Punching Above Their Weight: Classification-Head Fine-Tuning of Tiny Language Models (TLMs) for Verifiable Multiple-Choice Tasks

We define Tiny Language Models (TLMs) as models below roughly 3B parameters that fit on mainstream consumer devices. We study how to adapt them for and use them on verifiable multiple-choice tasks. We compare three LoRA-based fine-tuning paradigms (label generation, gold only, and our discriminative classification head) on a unified setup across several Qwen3 models from 0.6B to 8B and five benchmarks: HellaSwag, WinoGrande, PIQA, SciQ and ARC-C. Classification-head fine-tuning reliably outperforms label generation (+2-3%) at the 0.6B and 1.7B scales. Further, TLMs fine-tuned using the discriminative method are competitive to zero-/few-shot GPT-3 (175B), PaLM (540B) and GPT-4. The performance we report for Qwen3-0.6B and Qwen3-1.7B are SOTA on HellaSwag, WinoGrande, and PIQA.

Towards Spec Learning: Inference-Time Alignment from Preference Pairs

Steering a large language model (LLM) toward a desired behavior typically relies on an iterative process of hand-crafting a prompt based on a careful inspection of the model's responses. This is an involved, brittle, and error-prone process. Preference-based fine-tuning is a more rigorous but often prohibitively expensive solution. We propose spec learning, a framework that relies on a brief user instruction and a small set of preference judgments. These are compiled into specifications in the form of natural-language prompts for an LLM. Specifications condition LLMs at inference time, and no parameter updates to the underlying models are required. We show that the responses generated based on the compiled specifications often outperform direct preference optimization (DPO) on datasets from specialized domains whose preference signal is dense. Unlike opaque weight updates, the resulting specifications are human-readable and double as interpretable and transparent written embodiments of the preference signal that produced them.

DLawBench: Evaluating LLMs Through Multi-Turn Legal Consultation

Lawyer-client consultation is a critical starting point for legal services. Effective legal assistance hinges on eliciting sufficient and truthful information from clients in order to devise strategies that best protect their interests. This task requires Large Language Models (LLMs) not only to perform robust legal reasoning, but also to strategically elicit material facts through multi-turn interactions and effectively guide clients with diverse personalities. Yet existing legal benchmarks overlook this interactive capability. To fill this gap, we introduce DLawBench, a diagnostic benchmark for real-world legal consultation. Drawing on realistic client behavior, we characterize lawyer-client interactions into four types: Cooperative, Dependent, Withdrawn, and Adversarial. Using dialogues grounded in real cases, DLawBench evaluates whether LLMs can effectively conduct legal consultation under realistic conditions. DLawBench comprises 461 cases from Chinese and U.S. law, 5,532 paired fact entries, 3,411 inquiry rubrics, and 3,348 issue-resolution rubrics, and evaluates 26 representative LLMs. Systematic experiments show substantial headroom: the best-performing model, GPT-5.5, achieves only 0.562 on consultation-grounded legal reasoning. More importantly, DLawBench exposes both sycophancy in legal consultation and a paradox: models perform worse when clients need guidance most.

mmPISA-bench: Do LLMs Reason Equally Well Across 43 Languages?

We introduce mmPISA-bench, a compact high-quality multilingual reasoning benchmark derived from the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). The benchmark consists of 25 multiple-choice questions that require reasoning in order to be answered correctly. Each question is provided in official human translations to 43 languages and complemented with machine-translated counterparts (i.e., 2,150 data points in total). We evaluate two mainstream proprietary LLMs across languages, reasoning effort levels, and translation types in terms of their ability to answer the questions correctly. Our results show that modern LLMs can reason effectively across all evaluated languages, achieve accuracy comparable to human test-takers, with some performance variations across covered languages. We further find that machine-translated questions do not degrade accuracy relative to official human translations which suggests that high-quality machine translation (synthetic data) might often be adequate for large-scale multilingual reasoning evaluations where official translations are not available. Finally, we analyze token usage and related inference cost and find that LLMs usage in some languages is simultaneously more expensive and less accurate.

Can LLMs Create Legally Relevant Summaries and Analyses of Videos?

Understanding the legally relevant factual basis of an event and conveying it through text is a key skill of legal professionals. This skill is important for preparing forms (e.g., insurance claims) or other legal documents (e.g., court claims), but often presents a challenge for laypeople. Current AI approaches aim to bridge this gap, but mostly rely on the user to articulate what has happened in text, which may be challenging for many. Here, we investigate the capability of large language models (LLMs) to understand and summarize events occurring in videos. We ask an LLM to summarize and draft legal letters, based on 120 YouTube videos showing legal issues in various domains. Overall, 71.7\% of the summaries were rated as of high or medium quality, which is a promising result, opening the door to a number of applications in e.g. access to justice.

AI Literacy for Community Colleges: Instructors' Perspectives on Scenario-Based and Interactive Approaches to Teaching AI

This research category full paper investigates how community college instructors evaluate interactive, no-code AI literacy resources designed for non-STEM learners. As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly integrated into everyday technologies, AI literacy - the ability to evaluate AI systems, communicate with them, and understand their broader impacts - has emerged as a critical skill across disciplines. Yet effective, scalable approaches for teaching these concepts in higher education remain limited, particularly for students outside STEM fields. To address this gap, we developed AI User, an interactive online curriculum that introduces core AI concepts through scenario - based activities set in real - world contexts. This study presents findings from four focus groups with instructors who engaged with AI User materials and participated in structured feedback activities. Thematic analysis revealed that instructors valued exploratory tasks that simulated real - world AI use cases and fostered experimentation, while also identifying challenges related to scaffolding, accessibility, and multi-modal support. A ranking task for instructional support materials showed a strong preference for interactive demonstrations over traditional educational materials like conceptual guides or lecture slides. These findings offer insights into instructor perspectives on making AI concepts more accessible and relevant for broad learner audiences. They also inform the design of AI literacy tools that align with diverse teaching contexts and support critical engagement with AI in higher education.

