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.

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.

Unified Taxonomy for Multivariate Time Series Anomaly Detection using Deep Learning

The topic of Multivariate Time Series Anomaly Detection (MTSAD) has grown rapidly over the past years, with a steady rise in publications and Deep Learning (DL) models becoming the dominant paradigm. To address the lack of systematization in the field, this study introduces a novel and unified taxonomy with eleven dimensions over three parts (Input, Output and Model) for the categorization of DL-based MTSAD methods. The dimensions were established in a two-fold approach. First, they derived from a comprehensive analysis of methodological studies. Second, insights from review papers were incorporated. Furthermore, the proposed taxonomy was validated using an additional set of recent publications, providing a clear overview of methodological trends in MTSAD. Results reveal a convergence toward Transformer-based and reconstruction and prediction models, setting the foundation for emerging adaptive and generative trends. Building on and complementing existing surveys, this unified taxonomy is designed to accommodate future developments, allowing for new categories or dimensions to be added as the field progresses. This work thus consolidates fragmented knowledge in the field and provides a reference point for future research in MTSAD.

Measuring What Matters -- or What's Convenient?: Robustness of LLM-Based Scoring Systems to Construct-Irrelevant Factors

Automated systems have been widely adopted across the educational testing industry for open-response assessment and essay scoring. These systems commonly achieve performance levels comparable to or superior than trained human raters, but have frequently been demonstrated to be vulnerable to the influence of construct-irrelevant factors (i.e., features of responses that are unrelated to the construct assessed) and adversarial conditions. Given the rising usage of large language models in automated scoring systems, there is a renewed focus on ``hallucinations'' and the robustness of these LLM-based automated scoring approaches to construct-irrelevant factors. This study investigates the effects of construct-irrelevant factors on a dual-architecture LLM-based scoring system designed to score short essay-like open-response items in a situational judgment test. It was found that the scoring system was generally robust to padding responses with meaningless text, spelling errors, and writing sophistication. Duplicating large passages of text resulted in lower scores predicted by the system, on average, contradicting results from previous studies of non-LLM-based scoring systems, while off-topic responses were heavily penalized by the scoring system. These results provide encouraging support for the robustness of future LLM-based scoring systems when designed with construct relevance in mind.

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.

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.

Context Selection for Hypothesis and Statistical Evidence Extraction from Full-Text Scientific Articles

Extracting hypotheses and their supporting statistical evidence from full-text scientific articles is central to the synthesis of empirical findings, but remains difficult due to document length and the distribution of scientific arguments across sections of the paper. The work studies a sequential full-text extraction setting, where the statement of a primary finding in an article's abstract is linked to (i) a corresponding hypothesis statement in the paper body and (ii) the statistical evidence that supports or refutes that hypothesis. This formulation induces a challenging within-document retrieval setting in which many candidate paragraphs are topically related to the finding but differ in rhetorical role, creating hard negatives for retrieval and extraction. Using a two-stage retrieve-and-extract framework, we conduct a controlled study of retrieval design choices, varying context quantity, context quality (standard Retrieval Augmented Generation, reranking, and a fine-tuned retriever paired with reranking), as well as an oracle paragraph setting to separate retrieval failures from extraction limits across four Large Language Model extractors. We find that targeted context selection consistently improves hypothesis extraction relative to full-text prompting, with gains concentrated in configurations that optimize retrieval quality and context cleanliness. In contrast, statistical evidence extraction remains substantially harder. Even with oracle paragraphs, performance remains moderate, indicating persistent extractor limitations in handling hybrid numeric-textual statements rather than retrieval failures alone.

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.

WildDepth: A Multimodal Dataset for 3D Wildlife Perception and Depth Estimation

Depth estimation and 3D reconstruction have been extensively studied as core topics in computer vision. Starting from rigid objects with relatively simple geometric shapes, such as vehicles, the research has expanded to address general objects, including challenging deformable objects, such as humans and animals. However, for the animal, in particular, the majority of existing models are trained based on datasets without metric scale, which can help validate image-only models. To address this limitation, we present WildDepth, a multimodal dataset and benchmark suite for depth estimation, behavior detection, and 3D reconstruction from diverse categories of animals ranging from domestic to wild environments with synchronized RGB and LiDAR. Experimental results show that the use of multi-modal data improves depth reliability by up to 10% RMSE, while RGB-LiDAR fusion enhances 3D reconstruction fidelity by 12% in Chamfer distance. By releasing WildDepth and its benchmarks, we aim to foster robust multimodal perception systems that generalize across domains.