Traceability

Adding answer options can lower multiple-choice scores without improving assessment validity. Turkish MMLU Pro examines this distinction using 12,000 Turkish-source questions across 58 sections. Each question retains its stem, five original options and source key, and receives five options copied from other questions in the same section. Sentence-embedding retrieval proposes candidates; a language model selects existing identifiers. Deterministic verification reconstructs all 60,000 additions. A 25-model calibration exposes scoring and generation-budget effects. Five evaluations produce source-key accuracies of 34.8%-81.4%. On 981 shared questions, one API-served model falls from 93.7% with five choices to 83.1% with ten; 102 of 115 lost correct responses select borrowed options. The decrease is 24.4 percentage points on heuristically flagged negative stems and 5.9 points elsewhere. A completed human-checked audit of 200 sampled questions, with undocumented reviewer tool use, yields 47 and 31 multiple-answer judgments across the two record sets, 25 of the latter unresolved. These records support concern about ambiguity, while their dependence and incomplete reviewer-method documentation limit validation. Because order and labels also change, the paired comparison measures augmentation as implemented. The contribution is a traceable construction and an analysis of its validity limits, not evidence that lower ten-choice scores measure knowledge better.

Repository-level repair requires not only correct patches but also inspectable records that explain how issue requirements are translated into code changes and post-edit evidence. We contribute THEMIS, a stage-aware repair workflow that externalizes this requirement-to-repair process through semantic interpretation, a runtime requirement-code graph, graph-derived Developer guidance, retained repair rationale and patches, and post-edit audit records. A retrospective audit of 300 SWE-bench Lite cases demonstrates that these artifacts provide broad support for cross-stage inspection: a complete Developer rationale is available for 288 cases, and 214 cases (71.3%) retain a complete audited field set connecting the selected stages. The retained records further enable systematic measurement of cross-stage correspondence: target symbols recur in 62.6% of Developer rationales and in 62.8% of patches, rising to 75.8% when related symbols are included. In a paired 100-case comparison, the relational workflow resolves 19 cases versus 9 for the direct same-input condition; because the two conditions also differ in Analyzer output, graph-derived distillation, and Judge records, we report this as preliminary, workflow-level evidence rather than a causal effect of the graph component. Together, these results show that THEMIS makes otherwise implicit requirement-to-repair transitions inspectable, enabling systematic examination of how repair decisions persist, align, and evolve across stages.

Repeated banking interactions require assistants to maintain complete, current, and traceable customer records as life changes emerge incidentally in routine requests. Existing benchmarks emphasize question answering, bounded episodes, or targeted recall rather than exhaustive longitudinal reconstruction. We introduce FinLifeBench, which evaluates two tasks over the same cumulative dialogue: reconstructing every life-event instance with its first-establishing session and reconstructing a complete 34-path financial state at consecutive checkpoints. The benchmark contains 6,000 eight-turn Korean banking sessions from 20 independent synthetic trajectories, with deterministic, exhaustive gold for 24 event types and 34 state paths and consensus quality assurance. Across eleven LLMs under a full-context condition, event-anchor recall falls from 0.591 at 15 sessions to 0.445 at 300. Errors are driven primarily by omitted events rather than poor anchor localization, while financial-state reconstruction frequently treats superseded or potentially outdated information as current; the best GCA@15 reaches 0.470. Performance on the two reconstruction tasks is only weakly associated. These results show that models can localize evidence for recovered events while still failing to maintain complete and temporally valid longitudinal records.

Railway foreign object detection (RFOD) is critical to safe railway operation, yet scarce real positive samples incompletely represent task-relevant variations in object scale, intrusion relation, railway scene, illumination, and adverse weather. Existing synthetic augmentation can improve RFOD detection, but its gains lack an explicit account of the task-relevant deficiencies complemented by the generated data. We therefore introduce RailSyn, a diagnosis-guided framework comprising a real-referenced Inspector and a requirement-aligned Generator. The Inspector constructs a variable-radius empirical cover from finite real observations to localize candidate completion regions and profile synthetic pools. The resulting audit identifies railway-context, intrusion-semantic, and visual-consistency requirements; the Generator addresses them through domain adaptation, agent-planned placement and physical contact relations, and plan-consistent conditional refinement. Using the Inspector, we further trace representation-space changes across generation variants; the complete system attains a local-shell occupation of $C_{gap}$ to 13.64%, which measures generated coverage of real-derived completion regions. Extensive experiments show AP50--95 gains of up to 4.9 points and consistent improvements across nine mainstream detectors, demonstrating broad cross-architecture utility.

