As multimodal large models (MLLMs) continue to advance across challenging tasks, a key question emerges: What essential capabilities are still missing? A critical aspect of human learning is continuous interaction with the environment - not limited to language, but also involving multimodal understanding and generation. To move closer to human-level intelligence, models must similarly support multi-turn, multimodal interaction. In particular, they should comprehend interleaved multimodal contexts and respond coherently in ongoing exchanges. In this work, we present an initial exploration through the INTERMT - the first preference dataset for multi-turn multimodal interaction, grounded in real human feedback.

Military weapon systems and command-and-control infrastructure augmented by artificial intelligence (AI) have seen rapid development and deployment in recent years. However, the sociotechnical impacts of AI on combat systems, military decision-making, and the norms of warfare have been understudied. We focus on a specific subset of lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) that use AI for targeting or battlefield decisions. We refer to this subset as AI-powered lethal autonomous weapon systems (AI-LAWS) and argue that they introduce novel risks--including unanticipated escalation, poor reliability in unfamiliar environments, and erosion of human oversight--all of which threaten both military effectiveness and the openness of AI research. These risks cannot be addressed by high-level policy alone; effective regulation must be grounded in the technical behavior of AI models. We argue that AI researchers must be involved throughout the regulatory lifecycle. Thus, we propose a clear, behavior-based definition of AILAWS--systems that introduce unique risks through their use of modern AI--as a foundation for technically grounded regulation, given that existing frameworks do not distinguish them from conventional LAWS. Using this definition, we propose several technically-informed policy directions and invite greater participation from the AI research community in military AI policy discussions.

Recent progress in Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) has enabled promising applications in medical tasks, such as report generation and visual question answering. However, existing benchmarks focus mainly on the final diagnostic answer, offering limited insight into whether models engage in clinically meaningful reasoning. To address this, we present CheXStruct and CXReasonBench, a structured pipeline and benchmark built on the publicly available MIMIC-CXR-JPG dataset. CheXStruct automatically derives a sequence of intermediate reasoning steps directly from chest X-rays, such as segmenting anatomical regions, deriving anatomical landmarks and diagnostic measurements, computing diagnostic indices, and applying clinical thresholds. CXReasonBench leverages this pipeline to evaluate whether models can perform clinically valid reasoning steps and to what extent they can learn from structured guidance, enabling fine-grained and transparent assessment of diagnostic reasoning. The benchmark comprises 18,988 QA pairs across 12 diagnostic tasks and 1,200 cases, each paired with up to 4 visual inputs, and supports multi-path, multi-stage evaluation including visual grounding via anatomical region selection and diagnostic measurements. Even the strongest of 12 evaluated LVLMs struggle with structured reasoning and generalization, often failing to link abstract knowledge with anatomically grounded visual interpretation.

Recent advances have enabled LLM-powered AI agents to autonomously execute complex tasks by combining language model reasoning with tools, memory, and web access. But can these systems be trusted to follow deployment policies in realistic environments, especially under attack? To investigate, we ran the largest public red-teaming competition to date, targeting 22 frontier AI agents across 44 realistic deployment scenarios. Participants submitted 1.8 million promptinjection attacks, with over 60,000 successfully eliciting policy violations such as unauthorized data access, illicit financial actions, and regulatory noncompliance. We use these results to build the Agent Red Teaming (ART) benchmark--a curated set of high-impact attacks--and evaluate it across 19state-of-the-art models.

Model editing aims to efficiently revise incorrect or outdated knowledge within LLMs without incurring the high cost of full retraining and risking catastrophic forgetting. Currently, most LLM editing datasets are confined to narrow knowledge domains and cover a limited range of editing evaluation. They often overlook the broad scope of editing demands and the diversity of ripple effects resulting from edits. In this context, we introduce UNIEDIT, a unified benchmark for LLM editing grounded in open-domain knowledge. First, we construct editing samples by selecting entities from 25 common domains across five major categories, utilizing the extensive triple knowledge available in open-domain knowledge graphs to ensure comprehensive coverage of the knowledge domains. To address the issues of generality and locality in editing, we design an Neighborhood Multi-hop Chain Sampling (NMCS) algorithm to sample subgraphs based on a given knowledge piece to entail comprehensive ripple effects to evaluate. Finally, we employ proprietary LLMs to convert the sampled knowledge subgraphs into natural language text, guaranteeing grammatical accuracy and syntactical diversity. Extensive statistical analysis confirms the scale, comprehensiveness, and diversity of our UNIEDIT benchmark. We conduct comprehensive experiments across multiple LLMs and editors, analyzing their performance to highlight strengths and weaknesses in editing across open knowledge domains and various evaluation criteria, thereby offering valuable insights for future research endeavors.

