Humanitarian Reports

Rapid extraction of structured information from social media is important for humanitarian response, yet existing disaster tweet resources mainly provide document-level category labels without span-level entity annotations. We introduce HUMAID-NER, the first named entity recognition dataset built on the HumAID benchmark, containing 60,000 English disaster tweets annotated in BIO format across ten operationally motivated entity types and yielding approximately 175,000 labelled entity spans. Annotations are generated through a reproducible three-stage hybrid pipeline combining a spaCy transformer model, disaster-domain EntityRuler patterns, and structured regular expressions with priority-based overlap resolution. We also propose a joint multitask learning framework that performs disaster-specific named entity recognition and humanitarian event classification using a shared RoBERTa-large encoder. To reduce task conflict during joint training, the model uses homoscedastic uncertainty weighting with learnable task parameters and a two-stage training schedule that freezes the lower 18 of 24 encoder layers in the second stage. On the HUMAID-NER validation set, the proposed system achieves NER span micro-F1 of 0.841 and classification macro-F1 of 0.761 simultaneously. A real-time web dashboard demonstrates end-to-end deployment. The dataset, models, and pipeline code are released to support reproducibility and future crisis informatics research.

Progress in inclusive household surveys has strengthened socioeconomic evidence for forcibly displaced populations, providing indispensable benchmarks on living conditions and welfare. However, these surveys remain resource-intensive and periodic, while conditions can change between rounds, particularly in settings affected by fragility, conflict, and violence. More frequently updated, spatially granular complementary evidence is therefore needed to identify where socioeconomic conditions may be changing between survey rounds and to inform operational prioritization. Earth observation and machine learning offer a scalable source of spatially explicit socioeconomic information. However, tools developed for general populations have not been systematically adapted and evaluated in forced displacement settings, where living conditions, settlement patterns, and displacement impacts may differ substantially. We address this gap by adapting a multimodal spatiotemporal vision transformer, pretrained on Demographic and Health Survey data from approximately 1.2 million households across 36 African countries, to forced displacement and host community settings in South Sudan, Cameroon, and Zambia. We develop and evaluate the updated, adapted model using socioeconomic indices derived from UNHCR FDS and RMS data. Our results show that satellite-derived geospatial covariates explain up to 66% of the variation in socioeconomic outcomes in camp-intersecting grids, with a mean absolute error (MAE) of 4.37 index points, and 41% in non-camp-intersecting areas, with an MAE of 5.41. The framework complements and adds value to periodic household surveys by filling critical spatial and temporal data gaps with regularly updated, model-based socioeconomic estimates. These estimates sustain insight between survey rounds and support timely humanitarian prioritization and field verification.

Development and humanitarian organizations produce and support surveys, administrative registries, and other data resources to inform research, policy, and operations, yet systematically identifying where these datasets are referenced remains difficult. Such references are dispersed across research papers, project documents, humanitarian reports, and other unstructured text, limiting both the ability to trace data use and to identify potential gaps in data availability or dissemination. We present a weakly supervised framework for adapting dataset extraction to forced displacement and Fragile, Conflict, and Violence (FCV) documents without first constructing a large manually labeled training corpus. A lightweight model trained on general research literature generates candidate dataset mentions from unlabeled domain documents, which a frontier large language model (LLM) reviews in context, validating or rejecting candidates and correcting their extraction boundaries. The resulting annotations are supplemented with targeted synthetic and contrastive examples and used to fine-tune the lightweight model for large-scale extraction. We evaluate the resulting model on an independent gold-standard benchmark of 1,706 text passages spanning research, humanitarian, and operational documents. Across the full benchmark, the model achieves 74.1% precision and 70.5% recall at the mention level; among passages containing dataset references, precision reaches 89.5%. At the passage level, the model achieves 88.2% accuracy and 88.6% specificity in distinguishing passages with dataset references from those without them. These results demonstrate a practical approach for constructing domain-specific supervision when labeled data are limited, and provide a technical foundation for larger-scale analysis of data use and potential gaps in the displacement data landscape.

