arXiv subjects

Peter Henderson

Publications and source records attributed to Peter Henderson.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Open Technical Problems in Open-Weight AI Model Risk Management

Frontier AI models with openly available weights are steadily becoming more powerful and widely adopted. However, compared to proprietary models, open-weight models pose different opportunities and challenges for effective risk management. For example, they allow for more open research and testing. However, managing their risks is also challenging because they can be modified arbitrarily, used without oversight, and spread irreversibly. Currently, there is limited research on safety tooling specific to open-weight models. Addressing these gaps will be key to both realizing their benefits and mitigating their harms. In this paper, we present 16 open technical challenges for open-weight model safety involving training data, training algorithms, evaluations, deployment, and ecosystem monitoring. We conclude by discussing the nascent state of the field, emphasizing that openness about research, methods, and evaluations -- not just weights -- will be key to building a rigorous science of open-weight model risk management.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Legal Domain Adaptation of Modern BERT Models

We investigate domain adaptation of modern BERT models in the legal domain. We further pre-train ModernBERT on all US court opinions using the masked language modeling objective. Although ModernBERT has been trained on roughly 500x more data than original BERT, we still find that this model benefits from further pre-training and domain adaptation in the legal domain: we report significant improvements compared to vanilla ModernBERT on all datasets connected to US court opinions. We find gains similar to those reported in early work on domain adaptation of BERT-like models. However, from scratch pre-training does not match the performance of further pre-training an existing ModernBERT checkpoint in our experiments. The resulting models are capable of processing sequences up to 8,192 tokens, and can be used to compute meaningful embeddings of legal passages, or could quickly rerank hundreds of legal passages for a given search query. We release all model checkpoints publicly.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Who Checks the Citations? Benchmarking Legal Hallucination Detection

Attorneys, judges, and pro se filers increasingly use AI to draft legal documents, yet these tools frequently fabricate citations. Despite predictions that newer models would hallucinate less or that court sanctions would deter negligent filers, we found over 1,000 filings containing fabricated citations---with this number growing year-over-year. This study evaluates whether AI-based systems can mitigate these errors by automatically detecting hallucinations. We propose a taxonomy of legal citation hallucinations grounded in actual court filings and introduce a dataset of 1,300 brief excerpts containing injected errors. Benchmarking five models in agentic and non-agentic settings as well as Claude Code reveals that while the latest iterations perform better---GPT-5 achieves 84.4% recall and a 55.0% F1 score in an agentic framework---all models struggle with subtle error categories. Agentic verification remains resource-intensive, with GPT-5 averaging 15.3 steps per excerpt. Furthermore, restricted information access limits the efficacy of even the best agents. This gap creates policy concerns, as it disadvantages both AI systems and litigants who lack subscriptions to commercial legal databases. Together, our dataset, tools, and policy recommendations provide a foundation for building and auditing reliable legal citation checking tools.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Using Cognitive Models to Improve Language Model Simulation of Human Persuasion Games

People make decisions differently in strategic interactions. Some update beliefs like a Bayesian; others exhibit biases like motivated reasoning. Although creators of large language models use simulated humans for safety evaluations and training, they often fail to cover this breadth of human behavior. We argue that cognitive science and economics provide a convenient tool for doing so, making use of mathematical models of human decision-making. We propose an approach that we call Equation-to-Behavior Prompting for guiding large language models to match cognitive models, and evaluate this approach on persuasion games based on legal decision-making. We find that large models can approximate equation-based specifications -- Bayesian updating, affine distortion, motivated updating, and Grether's $\alpha$-$\beta$ model -- using prompting, but small models fail to do so. However, training small models with reinforcement learning to adhere to mathematical rules, Equation-to-Behavior RL, reduces belief error by 26.5% in out-of-distribution parameterizations. We show that these simulations can help create diverse training environments; training small models to consider different kinds of decision-makers improves average belief change by 2.5%--12% over Bayesian-only training, even when persuading GPT-5-mini. Our work could improve human simulations for training and evaluation in increasingly realistic settings, and could also enable novel research into more complicated mathematical models of human decision-making.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Temporally Extended Mixture-of-Experts Models