In order to train, test, and evaluate nudity detection models, machine learning researchers typically rely on nude images scraped from the Internet. Our research finds that this content is collected and, in some cases, subsequently distributed by researchers without consent, leading to potential misuse and exacerbating harm against the subjects depicted. This position paper argues that the distribution of nonconsensually collected nude images by researchers perpetuates imagebased sexual abuse and that the machine learning community should stop the nonconsensual use of nude images in research. To characterize the scope and nature of this problem, we conducted a systematic review of papers published in computing venues that collect and use nude images. Our results paint a grim reality: norms around the usage of nude images are sparse, leading to a litany of problematic practices like distributing and publishing nude images with uncensored faces, and intentionally collecting and sharing abusive content. We conclude with a call-to-action for publishing venues and a vision for research in nudity detection that balances user agency with concrete research objectives.

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have significantly enhanced text generation capabilities, yet evaluating their performance in generative writing remains a challenge. Existing benchmarks primarily focus on generic text generation or limited in writing tasks, failing to capture the diverse requirements of high-quality written contents across various domains. To bridge this gap, we present WritingBench, a comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs across 6 core writing domains and 100 subdomains.We further propose a querydependent evaluation framework that empowers LLMs to dynamically generate instance-specific assessment criteria. This framework is complemented by a finetuned critic model for criteria-aware scoring, enabling evaluations in style, format and length. The framework's validity is further demonstrated by its data curation capability, which enables a 7B-parameter model to outperform the performance of GPT-4o in writing. We open-source the benchmark, along with evaluation tools and modular framework components, to advance the development of LLMs in writing.

Scientific embodied agents play a crucial role in modern laboratories by automating complex experimental workflows. Compared to typical household environments, laboratory settings impose significantly higher demands on perception of physicalchemical transformations and long-horizon planning, making them an ideal testbed for advancing embodied intelligence. However, its development has been long hampered by the lack of suitable simulator and benchmarks. In this paper, we address this gap by introducing LabUtopia, a comprehensive simulation and benchmarking suite designed to facilitate the development of generalizable, reasoning-capable embodied agents in laboratory settings.

Conventional representation learning methods learn a universal representation that primarily captures dominant semantics, which may not always align with customized downstream tasks. For instance, in animal habitat analysis, researchers prioritize scene-related features, whereas universal embeddings emphasize categorical semantics, leading to suboptimal results. As a solution, existing approaches resort to supervised fine-tuning, which however incurs high computational and annotation costs. In this paper, we propose Conditional Representation Learning (CRL), aiming to extract representations tailored to arbitrary user-specified criteria. Specifically, we reveal that the semantics of a space are determined by its basis, thereby enabling a set of descriptive words to approximate the basis for a customized feature space. Building upon this insight, given a user-specified criterion, CRL first employs a large language model (LLM) to generate descriptive texts to construct the semantic basis, then projects the image representation into this conditional feature space leveraging a vision-language model (VLM). The conditional representation better captures semantics for the specific criterion, which could be utilized for multiple customized tasks. Extensive experiments on classification and retrieval tasks demonstrate the superiority and generality of the proposed CRL.

The application of AI in psychiatric diagnosis faces significant challenges, including the subjective nature of mental health assessments, symptom overlap across disorders, and privacy constraints limiting data availability. To address these issues, we present MoodAngels, the first specialized multi-agent framework for mood disorder diagnosis. Our approach combines granular-scale analysis of clinical assessments with a structured verification process, enabling more accurate interpretation of complex psychiatric data. Complementing this framework, we introduce MoodSyn, an open-source dataset of 1,173 synthetic psychiatric cases that preserves clinical validity while ensuring patient privacy. Experimental results demonstrate that MoodAngels outperforms conventional methods, with our baseline agent achieving 12.3% higher accuracy than GPT-4o on real-world cases, and our full multi-agent system delivering further improvements. Evaluation in the MoodSyn dataset demonstrates exceptional fidelity, accurately reproducing both the core statistical patterns and complex relationships present in the original data while maintaining strong utility for machine learning applications. Together, these contributions provide both an advanced diagnostic tool and a critical research resource for computational psychiatry, bridging important gaps in AI-assisted mental health assessment.