KBs are, however, highly incomplete, which makes their downstream use more challenging.

In this paper, we introduce a set of spatial-temporal logic rules as knowledge to explain human actions.

Compared to supervised methods, this type of method is more desirable in security domains as 1) it hardly requires labeled attack/malicious data during the training (i.e., zero-positive

Online communities rely on a mix of platform policies and community-authored rules to define acceptable behavior and maintain order. However, these rules vary widely across communities, evolve over time, and are enforced inconsistently, posing challenges for transparency, governance, and automation. In this paper, we model the relationship between rules and their enforcement at scale, introducing ModQ, a novel question-answering framework for rule-sensitive content moderation. Unlike prior classification or generation-based approaches, ModQ conditions on the full set of community rules at inference time and identifies which rule best applies to a given comment. We implement two model variants - extractive and multiple-choice QA - and train them on large-scale datasets from Reddit and Lemmy, the latter of which we construct from publicly available moderation logs and rule descriptions. Both models outperform state-of-the-art baselines in identifying moderation-relevant rule violations, while remaining lightweight and interpretable. Notably, ModQ models generalize effectively to unseen communities and rules, supporting low-resource moderation settings and dynamic governance environments.

Recently, Language Models (LMs) have demonstrated complex reasoning capacities even without any finetuning.

Alexa Arena features multi-room layouts and an abundance of interactable objects.

Trustworthy verifiers are essential for the success of reinforcement learning with verifiable reward (RLVR), which is the core methodology behind various large reasoning models such as DeepSeek-R1. In complex domains like mathematical reasoning, rule-based verifiers have been widely adopted in previous works to train strong reasoning models. However, the reliability of these verifiers and their impact on the RL training process remain poorly understood. In this work, we take mathematical reasoning as a case study and conduct a comprehensive analysis of various verifiers in both static evaluation and RL training scenarios. First, we find that current open-source rule-based verifiers often fail to recognize equivalent answers presented in different formats across multiple commonly used mathematical datasets, resulting in non-negligible false negative rates. This limitation adversely affects RL training performance and becomes more pronounced as the policy model gets stronger. Subsequently, we investigate model-based verifiers as a potential solution to address these limitations. While the static evaluation shows that model-based verifiers achieve significantly higher verification accuracy, further analysis and RL results imply that they are highly susceptible to hacking, where they misclassify certain patterns in responses as correct, particularly after fine-tuning. This vulnerability is exploited during policy model optimization, leading to artificially inflated rewards. Our findings underscore the unique challenges inherent to both rule-based and model-based verifiers and provide insights toward developing more accurate and robust reward systems for reinforcement learning.