Mixture-of-Experts models, now popular for scaling capacity at fixed inference speed, switch experts at nearly every token. Once a model outgrows available GPU memory, this churn can render optimizations like offloading and pre-fetching ineffective. We make the case that the options framework in reinforcement learning is a perfect match to tackle this problem, and argue for temporally extended mixture-of-experts layers. Building on the option-critic framework with deliberation costs, we add a controller to each layer that learns when to switch expert sets and which to load. By applying this to gpt-oss-20b with low-rank adapters and a self-distillation reward, our method reduces switch rates from over 50% to below 5% while retaining up to 90% of base-model accuracy on MATH, MMLU, and MMMLU. This shows that even existing pre-trained models can be converted to temporally extended MoEs with lightweight training, with the deliberation cost allowing model trainers to trade off switching rates against capability. We hope this opens a principled path, grounded in the options framework, for memory-efficient serving and continual learning in ever-growing MoE models.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Large Language Models Generate Harmful Responses Using a Distinct Mechanism, Shared Across Harm Types

Large language models remain vulnerable to jailbreaks that elicit harmful responses, yet the mechanism behind harmful response generation is poorly understood. Here, we investigate how this capability is organized within model parameters. We identify and prune parameters that specifically support harmful compliance, providing a direct mechanistic analysis at the parameter level. We find that this capability depends on a sparse set of critical parameters: pruning these parameters substantially reduces harmful compliance while causing only limited degradation in benign capabilities, suggesting that key components of harmful generation are separable from those of general utility. Parameters identified from one harm category also reduce harmful responses in others, indicating components shared across harm types. This separability appears primarily in aligned models, suggesting that alignment training internally reshapes the harmful response mechanism even when behavioral safeguards remain brittle. We further show that harmful response generation is dissociable from the ability to recognize and reason about harmfulness. Finally, we extend our analysis to emergent misalignment and identify a sparse set of parameters contributing to it, with substantial sharing across fine-tuning domains. Together, these results reveal a consistent parameter-level organization underlying unsafe behaviors and point toward more principled interventions for improving model safety.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

AI-Assisted Moot Courts: Simulating Justice-Specific Questioning in Oral Arguments

In oral arguments, judges probe attorneys with questions about the factual record, legal claims, and the strength of their arguments. To prepare for this questioning, both law schools and practicing attorneys rely on moot courts: practice simulations of appellate hearings. Leveraging a dataset of U.S. Supreme Court oral argument transcripts, we examine whether AI models can effectively simulate justice-specific questioning for moot court-style training. Evaluating oral argument simulation is challenging because there is no single correct question for any given turn. Instead, effective questioning should reflect a combination of desirable qualities, such as anticipating substantive legal issues, detecting logical weaknesses, and maintaining an appropriately adversarial tone. We introduce a two-layer evaluation framework that assesses both the realism and pedagogical usefulness of simulated questions using complementary proxy metrics. We construct and evaluate both prompt-based and agentic oral argument simulators. We find that simulated questions are often perceived as realistic by human annotators and achieve high recall of ground truth substantive legal issues. However, models still face substantial shortcomings, including low diversity in question types and sycophancy. Importantly, these shortcomings would remain undetected under naive evaluation approaches.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Legal Retrieval for Public Defenders

AI tools are suggested as solutions to assist public agencies with heavy workloads. In public defense -- where a constitutional right to counsel meets the complexities of law, overwhelming caseloads, and constrained resources -- practitioners face especially taxing conditions. Yet, there is little evidence of how AI could meaningfully support defenders' day-to-day work. In partnership with the New Jersey Office of the Public Defender, we develop the NJ BriefBank, a retrieval tool which surfaces relevant appellate briefs to streamline legal research and writing. We show that existing retrieval benchmarks fail to transfer to real public defense research, however adding domain knowledge improves retrieval quality. This includes query expansion with legal reasoning, domain-specific data and curated synthetic examples. To facilitate further research, we release a taxonomy of realistic defender search queries and a manually annotated evaluation dataset for public defense retrieval. This benchmark is highly correlated with a proprietary retrieval dataset annotated by experienced public defenders. Our work improves on the status quo of realistic legal retrieval benchmarking and illustrates one approach to applying AI in a real-world public interest setting.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2026

