SoftHateBench: Evaluating Moderation Models Against Reasoning-Driven, Policy-Compliant Hostility

Online hate on social media ranges from overt slurs and threats (\emph{hard hate speech}) to \emph{soft hate speech}: discourse that appears reasonable on the surface but uses framing and value-based arguments to steer audiences toward blaming or excluding a target group. We hypothesize that current moderation systems, largely optimized for surface toxicity cues, are not robust to this reasoning-driven hostility, yet existing benchmarks do not measure this gap systematically. We introduce \textbf{\textsc{SoftHateBench}}, a generative benchmark that produces soft-hate variants while preserving the underlying hostile standpoint. To generate soft hate, we integrate the \emph{Argumentum Model of Topics} (AMT) and \emph{Relevance Theory} (RT) in a unified framework: AMT provides the backbone argument structure for rewriting an explicit hateful standpoint into a seemingly neutral discussion while preserving the stance, and RT guides generation to keep the AMT chain logically coherent. The benchmark spans \textbf{7} sociocultural domains and \textbf{28} target groups, comprising \textbf{4,745} soft-hate instances. Evaluations across encoder-based detectors, general-purpose LLMs, and safety models show a consistent drop from hard to soft tiers: systems that detect explicit hostility often fail when the same stance is conveyed through subtle, reasoning-based language. \textcolor{red}{\textbf{Disclaimer.} Contains offensive examples used solely for research.}

Evolution of Benchmark: Black-Box Optimization Benchmark Design through Large Language Model

Benchmark Design in Black-Box Optimization (BBO) is a fundamental yet open-ended topic. Early BBO benchmarks are predominantly human-crafted, introducing expert bias and constraining diversity. Automating this design process can relieve the human-in-the-loop burden while enhancing diversity and objectivity. We propose Evolution of Benchmark (EoB), an automated BBO benchmark designer empowered by the large language model (LLM) and its program evolution capability. Specifically, we formulate benchmark design as a bi-objective optimization problem towards maximizing (i) landscape diversity and (ii) algorithm-differentiation ability across a portfolio of BBO solvers. Under this paradigm, EoB iteratively prompts LLM to evolve a population of benchmark programs and employs a reflection-based scheme to co-evolve the landscape and its corresponding program. Comprehensive experiments validate our EoB is a competitive candidate in multi-dimensional usages: 1) Benchmarking BBO algorithms; 2) Training and testing learning-assisted BBO algorithms; 3) Extending proxy for expensive real-world problems.

Hopes and Fears -- Emotion Distribution in the Topic Landscape of Finnish Parliamentary Speech 2000-2020

Existing research often treats parliamentary discourse as a homogeneous whole, overlooking topic-specific patterns. Parliamentary speeches address a wide range of topics, some of which evoke stronger emotions than others. While everyone has intuitive assumptions about what the most emotive topics in a parliament may be, there has been little research into the emotions typically linked to different topics. This paper strives to fill this gap by examining emotion expression among the topics of parliamentary speeches delivered in Eduskunta, the Finnish Parliament, between 2000 and 2020. An emotion analysis model is used to investigate emotion expression in topics, from both synchronic and diachronic perspectives. The results strengthen evidence of increasing positivity in parliamentary speech and provide further insights into topic-specific emotion expression within parliamentary debate.

MoCo: A One-Stop Shop for Model Collaboration Research

Advancing beyond single monolithic language models (LMs), recent research increasingly recognizes the importance of model collaboration, where multiple LMs collaborate, compose, and complement each other. Existing research on this topic has mostly been disparate and disconnected, from different research communities, and lacks rigorous comparison. To consolidate existing research and establish model collaboration as a school of thought, we present MoCo: a one-stop Python library of executing, benchmarking, and comparing model collaboration algorithms at scale. MoCo features 26 model collaboration methods, spanning diverse levels of cross-model information exchange such as routing, text, logit, and model parameters. MoCo integrates 25 evaluation datasets spanning reasoning, QA, code, safety, and more, while users could flexibly bring their own data. Extensive experiments with MoCo demonstrate that most collaboration strategies outperform models without collaboration in 61.0% of (model, data) settings on average, with the most effective methods outperforming by up to 25.8%. We further analyze the scaling of model collaboration strategies, the training/inference efficiency of diverse methods, highlight that the collaborative system solves problems where single LMs struggle, and discuss future work in model collaboration, all made possible by MoCo. We envision MoCo as a valuable toolkit to facilitate and turbocharge the quest for an open, modular, decentralized, and collaborative AI future.

