Designing de novo 3D molecules with desirable properties remains a fundamental challenge in drug discovery and molecular engineering. While diffusion models have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in generating high-quality 3D molecular structures, they often struggle to effectively control complex multi-objective constraints critical for real-world applications. In this study, we propose an uncertaintyaware Reinforcement Learning (RL) framework to guide the optimization of 3D molecular diffusion models toward multiple property objectives while enhancing the overall quality of the generated molecules. Our method leverages surrogate models with predictive uncertainty estimation to dynamically shape reward functions, facilitating balance across multiple optimization objectives. We comprehensively evaluate our framework across three benchmark datasets and multiple diffusion model architectures, consistently outperforming baselines for molecular quality and property optimization. Additionally, Molecular Dynamics (MD) simulations and ADMET profiling of top generated candidates indicate promising drug-like behavior and binding stability, comparable to known Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) inhibitors. Our results demonstrate the strong potential of RL-guided generative diffusion models for advancing automated molecular design.

Evaluating natural language generation (NLG) systems remains a core challenge of natural language processing (NLP), further complicated by the rise of large language models (LLMs) that aim to be general-purpose. Recently, large language models as judges (LLJs) have emerged as a promising alternative to traditional metrics, but their validity remains underexplored. This position paper argues that the current enthusiasm around LLJs may be premature, as their adoption has outpaced rigorous scrutiny of their reliability and validity as evaluators. Drawing on measurement theory from the social sciences, we identify and critically assess four core assumptions underlying the use of LLJs: their ability to act as proxies for human judgment, their capabilities as evaluators, their scalability, and their cost-effectiveness. We examine how each of these assumptions may be challenged by the inherent limitations of LLMs, LLJs, or current practices in NLG evaluation. To ground our analysis, we explore three applications of LLJs: text summarization, data annotation, and safety alignment. Finally, we highlight the need for more responsible evaluation practices in LLJs evaluation, to ensure that their growing role in the field supports, rather than undermines, progress in NLG.

Computational cognitive models, which formalize theories of cognition, enable researchers to quantify cognitive processes and arbitrate between competing theories by fitting models to behavioral data. Traditionally, these models are handcrafted, which requires significant domain knowledge, coding expertise, and time investment.

Ribonucleic acid (RNA) binds to molecules to achieve specific biological functions. While generative models are advancing biomolecule design, existing methods for designing RNA that target specific ligands face limitations in capturing RNA's conformational flexibility, ensuring structural validity, and overcoming data scarcity. To address these challenges, we introduce RiboFlow, a synergistic flow matching model to co-design RNA structures and sequences based on target molecules. By integrating RNA backbone frames, torsion angles, and sequence features in an unified architecture, RiboFlow explicitly models RNA's dynamic conformations while enforcing sequence-structure consistency to improve validity. Additionally, we curate RiboBind, a large-scale dataset of RNA-molecule interactions, to resolve the scarcity of high-quality structural data. Extensive experiments reveal that RiboFlow not only outperforms state-of-the-art RNA design methods by a large margin but also showcases controllable capabilities for achieving high binding affinity to target ligands.

We argue that conclusions drawn about relative system safety or attack method efficacy via AI red teaming are often not supported by evidence provided by attack success rate (ASR) comparisons. We show, through conceptual, theoretical, and empirical contributions, that many conclusions are founded on apples-to-oranges comparisons or low-validity measurements. Our arguments are grounded in asking a simple question: When can attack success rates be meaningfully compared? To answer this question, we draw on ideas from social science measurement theory and inferential statistics, which, taken together, provide a conceptual grounding for understanding when numerical values obtained through the quantification of system attributes can be meaningfully compared. Through this lens, we articulate conditions under which ASRs can and cannot be meaningfully compared. Using jailbreaking as a running example, we provide examples and extensive discussion of apples-to-oranges ASRcomparisons and measurement validity challenges.

Despite recent progress in identifying latent causal structures using causal representation learning (CRL), what makes learned representations useful for causal downstream tasks and how to evaluate them are still not well understood. In this paper, we reinterpret CRL using a measurement model framework, where the learned representations are viewed as proxy measurements of the latent causal variables. Our approach clarifies the conditions under which learned representations support downstream causal reasoning and provides a principled basis for quantitatively assessing the quality of representations using a new Test-based Measurement EXclusivity (T-MEX) score. We validate T-MEX across diverse causal inference scenarios, including numerical simulations and real-world ecological video analysis, demonstrating that the proposed framework and corresponding score effectively assess the identification of learned representations and their usefulness for causal downstream tasks.

In AI research and practice, rigor remains largely understood in terms of methodological rigor--such as whether mathematical, statistical, or computational methods are correctly applied. We argue that this narrow conception of rigor has contributed to the concerns raised by the responsible AI community, including overblown claims about the capabilities of AI systems. Our position is that a broader conception of what rigorous AI research and practice should entail is needed. We believe such a conception--in addition to a more expansive understanding of (1) methodological rigor--should include aspects related to (2) what background knowledge informs what to work on (epistemic rigor); (3) how disciplinary, community, or personal norms, standards, or beliefs influence the work (normative rigor); (4) how clearly articulated the theoretical constructs under use are (conceptual rigor); (5) what is reported and how (reporting rigor); and (6) how well-supported the inferences from existing evidence are (interpretative rigor). In doing so, we also provide useful language and a framework for much-needed dialogue about the AI community's work by researchers, policymakers, journalists, and other stakeholders.

We introduce the Deep Value Benchmark (DVB), an evaluation framework that directly tests whether large language models (LLMs) learn fundamental human values or merely surface-level preferences. This distinction is critical for AI alignment: Systems that capture deeper values are likely to generalize human intentions robustly, while those that capture only superficial patterns in preference data risk producing misaligned behavior. The DVB uses a novel experimental design with controlled confounding between deep values (e.g., moral principles) and shallow features (e.g., superficial attributes). In the training phase, we expose LLMs to human preference data with deliberately correlated deep and shallow features--for instance, where a user consistently prefers (non-maleficence, formal language) options over (justice, informal language) alternatives. The testing phase then breaks these correlations, presenting choices between (justice, formal language) and (non-maleficence, informal language) options.

Uncertainty quantification (UQ) for adaptively collected data, such as that coming from adaptive experiments, bandits, or reinforcement learning, is necessary for critical elements of data collection such as ensuring safety and conducting after-study inference. The data's adaptivity creates significant challenges for frequentist UQ, yet Bayesian UQ remains the same as if the data were independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.), making it an appealing and commonly used approach. Bayesian UQ requires the (correct) specification of a prior distribution while frequentist UQ does not, but for i.i.d.

Ribonucleic acid (RNA) binds to molecules to achieve specific biological functions. While generative models are advancing biomolecule design, existing methods for designing RNA that target specific ligands face limitations in capturing RNA's conformational flexibility, ensuring structural validity, and overcoming data scarcity. To address these challenges, we introduce RiboFlow, a synergistic flow matching model to co-design RNA structures and sequences based on target molecules. By integrating RNA backbone frames, torsion angles, and sequence features in an unified architecture, RiboFlow explicitly models RNA's dynamic conformations while enforcing sequence-structure consistency to improve validity. Additionally, we curate RiboBind, a large-scale dataset of RNA-molecule interactions, to resolve the scarcity of high-quality structural data. Extensive experiments reveal that RiboFlow not only outperforms state-of-the-art RNA design methods by a large margin but also showcases controllable capabilities for achieving high binding affinity to target ligands.