Relevance judgments are central to the evaluation of Information Retrieval (IR) systems, but obtaining them from human annotators is costly and time-consuming. Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently been proposed as automated assessors, showing promising alignment with human annotations. Most prior studies have treated documents as fixed units, feeding their full content directly to LLM assessors. We investigate how text summarization affects the reliability of LLM-based judgments and their downstream impact on IR evaluation. Using state-of-the-art LLMs across multiple TREC collections, we compare judgments made from full documents with those based on LLM-generated summaries of different lengths. We examine their agreement with human labels, their effect on retrieval effectiveness evaluation, and their influence on IR systems' ranking stability. Our findings show that summary-based judgments achieve comparable stability in systems' ranking to full-document judgments, while introducing systematic shifts in label distributions and biases that vary by model and dataset. These results highlight summarization as both an opportunity for more efficient large-scale IR evaluation and a methodological choice with important implications for the reliability of automatic judgments.

Visual Language Models (VLMs) achieve promising results in medical reasoning but struggle with hallucinations, vague descriptions, inconsistent logic and poor localization. To address this, we propose a agent framework named Medical Visual Reasoning Agent (\textbf{Med-VRAgent}). The approach is based on Visual Guidance and Self-Reward paradigms and Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS). By combining the Visual Guidance with tree search, Med-VRAgent improves the medical visual reasoning capabilities of VLMs. We use the trajectories collected by Med-VRAgent as feedback to further improve the performance by fine-tuning the VLMs with the proximal policy optimization (PPO) objective. Experiments on multiple medical VQA benchmarks demonstrate that our method outperforms existing approaches.

Recent advances in generative modeling enable image editing assistants that follow natural language instructions without additional user input. Their supervised training requires millions of triplets (original image, instruction, edited image), yet mining pixel-accurate examples is hard. Each edit must affect only prompt-specified regions, preserve stylistic coherence, respect physical plausibility, and retain visual appeal. The lack of robust automated edit-quality metrics hinders reliable automation at scale. We present an automated, modular pipeline that mines high-fidelity triplets across domains, resolutions, instruction complexities, and styles. Built on public generative models and running without human intervention, our system uses a task-tuned Gemini validator to score instruction adherence and aesthetics directly, removing any need for segmentation or grounding models. Inversion and compositional bootstrapping enlarge the mined set by approx. 2.6x, enabling large-scale high-fidelity training data. By automating the most repetitive annotation steps, the approach allows a new scale of training without human labeling effort. To democratize research in this resource-intensive area, we release NHR-Edit, an open dataset of 720k high-quality triplets, curated at industrial scale via millions of guided generations and validator passes, and we analyze the pipeline's stage-wise survival rates, providing a framework for estimating computational effort across different model stacks. In the largest cross-dataset evaluation, it surpasses all public alternatives. We also release Bagel-NHR-Edit, a fine-tuned Bagel model with state-of-the-art metrics.

The development and evaluation of social capabilities in AI agents require complex environments where competitive and cooperative behaviours naturally emerge. While game-theoretic properties can explain why certain teams or agent populations outperform others, more abstract behaviours, such as convention following, are harder to control in training and evaluation settings. The Melting Pot contest is a social AI evaluation suite designed to assess the cooperation capabilities of AI systems. In this paper, we apply a Bayesian approach known as Measurement Layouts to infer the capability profiles of multi-agent systems in the Melting Pot contest. We show that these capability profiles not only predict future performance within the Melting Pot suite but also reveal the underlying prosocial abilities of agents. Our analysis indicates that while higher prosocial capabilities sometimes correlate with better performance, this is not a universal trend-some lower-scoring agents exhibit stronger cooperation abilities. Furthermore, we find that top-performing contest submissions are more likely to achieve high scores in scenarios where prosocial capabilities are not required. These findings, together with reports that the contest winner used a hard-coded solution tailored to specific environments, suggest that at least one top-performing team may have optimised for conditions where cooperation was not necessary, potentially exploiting limitations in the evaluation framework. We provide recommendations for improving the annotation of cooperation demands and propose future research directions to account for biases introduced by different testing environments. Our results demonstrate that Measurement Layouts offer both strong predictive accuracy and actionable insights, contributing to a more transparent and generalisable approach to evaluating AI systems in complex social settings.

