IndicSafe: A Benchmark for Evaluating Multilingual LLM Safety in South Asia

As large language models (LLMs) are deployed in multilingual settings, their safety behavior in culturally diverse, low-resource languages remains poorly understood. We present the first systematic evaluation of LLM safety across 12 Indic languages, spoken by over 1.2 billion people but underrepresented in LLM training data. Using a dataset of 6,000 culturally grounded prompts spanning caste, religion, gender, health, and politics, we assess 10 leading LLMs on translated variants of the prompt. Our analysis reveals significant safety drift: cross-language agreement is just 12.8\%, and \texttt{SAFE} rate variance exceeds 17\% across languages. Some models over-refuse benign prompts in low-resource scripts, overflag politically sensitive topics, while others fail to flag unsafe generations. We quantify these failures using prompt-level entropy, category bias scores, and multilingual consistency indices. Our findings highlight critical safety generalization gaps in multilingual LLMs and show that safety alignment does not transfer evenly across languages. We release \textsc{IndicSafe}, the first benchmark to enable culturally informed safety evaluation for Indic deployments, and advocate for language-aware alignment strategies grounded in regional harms.

Semantic Delta: An Interpretable Signal Differentiating Human and LLMs Dialogue

Do LLMs talk like us? This question intrigues a multitude of scholar and it is relevant in many fields, from education to academia. This work presents an interpretable statistical feature for distinguishing human written and LLMs generated dialogue. We introduce a lightweight metric derived from semantic categories distribution. Using the Empath lexical analysis framework, each text is mapped to a set of thematic intensity scores. We define semantic delta as the difference between the two most dominant category intensities within a dialogue, hypothesizing that LLM outputs exhibit stronger thematic concentration than human discourse. To evaluate this hypothesis, conversational data were generated from multiple LLM configurations and compared against heterogeneous human corpora, including scripted dialogue, literary works, and online discussions. A Welch t-test was applied to the resulting distributions of semantic delta values. Results show that AI-generated texts consistently produce higher deltas than human texts, indicating a more rigid topics structure, whereas human dialogue displays a broader and more balanced semantic spread. Rather than replacing existing detection techniques, the proposed zero-shot metric provides a computationally inexpensive complementary signal that can be integrated into ensemble detection systems. These finding also contribute to the broader empirical understanding of LLM behavioural mimicry and suggest that thematic distribution constitutes a quantifiable dimension along which current models fall short of human conversational dynamics.

Auditing the Auditors: Does Community-based Moderation Get It Right?

Online social platforms increasingly rely on crowd-sourced systems to label misleading content at scale, but these systems must both aggregate users' evaluations and decide whose evaluations to trust. To address the latter, many platforms audit users by rewarding agreement with the final aggregate outcome, a design we term consensus-based auditing. We analyze the consequences of this design in X's Community Notes, which in September 2022 adopted consensus-based auditing that ties users' eligibility for participation to agreement with the eventual platform outcome. We find evidence of strategic conformity: minority contributors' evaluations drift toward the majority and their participation share falls on controversial topics, where independent signals matter most. We formalize this mechanism in a behavioral model in which contributors trade off private beliefs against anticipated penalties for disagreement. Motivated by these findings, we propose a two-stage auditing and aggregation algorithm that weights contributors by the stability of their past residuals rather than by agreement with the majority. The method first accounts for differences across content and contributors, and then measures how predictable each contributor's evaluations are relative to the latent-factor model. Contributors whose evaluations are consistently informative receive greater influence in aggregation, even when they disagree with the prevailing consensus. In the Community Notes data, this approach improves out-of-sample predictive performance while avoiding penalization of disagreement.

