arXiv:2605.25240v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Two methodologies dominate current practices of benchmarking: rubric-based scoring evaluates items against predefined criteria, whereas comparative judgment elicits pairwise preferences between outputs. Although both methodologies are widely used, the choice between them is rarely justified. We release JudgmentBench, a benchmark of 30 real-world legal tasks, paired with 1,539 rubric scores and 1,530 pairwise preference judgments collected from practicing attorneys--including at major U.S. law firms--with substantial experience. The annotations constitute the first publicly available dataset in a high-expertise domain in which both supervision signals are elicited from the same experts on the same items. Using LLM-generated outputs at three constructed quality levels, we provide an initial empirical comparison: comparative judgments recover the intended quality ordering substantially better than rubrics (mean Spearman's rank correlation of 0.908 vs. 0.150, estimated difference = 0.758 [0.494, 1.021]) while requiring less than half the annotation time. The patterns hold for human annotators and LLM autograders. Beyond this initial comparison, the paired structure of the dataset supports a broader research agenda on how expert judgment should be elicited, aggregated, and used as supervision in domains without verifiable ground truth.

arXiv:2505.21605v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) exhibit advancing capabilities in complex tasks, such as reasoning and graduate-level question answering, yet their resilience against misuse, particularly involving scientifically sophisticated risks, remains underexplored. Existing safety benchmarks typically focus either on instructions requiring minimal knowledge comprehension (e.g., ``tell me how to build a bomb") or utilize prompts that are relatively low-risk (e.g., multiple-choice or classification tasks about hazardous content). Consequently, they fail to adequately assess model safety when handling knowledge-intensive, hazardous scenarios. To address this critical gap, we introduce SoSBench, a regulation-grounded, hazard-focused benchmark encompassing six high-risk scientific domains: chemistry, biology, medicine, pharmacology, physics, and psychology. The benchmark comprises 3,000 prompts derived from real-world regulations and laws, systematically expanded via an LLM-assisted evolutionary pipeline that introduces diverse, realistic misuse scenarios (e.g., detailed explosive synthesis instructions involving advanced chemical formulas). We evaluate frontier models within a unified evaluation framework using our SoSBench. Despite their alignment claims, advanced models consistently disclose policy-violating content across all domains, demonstrating alarmingly high rates of harmful responses (e.g., 84.9% for Deepseek-R1 and 50.3% for GPT-4.1). These results highlight significant safety alignment deficiencies and underscore urgent concerns regarding the responsible deployment of powerful LLMs.

arXiv:2602.13458v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large-scale communities of AI agents are becoming increasingly prevalent, creating new environments for agent-agent social interaction. Prior work has examined multi-agent behavior primarily in controlled or small-scale settings, limiting our understanding of emergent social dynamics at scale. The recent emergence of MoltBook, a social networking platform designed explicitly for AI agents, presents a unique opportunity to study whether and how these interactions reproduce core human social mechanisms. We present MoltNet, a dataset tracking the full one-month activity trajectories of 148K AI agents on MoltBook (Jan.-Feb., 2026), and analyze their social interaction along four theory-grounded dimensions: \textit{intent and motivation}, \textit{norms and templates}, \textit{incentives and drift}, \textit{emotion and contagion}. Our analysis reveals that agents respond strongly to social rewards, converge on community-specific norms, and actively enforce them across community boundaries -- resembling human incentive sensitivity and normative conformity. However, they exhibit weak alignment with declared personas and display limited emotional reciprocity and dialogic engagement, diverging systematically from human online communities. These findings establish a first empirical portrait of agent social behavior at scale, with direct implications for the design and governance of AI-populated communities.