The increasing complexity of enterprise business scenarios has promoted the widespread adoption of long SKILL documents in agent systems, posing new challenges for compliance detection: large models incur substantial inference costs, while small models may fail to maintain detection accuracy. To address this gap, we propose SkillCDG, a graph-based framework for long SKILL compliance detection. SkillCDG represents complex business policies as a two-layer constraint dependency graph, where the upper layer indexes SKILL descriptions for scenario routing and the lower layer captures dependencies among atomic constraints within each SKILL. During inference, two-level retrieval followed by dependency closure supports compliance judgment and source traceability. We comprehensively evaluate the framework on three enterprise datasets and two controlled public benchmark variants. Experimental results demonstrate that SkillCDG outperforms baseline methods by up to 12.8 percentage points in detection F1 score, while reducing token consumption by a maximum 64.3%. Moreover, we further investigate the inherent relationships among policy-graph complexity, model scale, and detection performance. Comparative experiments conducted on four checkpoints from a single model family validate a concise and effective scaling trend: end-to-end detection correctness exhibits a complexity-differentiated scaling pattern, and the complexity metric derived from the constraint dependency graph can effectively quantify instance difficulty and the performance improvement potential of models. Leveraging this insightful scaling trend, we conduct adaptive training sample selection and adopt on-policy distillation to efficiently enhance the compliance detection capability of small-scale models.

Operational hazard analysis of aviation system operations must consider interactions among weather, ATC actions, airspace constraints, aircraft operations, and human factors - distinct from the functional hazard assessment applied at the aircraft-system level. We present an AI-assisted approach that generates candidate hazard scenarios from NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS). Given a target adverse outcome, it produces a structured hypothesis as categorical factors and a narrative scenario describing an operational event sequence consistent with the structure. Each scenario includes by a plausibility score from historical co-occurrence evidence and traceability to the most similar held-out ASRS reports. We then propose a hybrid variant, conditioning narrative generation on a structured hypothesis produced via evolutionary abduction, improving correctness and reducing variability. We evaluate multiple large language models, zero-shot versus few-shot prompting, and optional fine-tuning, measuring how prompting and model choice affect the validity and realism of the generated structures and narratives.

Reported verdicts on GraphRAG versus vector RAG disagree, and the evidence is typically tied to a single corpus, embedder, and judge -- and, we show, to where citation quality is measured. We present a triple-robustness analysis that holds a five-pipeline architecture matrix fixed and varies embedder (local e5-small vs. Azure text-embedding-3-small), corpus (DO-178C typed-edge requirements vs. Wikipedia paragraph chains via MuSiQue), and judge (paired GPT-5.4 x GPT-4.1 on both corpora), over 2x4,440 main-matrix runs, 600 cross-corpus runs, and over 5,000 faithfulness judgments. (C2a) GraphRAG's graph walk floods the context window at precision 0.12-0.23, but the synthesizer cites selectively at precision 0.48-0.65; scoring the retrieved set as the attribution set inverts the architecture ranking, which reconciles part of the disagreement in prior reports. (C1) Answer-level citation winners are corpus- and stratum-conditional but embedder-robust: GraphRAG ties vanilla on short-hop DO-178C queries and wins every MuSiQue stratum, while agentic pipelines lead only on 3+-hop requirements queries. (C2b) Faithfulness is corpus-conditional: on DO-178C it declines with hop distance (trend p<0.05 in three of four judge x embedder combinations); on Wikipedia chains neither judge shows a collapse. (C3) Single-judge LLM faithfulness is fragile to retrieval state: GPT-5.4's self-kappa across embedders is 0.137 (41% verdict change) against a same-day test-retest floor of 0.76, and re-judging frozen inputs eleven weeks later gives kappa <= 0.14 for both judges. A learned router on dense embeddings alone reaches macro-F1 0.86 on hop classification (C4). We argue that RAG architecture claims should be tested at this level of robustness -- including robustness to the citation-measurement point -- before they are trusted.

