Modeling complex subjective tasks in Natural Language Processing, such as recognizing emotion and morality, is considerably challenging due to significant variation in human annotations. This variation often reflects reasonable differences in semantic interpretations rather than mere noise, necessitating methods to distinguish between legitimate subjectivity and error. We address this challenge by exploring label verification in these contexts using Large Language Models (LLMs). First, we propose a simple In-Context Learning binary filtering baseline that estimates the reasonableness of a document-label pair. We then introduce the Label-in-a-Haystack setting: the query and its label(s) are included in the demonstrations shown to LLMs, which are prompted to predict the label(s) again, while receiving task-specific instructions (e.g., emotion recognition) rather than label copying. We show how the failure to copy the label(s) to the output of the LLM are task-relevant and informative. Building on this, we propose the Label-in-a-Haystack Rectification (LiaHR) framework for subjective label correction: when the model outputs diverge from the reference gold labels, we assign the generated labels to the example instead of discarding it. This approach can be integrated into annotation pipelines to enhance signal-to-noise ratios. Comprehensive analyses, human evaluations, and ecological validity studies verify the utility of LiaHR for label correction. Code is available at https://github.com/gchochla/liahr.

In everyday life, people make countless reasonableness judgments that determine appropriate behavior in various contexts. Predicting these judgments challenges the legal system, as judges' intuitions may not align with broader societal views. This Article investigates whether large language models (LLMs) can learn to identify patterns driving human reasonableness judgments. Using randomized controlled trials comparing humans and models across multiple legal contexts with over 10,000 simulated judgments, we demonstrate that certain models capture not just surface-level responses but potentially their underlying decisional architecture. Strikingly, these systems prioritize social cues over economic efficiency in negligence determinations, mirroring human behavior despite contradicting textbook treatments. These findings suggest practical applications: judges could calibrate intuitions against broader patterns, lawmakers could test policy interpretations, and resource-constrained litigants could preview argument reception. As AI agents increasingly make autonomous real-world decisions, understanding whether they've internalized recognizable ethical frameworks becomes essential for anticipating their behavior.

Concepts represent generalized abstractions that enable humans to categorize and reason efficiently, yet it is unclear to what extent Large Language Models (LLMs) comprehend these semantic relationships. Existing benchmarks typically focus on factual recall and isolated tasks, failing to evaluate the ability of LLMs to understand conceptual boundaries. To address this gap, we introduce CK-Arena, a multi-agent interaction game built upon the Undercover game, designed to evaluate the capacity of LLMs to reason with concepts in interactive settings. CK-Arena challenges models to describe, differentiate, and infer conceptual boundaries based on partial information, encouraging models to explore commonalities and distinctions between closely related concepts. By simulating real-world interaction, CK-Arena provides a scalable and realistic benchmark for assessing conceptual reasoning in dynamic environments. Experimental results show that LLMs' understanding of conceptual knowledge varies significantly across different categories and is not strictly aligned with parameter size or general model capabilities. The data and code are available at the project homepage: https://ck-arena.site.

Adaptive Traffic Signal Control (ATSC) system is a critical component of intelligent transportation, with the capability to significantly alleviate urban traffic congestion. Although reinforcement learning (RL)-based methods have demonstrated promising performance in achieving ATSC, existing methods are still prone to making unreasonable policies. Therefore, this paper proposes a novel Bayesian Critique-Tune-Based Reinforcement Learning with Adaptive Pressure for multi-intersection signal control (BCT-APLight). In BCT-APLight, the Critique-Tune (CT) framework, a two-layer Bayesian structure is designed to refine the excessive trust of RL policies. Specifically, the Bayesian inference-based Critique Layer provides effective evaluations of the credibility of policies; the Bayesian decision-based Tune Layer fine-tunes policies by minimizing the posterior risks when the evaluations are negative. Meanwhile, an attention-based Adaptive Pressure (AP) mechanism is designed to effectively weight the vehicle queues in each lane, thereby enhancing the rationality of traffic movement representation within the network. Equipped with the CT framework and AP mechanism, BCT-APLight effectively enhances the reasonableness of RL policies. Extensive experiments conducted with a simulator across a range of intersection layouts demonstrate that BCT-APLight is superior to other state-of-the-art (SOTA) methods on seven real-world datasets. Specifically, BCT-APLight decreases average queue length by \textbf{\(\boldsymbol{9.60\%}\)} and average waiting time by \textbf{\(\boldsymbol{15.28\%}\)}.

