Post-disaster reconnaissance reports contain critical evidence for understanding multi-hazard interactions, yet their unstructured narratives make systematic knowledge transfer difficult. Large language models (LLMs) offer new potential for analyzing these reports, but often generate unreliable or hallucinated outputs when domain grounding is absent. This study introduces the Mixture-of-Retrieval Agentic RAG (MoRA-RAG), a knowledge-grounded LLM framework that transforms reconnaissance reports into a structured foundation for multi-hazard reasoning. The framework integrates a Mixture-of-Retrieval mechanism that dynamically routes queries across hazard-specific databases while using agentic chunking to preserve contextual coherence during retrieval. It also includes a verification loop that assesses evidence sufficiency, refines queries, and initiates targeted searches when information remains incomplete. We construct HazardRecQA by deriving question-answer pairs from GEER reconnaissance reports, which document 90 global events across seven major hazard types. MoRA-RAG achieves up to 94.5 percent accuracy, outperforming zero-shot LLMs by 30 percent and state-of-the-art RAG systems by 10 percent, while reducing hallucinations across diverse LLM architectures. MoRA-RAG also enables open-weight LLMs to achieve performance comparable to proprietary models. It establishes a new paradigm for transforming post-disaster documentation into actionable, trustworthy intelligence for hazard resilience.

This technical report accompanies the LLM robustness leaderboard published by PRISM Eval for the Paris AI Action Summit. We introduce PRISM Eval Behavior Elicitation Tool (BET), an AI system performing automated red-teaming through Dynamic Adversarial Optimization that achieves 100% Attack Success Rate (ASR) against 37 of 41 state-of-the-art LLMs. Beyond binary success metrics, we propose a fine-grained robustness metric estimating the average number of attempts required to elicit harmful behaviors, revealing that attack difficulty varies by over 300-fold across models despite universal vulnerability. We introduce primitive-level vulnerability analysis to identify which jailbreaking techniques are most effective for specific hazard categories. Our collaborative evaluation with trusted third parties from the AI Safety Network demonstrates practical pathways for distributed robustness assessment across the community.

The rapid advancement and deployment of AI systems have created an urgent need for standard safety-evaluation frameworks. This paper introduces AILuminate v1.0, the first comprehensive industry-standard benchmark for assessing AI-product risk and reliability. Its development employed an open process that included participants from multiple fields. The benchmark evaluates an AI system's resistance to prompts designed to elicit dangerous, illegal, or undesirable behavior in 12 hazard categories, including violent crimes, nonviolent crimes, sex-related crimes, child sexual exploitation, indiscriminate weapons, suicide and self-harm, intellectual property, privacy, defamation, hate, sexual content, and specialized advice (election, financial, health, legal). Our method incorporates a complete assessment standard, extensive prompt datasets, a novel evaluation framework, a grading and reporting system, and the technical as well as organizational infrastructure for long-term support and evolution. In particular, the benchmark employs an understandable five-tier grading scale (Poor to Excellent) and incorporates an innovative entropy-based system-response evaluation. In addition to unveiling the benchmark, this report also identifies limitations of our method and of building safety benchmarks generally, including evaluator uncertainty and the constraints of single-turn interactions. This work represents a crucial step toward establishing global standards for AI risk and reliability evaluation while acknowledging the need for continued development in areas such as multiturn interactions, multimodal understanding, coverage of additional languages, and emerging hazard categories. Our findings provide valuable insights for model developers, system integrators, and policymakers working to promote safer AI deployment.

Food safety is a critical global concern, with millions of people affected by foodborne illnesses each year [1], [2], [3]. Rapid and accurate detection of food hazards is essential to prevent health risks and ensure consumer protection. However, the vast amount of textual data available in scientific literature, reports, and regulatory documents makes it challenging to efficiently classify and assess food-related risks [4], [5]. With the rapid advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI) [6], [7], particularly in the field of Natural Language Processing (NLP) a specialized subfield of AI dedicated to understanding, interpreting, and processing human language, we are now able to extract valuable insights from textual data with unprecedented efficiency [8], [9]. NLP has revolutionized automation across a wide range of applications, including text translation, grammar correction, information classification, text summarization, and question-answering [10], [11], [12], [13], [14].

This paper introduces v0.5 of the AI Safety Benchmark, which has been created by the MLCommons AI Safety Working Group. The AI Safety Benchmark has been designed to assess the safety risks of AI systems that use chat-tuned language models. We introduce a principled approach to specifying and constructing the benchmark, which for v0.5 covers only a single use case (an adult chatting to a general-purpose assistant in English), and a limited set of personas (i.e., typical users, malicious users, and vulnerable users). We created a new taxonomy of 13 hazard categories, of which 7 have tests in the v0.5 benchmark. We plan to release version 1.0 of the AI Safety Benchmark by the end of 2024. The v1.0 benchmark will provide meaningful insights into the safety of AI systems. However, the v0.5 benchmark should not be used to assess the safety of AI systems. We have sought to fully document the limitations, flaws, and challenges of v0.5. This release of v0.5 of the AI Safety Benchmark includes (1) a principled approach to specifying and constructing the benchmark, which comprises use cases, types of systems under test (SUTs), language and context, personas, tests, and test items; (2) a taxonomy of 13 hazard categories with definitions and subcategories; (3) tests for seven of the hazard categories, each comprising a unique set of test items, i.e., prompts. There are 43,090 test items in total, which we created with templates; (4) a grading system for AI systems against the benchmark; (5) an openly available platform, and downloadable tool, called ModelBench that can be used to evaluate the safety of AI systems on the benchmark; (6) an example evaluation report which benchmarks the performance of over a dozen openly available chat-tuned language models; (7) a test specification for the benchmark.

A transfer learning paradigm is proposed for "knowledge" transfer between the human brain and convolutional neural network (CNN) for a construction hazard categorization task. Participants' brain activities are recorded using electroencephalogram (EEG) measurements when viewing the same images (target dataset) as the CNN. The CNN is pretrained on the EEG data and then fine-tuned on the construction scene images. The results reveal that the EEG-pretrained CNN achieves a 9 % higher accuracy compared with a network with same architecture but randomly initialized parameters on a three-class classification task. Brain activity from the left frontal cortex exhibits the highest performance gains, thus indicating high-level cognitive processing during hazard recognition. This work is a step toward improving machine learning algorithms by learning from human-brain signals recorded via a commercially available brain-computer interface. More generalized visual recognition systems can be effectively developed based on this approach of "keep human in the loop".