We curate 62 scenarios encompassing these aspects and evaluate 26 state-of-the-art text-to-image models on this benchmark.

We curate 62 scenarios encompassing these aspects and evaluate 26 state-of-the-art text-to-image models on this benchmark.

From "cameo" to "io," OpenAI keeps trying to call its new and upcoming releases by names that resemble existing trademarks. In September, OpenAI launched a way for users to generate a digital likeness of themselves they could use to create personalized deepfake videos . This is one of the core features in Sora, OpenAI's app for sharing AI videos inside a TikTok-style feed. The self-deepfaking feature was called "cameo," and with that standout feature, Sora quickly rose to the top of Apple's iOS download charts. This feature name led to a trademark lawsuit with Cameo, the app where fans can pay celebrities to record personalized videos.

Many AI detection models have been developed to counter the presence of articles created by artificial intelligence (AI). However, if a human-authored article is slightly polished by AI, a shift will occur in the borderline decision of these AI detection models, leading them to consider it as AI-generated article. This misclassification may result in falsely accusing authors of AI plagiarism and harm the credibility of AI detectors. In English, some efforts were made to meet this challenge, but not in Arabic. In this paper, we generated two datasets. The first dataset contains 800 Arabic articles, half AI-generated and half human-authored. We used it to evaluate 14 Large Language models (LLMs) and commercial AI detectors to assess their ability in distinguishing between human-authored and AI-generated articles. The best 8 models were chosen to act as detectors for our primary concern, which is whether they would consider slightly polished human-authored text as AI-generated. The second dataset, Ar-APT, contains 400 Arabic human-authored articles polished by 10 LLMs using 4 polishing settings, totaling 16400 samples. We use it to evaluate the 8 nominated models and determine whether slight polishing will affect their performance. The results reveal that all AI detectors incorrectly attribute a significant number of articles to AI. The best performing LLM, Claude-4 Sonnet, achieved 83.51\%, its performance decreased to 57.63\% for articles slightly polished by LLaMA-3. Whereas the best performing commercial model, originality.AI, achieves 92\% accuracy, dropped to 12\% for articles slightly polished by Mistral or Gemma-3.

Short-video platforms have become a central medium in the modern Internet landscape, where efficient information delivery and strong interactivity are reshaping user engagement and cultural dissemination. Among the various forms of user interaction, comments play a vital role in fostering community participation and enabling content re-creation. However, generating comments that are both compliant with platform guidelines and capable of exhibiting stylistic diversity and contextual awareness remains a significant challenge. We introduce LOLGORITHM, a modular multi-agent system (MAS) designed for controllable short-video comment generation. The system integrates video segmentation, contextual and affective analysis, and style-aware prompt construction. It supports six distinct comment styles: puns (homophones), rhyming, meme application, sarcasm (irony), plain humor, and content extraction. Powered by a multimodal large language model (MLLM), LOLGORITHM directly processes video inputs and achieves fine-grained style control through explicit prompt markers and few-shot examples. To support development and evaluation, we construct a bilingual dataset using official APIs from Douyin (Chinese) and YouTube (English), covering five popular video genres: comedy skits, daily life jokes, funny animal clips, humorous commentary, and talk shows. Evaluation combines automated metrics originality, relevance, and style conformity with a large-scale human preference study involving 40 videos and 105 participants. Results show that LOLGORITHM significantly outperforms baseline models, achieving preference rates of over 90% on Douyin and 87.55% on YouTube. This work presents a scalable and culturally adaptive framework for stylized comment generation on short-video platforms, offering a promising path to enhance user engagement and creative interaction.

Large language models are increasingly used for Islamic guidance, but risk misquoting texts, misapplying jurisprudence, or producing culturally inconsistent responses. We pilot an evaluation of GPT-4o, Ansari AI, and Fanar on prompts from authentic Islamic blogs. Our dual-agent framework uses a quantitative agent for citation verification and six-dimensional scoring (e.g., Structure, Islamic Consistency, Citations) and a qualitative agent for five-dimensional side-by-side comparison (e.g., Tone, Depth, Originality). GPT-4o scored highest in Islamic Accuracy (3.93) and Citation (3.38), Ansari AI followed (3.68, 3.32), and Fanar lagged (2.76, 1.82). Despite relatively strong performance, models still fall short in reliably producing accurate Islamic content and citations -- a paramount requirement in faith-sensitive writing. GPT-4o had the highest mean quantitative score (3.90/5), while Ansari AI led qualitative pairwise wins (116/200). Fanar, though trailing, introduces innovations for Islamic and Arabic contexts. This study underscores the need for community-driven benchmarks centering Muslim perspectives, offering an early step toward more reliable AI in Islamic knowledge and other high-stakes domains such as medicine, law, and journalism.

Assessing published academic journal articles is a common task for evaluations of departments and individuals. Whilst it is sometimes supported by citation data, Large Language Models (LLMs) may give more useful indications of article quality. Evidence of this capability exists for two of the largest LLM families, ChatGPT and Gemini, and the medium sized LLM Gemma3 27b, but it is unclear whether smaller LLMs and reasoning models have similar abilities. This is important because larger models may be slow and impractical in some situations, and reasoning models may perform differently. Four relevant questions are addressed with Gemma3 variants, Llama4 Scout, Qwen3, Magistral Small and DeepSeek R1, on a dataset of 2,780 medical, health and life science papers in 6 fields, with two different gold standards, one novel. The results suggest that smaller (open weights) and reasoning LLMs have similar performance to ChatGPT 4o-mini and Gemini 2.0 Flash, but that 1b parameters may often, and 4b sometimes, be too few. Moreover, averaging scores from multiple identical queries seems to be a universally successful strategy, and few-shot prompts (four examples) tended to help but the evidence was equivocal. Reasoning models did not have a clear advantage. Overall, the results show, for the first time, that smaller LLMs >4b, including reasoning models, have a substantial capability to score journal articles for research quality, especially if score averaging is used.

We introduce Creativity Benchmark, an evaluation framework for large language models (LLMs) in marketing creativity. The benchmark covers 100 brands (12 categories) and three prompt types (Insights, Ideas, Wild Ideas). Human pairwise preferences from 678 practising creatives over 11,012 anonymised comparisons, analysed with Bradley-Terry models, show tightly clustered performance with no model dominating across brands or prompt types: the top-bottom spread is $Δθ\approx 0.45$, which implies a head-to-head win probability of $0.61$; the highest-rated model beats the lowest only about $61\%$ of the time. We also analyse model diversity using cosine distances to capture intra- and inter-model variation and sensitivity to prompt reframing. Comparing three LLM-as-judge setups with human rankings reveals weak, inconsistent correlations and judge-specific biases, underscoring that automated judges cannot substitute for human evaluation. Conventional creativity tests also transfer only partially to brand-constrained tasks. Overall, the results highlight the need for expert human evaluation and diversity-aware workflows.