Arabic Rhetoric is the field of Arabic linguistics which governs the art and science of conveying a message with greater beauty, impact and persuasiveness. The field is as ancient as the Arabic language itself and is found extensively in classical and contemporary Arabic poetry, free verse and prose. In practical terms, it is the intelligent use of word order, figurative speech and linguistic embellishments to enhance message delivery. Despite the volumes that have been written about it and the high status accorded to it, there is no way to objectively know whether a speaker or writer has used Arabic rhetoric in a given text, to what extent, and why. There is no objective way to compare the use of Arabic rhetoric across genres, authors or epochs. It is impossible to know which of pre-Islamic poetry, Andalucian Arabic poetry, or modern literary genres are richer in Arabic rhetoric. The aim of the current study was to devise a way to measure the density of the literary devices which constitute Arabic rhetoric in a given text, as a proxy marker for Arabic rhetoric itself. A comprehensive list of 84 of the commonest literary devices and their definitions was compiled. A system of identifying literary devices in texts was constructed. A method of calculating the density of literary devices based on the morpheme count of the text was utilised. Four electronic tools and an analogue tool were created to support the calculation of an Arabic text's rhetorical literary device density, including a website and online calculator. Additionally, a technique of reporting the distribution of literary devices used across the three sub-domains of Arabic rhetoric was created. The output of this project is a working tool which can accurately report the density of Arabic rhetoric in any Arabic text or speech.

Modern general-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) systems present an urgent risk management challenge, as their rapidly evolving capabilities and potential for catastrophic harm outpace our ability to reliably assess their risks. Current methods often rely on selective testing and undocumented assumptions about risk priorities, frequently failing to make a serious attempt at assessing the set of pathways through which AI systems pose direct or indirect risks to society and the biosphere. This paper introduces the probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) for AI framework, adapting established PRA techniques from high-reliability industries (e.g., nuclear power, aerospace) for the new challenges of advanced AI. The framework guides assessors in identifying potential risks, estimating likelihood and severity bands, and explicitly documenting evidence, underlying assumptions, and analyses at appropriate granularities. The framework's implementation tool synthesizes the results into a risk report card with aggregated risk estimates from all assessed risks. It introduces three methodological advances: (1) Aspect-oriented hazard analysis provides systematic hazard coverage guided by a first-principles taxonomy of AI system aspects (e.g. capabilities, domain knowledge, affordances); (2) Risk pathway modeling analyzes causal chains from system aspects to societal impacts using bidirectional analysis and incorporating prospective techniques; and (3) Uncertainty management employs scenario decomposition, reference scales, and explicit tracing protocols to structure credible projections with novelty or limited data. Additionally, the framework harmonizes diverse assessment methods by integrating evidence into comparable, quantified absolute risk estimates for lifecycle decisions. We have implemented this as a workbook tool for AI developers, evaluators, and regulators.

Safety critical software assessment requires robust assessment against complex regulatory frameworks, a process traditionally limited by manual evaluation. This paper presents D ocument R etrieval-A ugmented F ine-T uning (DRAFT), a novel approach that enhances the capabilities of a large language model (LLM) fo r safety-critical compliance assessment. DRAFT builds upon existing Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) techniques by intro ducing a novel fine-tuning framework that accommodates our dual-re trieval architecture, which simultaneously accesses both softwar e documentation and applicable reference standards. To fine-tune DRAFT, we develop a semi-automated dataset generation methodolog y that incorporates variable numbers of relevant documents with m eaning-ful distractors, closely mirroring real-world assessment scenarios. Experiments with GPT -4o-mini demonstrate a 7% improvement in correctness over the baseline model, with qualitative impr ovements in evidence handling, response structure, and domain-spec ific reasoning. DRAFT represents a practical approach to improving compliance assessment systems while maintaining the transpar ency and evidence-based reasoning essential in regulatory domains .

Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly enhanced the capabilities of information access systems, especially with retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). Nevertheless, the evaluation of RAG systems remains a barrier to continued progress, a challenge we tackle in this work by proposing an automatic evaluation framework that is validated against human annotations. We believe that the nugget evaluation methodology provides a solid foundation for evaluating RAG systems. This approach, originally developed for the TREC Question Answering (QA) Track in 2003, evaluates systems based on atomic facts that should be present in good answers. Our efforts focus on "refactoring" this methodology, where we describe the AutoNuggetizer framework that specifically applies LLMs to both automatically create nuggets and automatically assign nuggets to system answers. In the context of the TREC 2024 RAG Track, we calibrate a fully automatic approach against strategies where nuggets are created manually or semi-manually by human assessors and then assigned manually to system answers. Based on results from a community-wide evaluation, we observe strong agreement at the run level between scores derived from fully automatic nugget evaluation and human-based variants. The agreement is stronger when individual framework components such as nugget assignment are automated independently. This suggests that our evaluation framework provides tradeoffs between effort and quality that can be used to guide the development of future RAG systems. However, further research is necessary to refine our approach, particularly in establishing robust per-topic agreement to diagnose system failures effectively.

Background: Clinical guidelines are central to safe evidence-based medicine in modern healthcare, providing diagnostic criteria, treatment options and monitoring advice for a wide range of illnesses. LLM-empowered chatbots have shown great promise in Healthcare Q&A tasks, offering the potential to provide quick and accurate responses to medical inquiries. Our main objective was the development and preliminary assessment of an LLM-empowered chatbot software capable of reliably answering clinical guideline questions using University College London Hospital (UCLH) clinical guidelines. Methods: We used the open-weight Llama-3.1-8B LLM to extract relevant information from the UCLH guidelines to answer questions. Our approach highlights the safety and reliability of referencing information over its interpretation and response generation. Seven doctors from the ward assessed the chatbot's performance by comparing its answers to the gold standard. Results: Our chatbot demonstrates promising performance in terms of relevance, with ~73% of its responses rated as very relevant, showcasing a strong understanding of the clinical context. Importantly, our chatbot achieves a recall of 0.98 for extracted guideline lines, substantially minimising the risk of missing critical information. Approximately 78% of responses were rated satisfactory in terms of completeness. A small portion (~14.5%) contained minor unnecessary information, indicating occasional lapses in precision. The chatbot' showed high efficiency, with an average completion time of 10 seconds, compared to 30 seconds for human respondents. Evaluation of clinical reasoning showed that 72% of the chatbot's responses were without flaws. Our chatbot demonstrates significant potential to speed up and improve the process of accessing locally relevant clinical information for healthcare professionals.

Ensuring transparency in educational assessment is increasingly critical, particularly post-pandemic, as demand grows for fairer and more reliable evaluation methods. Comparative Judgement (CJ) offers a promising alternative to traditional assessments, yet concerns remain about its perceived opacity. This paper examines how Bayesian Comparative Judgement (BCJ) enhances transparency by integrating prior information into the judgement process, providing a structured, data-driven approach that improves interpretability and accountability. BCJ assigns probabilities to judgement outcomes, offering quantifiable measures of uncertainty and deeper insights into decision confidence. By systematically tracking how prior data and successive judgements inform final rankings, BCJ clarifies the assessment process and helps identify assessor disagreements. Multi-criteria BCJ extends this by evaluating multiple learning outcomes (LOs) independently, preserving the richness of CJ while producing transparent, granular rankings aligned with specific assessment goals. It also enables a holistic ranking derived from individual LOs, ensuring comprehensive evaluations without compromising detailed feedback. Using a real higher education dataset with professional markers in the UK, we demonstrate BCJ's quantitative rigour and ability to clarify ranking rationales. Through qualitative analysis and discussions with experienced CJ practitioners, we explore its effectiveness in contexts where transparency is crucial, such as high-stakes national assessments. We highlight the benefits and limitations of BCJ, offering insights into its real-world application across various educational settings.