The Compliance Paradox: Semantic-Instruction Decoupling in Automated Academic Code Evaluation

The rapid integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into educational assessment rests on the unverified assumption that instruction following capability translates directly to objective adjudication. We demonstrate that this assumption is fundamentally flawed. Instead of evaluating code quality, models frequently decouple from the submission's logic to satisfy hidden directives, a systemic vulnerability we term the Compliance Paradox, where models fine-tuned for extreme helpfulness are vulnerable to adversarial manipulation. To expose this, we introduce the Semantic-Preserving Adversarial Code Injection (SPACI) Framework and the Abstract Syntax Tree-Aware Semantic Injection Protocol (AST-ASIP). These methods exploit the Syntax-Semantics Gap by embedding adversarial directives into syntactically inert regions (trivia nodes) of the Abstract Syntax Tree. Through a large-scale evaluation of 9 SOTA models across 25,000 submissions in Python, C, C++, and Java, we reveal catastrophic failure rates (>95%) in high-capacity open-weights models like DeepSeek-V3, which systematically prioritize hidden formatting constraints over code correctness. We quantify this failure using our novel tripartite framework measuring Decoupling Probability, Score Divergence, and Pedagogical Severity to demonstrate the widespread "False Certification" of functionally broken code. Our findings suggest that current alignment paradigms create a "Trojan" vulnerability in automated grading, necessitating a shift from standard RLHF toward domain-specific Adjudicative Robustness, where models are conditioned to prioritize evidence over instruction compliance. We release our complete dataset and injection framework to facilitate further research on the topic.

Beyond the Rabbit Hole: Mapping the Relational Harms of QAnon Radicalization

The rise of conspiracy theories has created far-reaching societal harm in the public discourse by eroding trust and fueling polarization. Beyond this public impact lies a deeply personal toll on the friends and families of conspiracy believers, a dimension often overlooked in large-scale computational research. This study fills this gap by systematically mapping radicalization journeys and quantifying the associated emotional toll inflicted on loved ones. We use the prominent case of QAnon as a case study, analyzing 12747 narratives from the r/QAnonCasualties support community through a novel mixed-methods approach. First, we use topic modeling (BERTopic) to map the radicalization trajectories, identifying key pre-existing conditions, triggers, and post-radicalization characteristics. From this, we apply an LDA-based graphical model to uncover six recurring archetypes of QAnon adherents, which we term "radicalization personas." Finally, using LLM-assisted emotion detection and regression modeling, we link these personas to the specific emotional toll reported by narrators. Our findings reveal that these personas are not just descriptive; they are powerful predictors of the specific emotional harms experienced by narrators. Radicalization perceived as a deliberate ideological choice is associated with narrator anger and disgust, while those marked by personal and cognitive collapse are linked to fear and sadness. This work provides the first empirical framework for understanding radicalization as a relational phenomenon, offering a vital roadmap for researchers and practitioners to navigate its interpersonal fallout.

Retrieval-Infused Reasoning Sandbox: A Benchmark for Decoupling Retrieval and Reasoning Capabilities

Despite strong performance on existing benchmarks, it remains unclear whether large language models can reason over genuinely novel scientific information. Most evaluations score end-to-end RAG pipelines, where reasoning is confounded with retrieval and toolchain choices, and the signal is further contaminated by parametric memorization and open-web volatility. We introduce DeR2, a controlled deep-research sandbox that isolates document-grounded reasoning while preserving core difficulties of deep search: multi-step synthesis, denoising, and evidence-based conclusion making. DeR2 decouples evidence access from reasoning via four regimes--Instruction-only, Concepts (gold concepts without documents), Related-only (only relevant documents), and Full-set (relevant documents plus topically related distractors)--yielding interpretable regime gaps that operationalize retrieval loss vs. reasoning loss and enable fine-grained error attribution. To prevent parametric leakage, we apply a two-phase validation that requires parametric failure without evidence while ensuring oracle-concept solvability. To ensure reproducibility, each instance provides a frozen document library (drawn from 2023-2025 theoretical papers) with expert-annotated concepts and validated rationales. Experiments across a diverse set of state-of-the-art foundation models reveal substantial variation and significant headroom: some models exhibit mode-switch fragility, performing worse with the Full-set than with Instruction-only, while others show structural concept misuse, correctly naming concepts but failing to execute them as procedures.

