We introduce Loki, an open-source tool designed to address the growing problem of misinformation. Loki adopts a human-centered approach, striking a balance between the quality of fact-checking and the cost of human involvement. It decomposes the fact-checking task into a five-step pipeline: breaking down long texts into individual claims, assessing their check-worthiness, generating queries, retrieving evidence, and verifying the claims. Instead of fully automating the claim verification process, provides essential information at each step to assist human judgment, especially for general users such as journalists and content moderators. Moreover, it has been optimized for latency, robustness, and cost efficiency at a commercially usable level. Loki is released under an MIT license and is available on GitHub. We also provide a video presenting the system and its capabilities.

As large language models (LLMs) continue to evolve, leaderboards play a significant role in steering their development. Existing leaderboards often prioritize model capabilities while overlooking safety concerns, leaving a significant gap in responsible AI development. To address this gap, we introduce Libra-Leaderboard, a comprehensive framework designed to rank LLMs through a balanced evaluation of performance and safety. Combining a dynamic leaderboard with an interactive LLM arena, Libra-Leaderboard encourages the joint optimization of capability and safety. Unlike traditional approaches that average performance and safety metrics, Libra-Leaderboard uses a distance-to-optimal-score method to calculate the overall rankings. This approach incentivizes models to achieve a balance rather than excelling in one dimension at the expense of some other ones. In the first release, Libra-Leaderboard evaluates 26 mainstream LLMs from 14 leading organizations, identifying critical safety challenges even in state-of-the-art models.

Lexica – words and associated scores – are widely used as simple, interpretable, generalizable language features to predict sentiment, emotions, mental health, and personality. They also provide insight into the psychological features behind those moods and traits. Such lexica, historically created by human experts, are valuable to linguists, psychologists, and social scientists, but they take years of refinement and have limited coverage. In this paper, we investigate how the lexica that provide psycholinguistic insights could be computationally induced and how they should be assessed. We identify generalizability and interpretability as two essential properties of such lexica. We induce lexica using both context-oblivious and context-aware approaches, compare their predictive performance both within the training corpus and across various corpora, and evaluate their quality using crowd-worker assessment. We find that lexica induced from context-oblivious models are more generalizable and interpretable than those from more accurate context-aware transformer models. In addition, lexicon scores can identify explanatory words more reliably than a high performing transformer with feature-importance measures like SHAP.