Agentic AI systems and Physical or Embodied AI systems have been two key research verticals at the forefront of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics, with Model Context Protocol (MCP) increasingly becoming a key component and enabler of agentic applications. However, the literature at the intersection of these verticals, i.e., Agentic Embodied AI, remains scarce. This paper introduces an MCP server for analyzing ROS and ROS 2 bags, allowing for analyzing, visualizing and processing robot data with natural language through LLMs and VLMs. We describe specific tooling built with robotics domain knowledge, with our initial release focused on mobile robotics and supporting natively the analysis of trajectories, laser scan data, transforms, or time series data. This is in addition to providing an interface to standard ROS 2 CLI tools ("ros2 bag list" or "ros2 bag info"), as well as the ability to filter bags with a subset of topics or trimmed in time. Coupled with the MCP server, we provide a lightweight UI that allows the benchmarking of the tooling with different LLMs, both proprietary (Anthropic, OpenAI) and open-source (through Groq). Our experimental results include the analysis of tool calling capabilities of eight different state-of-the-art LLM/VLM models, both proprietary and open-source, large and small. Our experiments indicate that there is a large divide in tool calling capabilities, with Kimi K2 and Claude Sonnet 4 demonstrating clearly superior performance. We also conclude that there are multiple factors affecting the success rates, from the tool description schema to the number of arguments, as well as the number of tools available to the models. The code is available with a permissive license at https://github.com/binabik-ai/mcp-rosbags.
Big Language Models (LLMs) are changing the way businesses use software, the way people live their lives and the way industries work. Companies like Google, High-Flyer, Anthropic, OpenAI and Meta are making better LLMs. So, it's crucial to look at how each model is different in terms of performance, moral behaviour and usability, as these differences are based on the different ideas that built them. This study compares five top LLMs: Google's Gemini, High-Flyer's DeepSeek, Anthropic's Claude, OpenAI's GPT models and Meta's LLaMA. It performs this by analysing three important factors: Performance and Accuracy, Ethics and Bias Mitigation and Usability and Integration. It was found that Claude has good moral reasoning, Gemini is better at multimodal capabilities and has strong ethical frameworks. DeepSeek is great at reasoning based on facts, LLaMA is good for open applications and ChatGPT delivers balanced performance with a focus on usage. It was concluded that these models are different in terms of how well they work, how easy they are to use and how they treat people ethically, making it a point that each model should be utilised by the user in a way that makes the most of its strengths.
As Large Language Models (LLMs) continue to evolve, practitioners face increasing options for enhancing inference-time performance without model retraining, including budget tuning and multi-step techniques like self-reflection. While these methods improve output quality, they create complex trade-offs among accuracy, cost, and latency that remain poorly understood across different domains. This paper systematically compares self-reflection and budget tuning across mathematical reasoning and translation tasks. We evaluate prominent LLMs, including Anthropic Claude, Amazon Nova, and Mistral families, along with other models under varying reflection depths and compute budgets to derive Pareto optimal performance frontiers. Our analysis reveals substantial domain dependent variation in self-reflection effectiveness, with performance gains up to 220\% in mathematical reasoning. We further investigate how reflection round depth and feedback mechanism quality influence performance across model families. To validate our findings in a real-world setting, we deploy a self-reflection enhanced marketing content localisation system at Lounge by Zalando, where it shows market-dependent effectiveness, reinforcing the importance of domain specific evaluation when deploying these techniques. Our results provide actionable guidance for selecting optimal inference strategies given specific domains and resource constraints. We open source our self-reflection implementation for reproducibility at https://github.com/aws-samples/sample-genai-reflection-for-bedrock.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly trained from AI constitutions and model specifications that establish behavioral guidelines and ethical principles. However, these specifications face critical challenges, including internal conflicts between principles and insufficient coverage of nuanced scenarios. We present a systematic methodology for stress-testing model character specifications, automatically identifying numerous cases of principle contradictions and interpretive ambiguities in current model specs. We stress test current model specs by generating scenarios that force explicit tradeoffs between competing value-based principles. Using a comprehensive taxonomy we generate diverse value tradeoff scenarios where models must choose between pairs of legitimate principles that cannot be simultaneously satisfied. We evaluate responses from twelve frontier LLMs across major providers (Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, xAI) and measure behavioral disagreement through value classification scores. Among these scenarios, we identify over 70,000 cases exhibiting significant behavioral divergence. Empirically, we show this high divergence in model behavior strongly predicts underlying problems in model specifications. Through qualitative analysis, we provide numerous example issues in current model specs such as direct contradiction and interpretive ambiguities of several principles. Additionally, our generated dataset also reveals both clear misalignment cases and false-positive refusals across all of the frontier models we study. Lastly, we also provide value prioritization patterns and differences of these models.




This study explores the explainability capabilities of large language models (LLMs), when employed to autonomously generate machine learning (ML) solutions. We examine two classification tasks: (i) a binary classification problem focused on predicting driver alertness states, and (ii) a multilabel classification problem based on the yeast dataset. Three state-of-the-art LLMs (i.e. OpenAI GPT, Anthropic Claude, and DeepSeek) are prompted to design training pipelines for four common classifiers: Random Forest, XGBoost, Multilayer Perceptron, and Long Short-Term Memory networks. The generated models are evaluated in terms of predictive performance (recall, precision, and F1-score) and explainability using SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations). Specifically, we measure Average SHAP Fidelity (Mean Squared Error between SHAP approximations and model outputs) and Average SHAP Sparsity (number of features deemed influential). The results reveal that LLMs are capable of producing effective and interpretable models, achieving high fidelity and consistent sparsity, highlighting their potential as automated tools for interpretable ML pipeline generation. The results show that LLMs can produce effective, interpretable pipelines with high fidelity and consistent sparsity, closely matching manually engineered baselines.