Legal Alignment for Safe and Ethical AI

Alignment of artificial intelligence (AI) encompasses the normative problem of specifying how AI systems should act and the technical problem of ensuring AI systems comply with those specifications. To date, AI alignment has generally overlooked an important source of knowledge and practice for grappling with these problems: law. In this paper, we survey the emerging field of legal alignment that aims to fill this gap and systematize research that studies how legal rules, principles, and methods can be leveraged to address problems of alignment and inform the design of AI systems that operate safely and ethically. Our survey provides a taxonomy of the three core research pathways of legal alignment and explores how each can be operationalized in practice: (1) designing AI systems to comply with the content of legal rules developed through legitimate institutions and processes, (2) adapting methods from legal interpretation to guide how AI systems reason and make decisions, and (3) harnessing legal concepts as a structural blueprint for confronting challenges of reliability, trust, and cooperation in AI systems. These research pathways present new conceptual, empirical, and institutional questions, which include examining the specific set of laws that particular AI systems should follow, creating evaluations to assess their legal compliance in real-world settings, and developing governance frameworks to support the implementation of legal alignment in practice. Tackling these questions requires expertise across law, computer science, and other disciplines, offering these communities the opportunity to collaborate in designing AI for the better.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

FrontierCS: Evolving Challenges for Evolving Intelligence

We introduce FrontierCS, a benchmark of 156 open-ended problems across diverse areas of computer science, designed and reviewed by experts, including CS PhDs and top-tier competitive programming participants and problem setters. Unlike existing benchmarks that focus on tasks with known optimal solutions, FrontierCS targets problems where the optimal solution is unknown, but the quality of a solution can be objectively evaluated. Models solve these tasks by implementing executable programs rather than outputting a direct answer. FrontierCS includes algorithmic problems, which are often NP-hard variants of competitive programming problems with objective partial scoring, and research problems with the same property. For each problem we provide an expert reference solution and an automatic evaluator. Combining open-ended design, measurable progress, and expert curation, FrontierCS provides a benchmark at the frontier of computer-science difficulty. Empirically, we find that frontier reasoning models still lag far behind human experts on both the algorithmic and research tracks, that increasing reasoning budgets alone does not close this gap, and that models often over-optimize for generating merely workable code instead of discovering high-quality algorithms and system designs.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

Best Practices for Biorisk Evaluations on Open-Weight Bio-Foundation Models

Open-weight bio-foundation models present a dual-use dilemma. While holding great promise for accelerating scientific research and drug development, they could also enable bad actors to develop more deadly bioweapons. To mitigate the risk posed by these models, current approaches focus on filtering biohazardous data during pre-training. However, the effectiveness of such an approach remains unclear, particularly against determined actors who might fine-tune these models for malicious use. To address this gap, we propose BioRiskEval, a framework to evaluate the robustness of procedures that are intended to reduce the dual-use capabilities of bio-foundation models. BioRiskEval assesses models' virus understanding through three lenses, including sequence modeling, mutational effects prediction, and virulence prediction. Our results show that current filtering practices may not be particularly effective: Excluded knowledge can be rapidly recovered in some cases via fine-tuning, and exhibits broader generalizability in sequence modeling. Furthermore, dual-use signals may already reside in the pretrained representations, and can be elicited via simple linear probing. These findings highlight the challenges of data filtering as a standalone procedure, underscoring the need for further research into robust safety and security strategies for open-weight bio-foundation models.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2025

How Can AI Augment Access to Justice? Public Defenders' Perspectives on AI Adoption