Effective humanitarian response depends on the rapid synthesis of heterogeneous, high-volume information sources - a task that routinely exceeds human analytical capacity in the critical early hours of a crisis. We present a pipeline that combines structured disaster records from EM-DAT with unstructured documents from ReliefWeb and the European Media Monitor (EMM) to produce source-grounded disaster storylines and causal knowledge graphs supporting situational awareness for responders and analysts. Using Retrieval-Augmented Generation, the pipeline extracts structured storylines - tabular event profiles covering 17 fields, from severity and key drivers to child-sensitive impact indicators - and constructs causal knowledge graphs where each node and edge is enriched with citation-grounded explanatory narratives, enabling full traceability back to primary sources. We evaluate the system on three diverse crisis use cases through a human evaluation involving 9 domain expert and 9 non-expert evaluators. Results confirm high retrieval precision, strong faithfulness of extracted causal relations, and a clear expert preference for citation-grounded components over ungrounded alternatives. The pipeline is designed to scale to the full EM-DAT catalogue, with the goal of publicly releasing a narrative-enriched version of the database.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly mediate legal determinations over what human rights are realized, and how. Yet, no evaluation benchmark exists to assess whether they can reason correctly about human rights law. To this end, we report our efforts to develop a robust and scalable methodology for creating HumRightsBench: the first expert-validated, scenario-based benchmark for evaluating reasoning grounded in the obligation structure of international human rights law. We adapt the IRAC framework for legal reasoning to better suit the unique reasoning patterns of human rights work (substituting P, "proposing remedies," for C, "legal conclusion," yielding IRAP) to structure our evaluation heuristics. We also produce a pilot series of authentic scenarios designed to implicate the many dimensions of real-world human rights issues and annotated by human rights lawyers and professionals across the world. Ultimately, we find that model accuracy scores range considerably across legal reasoning tasks (overall model performance ranges from 0.339 to 0.577, task min-max ranges from 0.025 to 0.774), which strongly implies that HumRightsBench is a capable instrument for advancing this emerging subfield of AI evaluations science at a critical moment in its evolution.

Humanitarian reports are long, noisy, and multi-topic, making it difficult to consolidate decision-relevant causal evidence. We present a ReliefWeb study (2000-2024) and a two-stage Large Language Model (LLM) pipeline that extracts structured intervention-outcome records with direction and strength attributes. Query-conditioned extraction restricts output to a specified intervention class, reducing retrieval-induced over-extraction, while snippet grounding links each relation to supporting text for auditability and classification. In an expert-annotated dataset of 100 reports, the best closed-source LLM achieved a weighted F1 score of 90.73% with strong cost-efficiency, while Llama-3.1-8B with supervised fine-tuning reached 94.15% weighted F1 score. We further propose context-preserving triangulation that aggregates strength-weighted evidence within disaster$\times$source cells, applies Laplace smoothing and equally weights cells to quantify cross-context convergence via a Level-of-Evidence score. Applied to cash assistance, food-related outcomes show strong positive convergence (LoE=0.865) and stable long-horizon trajectories.

Rapid estimation of impacted structures - critical for conflict-zone humanitarian response - is frequently hindered by post-strike satellite data embargoes and imagery blackouts. We bypass this operational bottleneck by reframing impacted building mapping as a zero-shot geometric projection task on archival, pre-strike maps. Using coordinate and incident text from LiveUAMap and ArcGIS, Large Language Models extract weapon payloads (W) to project kinetic blast perimeters via Hopkinson-Cranz scaling (R_base = Z * W^(1/3)). To count exposed structures within these zones without post-strike imagery, we introduce two technical innovations: Adaptive Field-of-View to eliminate resolution (zoom) bias in 2D segmentation (SAMGeo), and 2.5D pseudo-height depth maps combined with segmentation masks to help Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) resolve overlapping, dense rooftops. Evaluated on 2026 Middle East conflict data, depth-augmented LVLMs dramatically outperform traditional segmentation in congested urban centers. This establishes a powerful hybrid paradigm for zero-shot crisis mapping: ultra-fast 2D segmentation for sparse rural zones, and depth-augmented LVLMs for dense urban environments.

Grounded in human rights-based frameworks such as the UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of AI, the Global Index on Responsible AI (GIRAI) examines how countries translate responsible AI commitments into enforceable protections, institutional capacity, and redress mechanisms. GIRAI 2026 assesses these across five dimensions: Inclusion and Diversity, Ethics and Sustainability, Labour and Skills, Trust and Safety, and AI Use in Public Service. A global network of 135 country-level researchers collected and assessed 68,138 data points on 38 indicators organised across three pillars: government AI policy and implementation (17 indicators), civil society engagement (5), enabling conditions (15), and documented cases of government deployment of unacceptable-risk AI systems. The data covers November 2023 to September 2025. A score of 100 is derived from the indicators to rank all countries. Findings show that while responsible AI governance is expanding, with 126 of 135 countries having at least one government policy or initiative across the 17 AI Policy indicators, this does not often translate into meaningful protection. For instance, Global South countries account for 203 of 306 new cases of indicators with frameworks since the first edition, yet 78% of their frameworks remain non-binding compared with 42% in the Global North. Government commitment to AI governance also does not extend to their own algorithms: whereas Transparency and Explainability is the strongest performing indicator, with 58% of countries having some framework, only 18% require Public Disclosure of Government Algorithms. Credible evidence of government deployment of unacceptable-risk AI systems was also found in 35 countries. These findings show that responsible AI governance must move beyond framework adoption toward enforceable rights-based protections, resourced oversight institutions, and accessible redress.