Enterprise workflows increasingly rely on agents for \emph{schema-guided extraction}: given a document and a user-defined schema, the agent faithfully follows the schema to produce the correct output with source evidence as grounding metadata. We present ExtractBench, a benchmark for schema-guided extraction and, to our knowledge, the first to score value accuracy, record completeness at scale, grounding, and measured cost together. The evaluation system contains 4,869 pages across 370 enterprise documents, 8 business domains, and 67 document types, with clear tags differentiating their challenge scenarios. The scalable schema and ground-truth curation pipeline combines independent-system agreement for real documents, known values for synthetic lists, and human verification for forms. We report order-insensitive value F1 for value accuracy, plus two grounding metrics for source traceability: word- and page-level F1. Commercial VLMs perform well on short documents but often truncate record lists on long ones, while coding agents retain higher accuracy at much higher cost. LlamaExtract Agentic Plus ranks first on all three metrics, with accuracy comparable to coding agents at a fraction of the cost. Dataset and evaluation code are available on \href{https://huggingface.co/datasets/llamaindex/ExtractBench}{HuggingFace} and \href{https://github.com/run-llama/ExtractBench}{GitHub}.

Teachers, conference chairs, and public readers all judge writing from limited evidence, seeing only a finished document and not the process that produced it. Final text alone cannot reveal whether a document was produced through human typing, AI generation, or mixed human-AI collaboration. Existing process-tracking tools help, but many are tied to host-document histories, provide coarse activity records, and offer limited control over the writing environment. Humanly is a writing platform that makes the writing process itself the evidence. Users configure writing environments for personal documents or assigned tasks and draft in a workspace that records writing activity and in-platform AI assistance. Humanly can package a completed session into a sealed writing certificate with configuration-aware anomaly behavior review. It can support writing scenarios such as course assignments, peer review, and personal certification. Our user study shows that Humanly is helpful across roles, and a red-teaming study shows that the Humanly Typing Detector distinguishes human hand typing from automated typing.

Modern software teams have mature tools for low-level testing, such as pytest, JUnit, and Jest, which make it inexpensive to write unit tests and run them on every commit. Systems engineering, in parallel, has developed rigorous principles for design verification and validation (V&V), which has worked very well across engineering discipline to align user expecations and requirements with developers' deliverables. In practice, however, the two rarely connect, and the link between users' high-level requirements and the low-level tests that machines actually run is maintained by hand, if at all. This gap is increasingly costly for AI-enabled and cyber-physical systems, for which regulators now ask for traceable evidence that high-level requirements are met, while raw test results provide little of the structure such evidence requires. We introduce VNVSpec, an open-source framework that makes V&V specifications machine-readable and executable. With this framework, users state high-level requirements directly or import them from catalogs derived from published standards. Then, the framework checks requirement quality, supports decomposition into module-level requirements with explicit metrics and acceptance criteria, links these requirements to test results through a traceability graph, and compiles the collected evidence into verdicts and audit-ready reports. We evaluate the framework by self-application, in which it is continuously assessed in CI against its own specification of 36 requirements verified by 449 tests, completed within limited time which scales linearly and thus can handle up to 10,000 requirements. We also discuss how the framework extends to testing black-box AI models and AI coding agents. The framework, its full test suite, the catalogs, and the benchmark scripts are available at https://github.com/ai-vnv/vnvspec.