"I Like That You Have to Poke Around": Instructors on How Experiential Approaches to AI Literacy Spark Inquiry and Critical Thinking

As artificial intelligence (AI) increasingly shapes decision-making across domains, there is a growing need to support AI literacy among learners beyond computer science. However, many current approaches rely on programming-heavy tools or abstract lecture-based content, limiting accessibility for non-STEM audiences. This paper presents findings from a study of AI User, a modular, web-based curriculum that teaches core AI concepts through interactive, no-code projects grounded in real-world scenarios. The curriculum includes eight projects; this study focuses on instructor feedback on Projects 5-8, which address applied topics such as natural language processing, computer vision, decision support, and responsible AI. Fifteen community college instructors participated in structured focus groups, completing the projects as learners and providing feedback through individual reflection and group discussion. Using thematic analysis, we examined how instructors evaluated the design, instructional value, and classroom applicability of these experiential activities. Findings highlight instructors' appreciation for exploratory tasks, role-based simulations, and real-world relevance, while also surfacing design trade-offs around cognitive load, guidance, and adaptability for diverse learners. This work extends prior research on AI literacy by centering instructor perspectives on teaching complex AI topics without code. It offers actionable insights for designing inclusive, experiential AI learning resources that scale across disciplines and learner backgrounds.

What Are the Facts? Automated Extraction of Court-Established Facts from Criminal-Court Opinions

Criminal justice administrative data contain only a limited amount of information about the committed offense. However, there is an unused source of extensive information in continental European courts' decisions: descriptions of criminal behaviors in verdicts by which offenders are found guilty. In this paper, we study the feasibility of extracting these descriptions from publicly available court decisions from Slovakia. We use two different approaches for retrieval: regular expressions and large language models (LLMs). Our baseline was a simple method employing regular expressions to identify typical words occurring before and after the description. The advanced regular expression approach further focused on "sparing" and its normalization (insertion of spaces between individual letters), typical for delineating the description. The LLM approach involved prompting the Gemini Flash 2.0 model to extract the descriptions using predefined instructions. Although the baseline identified descriptions in only 40.5% of verdicts, both methods significantly outperformed it, achieving 97% with advanced regular expressions and 98.75% with LLMs, and 99.5% when combined. Evaluation by law students showed that both advanced methods matched human annotations in about 90% of cases, compared to just 34.5% for the baseline. LLMs fully matched human-labeled descriptions in 91.75% of instances, and a combination of advanced regular expressions with LLMs reached 92%.

AI Literacy Assessment Revisited: A Task-Oriented Approach Aligned with Real-world Occupations

As artificial intelligence (AI) systems become ubiquitous in professional contexts, there is an urgent need to equip workers, often with backgrounds outside of STEM, with the skills to use these tools effectively as well as responsibly, that is, to be AI literate. However, prevailing definitions and therefore assessments of AI literacy often emphasize foundational technical knowledge, such as programming, mathematics, and statistics, over practical knowledge such as interpreting model outputs, selecting tools, or identifying ethical concerns. This leaves a noticeable gap in assessing someone's AI literacy for real-world job use. We propose a work-task-oriented assessment model for AI literacy which is grounded in the competencies required for effective use of AI tools in professional settings. We describe the development of a novel AI literacy assessment instrument, and accompanying formative assessments, in the context of a US Navy robotics training program. The program included training in robotics and AI literacy, as well as a competition with practical tasks and a multiple choice scenario task meant to simulate use of AI in a job setting. We found that, as a measure of applied AI literacy, the competition's scenario task outperformed the tests we adopted from past research or developed ourselves. We argue that when training people for AI-related work, educators should consider evaluating them with instruments that emphasize highly contextualized practical skills rather than abstract technical knowledge, especially when preparing workers without technical backgrounds for AI-integrated roles.

AI Technicians: Developing Rapid Occupational Training Methods for a Competitive AI Workforce

The accelerating pace of developments in Artificial Intelligence~(AI) and the increasing role that technology plays in society necessitates substantial changes in the structure of the workforce. Besides scientists and engineers, there is a need for a very large workforce of competent AI technicians (i.e., maintainers, integrators) and users~(i.e., operators). As traditional 4-year and 2-year degree-based education cannot fill this quickly opening gap, alternative training methods have to be developed. We present the results of the first four years of the AI Technicians program which is a unique collaboration between the U.S. Army's Artificial Intelligence Integration Center (AI2C) and Carnegie Mellon University to design, implement and evaluate novel rapid occupational training methods to create a competitive AI workforce at the technicians level. Through this multi-year effort we have already trained 59 AI Technicians. A key observation is that ongoing frequent updates to the training are necessary as the adoption of AI in the U.S. Army and within the society at large is evolving rapidly. A tight collaboration among the stakeholders from the army and the university is essential for successful development and maintenance of the training for the evolving role. Our findings can be leveraged by large organizations that face the challenge of developing a competent AI workforce as well as educators and researchers engaged in solving the challenge.