AI-Assisted Goal Setting Improves Goal Progress Through Social Accountability

Helping people identify and pursue personally meaningful career goals at scale remains a key challenge in applied psychology. Career coaching can improve goal quality and attainment, but its cost and limited availability restrict access. Large language model (LLM)-based chatbots offer a scalable alternative, yet the psychological mechanisms by which they might support goal pursuit remain untested. Here we report a preregistered three-arm randomised controlled trial (N = 517) comparing an AI career coach ("Leon," powered by Claude Sonnet), a matched structured written questionnaire covering closely matched reflective topics, and a no-support control on goal progress at a two-week follow-up. The AI chatbot produced significantly higher goal progress than the control (d = 0.33, p = .016). Compared with the written-reflection condition, the AI did not significantly improve overall goal progress, but it increased perceived social accountability. In the preregistered mediation model, perceived accountability mediated the AI-over-questionnaire effect on goal progress (indirect effect = 0.15, 95% CI [0.04, 0.31]), whereas self-concordance did not. These findings suggest that AI-assisted goal setting can improve short-term goal progress, and that its clearest added value over structured self-reflection lies in increasing felt accountability.

Hypothesis-Conditioned Query Rewriting for Decision-Useful Retrieval

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) improves Large Language Models (LLMs) by grounding generation in external, non-parametric knowledge. However, when a task requires choosing among competing options, simply grounding generation in broadly relevant context is often insufficient to drive the final decision. Existing RAG methods typically rely on a single initial query, which often favors topical relevance over decision-relevant evidence, and therefore retrieves background information that can fail to discriminate among answer options. To address this issue, here we propose Hypothesis-Conditioned Query Rewriting (HCQR), a training-free pre-retrieval framework that reorients RAG from topic-oriented retrieval to evidence-oriented retrieval. HCQR first derives a lightweight working hypothesis from the input question and candidate options, and then rewrites retrieval into three targeted queries that seek evidence to: (1) support the hypothesis, (2) distinguish it from competing alternatives, and (3) verify salient clues in the question. This approach enables context retrieval that is more directly aligned with answer selection, allowing the generator to confirm or overturn the initial hypothesis based on the retrieved evidence. Experiments on MedQA and MMLU-Med show that HCQR consistently outperforms single-query RAG and re-rank/filter baselines, improving average accuracy over Simple RAG by 5.9 and 3.6 points, respectively. Code is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/HCQR-1C2E.

A Context Alignment Pre-processor for Enhancing the Coherence of Human-LLM Dialog

Large language models (LLMs) have made remarkable progress in generating fluent text, but they still face a critical challenge of contextual misalignment in long-term and dynamic dialogue. When human users omit premises, simplify references, or shift context abruptly during interactions with LLMs, the models may fail to capture their actual intentions, producing mechanical or off-topic responses that weaken the collaborative potential of dialogue. To address this problem, this paper proposes a computational framework called the Context Alignment Pre-processor (C.A.P.). Rather than operating during generation, C.A.P. functions as a pre-processing module between user input and response generation. The framework includes three core processes: (1) semantic expansion, which extends a user instruction to a broader semantic span including its premises, literal meaning, and implications; (2) time-weighted context retrieval, which prioritizes recent dialogue history through a temporal decay function approximating human conversational focus; and (3) alignment verification and decision branching, which evaluates whether the dialogue remains on track by measuring the semantic similarity between the current prompt and the weighted historical context. When a significant deviation is detected, C.A.P. initiates a structured clarification protocol to help users and the system recalibrate the conversation. This study presents the architecture and theoretical basis of C.A.P., drawing on cognitive science and Common Ground theory in human-computer interaction. We argue that C.A.P. is not only a technical refinement but also a step toward shifting human-computer dialogue from one-way command-execution patterns to two-way, self-correcting, partnership-based collaboration. Finally, we discuss implementation paths, evaluation methods, and implications for the future design of interactive intelligent systems.

MedCL-Bench: Benchmarking stability-efficiency trade-offs and scaling in biomedical continual learning

Medical language models must be updated as evidence and terminology evolve, yet sequential updating can trigger catastrophic forgetting. Although biomedical NLP has many static benchmarks, no unified, task-diverse benchmark exists for evaluating continual learning under standardized protocols, robustness to task order and compute-aware reporting. We introduce MedCL-Bench, which streams ten biomedical NLP datasets spanning five task families and evaluates eleven continual learning strategies across eight task orders, reporting retention, transfer, and GPU-hour cost. Across backbones and task orders, direct sequential fine-tuning on incoming tasks induces catastrophic forgetting, causing update-induced performance regressions on prior tasks. Continual learning methods occupy distinct retention-compute frontiers: parameter-isolation provides the best retention per GPU-hour, replay offers strong protection at higher cost, and regularization yields limited benefit. Forgetting is task-dependent, with multi-label topic classification most vulnerable and constrained-output tasks more robust. MedCL-Bench provides a reproducible framework for auditing model updates before deployment.