Background: Evaluating automated Software Requirements Specification (SRS) generation is challenging because few datasets provide fine-grained traceability between source requirements, intermediate elicitation artifacts, and generated specifications. Aims: We aim to study whether legacy SRS documents can be transformed into traceable synthetic pre-SRS artifacts that support fine-grained evaluation of LLM-based SRS generation. Method: We conduct an empirical study using ReqGenX, a controlled pipeline that decomposes SRS sections into source-grounded atomic statements, routes atoms to standards-inspired artifact types through multi-LLM plurality voting, and generates artifacts using constrained prompts with iterative judge-guided refinement. We evaluate ReqGenX on seven PURE SRS documents using grounding, quality, information retention, and downstream reconstruction analyses. Results: ReqGenX produces faithful and usable atoms, with median AlignScore values typically between 0.96 and 0.99 and Prometheus scores ranging from 4.34 to 4.85. Generated artifacts remain strongly grounded in their source atoms, with AlignScore values typically between 0.80--0.94 and judge pass rates near 100%; stricter Prometheus evaluation yields pass rates from 54.8% to 97.1%. In a downstream SRS reconstruction case study, artifact-backed atoms remain recoverable from generated SRSs, with SBERT means between 0.69 and 0.75 and AlignScore medians between 0.76 and 0.84. Conclusions: Traceable synthetic pre-SRS artifacts can support more fine-grained evaluation of LLM-based SRS generation, while exposing tradeoffs among faithfulness, information retention, and artifact completeness.

Large-scale AI datacenter platforms comprise thousands of heterogeneous hardware components whose validation requires comprehensive fault injection test plans. Today these plans are authored manually: engineers review hardware self-healing validation documents and bills of materials, enumerate failure modes per field-replaceable unit, and produce flat lists of single-layer test cases. This process is labor-intensive, error-prone, and dependent on institutional knowledge; coverage gaps surface late, traceability to source specifications is implicit, and the effort is largely repeated per platform. This paper presents a generative AI multi-agent architecture that automates the generation of structured hardware validation test plans from two canonical inputs: self-healing validation documents, which enumerate known failure modes and their detection and remediation behaviors per field-replaceable unit, and component Bills of Material. An ingestion agent normalizes heterogeneous inputs into a canonical representation; a classification agent maps components to functional domains via contextual reasoning over part descriptions and sub-category hierarchies; and a generation agent synthesizes test cases by combining normalized failure modes with domain-classified data, filling gaps and producing edge cases. The output conforms to a standardized schema for direct import into internal validation software. Evaluated on two production platforms against manual baselines, the framework achieves coverage expansions of 74.2% and 51.4%, cutting authoring from days to hours. It yields fully traceable mappings from each test case to its source specification, and its multi-agent decomposition is portable across platform generations. Automated and expert evaluations confirm 100% extraction fidelity and high acceptance of new scenarios, validating the framework as a robust human-in-the-loop force multiplier.

Applying deep learning to instance-aware reidentification of slate tiles and extraction site classification can improve production efficiency and quality control in the slate tile industry. These tasks are particularly important for handling natural materials where visual variability can make manual inspection costly and error-prone. We present a lightweight, hybrid deep learning approach that combines image matching and classification within a single framework. The system integrates a feature-matching branch based on XFeat with a MobileNetV3- based classification branch. The XFeat branch, combined with a LightGlue matching head, improves instance matching performance by +15.4% AUC. For classification, features from both backbones are shared and fused, resulting in a +10.9% accuracy improvement over a standard MobileNetV3 model. Our approach is evaluated on a newly created industrial dataset consisting of 2,610 slate tile images from six extraction sites. The results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach for object re-identification and classification in an industrial setting.

Agentic Business Process Management has gained momentum recently. The prospect is that the autonomy of AI agents, i.e., predominantly LLM-based agents, can be balanced with a certain level of robustness, tractability, and traceability through a combination with process technology. In this paper, we provide a classification framework for agentic orchestration options along properties such as task specificity, traceability and tractability, autonomy and reactivity, and correctness assurance and present qualitative decision criteria for realizations of different scenarios. We also provide metrics for the quantitative assessment of realization properties and show them through different agentic implementations of a predictive light sensing scenario. Altogether, this work aims at providing properties, criteria, and metrics for the design and implementation of agentic orchestrations and orchestration of agents.

