Beyond Accuracy: Interpreting Topic Representation in Suicide Ideation Detection Models

Suicide ideation detection models are typically evaluated using aggregate performance metrics, yet little is known about how they internally represent psychologically meaningful risk factors. In high-stakes mental health applications, understanding these internal representations is essential for safety, transparency, and responsible deployment. In this work, we move beyond accuracy and analyze how suicide detection models trained on original and topic-augmented datasets encode psychological risk factors in their internal representation space. Using visualization and geometric analysis, we examine the coherence and separability of topic-related features. Our results show that topic-aware augmentation increases the clarity and distinctness of underrepresented psychosocial risk factors such as immigration, family issues, and financial crisis. These findings suggest that augmentation not only improves model performance but also leads to more structured and interpretable internal representations.

Safety Measurements for Fine-tuned LLMs Should be Grounded in Capability

Adapting foundation large language models to a user's task or preferred style through fine-tuning can result in compromising the model's safety. Previous works examined the effects of fine-tuning on model safety in limited and seemingly random experimental settings. We argue that anchoring fine-tuning to a specific capability goal is essential for avoiding arbitrary empirical choices, allowing us to draw meaningful conclusions about safety impacts, and to compare mitigation methods on a consistent basis. We conduct a multi-dimensional evaluation of the effects of fine-tuning on model behavior by focusing on capability as well as safety. Our results surface important issues that (1) fine-tuned models can produce incoherent generations in response to safety prompts, (2) automated safety judgments are unreliable for such incoherent outputs, and (3) the conclusions about the effects of fine-tuning can change depending on the choice of safety benchmark as well as the safety evaluator.

LLM Judges Inconsistently Disagree Across Safety Criteria and Harm Categories

We evaluate the consistency of automated judges in conducting a multi-dimensional safety evaluation in a reference-free setup. Our results indicate that Large Language Models are unreliable judges in identifying safety issues related to machine-generated advice in regulated domains such as finance, although they are more reliable at identifying more overt forms of unsafe/harmful content such as violence. The degree of inconsistency in a model's judgments can vary significantly by the chosen safety criteria and can be impacted by the language of the content and its linguistic style as well. Finally, there is high disagreement among different judges for the same output, across domains, safety criteria, and languages. These findings provide new insights on the practice of using LLMs as evaluators and offer several recommendations for practitioners on how to use automated judges in practical scenarios.

Manifold-Matching Autoencoders

We study a simple unsupervised regularization scheme for autoencoders called Manifold-Matching (MMAE): we align the pairwise distances in the latent space to those of the input data space by minimizing mean squared error. Because alignment occurs on pairwise distances rather than coordinates, it can also be extended to a lower-dimensional representation of the data, adding flexibility to the method. We find that this regularization outperforms similar methods on metrics based on preservation of nearest-neighbor distances and persistent homology-based measures. We also observe that MMAE provides a scalable approximation of Multi-Dimensional Scaling (MDS).

CIRCLE: A Framework for Evaluating AI from a Real-World Lens

This paper proposes CIRCLE, a six-stage, lifecycle-based framework to bridge the reality gap between model-centric performance metrics and AI's materialized outcomes in deployment. While existing frameworks like MLOps focus on system stability and benchmarks measure abstract capabilities, decision-makers outside the AI stack lack systematic evidence about the behavior of AI technologies under real-world user variability and constraints. CIRCLE operationalizes the Validation phase of TEVV (Test, Evaluation, Verification, and Validation) by formalizing the translation of stakeholder concerns outside the stack into measurable signals. Unlike participatory design, which often remains localized, or algorithmic audits, which are often retrospective, CIRCLE provides a structured, prospective protocol for linking context-sensitive qualitative insights to scalable quantitative metrics. By integrating methods such as field testing, red teaming, and longitudinal studies into a coordinated pipeline, CIRCLE produces systematic knowledge: evidence that is comparable across sites yet sensitive to local context. This can enable governance based on materialized downstream effects rather than theoretical capabilities.

