arXiv Machine Learning

NodeSynth: Socially Aligned Synthetic Data for AI Evaluation

NodeSynth is a method that generates socially aligned synthetic data by combining a fine‑tuned taxonomy generator with credible sources and extracted sensitive attributes to produce queries that reflect real societal contexts and nuanced harms. In evaluations across ten open‑weight and proprietary large language models on Medical Advice and Self‑Harm tasks, NodeSynth outperformed generic synthetic baselines, structured synthetic benchmarks, and authentic human‑authored queries, inducing higher failure rates that highlight model vulnerabilities. Ablation and variance attribution studies show that the granular Level 3 taxonomic expansion and sociotechnical grounding of queries drive these failure rates, underscoring the importance of nuanced data for high‑stakes evaluation.

arXiv Computation and Language
6d ago

NodeSyn: Socially Aligned Synthetic Data for AI Evaluation

NodeSyn is a method that generates socially aligned synthetic data for evaluating AI models. It combines a fine‑tuned taxonomy generator with credible sources and sensitive attributes to produce queries that reflect real societal contexts and nuanced harms. In tests across ten LLMs in Medical Advice and Self‑Harm, NodeSyn outperformed generic synthetic baselines, raising failure rates significantly and revealing that failures stem from both topic selection and sociotechnical grounding.

By Qazi Mamunur Rashid, Xuan Yang, Zhengzhe Yang, Yanzhou Pan, Erin van Liemt, Darlene Neal, Kshitij Pancholi, Jamila Smith-Loud
arXiv AI
Oct 16

Open Benchmark of AI Impact on Humans (ImpactBench): an expert-guided, open platform for the holistic evaluation of AI impact on humans

The paper introduces ImpactBench, an open, expert-guided platform designed to measure the multi-dimensional impact of generative AI on users. It evaluates AI models across psychological, physical, and social wellbeing metrics derived from domain experts and existing benchmarks, using simulated multi-turn conversations with teen and adult scenarios. Ten leading LLMs were tested on 48,540 conversations, showing 68.7% promotion of desirable behaviors but only 53.1% avoidance of harms, with an 83.3% agreement rate between automated judges and expert reviewers.

By Chayapatr Archiwaranguprok, Krystal Kirkland, Rachel Poonsiriwong, Stanley Huang, Constanze Albrecht, Jackson Trager, Emillie de Keulenaar, Sheer Karny, Peter Baxter, Nikos Bellos, Andre Luiz Freire de Carvalho Kato, Yuning Liu, Valdemar Danry, Auren Liu, Jennifer Pfister, Pattie Maes, Nathanael J. Fast, Ravi Iyer, Juliana Schroeder, Pat Pataranutaporn
arXiv AI
Jun 17

RubricsTree: Scalable and Evolving Open-Ended Evaluation of Personal Health Agents across Health Memory and Medical Skills

arXiv:2606. 18203v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The LLM-empowered personal health agents with user health (sensor) metrics have offered a promising pathway to alleviate global disparities in healthcare access.

By Weizhi Zhang, Zechen Li, Hamid Palangi, Ben Graef, A. Ali Heydari, Simon A. Lee, Salman Rahman, Ray Luo, Zeinab Esmaeilpour, Erik Schenck, Chloe Zhang, Yamin Li, Menglian Zhou, Philip S. Yu, Daniel McDuff, Lindsey Sunden, Mark Malhotra, Shwetak Patel, Ahmed A. Metwally
arXiv AI
Jul 15

Evaluating Health Misinformation in Low-Resource Languages: Integrating Small Language Models with a Culturally-Sensitive Responsible NLP Framework (Bangla as a Case Study)

arXiv:2607. 12336v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies, while serving as a foundational enabler for modern social media and digital health services, exert a bivalent effect by simultaneously acting as a combatant against and a spread vector for misinformation.

By Farnaz Farid, Raihan Alam, Al Al-Areqi, Farhad Ahamed, Muhammad Hassan Khan, Sadia Hossain, Irena Veljanova, Anika Tabassum Binte Hossain
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 1

WildSEEK: Evaluating Language Models for Information-Seeking

WildSEEK is a new dataset of 3,000 real user information‑seeking queries, manually annotated for risk‑sensitive domains and whether the query is factoid or analytical. The accompanying evaluation framework tests LLM responses against four failure criteria—sycophantic behavior, overreliance, a default US‑centric perspective, and poor handling of vulnerable populations—finding higher failure rates for analytical queries. The authors also train classifiers on WildSEEK to analyze over 1.8 million realistic queries, revealing that more than a third are high‑risk and often analytical.

By Tanise Ceron, Joachim Baumann, Elisa Bassignana, Berat Cabuk, Dirk Hovy, Debora Nozza
arXiv AI
Oct 7

CroissantMiner: Automated Extraction and Validation of Croissant Metadata for ML Datasets

arXiv:2610.07132v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Croissant has emerged as a standard for machine-readable dataset metadata, yet populating its fields remains labor-intensive and requires careful rea...

By Berke Arda, Ahmetcan Yavuz, Paul Gerry, Sebastian Lobentanzer, Nobin Sarwar, Joan Giner-Miguelez, Kongtao Chen, Luyao Zhang, Mrinmaya Sachan, Mubashara Akhtar
arXiv Machine Learning
Jul 17

Addressing Benchmarking Gaps in Large Language Models for Health and Medicine with Dynamic Red-Teaming

arXiv:2508. 00923v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to answer health-related questions and support healthcare workflows, yet evidence for their safety still relies heavily on static benchmarks that can rapidly become obsolete or be optimized against.

By Jiazhen Pan (Cherise), Bailiang Jian (Cherise), Paul Hager (Cherise), Yundi Zhang (Cherise), Che Liu (Cherise), Friederike Jungmann (Cherise), Hongwei Bran Li (Cherise), Julian Canisius (Cherise), Chenyu You (Cherise), Junde Wu (Cherise), Jiayuan Zhu (Cherise), Fenglin Liu (Cherise), Yuyuan Liu (Cherise), Niklas Bubeck (Cherise), Moritz Knolle (Cherise), Chen (Cherise), Chen (Cherise), Christian Wachinger, Zhenyu Gong, Cheng Ouyang, Georgios Kaissis, Benedikt Wiestler, Daniel Rueckert
arXiv AI
6d ago

DeepSafe-SciHazard: A Benchmark for Measuring Scientific Safety Risks with Decomposed Harm Scoring

DeepSafe‑SciHazard introduces a real‑world‑grounded benchmark for measuring scientific safety risks, comprising 2,400 hazardous and 600 oversafety questions across 12 disciplines. It defines a decomposed harm scoring system, DeHarm‑Score, that evaluates query severity, refusal behavior, and response‑level risk, further breaking down harm into executability and net‑new risk. An expert‑validation study shows DeHarm‑Score aligns 90.17% better with expert judgments than the best baseline, and the benchmark reveals that deep research agents score 32.3% higher on mean DeHarm‑Score than standard LLMs, highlighting a critical blind spot in current safety defenses.

By Chunxiao Li, Yuan Xiong, Lijun Li, Tianyi Du, Wenlong Zhang, Lei Bai, Jing Shao