We study binary classification problems whose decision sets are given by definable sets in o-minimal expansions of the real field. Motivated by cell decomposition of definable sets, we introduce traceable sets as a classical proxy for definable decision regions and analyze their approximation by ReLU neural networks. Under uniform bounds on the number of connected components and suitable $C^m$ extensions for the boundary functions, we prove that characteristic functions of traceable subsets of $[-1/2,1/2]^n$ can be approximated in $L^p$ to accuracy $\varepsilon>0$ by ReLU neural networks of size $\mathcal{O}(\varepsilon^{-p(n-1)/m})$, with depth independent of $\varepsilon$ and polynomially bounded weights. This establishes quantitative approximation rates for certain definable collections in o-minimal structures using ReLU neural networks. The same approach also yields the stated approximation rates for a subclass of definable maps $[-1/2,1/2]^n \to \mathbb{R}$. We then combine the approximation capabilities with entropy estimates for ReLU neural network classes to obtain statistical learning rates for empirical risk minimization with hinge loss. For $N$ uniformly distributed samples, the resulting classifiers achieve expected misclassification error of order $N^{-m/(m+pn-p)}$ up to an arbitrarily small polynomial loss.

Spec-Driven Development (SDD) frameworks guide Large Language Model (LLM)-powered code generation through formal specifications, yet they differ fundamentally in how they enforce traceability between requirements and generated code. This paper presents two controlled empirical studies comparing three SDD frameworks: $traceSDD$, which enforces mandatory per-line requirement citations using hierarchical REQ-XXX.Y.Z identifiers; $Spec Kit$, which uses artifact-level traceability through user stories and acceptance criteria; and $OpenSpec$, which relies on post-hoc external trace maps. We measure two primary outcomes across two frontier LLMs -- Claude Sonnet 4.6 (N=20, 4 conditions, 240 implementations) and GLM-5-turbo (N=50, 4 conditions, 600 implementations): $output$ $determinism$ (lexical similarity across independent LLM sessions) and $automated$ $hallucination$ $detection$ $rate$ (TDR). Our pre-registered analysis reveals a consistent, cross-model replicated trade-off: the uncited condition produces significantly higher determinism than the cited condition (Claude: $d=-0.76$, $p=0.003$; GLM: $d=-0.72$, $p<0.001$), while only the cited condition enables automated hallucination detection (TDR: Claude 86.4%, GLM 88.0%, vs 0% for all alternatives, FPR=0% across both studies). traceSDD (cited) significantly outperforms $Spec Kit$ on determinism (Claude: $d=0.47$, $p=0.049$; GLM: $d=0.42$, $p=0.003$) but not OpenSpec (Claude: $d=0.18$, $p=0.44$; GLM: $d=0.14$, $p=0.32$). These findings establish that citation annotations trade determinism for verifiability, and that this trade-off generalizes across model architectures.

The growing use of Large Language Models (LLMs) in education, software engineering, academic writing, and technical documentation raises a key question: how can we evaluate not only AI-assisted outputs, but also the interaction process that produced them? Current debates often focus on detecting whether a final artifact was generated by AI, while overlooking the conversation history that reveals human direction, AI contribution, corrections, validation, and traceability. This paper introduces LLMography, a framework for transforming Human-AI conversations into measurable indicators of provenance, human contribution, AI dependency, reproducibility, and auditability. By analogy with bibliography and webography, LLMography documents the dynamic trajectory of interaction between a human and a Large Language Model as a structured trace of Human-AI co-production. We present a prototype that analyzes Human-AI conversation traces and generates KPI reports including Prompt Quality Score, Human Direction Score, AI Dependency Level, Auditability Score, Final Output Traceability, Privacy Risk Level, and a recommended LLMography label. A preliminary exploratory evaluation was conducted on 19 anonymized audit reports from engineering students. Most interactions were classified as Human-AI co-produced, with average scores of 86.8/100 for Human Direction, 81.9/100 for Prompt Quality, 72.8/100 for Auditability, and 77.1/100 for Final Output Traceability. The paper also applies LLMography to its own writing process, classified as human-originated, human-directed, AI-assisted co-production. The findings suggest that AI transparency should move beyond output detection toward documenting the history of interaction.