The Validity Gap in Health AI Evaluation: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Benchmark Composition

Background: Clinical trials rely on transparent inclusion criteria to ensure generalizability. In contrast, benchmarks validating health-related large language models (LLMs) rarely characterize the "patient" or "query" populations they contain. Without defined composition, aggregate performance metrics may misrepresent model readiness for clinical use. Methods: We analyzed 18,707 consumer health queries across six public benchmarks using LLMs as automated coding instruments to apply a standardized 16-field taxonomy profiling context, topic, and intent. Results: We identified a structural "validity gap." While benchmarks have evolved from static retrieval to interactive dialogue, clinical composition remains misaligned with real-world needs. Although 42% of the corpus referenced objective data, this was polarized toward wellness-focused wearable signals (17.7%); complex diagnostic inputs remained rare, including laboratory values (5.2%), imaging (3.8%), and raw medical records (0.6%). Safety-critical scenarios were effectively absent: suicide/self-harm queries comprised <0.7% of the corpus and chronic disease management only 5.5%. Benchmarks also neglected vulnerable populations (pediatrics/older adults <11%) and global health needs. Conclusions: Evaluation benchmarks remain misaligned with real-world clinical needs, lacking raw clinical artifacts, adequate representation of vulnerable populations, and longitudinal chronic care scenarios. The field must adopt standardized query profiling--analogous to clinical trial reporting--to align evaluation with the full complexity of clinical practice.

CoverageBench: Evaluating Information Coverage across Tasks and Domains

We wish to measure the information coverage of an ad hoc retrieval algorithm, that is, how much of the range of available relevant information is covered by the search results. Information coverage is a central aspect for retrieval, especially when the retrieval system is integrated with generative models in a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) system. The classic metrics for ad hoc retrieval, precision and recall, reward a system as more and more relevant documents are retrieved. However, since relevance in ad hoc test collections is defined for a document without any relation to other documents that might contain the same information, high recall is sufficient but not necessary to ensure coverage. The same is true for other metrics such as rank-biased precision (RBP), normalized discounted cumulative gain (nDCG), and mean average precision (MAP). Test collections developed around the notion of diversity ranking in web search incorporate multiple aspects that support a concept of coverage in the web domain. In this work, we construct a suite of collections for evaluating information coverage from existing collections. This suite offers researchers a unified testbed spanning multiple genres and tasks. All topics, nuggets, relevance labels, and baseline rankings are released on Hugging Face Datasets, along with instructions for accessing the publicly available document collections.

Cheers: Decoupling Patch Details from Semantic Representations Enables Unified Multimodal Comprehension and Generation

A recent cutting-edge topic in multimodal modeling is to unify visual comprehension and generation within a single model. However, the two tasks demand mismatched decoding regimes and visual representations, making it non-trivial to jointly optimize within a shared feature space. In this work, we present Cheers, a unified multimodal model that decouples patch-level details from semantic representations, thereby stabilizing semantics for multimodal understanding and improving fidelity for image generation via gated detail residuals. Cheers includes three key components: (i) a unified vision tokenizer that encodes and compresses image latent states into semantic tokens for efficient LLM conditioning, (ii) an LLM-based Transformer that unifies autoregressive decoding for text generation and diffusion decoding for image generation, and (iii) a cascaded flow matching head that decodes visual semantics first and then injects semantically gated detail residuals from the vision tokenizer to refine high-frequency content. Experiments on popular benchmarks demonstrate that Cheers matches or surpasses advanced UMMs in both visual understanding and generation. Cheers also achieves 4x token compression, enabling more efficient high-resolution image encoding and generation. Notably, Cheers outperforms the Tar-1.5B on the popular benchmarks GenEval and MMBench, while requiring only 20% of the training cost, indicating effective and efficient (i.e., 4x token compression) unified multimodal modeling. We will release all code and data for future research.