Diversifying Toxicity Search in Large Language Models Through Speciation

Evolutionary prompt search is a practical black-box approach for red teaming large language models (LLMs), but existing methods often collapse onto a small family of high-performing prompts, limiting coverage of distinct failure modes. We present a speciated quality-diversity (QD) extension of ToxSearch that maintains multiple high-toxicity prompt niches in parallel rather than optimizing a single best prompt. ToxSearch-S introduces unsupervised prompt speciation via a search methodology that maintains capacity-limited species with exemplar leaders, a reserve pool for outliers and emerging niches, and species-aware parent selection that trades off within-niche exploitation and cross-niche exploration. ToxSearch-S is found to reach higher peak toxicity ($\approx 0.73$ vs.\ $\approx 0.47$) and a extreme heavier tail (top-10 median $0.66$ vs.\ $0.45$) than the baseline, while maintaining comparable performance on moderately toxic prompts. Speciation also yields broader semantic coverage under a topic-as-species analysis (higher effective topic diversity $N_1$ and larger unique topic coverage $K$). Finally, species formed are well-separated in embedding space (mean separation ratio $\approx 1.93$) and exhibit distinct toxicity distributions, indicating that speciation partitions the adversarial space into behaviorally differentiated niches rather than superficial lexical variants. This suggests our approach uncovers a wider range of attack strategies.

Deep Researcher with Sequential Plan Reflection and Candidates Crossover (Deep Researcher Reflect Evolve)

This paper introduces a novel Deep Researcher architecture designed to generate detailed research reports on complex PhD level topics by addressing the inherent limitations of the Parallel Scaling paradigm. Our system utilizes two key innovations: Sequential Research Plan Refinement via Reflection and a Candidates Crossover algorithm. The sequential refinement process is demonstrated as an efficient method that allows the agent to maintain a centralized Global Research Context, enabling it to look back at current progress, reason about the research plan, and intelligently make changes at runtime. This dynamic adaptation contrasts with parallel approaches, which often suffer from siloed knowledge. The Candidates Crossover algorithm further enhances search efficiency by deploying multiple LLM candidates with varied parameters to explore a larger search space, with their findings synthesized to curate a comprehensive final research response. The process concludes with One Shot Report Generation, ensuring the final document is informed by a unified narrative and high fact density. Powered by the Gemini 2.5 Pro model, our Deep Researcher was evaluated on the DeepResearch Bench, a globally recognized benchmark of 100 doctoral level research tasks. Our architecture achieved an overall score of 46.21, demonstrating superior performance by surpassing leading deep research agents such as Claude Researcher, Nvidia AIQ Research Assistant, Perplexity Research, Kimi Researcher and Grok Deeper Search present on the DeepResearch Bench actively running leaderboard. This performance marginally exceeds our previous work, Static DRA, and reinforces the finding that sequential scaling consistently outperforms the parallel self consistency paradigm.

The GDN-CC Dataset: Automatic Corpus Clarification for AI-enhanced Democratic Citizen Consultations

LLMs are ubiquitous in modern NLP, and while their applicability extends to texts produced for democratic activities such as online deliberations or large-scale citizen consultations, ethical questions have been raised for their usage as analysis tools. We continue this line of research with two main goals: (a) to develop resources that can help standardize citizen contributions in public forums at the pragmatic level, and make them easier to use in topic modeling and political analysis; (b) to study how well this standardization can reliably be performed by small, open-weights LLMs, i.e. models that can be run locally and transparently with limited resources. Accordingly, we introduce Corpus Clarification as a preprocessing framework for large-scale consultation data that transforms noisy, multi-topic contributions into structured, self-contained argumentative units ready for downstream analysis. We present GDN-CC, a manually-curated dataset of 1,231 contributions to the French Grand Débat National, comprising 2,285 argumentative units annotated for argumentative structure and manually clarified. We then show that finetuned Small Language Models match or outperform LLMs on reproducing these annotations, and measure their usability for an opinion clustering task. We finally release GDN-CC-large, an automatically annotated corpus of 240k contributions, the largest annotated democratic consultation dataset to date.