MedConclusion: A Benchmark for Biomedical Conclusion Generation from Structured Abstracts

Large language models (LLMs) are widely explored for reasoning-intensive research tasks, yet resources for testing whether they can infer scientific conclusions from structured biomedical evidence remain limited. We introduce $\textbf{MedConclusion}$, a large-scale dataset of $\textbf{5.7M}$ PubMed structured abstracts for biomedical conclusion generation. Each instance pairs the non-conclusion sections of an abstract with the original author-written conclusion, providing naturally occurring supervision for evidence-to-conclusion reasoning. MedConclusion also includes journal-level metadata such as biomedical category and SJR, enabling subgroup analysis across biomedical domains. As an initial study, we evaluate diverse LLMs under conclusion and summary prompting settings and score outputs with both reference-based metrics and LLM-as-a-judge. We find that conclusion writing is behaviorally distinct from summary writing, strong models remain closely clustered under current automatic metrics, and judge identity can substantially shift absolute scores. MedConclusion provides a reusable data resource for studying scientific evidence-to-conclusion reasoning. Our code and data are available at: https://github.com/Harvard-AI-and-Robotics-Lab/MedConclusion.

Do Emotions in Prompts Matter? Effects of Emotional Framing on Large Language Models

Emotional tone is pervasive in human communication, yet its influence on large language model (LLM) behaviour remains unclear. Here, we examine how first-person emotional framing in user-side queries affect LLM performance across six benchmark domains, including mathematical reasoning, medical question answering, reading comprehension, commonsense reasoning and social inference. Across models and tasks, static emotional prefixes usually produce only small changes in accuracy, suggesting that affective phrasing is typically a mild perturbation rather than a reliable general-purpose intervention. This stability is not uniform: effects are more variable in socially grounded tasks, where emotional context more plausibly interacts with interpersonal reasoning. Additional analyses show that stronger emotional wording induces only modest extra change, and that human-written prefixes reproduce the same qualitative pattern as LLM-generated ones. We then introduce EmotionRL, an adaptive emotional prompting framework that selects emotional framing adaptively for each query. Although no single emotion is consistently beneficial, adaptive selection yields more reliable gains than fixed emotional prompting. Together, these findings show that emotional tone is neither a dominant driver of LLM performance nor irrelevant noise, but a weak and input-dependent signal that can be exploited through adaptive control.

TrailBlazer: History-Guided Reinforcement Learning for Black-Box LLM Jailbreaking

Large Language Models (LLMs) have become integral to many domains, making their safety a critical priority. Prior jailbreaking research has explored diverse approaches, including prompt optimization, automated red teaming, obfuscation, and reinforcement learning (RL) based methods. However, most existing techniques fail to effectively leverage vulnerabilities revealed in earlier interaction turns, resulting in inefficient and unstable attacks. Since jailbreaking involves sequential interactions in which each response influences future actions, reinforcement learning provides a natural framework for this problem. Motivated by this, we propose a history-aware RL-based jailbreak framework that analyzes and reweights vulnerability signals from prior steps to guide future decisions. We show that incorporating historical information alone improves jailbreak success rates. Building on this insight, we introduce an attention-based reweighting mechanism that highlights critical vulnerabilities within the interaction history, enabling more efficient exploration with fewer queries. Extensive experiments on AdvBench and HarmBench demonstrate that our method achieves state-of-the-art jailbreak performance while significantly improving query efficiency. These results underscore the importance of historical vulnerability signals in reinforcement learning-driven jailbreak strategies and offer a principled pathway for advancing adversarial research on LLM safeguards.

LLM Review: Enhancing Creative Writing via Blind Peer Review Feedback

Large Language Models (LLMs) often struggle with creative generation, and multi-agent frameworks that improve reasoning through interaction can paradoxically hinder creativity by inducing content homogenization. We introduce LLM Review, a peer-review-inspired framework implementing Blind Peer Review: agents exchange targeted feedback while revising independently, preserving divergent creative trajectories. To enable rigorous evaluation, we propose SciFi-100, a science fiction writing dataset with a unified framework combining LLM-as-a-judge scoring, human annotation, and rule-based novelty metrics. Experiments demonstrate that LLM Review consistently outperforms multi-agent baselines, and smaller models with our framework can surpass larger single-agent models, suggesting interaction structure may substitute for model scale.