Public defenders are asked to do more with less: representing clients deserving of adequate counsel while facing overwhelming caseloads and scarce resources. Although artificial intelligence (AI) is often promoted as a means of relieving administrative and cognitive burdens, legal AI research rarely engages with the everyday realities of public defense work. Drawing on in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 17 public defense professionals across the United States, we identify work-intensive tasks most amenable to AI assistance and the ethical constraints involved in legal representation. We develop a comprehensive task-level map of public defense work, dividing it into five pillars to clarify where AI can and cannot contribute: evidence investigation, legal research & writing, client communication & support, courtroom representation, and defense strategies. Interviewees consistently identified evidence investigation, such as reviewing large volumes of digital records, as the area with the greatest potential for AI support. AI was viewed as having more limited roles in legal research and client communication, and as least compatible with courtroom representation and defense strategy. We find that AI adoption is constrained by costs, restrictive office norms, confidentiality risks, and unsatisfactory tool quality. Our interviewees emphasize safeguards for responsible use, including mandatory human verification, limits on over-reliance, and the preservation of relational aspects of lawyering. Building on these findings, we outline a research agenda that promotes equitable access to justice by prioritizing open science, building domain-specific datasets and evaluation, and incorporating frontline practitioners' perspectives into system development.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

A Multimodal Benchmark for Framing of Oil & Gas Advertising and Potential Greenwashing Detection

Companies spend large amounts of money on public relations campaigns to project a positive brand image. However, sometimes there is a mismatch between what they say and what they do. Oil & gas companies, for example, are accused of "greenwashing" with imagery of climate-friendly initiatives. Understanding the framing, and changes in framing, at scale can help better understand the goals and nature of public relations campaigns. To address this, we introduce a benchmark dataset of expert-annotated video ads obtained from Facebook and YouTube. The dataset provides annotations for 13 framing types for more than 50 companies or advocacy groups across 20 countries. Our dataset is especially designed for the evaluation of vision-language models (VLMs), distinguishing it from past text-only framing datasets. Baseline experiments show some promising results, while leaving room for improvement for future work: GPT-4.1 can detect environmental messages with 79% F1 score, while our best model only achieves 46% F1 score on identifying framing around green innovation. We also identify challenges that VLMs must address, such as implicit framing, handling videos of various lengths, or implicit cultural backgrounds. Our dataset contributes to research in multimodal analysis of strategic communication in the energy sector.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Holistic Agent Leaderboard: The Missing Infrastructure for AI Agent Evaluation

AI agents have been developed for complex real-world tasks from coding to customer service. But AI agent evaluations suffer from many challenges that undermine our understanding of how well agents really work. We introduce the Holistic Agent Leaderboard (HAL) to address these challenges. We make three main contributions. First, we provide a standardized evaluation harness that orchestrates parallel evaluations across hundreds of VMs, reducing evaluation time from weeks to hours while eliminating common implementation bugs. Second, we conduct three-dimensional analysis spanning models, scaffolds, and benchmarks. We validate the harness by conducting 21,730 agent rollouts across 9 models and 9 benchmarks in coding, web navigation, science, and customer service with a total cost of about $40,000. Our analysis reveals surprising insights, such as higher reasoning effort reducing accuracy in the majority of runs. Third, we use LLM-aided log inspection to uncover previously unreported behaviors, such as searching for the benchmark on HuggingFace instead of solving a task, or misusing credit cards in flight booking tasks. We share all agent logs, comprising 2.5B tokens of language model calls, to incentivize further research into agent behavior. By standardizing how the field evaluates agents and addressing common pitfalls in agent evaluation, we hope to shift the focus from agents that ace benchmarks to agents that work reliably in the real world.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

