Answering complex, long-context questions remains a major challenge for large language models (LLMs) as it requires effective question clarifications and context retrieval. We propose Agentic Long-Context Understanding (AgenticLU), a framework designed to enhance an LLM’s understanding of such queries by integrating targeted self-clarification with contextual grounding within an agentic workflow. At the core of AgenticLU is Chain-of-Clarifications (CoC), where models refine their understanding through self-generated clarification questions and corresponding contextual groundings. By scaling inference as a tree search where each node represents a CoC step, we achieve 97.8% answer recall on NarrativeQA with a search depth of up to three and a branching factor of eight. To amortize the high cost of this search process to training, we leverage the preference pairs for each step obtained by the CoC workflow and perform two-stage model finetuning: (1) supervised finetuning to learn effective decomposition strategies, and (2) direct preference optimization to enhance reasoning quality. This enables AgenticLU models to generate clarifications and retrieve relevant context effectively and efficiently in a single inference pass. Extensive experiments across seven long-context tasks demonstrate that AgenticLU significantly outperforms state-of-the-art prompting methods and specialized long-context LLMs, achieving robust multi-hop reasoning while sustaining consistent performance as context length grows.

Open-source AI libraries are foundational to modern AI systems, yet they present significant, underexamined risks spanning security, licensing, maintenance, supply chain integrity, and regulatory compliance. We introduce LibVulnWatch, a system that leverages recent advances in large language models and agentic workflows to perform deep, evidence-based evaluations of these libraries. Built on a graph-based orchestration of specialized agents, the framework extracts, verifies, and quantifies risk using information from repositories, documentation, and vulnerability databases. LibVulnWatch produces reproducible, governance-aligned scores across five critical domains, publishing results to a public leaderboard for ongoing ecosystem monitoring. Applied to 20 widely used libraries—including ML frameworks, LLM inference engines, and agent orchestration tools—our approach covers up to 88% of OpenSSF Scorecard checks while surfacing up to 19 additional risks per library, such as critical RCE vulnerabilities, missing SBOMs, and regulatory gaps. By integrating advanced language technologies with the practical demands of software risk assessment, this work demonstrates a scalable, transparent mechanism for continuous supply chain evaluation and informed library selection.

The development of unbiased large language models is widely recognized as crucial, yet existing benchmarks fall short in detecting biases due to limited scope, contamination, and lack of a fairness baseline. SAGED(bias) is the first holistic benchmarking pipeline to address these problems. The pipeline encompasses five core stages: scraping materials, assembling benchmarks, generating responses, extracting numeric features, and diagnosing with disparity metrics. SAGED includes metrics for max disparity, such as impact ratio, and bias concentration, such as Max Z-scores. Noticing that metric tool bias and contextual bias in prompts can distort evaluation, SAGED implements counterfactual branching and baseline calibration for mitigation. For demonstration, we use SAGED on G20 Countries with popular 8b-level models including Gemma2, Llama3.1, Mistral, and Qwen2. With sentiment analysis, we find that while Mistral and Qwen2 show lower max disparity and higher bias concentration than Gemma2 and Llama3.1, all models are notably biased against countries like Russia and (except for Qwen2) China. With further experiments to have models role-playing U.S. presidents, we see bias amplifies and shifts in heterogeneous directions. Moreover, we see Qwen2 and Mistral not engage in role-playing, while Llama3.1 and Gemma2 role-play Trump notably more intensively than Biden and Harris, indicating role-playing performance bias in these models.

The use of Large Language Models (LLMs) in hiring has led to legislative actions to protect vulnerable demographic groups. This paper presents a novel framework for benchmarking hierarchical gender hiring bias in Large Language Models (LLMs) for resume scoring, revealing significant issues of reverse gender hiring bias and overdebiasing. Our contributions are fourfold: Firstly, we introduce a new construct grounded in labour economics, legal principles, and critiques of current bias benchmarks: hiring bias can be categorized into two types: Level bias (difference in the average outcomes between demographic counterfactual groups) and Spread bias (difference in the variance of outcomes between demographic counterfactual groups); Level bias can be further subdivided into statistical bias (i.e. changing with non-demographic content) and taste-based bias (i.e. consistent regardless of non-demographic content). Secondly, the framework includes rigorous statistical and computational hiring bias metrics, such as Rank After Scoring (RAS), Rank-based Impact Ratio, Permutation Test, and Fixed Effects Model. Thirdly, we analyze gender hiring biases in ten state-of-the-art LLMs. Seven out of ten LLMs show significant biases against males in at least one industry. An industry-effect regression reveals that the healthcare industry is the most biased against males. Moreover, we found that the bias performance remains invariant with resume content for eight out of ten LLMs. This indicates that the bias performance measured in this paper might apply to other resume datasets with different resume qualities. Fourthly, we provide a user-friendly demo and resume dataset to support the adoption and practical use of the framework, which can be generalized to other social traits and tasks.