Bangladesh has an estimated 1.17 mental-health professionals per 100,000 population and only six child psychiatrists nationwide. No Bengali-language, culturally adapted tool exists for early screening of abuse-related psychological trauma in children. We present ShishuRaksha AI, a decision-support (not diagnostic) framework that fuses four screening modalities: validated questionnaires (SDQ, CPSS), Bengali narrative text, House-Tree-Person (HTP) drawing features, and facial affect. The fusion is training-free and clinically weighted, uses cross-modal attention, and includes a single-modality override rule. Every risk score is explained through clinically weighted, perturbation-based additive attribution and rendered as a bilingual (Bangla/English) report with referral routing to national child-protection services (OCC, DSS, NMHH) under the Children Act 2013. No clinical dataset of abused children can be collected ethically at this stage, so we introduce a noise-aware synthetic benchmark (500 cases, 116 positive [23.2%], four deliberate noise layers, literature-grounded HTP priors) and evaluate tree-ensemble surrogates of the fusion design (facial channel excluded) under 5-fold stratified cross-validation. The fused model reaches an AUC of 0.874 [0.834-0.908], against 0.756 [0.705-0.803] for an SDQ-only baseline, with ablation, operating-point, subgroup, and calibration analyses. We state all limitations openly, including synthetic-only data, no held-out set, text-feature circularity, and an urban-rural subgroup gap. This work is a feasibility study and a design contribution toward ethically deployable child-protection screening in low-resource settings.

International humanitarian law protects civilians from direct attack unless and for such time as they take direct part in hostilities, with the ICRC's 2009 Interpretive Guidance operationalising this rule through a three-criterion cumulative test. This paper argues that AI-mediated civilian cyber operations challenge the direct causation element of this test in a structurally specific way: when a civilian deploys an autonomous multi-agent cyber system of the kind recently demonstrated in offensive AI research, the "one causal step" standard fails because harm is produced by system-generated decisions made after human disengagement, and the integral-part requirement does not extend because it presupposes downstream human contributors whose conduct can be independently classified. The framework therefore defaults to treating such deployments as indirect participation, in tension with its purpose of capturing civilians who personally take part in hostilities. Beyond the doctrinal analysis, this paper identifies goal-specification granularity as the property on which the integral-part test's concreteness component implicitly turns, classifies AI-mediated operations along a five-level spectrum, and argues that existing technical AI governance instruments do not log or report this property.

We present a novel approach for applying Large Language Models (LLMs) to threat assessment in the context of foreign peacekeeping missions. Building on the PINPOINT project and its use case, the EU Monitoring Mission in Georgia, we combine an interdisciplinary risk-model with OSINT-based media collection and LLM-supported threat extraction. The proposed workflow maps media contents to mission-relevant threats, extracts structured information and applies several additional LLM-based processing steps to improve relevance and grounding. An evaluation of threats extracted from media documents shows high agreement between automatically generated results and human judgment for core aspects such as threat and mission relevance. These results indicate that LLMs provide a promising approach to support analysts in the context of peacekeeping missions.

Data from affected populations are crucial for informing humanitarian response, but their value depends on timely and consistent interpretation of nuanced accounts of need. Humanitarian organizations often lack the staff, time, and specialist expertise required to analyze this information at scale. Large language models (LLMs) may expand this capacity, but their reliability for coding qualitative humanitarian data has not been directly established. This benchmark study compares 46 LLMs to a human Gold Standard using 150 high-fidelity synthetic humanitarian transcripts. Evaluation combined inter-rater reliability testing with Krippendorff's alpha, discrepancy analysis distinguishing correct, near-correct, and incorrect codes, and qualitative assessment across humanitarian-specific criteria including discrimination, complex needs hierarchies, and non-standard communication styles. The authors find that multiple LLMs can perform deductive coding at reliability levels comparable to experienced human coders, especially when structured prompts and reasoning-enabled configurations are used. At the same time, aggregate reliability metrics alone are insufficient for deployment decisions. Models varied in recognizing needs expressed indirectly, needs outside predefined categories, and protection-relevant concerns such as physical safety and discrimination. These findings suggest that LLMs can materially expand humanitarian analytical capacity, but not as substitutes for human judgment. Appropriate use requires structured codebooks, reasoning-enabled models, attention to theme-specific performance, and tiered oversight focused on categories where miscoding would have the greatest programmatic consequences. For sensitive humanitarian data, open-weights models deployed on self-hosted infrastructure may offer a viable path for combining analytical scalability with stronger data governance.