In-Context Learning (ICL) in Large Language Models (LLM) has emerged as the dominant technique for performing natural language tasks, as it does not require updating the model parameters with gradient-based methods. ICL promises to "adapt" the LLM to perform the present task at a competitive or state-of-the-art level at a fraction of the computational cost. ICL can be augmented by incorporating the reasoning process to arrive at the final label explicitly in the prompt, a technique called Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting. However, recent work has found that ICL relies mostly on the retrieval of task priors and less so on "learning" to perform tasks, especially for complex subjective domains like emotion and morality, where priors ossify posterior predictions. In this work, we examine whether "enabling" reasoning also creates the same behavior in LLMs, wherein the format of CoT retrieves reasoning priors that remain relatively unchanged despite the evidence in the prompt. We find that, surprisingly, CoT indeed suffers from the same posterior collapse as ICL for larger language models. Code is avalaible at https://github.com/gchochla/cot-priors.

As AI systems are increasingly incorporated into domains where human behavior has set the norm, a challenge for AI governance and AI alignment research is to regulate their behavior in a way that is useful and constructive for society. One way to answer this question is to ask: how do we govern the human behavior that the models are emulating? To evaluate human behavior, the American legal system often uses the "Reasonable Person Standard." The idea of "reasonable" behavior comes up in nearly every area of law. The legal system often judges the actions of parties with respect to what a reasonable person would have done under similar circumstances. This paper argues that the reasonable person standard provides useful guidelines for the type of behavior we should develop, probe, and stress-test in models. It explains how reasonableness is defined and used in key areas of the law using illustrative cases, how the reasonable person standard could apply to AI behavior in each of these areas and contexts, and how our societal understanding of "reasonable" behavior provides useful technical goals for AI researchers.

Controlled text generation (CTG) seeks to guide large language model (LLM) output to produce text that conforms to desired criteria. The current study presents a novel CTG algorithm that enforces adherence toward specific rhetorical relations in an LLM sentence-completion context by a parser-driven decoding scheme that requires no model fine-tuning. The method is validated both with automatic and human evaluation. The code is accessible on GitHub.

Pick-and-place is one of the fundamental tasks in robotics research. However, the attention has been mostly focused on the ``pick'' task, leaving the ``place'' task relatively unexplored. In this paper, we address the problem of placing objects in the context of a teleoperation framework. Particularly, we focus on two aspects of the place task: stability robustness and contextual reasonableness of object placements. Our proposed method combines simulation-driven physical stability verification via real-to-sim and the semantic reasoning capability of large language models. In other words, given place context information (e.g., user preferences, object to place, and current scene information), our proposed method outputs a probability distribution over the possible placement candidates, considering the robustness and reasonableness of the place task. Our proposed method is extensively evaluated in two simulation and one real world environments and we show that our method can greatly increase the physical plausibility of the placement as well as contextual soundness while considering user preferences.

This paper critically evaluates the European Commission's proposed AI Act's approach to risk management and risk acceptability for high-risk AI systems that pose risks to fundamental rights and safety. The Act aims to promote "trustworthy" AI with a proportionate regulatory burden. Its provisions on risk acceptability require residual risks from high-risk systems to be reduced or eliminated "as far as possible", having regard to the "state of the art". This criterion, especially if interpreted narrowly, is unworkable and promotes neither proportionate regulatory burden, nor trustworthiness. By contrast the Parliament's most recent draft amendments to the risk management provisions introduce "reasonableness", cost-benefit analysis, and are more transparent about the value-laden and contextual nature of risk acceptability judgements. This paper argues that the Parliament's approach is more workable, and better balances the goals of proportionality and trustworthiness. It explains what reasonableness in risk acceptability judgments would entail, drawing on principles from negligence law and European medical devices regulation. And it contends that the approach to risk acceptability judgments need a firm foundation of civic legitimacy: including detailed guidance or involvement from regulators, and meaningful input from affected stakeholders.

MOBA games, e.g., Dota2 and Honor of Kings, have been actively used as the testbed for the recent AI research on games, and various AI systems have been developed at the human level so far. However, these AI systems mainly focus on how to compete with humans, less on exploring how to collaborate with humans. To this end, this paper makes the first attempt to investigate human-agent collaboration in MOBA games. In this paper, we propose to enable humans and agents to collaborate through explicit communication by designing an efficient and interpretable Meta-Command Communication-based framework, dubbed MCC, for accomplishing effective human-agent collaboration in MOBA games. The MCC framework consists of two pivotal modules: 1) an interpretable communication protocol, i.e., the Meta-Command, to bridge the communication gap between humans and agents; 2) a meta-command value estimator, i.e., the Meta-Command Selector, to select a valuable meta-command for each agent to achieve effective human-agent collaboration. Experimental results in Honor of Kings demonstrate that MCC agents can collaborate reasonably well with human teammates and even generalize to collaborate with different levels and numbers of human teammates. Videos are available at https://sites.google.com/view/mcc-demo.