arXiv:2604.02322v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models employing Chain-of-Thought reasoning achieve strong performance but suffer from excessive token consumption that inflates inference costs. Existing efficiency methods such as explicit length penalties, difficulty estimators, or multi-stage curricula either degrade reasoning quality or require complex training pipelines. We introduce Batched Contextual Reinforcement, a minimalist, single-stage training paradigm that unlocks efficient reasoning through a simple structural modification: training the model to solve N problems simultaneously within a shared context window, rewarded purely by per-instance accuracy. This formulation creates an implicit token budget that yields several key findings: (1) We identify a novel task-scaling law: as the number of concurrent problems N increases during inference, per-problem token usage decreases monotonically while accuracy degrades far more gracefully than baselines, establishing N as a controllable throughput dimension. (2) BCR challenges the traditional accuracy-efficiency trade-off by demonstrating a "free lunch" phenomenon at standard single-problem inference. Across both 1.5B and 4B model families, BCR reduces token usage by 15.8% to 62.6% while consistently maintaining or improving accuracy across five major mathematical benchmarks. (3) Qualitative analyses reveal emergent self-regulated efficiency, where models autonomously eliminate redundant metacognitive loops without explicit length supervision. (4) Crucially, we empirically demonstrate that implicit budget constraints successfully circumvent the adversarial gradients and catastrophic optimization collapse inherent to explicit length penalties, offering a highly stable, constraint-based alternative for length control. These results prove BCR practical, showing simple structural incentives unlock latent high-density reasoning in LLMs.

Oncogene, Published online: 07 March 2026; doi:10.1038/s41388-026-03712-0

Arginine methylation-dependent stabilization of SUV39H1 promotes breast cancer growth

arXiv:2602.13458v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large-scale communities of AI agents are becoming increasingly prevalent, creating new environments for agent-agent social interaction. Prior work has examined multi-agent behavior primarily in controlled or small-scale settings, limiting our understanding of emergent social dynamics at scale. The recent emergence of MoltBook, a social networking platform designed explicitly for AI agents, presents a unique opportunity to study whether and how these interactions reproduce core human social mechanisms. We present MoltNet, a large-scale empirical analysis of agent interaction on MoltBook using data collected in early 2026. Grounded in sociological and social-psychological theory, we examine behavior along four dimensions: intent and motivation, norms and templates, incentives and behavioral drift, emotion and contagion. Our analysis revealed that agents strongly respond to social rewards and rapidly converge on community-specific interaction templates, resembling human patterns of incentive sensitivity and normative conformity. However, they are predominantly knowledge-driven rather than persona-aligned, and display limited emotional reciprocity along with weak dialogic engagement, which diverges systematically from human online communities. Together, these results reveal both similarities and differences between artificial and human social systems and provide an empirical foundation for understanding, designing, and governing large-scale agent communities.

arXiv:2602.14010v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Pathology foundation models (PFMs) have enabled robust generalization in computational pathology through large-scale datasets and expansive architectures, but their substantial computational cost, particularly for gigapixel whole slide images, limits clinical accessibility and scalability. Here, we present LitePath, a deployment-friendly foundational framework designed to mitigate model over-parameterization and patch level redundancy. LitePath integrates LiteFM, a compact model distilled from three large PFMs (Virchow2, H-Optimus-1 and UNI2) using 190 million patches, and the Adaptive Patch Selector (APS), a lightweight component for task-specific patch selection. The framework reduces model parameters by 28x and lowers FLOPs by 403.5x relative to Virchow2, enabling deployment on low-power edge hardware such as the NVIDIA Jetson Orin Nano Super. On this device, LitePath processes 208 slides per hour, 104.5x faster than Virchow2, and consumes 0.36 kWh per 3,000 slides, 171x lower than Virchow2 on an RTX3090 GPU. We validated accuracy using 37 cohorts across four organs and 26 tasks (26 internal, 9 external, and 2 prospective), comprising 15,672 slides from 9,808 patients disjoint from the pretraining data. LitePath ranks second among 19 evaluated models and outperforms larger models including H-Optimus-1, mSTAR, UNI2 and GPFM, while retaining 99.71% of the AUC of Virchow2 on average. To quantify the balance between accuracy and efficiency, we propose the Deployability Score (D-Score), defined as the weighted geometric mean of normalized AUC and normalized FLOP, where LitePath achieves the highest value, surpassing Virchow2 by 10.64%. These results demonstrate that LitePath enables rapid, cost-effective and energy-efficient pathology image analysis on accessible hardware while maintaining accuracy comparable to state-of-the-art PFMs and reducing the carbon footprint of AI deployment.