This research investigates the effectiveness of alignment techniques, Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT), Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), and a combined SFT+DPO approach on improving the safety and helpfulness of the OPT-350M language model. Utilizing the Anthropic Helpful-Harmless RLHF dataset, we train and evaluate four models: the base OPT350M, an SFT model, a DPO model, and a model trained with both SFT and DPO. We introduce three key evaluation metrics: Harmlessness Rate (HmR), Helpfulness Rate (HpR), and a Combined Alignment Score (CAS), all derived from reward model outputs. The results show that while SFT outperforms DPO, The combined SFT+DPO model outperforms all others across all metrics, demonstrating the complementary nature of these techniques. Our findings also highlight challenges posed by noisy data, limited GPU resources, and training constraints. This study offers a comprehensive view of how fine-tuning strategies affect model alignment and provides a foundation for more robust alignment pipelines in future work.
Biomedical question answering (QA) poses significant challenges due to the need for precise interpretation of specialized knowledge drawn from a vast, complex, and rapidly evolving corpus. In this work, we explore how large language models (LLMs) can be used for information retrieval (IR), and an ensemble of zero-shot models can accomplish state-of-the-art performance on a domain-specific Yes/No QA task. Evaluating our approach on the BioASQ challenge tasks, we show that ensembles can outperform individual LLMs and in some cases rival or surpass domain-tuned systems - all while preserving generalizability and avoiding the need for costly fine-tuning or labeled data. Our method aggregates outputs from multiple LLM variants, including models from Anthropic and Google, to synthesize more accurate and robust answers. Moreover, our investigation highlights a relationship between context length and performance: while expanded contexts are meant to provide valuable evidence, they simultaneously risk information dilution and model disorientation. These findings emphasize IR as a critical foundation in Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) approaches for biomedical QA systems. Precise, focused retrieval remains essential for ensuring LLMs operate within relevant information boundaries when generating answers from retrieved documents. Our results establish that ensemble-based zero-shot approaches, when paired with effective RAG pipelines, constitute a practical and scalable alternative to domain-tuned systems for biomedical question answering.
As humans delegate more tasks and decisions to artificial intelligence (AI), we risk losing control of our individual and collective futures. Relatively simple algorithmic systems already steer human decision-making, such as social media feed algorithms that lead people to unintentionally and absent-mindedly scroll through engagement-optimized content. In this paper, we develop the idea of human agency by integrating philosophical and scientific theories of agency with AI-assisted evaluation methods: using large language models (LLMs) to simulate and validate user queries and to evaluate AI responses. We develop HumanAgencyBench (HAB), a scalable and adaptive benchmark with six dimensions of human agency based on typical AI use cases. HAB measures the tendency of an AI assistant or agent to Ask Clarifying Questions, Avoid Value Manipulation, Correct Misinformation, Defer Important Decisions, Encourage Learning, and Maintain Social Boundaries. We find low-to-moderate agency support in contemporary LLM-based assistants and substantial variation across system developers and dimensions. For example, while Anthropic LLMs most support human agency overall, they are the least supportive LLMs in terms of Avoid Value Manipulation. Agency support does not appear to consistently result from increasing LLM capabilities or instruction-following behavior (e.g., RLHF), and we encourage a shift towards more robust safety and alignment targets.
This study examines the capacity of large language models (LLMs) to support phenomenological qualitative analysis of first-person experience in Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD), understood as a disorder of temporality and selfhood. Building on a prior human-led thematic analysis of 24 inpatients' life-story interviews, we compared three LLMs (OpenAI GPT-4o, Google Gemini 2.5 Pro, Anthropic Claude Opus 4) prompted to mimic the interpretative style of the original investigators. The models were evaluated with blinded and non-blinded expert judges in phenomenology and clinical psychology. Assessments included semantic congruence, Jaccard coefficients, and multidimensional validity ratings (credibility, coherence, substantiveness, and groundness in data). Results showed variable overlap with the human analysis, from 0 percent in GPT to 42 percent in Claude and 58 percent in Gemini, and a low Jaccard coefficient (0.21-0.28). However, the models recovered themes omitted by humans. Gemini's output most closely resembled the human analysis, with validity scores significantly higher than GPT and Claude (p < 0.0001), and was judged as human by blinded experts. All scores strongly correlated (R > 0.78) with the quantity of text and words per theme, highlighting both the variability and potential of AI-augmented thematic analysis to mitigate human interpretative bias.
AI Alignment, primarily in the form of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF), has been a cornerstone of the post-training phase in developing Large Language Models (LLMs). It has also been a popular research topic across various disciplines beyond Computer Science, including Philosophy and Law, among others, highlighting the socio-technical challenges involved. Nonetheless, except for the computational techniques related to alignment, there has been limited focus on the broader picture: the scope of these processes, which primarily rely on the selected objectives (values), and the data collected and used to imprint such objectives into the models. This work aims to reveal how alignment is understood and applied in practice from a value-setting and data-centric perspective. For this purpose, we investigate and survey (`audit') publicly available documentation released by 6 LLM development initiatives by 5 leading organizations shaping this technology, focusing on proprietary (OpenAI's GPT, Anthropic's Claude, Google's Gemini) and open-weight (Meta's Llama, Google's Gemma, and Alibaba's Qwen) initiatives, all published in the last 3 years. The findings are documented in detail per initiative, while there is also an overall summary concerning different aspects, mainly from a value-setting and data-centric perspective. On the basis of our findings, we discuss a series of broader related concerns.