Improving Methodologies for LLM Evaluations Across Global Languages

As frontier AI models are deployed globally, it is essential that their behaviour remains safe and reliable across diverse linguistic and cultural contexts. To examine how current model safeguards hold up in such settings, participants from the International Network for Advanced AI Measurement, Evaluation and Science, including representatives from Singapore, Japan, Australia, Canada, the EU, France, Kenya, South Korea and the UK conducted a joint multilingual evaluation exercise. Led by Singapore AISI, two open-weight models were tested across ten languages spanning high and low resourced groups: Cantonese English, Farsi, French, Japanese, Korean, Kiswahili, Malay, Mandarin Chinese and Telugu. Over 6,000 newly translated prompts were evaluated across five harm categories (privacy, non-violent crime, violent crime, intellectual property and jailbreak robustness), using both LLM-as-a-judge and human annotation. The exercise shows how safety behaviours can vary across languages. These include differences in safeguard robustness across languages and harm types and variation in evaluator reliability (LLM-as-judge vs. human review). Further, it also generated methodological insights for improving multilingual safety evaluations, such as the need for culturally contextualised translations, stress-tested evaluator prompts and clearer human annotation guidelines. This work represents an initial step toward a shared framework for multilingual safety testing of advanced AI systems and calls for continued collaboration with the wider research community and industry.

Improving Methodologies for Agentic Evaluations Across Domains: Leakage of Sensitive Information, Fraud and Cybersecurity Threats

The rapid rise of autonomous AI systems and advancements in agent capabilities are introducing new risks due to reduced oversight of real-world interactions. Yet agent testing remains nascent and is still a developing science. As AI agents begin to be deployed globally, it is important that they handle different languages and cultures accurately and securely. To address this, participants from The International Network for Advanced AI Measurement, Evaluation and Science, including representatives from Singapore, Japan, Australia, Canada, the European Commission, France, Kenya, South Korea, and the United Kingdom have come together to align approaches to agentic evaluations. This is the third exercise, building on insights from two earlier joint testing exercises conducted by the Network in November 2024 and February 2025. The objective is to further refine best practices for testing advanced AI systems. The exercise was split into two strands: (1) common risks, including leakage of sensitive information and fraud, led by Singapore AISI; and (2) cybersecurity, led by UK AISI. A mix of open and closed-weight models were evaluated against tasks from various public agentic benchmarks. Given the nascency of agentic testing, our primary focus was on understanding methodological issues in conducting such tests, rather than examining test results or model capabilities. This collaboration marks an important step forward as participants work together to advance the science of agentic evaluations.

Gender-Neutral Machine Translation Strategies in Practice

Gender-inclusive machine translation (MT) should preserve gender ambiguity in the source to avoid misgendering and representational harms. While gender ambiguity often occurs naturally in notional gender languages such as English, maintaining that gender neutrality in grammatical gender languages is a challenge. Here we assess the sensitivity of 21 MT systems to the need for gender neutrality in response to gender ambiguity in three translation directions of varying difficulty. The specific gender-neutral strategies that are observed in practice are categorized and discussed. Additionally, we examine the effect of binary gender stereotypes on the use of gender-neutral translation. In general, we report a disappointing absence of gender-neutral translations in response to gender ambiguity. However, we observe a small handful of MT systems that switch to gender neutral translation using specific strategies, depending on the target language.

WildFireCan-MMD: A Multimodal dataset for Classification of User-generated Content During Wildfires in Canada

Rapid information access is vital during wildfires, yet traditional data sources are slow and costly. Social media offers real-time updates, but extracting relevant insights remains a challenge. We present WildFireCan-MMD, a new multimodal dataset of X posts from recent Canadian wildfires, annotated across 13 key themes. Evaluating both Vision Language Models and custom-trained classifiers, we show that while zero-shot prompting offers quick deployment, even simple trained models outperform them when labelled data is available, by up to 23%. Our findings highlight the enduring importance of tailored datasets and task-specific training. Importantly, such datasets should be localized, as disaster response requirements vary across regions and contexts.

Tackling Social Bias against the Poor: A Dataset and Taxonomy on Aporophobia

Eradicating poverty is the first goal in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. However, aporophobia -- the societal bias against people living in poverty -- constitutes a major obstacle to designing, approving and implementing poverty-mitigation policies. This work presents an initial step towards operationalizing the concept of aporophobia to identify and track harmful beliefs and discriminative actions against poor people on social media. In close collaboration with non-profits and governmental organizations, we conduct data collection and exploration. Then we manually annotate a corpus of English tweets from five world regions for the presence of (1) direct expressions of aporophobia, and (2) statements referring to or criticizing aporophobic views or actions of others, to comprehensively characterize the social media discourse related to bias and discrimination against the poor. Based on the annotated data, we devise a taxonomy of categories of aporophobic attitudes and actions expressed through speech on social media. Finally, we train several classifiers and identify the main challenges for automatic detection of aporophobia in social networks. This work paves the way towards identifying, tracking, and mitigating aporophobic views on social media at scale.