AutoCode: LLMs as Problem Setters for Competitive Programming

Writing competitive programming problems is exacting. Authors must: set constraints, input distributions, and edge cases that rule out shortcuts; target specific algorithms (e.g., max-flow, dynamic programming, data structures); and calibrate complexity beyond the reach of most competitors. We argue that this makes for an ideal test of general large language model capabilities and study whether they can do this reliably. We introduce AutoCode, which uses multiple rounds of validation to yield competition-grade problem statements and test cases. On held-out problems, AutoCode test suites approach 99% consistency with official judgments, a significant improvement over current state-of-the-art methods like HardTests, which achieve less than 81%. Furthermore, starting with a random seed problem, AutoCode can create novel variants with reference and brute-force solutions. By cross-verifying these generated solutions against test cases, we can further filter out malformed problems. Our system ensures high correctness, as verified by human experts. AutoCode successfully produces novel problems judged by Grandmaster-level (top 0.3%) competitive programmers to be of contest quality.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

Statutory Construction and Interpretation for Artificial Intelligence

AI systems are increasingly governed by natural language principles, yet a key challenge arising from reliance on language remains underexplored: interpretive ambiguity. As in legal systems, ambiguity arises both from how these principles are written and how they are applied. But while legal systems use institutional safeguards to manage such ambiguity, such as transparent appellate review policing interpretive constraints, AI alignment pipelines offer no comparable protections. Different interpretations of the same rule can lead to inconsistent or unstable model behavior. Drawing on legal theory, we identify key gaps in current alignment pipelines by examining how legal systems constrain ambiguity at both the rule creation and rule application steps. We then propose a computational framework that mirrors two legal mechanisms: (1) a rule refinement pipeline that minimizes interpretive disagreement by revising ambiguous rules (analogous to agency rulemaking or iterative legislative action), and (2) prompt-based interpretive constraints that reduce inconsistency in rule application (analogous to legal canons that guide judicial discretion). We evaluate our framework on a 5,000-scenario subset of the WildChat dataset and show that both interventions significantly improve judgment consistency across a panel of reasonable interpreters. Our approach offers a first step toward systematically managing interpretive ambiguity, an essential step for building more robust, law-following AI systems.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Penalizing Transparency? How AI Disclosure and Author Demographics Shape Human and AI Judgments About Writing

As AI integrates in various types of human writing, calls for transparency around AI assistance are growing. However, if transparency operates on uneven ground and certain identity groups bear a heavier cost for being honest, then the burden of openness becomes asymmetrical. This study investigates how AI disclosure statement affects perceptions of writing quality, and whether these effects vary by the author's race and gender. Through a large-scale controlled experiment, both human raters (n = 1,970) and LLM raters (n = 2,520) evaluated a single human-written news article while disclosure statements and author demographics were systematically varied. This approach reflects how both human and algorithmic decisions now influence access to opportunities (e.g., hiring, promotion) and social recognition (e.g., content recommendation algorithms). We find that both human and LLM raters consistently penalize disclosed AI use. However, only LLM raters exhibit demographic interaction effects: they favor articles attributed to women or Black authors when no disclosure is present. But these advantages disappear when AI assistance is revealed. These findings illuminate the complex relationships between AI disclosure and author identity, highlighting disparities between machine and human evaluation patterns.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

LiveCodeBench Pro: How Do Olympiad Medalists Judge LLMs in Competitive Programming?

Recent reports claim that large language models (LLMs) now outperform elite humans in competitive programming. Drawing on knowledge from a group of medalists in international algorithmic contests, we revisit this claim, examining how LLMs differ from human experts and where limitations still remain. We introduce LiveCodeBench Pro, a benchmark composed of problems from Codeforces, ICPC, and IOI that are continuously updated to reduce the likelihood of data contamination. A team of Olympiad medalists annotates every problem for algorithmic categories and conducts a line-by-line analysis of failed model-generated submissions. Using this new data and benchmark, we find that frontier models still have significant limitations: without external tools, the best model achieves only 53% pass@1 on medium-difficulty problems and 0% on hard problems, domains where expert humans still excel. We also find that LLMs succeed at implementation-heavy problems but struggle with nuanced algorithmic reasoning and complex case analysis, often generating confidently incorrect justifications. High performance appears largely driven by implementation precision and tool augmentation, not superior reasoning. LiveCodeBench Pro thus highlights the significant gap to human grandmaster levels, while offering fine-grained diagnostics to steer future improvements in code-centric LLM reasoning.

cs.SE↗