How do people cope when disaster strikes and can we detect it at scale, in real time, from what they write? This study addresses that question using over one million Turkish-language tweets posted in the aftermath of the February 6, 2023 earthquake in Turkiye, which unfolded in a deeply polarized political context just months before a national election. Drawing on Lazarus and Folkman's (1984) coping theory, we develop a multi-label BERTurk classifier to detect three coping styles (problem-focused, emotion-focused, and meaning-making) across four theoretically motivated crisis phases. BERTurk achieves a macro F1 of 0.693, substantially outperforming a zero-shot mDeBERTa baseline (macro F1 = 0.324). Applied to the full corpus, the classifier reveals a clear temporal trajectory: problem-focused coping dominates the urgency phase and declines sharply, emotion-focused coping rises and stabilizes, and meaning-making increases monotonically. Anger correlates most strongly with meaning-making (Spearman r = 0.387), suggesting it functions as a mobilizing force toward blame attribution rather than practical action. These findings demonstrate that coping theory can be reliably operationalized in real-world digital crisis data and that doing so can help humanitarian organizations tailor their responses to where a population actually is.

AI models are already deployed in societies affected by armed conflict, and journalists, humanitarian workers, governments and ordinary citizens rely on them for information or for their work processes. No established practice exists for checking whether their outputs can make those conflicts worse. We tested nine model configurations from four providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, DeepSeek, xAI) on 90 multi-turn scenarios designed to surface misaligned behaviour in conflict contexts: false equivalence between documented atrocities, denial of genocide, and failure to recognise ethnic slurs, among others. When such outputs feed into journalism, humanitarian reporting, or public debate, they can deepen divisions in fragile societies. Failure rates span 6% to 47% between the best and worst performing models, which makes model choice a safety question in its own right and when users pushed for ``balance'' in cases where international courts have already assigned responsibility, five of nine configurations failed 80 to 100 percent of the time. We release the first evaluation framework for this domain and propose adding it to alignment evaluation portfolios.

The rise of machine learning has shifted targeted resource allocation in policy and humanitarian settings toward algorithmic targeting based on predicted risk scores. This approach is typically cheaper and faster than traditional screening procedures that directly observe the latent vulnerability status through physical verification. Yet, even access to the true conditional vulnerability probability cannot eliminate misallocation: aleatoric uncertainty over individual vulnerability status is irreducible, and probabilistic targeting inevitably misallocates some resources. In this work we study how screening and algorithmic targeting should be optimally combined in a two-stage allocation framework where a screening stage observes true outcomes for a subset of units before a final allocation stage assigns the resource under a fixed coverage budget. We show that the optimal strategy screens units at the margin of algorithmic allocation, while directly targeting the highest-risk units. Furthermore, we empirically characterize when screening and algorithmic targeting act as complements or substitutes: efficiency gains from screening grow as the aleatoric uncertainty in the population increases. We illustrate our framework with applications in income-based social protection programs and humanitarian demining in Colombia, where the tension between screening costs and allocation efficiency is operationally consequential.

As LLMs enter conflict monitoring, understanding systematic distortions in their outputs is critical for humanitarian accountability. We evaluate four vanilla open-weight models Gemma 3 4B, Llama 3.2 3B, Mistral 7B, and OLMo 2 7B and two domain-adapted models, AfroConfliBERT and AfroConfliLLAMA, on Nigeria and Cameroon conflict-event classification against ACLED, a gold-standard dataset with multi-stage verification. We find a bifurcated divergence in normative directionality. Open-weight models exhibit statistically significant False Illegitimation bias: Gemma misclassifies to 18.29% of legitimate battles as civilian-targeted violence while making zero False Legitimation errors. By contrast, AfroConfliBERT and AfroConfliLLAMA achieve near-directional neutrality, with Legitimization Bias differences indistinguishable from zero. Yet domain adaptation does not eliminate actor-based selection bias. Both adapted models show statistically significant actor bias comparable to vanilla LLMs; in Nigeria, state actors are legitimized 36.5% more often than non-state actors in identical tactical contexts. Open-weight outputs are also fragile to geography-specific lexical framing: delegitimizing phrases produce flip rates up to 66.7% in Cameroon and 34.2% in Nigeria, while perturbations salient in one context may not matter in another. Error trace profiling shows models mask normative bias through unfaithful rationale confabulations. In contrast, AfroConfliBERT and AfroConfliLLAMA are largely robust, with near-zero flip rates across perturbation categories. Overall, current models are not ready for unsupervised deployment in conflict monitoring. We call for fairness-aware fine-tuning to reduce actor-based selection bias, mandatory adversarial robustness evaluation against lexical manipulation, and context-specific human-in-the-loop oversight calibrated to regional difficulty.