Grading Scale Impact on LLM-as-a-Judge: Human-LLM Alignment Is Highest on 0-5 Grading Scale

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as automated evaluators, yet prior works demonstrate that these LLM judges often lack consistency in scoring when the prompt is altered. However, the effect of the grading scale itself remains underexplored. We study the LLM-as-a-judge problem by comparing two kinds of raters: humans and LLMs. We collect ratings from both groups on three scales and across six benchmarks that include objective, open-ended subjective, and mixed tasks. Using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) to measure absolute agreement, we find that LLM judgments are not perfectly consistent across scales on subjective benchmarks, and that the choice of scale substantially shifts human-LLM agreement, even when within-group panel reliability is high. Aggregated over tasks, the grading scale of 0-5 yields the strongest human-LLM alignment. We further demonstrate that pooled reliability can mask benchmark heterogeneity and reveal systematic subgroup differences in alignment across gender groups, strengthening the importance of scale design and sub-level diagnostics as essential components of LLM-as-a-judge protocols.

CONCUR: A Framework for Continual Constrained and Unconstrained Routing

AI tasks differ in complexity and are best addressed with different computation strategies (e.g., combinations of models and decoding methods). Hence, an effective routing system that maps tasks to the appropriate strategies is crucial. Most prior methods build the routing framework by training a single model across all strategies, which demands full retraining whenever new strategies appear and leads to high overhead. Attempts at such continual routing, however, often face difficulties with generalization. Prior models also typically use a single input representation, limiting their ability to capture the full complexity of the routing problem and leading to sub-optimal routing decisions. To address these gaps, we propose CONCUR, a continual routing framework that supports both constrained and unconstrained routing (i.e., routing with or without a budget). Our modular design trains a separate predictor model for each strategy, enabling seamless incorporation of new strategies with low additional training cost. Our predictors also leverage multiple representations of both tasks and computation strategies to better capture overall problem complexity. Experiments on both in-distribution and out-of-distribution, knowledge- and reasoning-intensive tasks show that our method outperforms the best single strategy and strong existing routing techniques with higher end-to-end accuracy and lower inference cost in both continual and non-continual settings, while also reducing training cost in the continual setting.

BLIVA: A Simple Multimodal LLM for Better Handling of Text-Rich Visual Questions

Vision Language Models (VLMs), which extend Large Language Models (LLM) by incorporating visual understanding capability, have demonstrated significant advancements in addressing open-ended visual question-answering (VQA) tasks. However, these models cannot accurately interpret images infused with text, a common occurrence in real-world scenarios. Standard procedures for extracting information from images often involve learning a fixed set of query embeddings. These embeddings are designed to encapsulate image contexts and are later used as soft prompt inputs in LLMs. Yet, this process is limited to the token count, potentially curtailing the recognition of scenes with text-rich context. To improve upon them, the present study introduces BLIVA: an augmented version of InstructBLIP with Visual Assistant. BLIVA incorporates the query embeddings from InstructBLIP and also directly projects encoded patch embeddings into the LLM, a technique inspired by LLaVA. This approach assists the model to capture intricate details potentially missed during the query decoding process. Empirical evidence demonstrates that our model, BLIVA, significantly enhances performance in processing text-rich VQA benchmarks (up to 17.76\% in OCR-VQA benchmark) and in undertaking typical VQA benchmarks (up to 7.9\% in Visual Spatial Reasoning benchmark), comparing to our baseline InstructBLIP. BLIVA demonstrates significant capability in decoding real-world images, irrespective of text presence. To demonstrate the broad industry applications enabled by BLIVA, we evaluate the model using a new dataset comprising YouTube thumbnails paired with question-answer sets across 13 diverse categories. For researchers interested in further exploration, our code and models are freely accessible at https://github.com/mlpc-ucsd/BLIVA.git