluating capabilities of the Transformer-based large language model (LLM) present an opportunity to adopt LLM-as-a-Judge for assessing explanations. In this paper, we propose a workflow that integrates both LLM-based and human judges for evaluating explanations. We examine how LLM-based judges evaluate the quality of various explanation methods and compare their evaluation capabilities to those of human judges within an iris classification scenario, employing both subjective and objective metrics. We conclude that while LLM-based judges effectively assess the quality of explanations using subjective metrics, they are not yet sufficiently developed to replace human judges in this role.

Large language models (LLMs) can exhibit advanced reasoning yet still generate incorrect answers. We hypothesize that such errors frequently stem from spurious beliefs, propositions the model internally considers true but are incorrect. To address this, we propose a method to rectify the belief space by suppressing these spurious beliefs while simultaneously enhancing true ones, thereby enabling more reliable inferences. Our approach first identifies the beliefs that lead to incorrect or correct answers by prompting the model to generate textual explanations, using our Forward-Backward Beam Search (FBBS). We then apply unlearning to suppress the identified spurious beliefs and enhance the true ones, effectively rectifying the model's belief space. Empirical results on multiple QA datasets and LLMs show that our method corrects previously misanswered questions without harming overall model performance. Furthermore, our approach yields improved generalization on unseen data, suggesting that rectifying a model's belief space is a promising direction for mitigating errors and enhancing overall reliability.