LLM coding harnesses grant agents broad file and shell access, yet the configuration layer that steers them -- rules files, agent definitions, IDE-specific markdown -- is largely unmanaged. A prevalence study of 10,008 public GitHub repositories (n=6,145 agent config files) finds that agent configurations propagate as undeclared shared components: 10.1% of tracked paths are SHA-256 exact duplicates across independent repositories (fork-adjusted, threshold-independent), with 75.5% of clone pairs crossing organisational boundaries. Two further patterns are indicative: configurations are rarely revised (58% single-commit; 0.4 vs 0.6 commits/month age-normalised against CI/CD workflows), and rarely declare permission boundaries (<1% of agent configs vs 33% of Actions workflows, n=31 true positives). We propose a deterministic control plane above the harness that maps one-to-one to these gaps. Rel(AI)Build treats agent definitions as a managed supply chain (SHA-256 content addressing, HMAC-stamped lockfiles, hash-chained audit logs); enforces tiered permissions and attack-derived blocklists before LLM invocation; gates feature work through a phase state machine with requirement-to-file-to-test traceability; compiles a single canonical definition to seven IDE targets; and detects prompt drift via Jaccard similarity. Conformance tests on injected violations confirm each mechanism enforces its stated invariant; developer outcomes remain future work. Governance of this layer must be deterministic and tool-agnostic -- not delegated to further LLM orchestration.

Retrieval-augmented systems routinely present citations alongside generated answers, yet a citation does not confirm that the corresponding source meaningfully shaped the output. This paper introduces ProvenAI, a framework that decomposes transparency in multi-hop question answering into three independently measurable layers: answer correctness, citation fidelity against benchmark supporting evidence, and per-document influence under leave-one-resource-out intervention. Targeting the HotpotQA distractor benchmark through a seven-stage pipeline covering data normalisation, retrieval indexing, citation-aware answer generation, attribution auditing, ablation-based influence estimation, batch evaluation, and interactive inspection, ProvenAI evaluates 7,405 validation examples drawn from a canonical corpus of 509,300 passages. The system achieves 53.53% answer accuracy alongside a mean citation-fidelity score of 71.55%, and a worked example surfaces what we call the citation-influence gap: a clean citation audit co-occurring with a profile in which one cited source registers only weak influence while seven uncited sources demonstrably shift the output. We formalise the relationship between the implemented surface proxy and a token-level KL-divergence target through a stated faithfulness condition, ground the framework in causal-mediation analysis and database-provenance theory, and discuss how the three measurement layers compose with cryptographic provenance architectures emerging in autonomous scientific discovery. ProvenAI establishes that meaningful transparency in retrieval-grounded QA requires traceable links across retrieved, cited, and behaviourally influential evidence as three distinct, independently measured layers.

Multi-agent AI systems are increasingly used to automate software engineering tasks including requirements analysis, architecture design, test generation, and traceability linking. When these agents operate as a sequential pipeline over shared software artifacts, errors and low-confidence decisions made by upstream agents propagate to downstream stages, producing orphaned requirements, contradictory links, and compliance gaps that pose significant risks in safety-critical domains. We propose a trust-aware coordination framework where a shared knowledge graph serves as both centralized semantic memory and a coordination surface through which agents assess and build upon each other's contributions using calibrated confidence scores. Our approach introduces a two-stage traceability link prediction pipeline combining embedding-based retrieval with LLM-based multi-criteria analysis, a traceability seeding mechanism that enables comparison between derivation-time and validation-time confidence, and a consistency protocol governing pipeline interactions through confidence threshold gating, confidence divergence detection, and conflict resolution. We evaluate on an automotive software engineering case study measuring link prediction calibration, protocol effectiveness, threshold sensitivity, and the impact of traceability seeding. Ablation studies confirm that confidence calibration is essential for effective pipeline coordination.

Editing a long-form video from heterogeneous footage requires more than selecting clips: an agent must preserve narrative intent across material preparation, timeline construction, post-production, and revision while leaving enough evidence to diagnose failures. We present \textbf{Crayotter}, an open-source multimodal multi-agent system for prompt-driven video editing. Crayotter organizes production into three phases: coverage-aware material preparation, artifact-based editing research, and tool-grounded timeline execution. Each phase externalizes inspectable artifacts, including coverage reports, multimodal analyses, editing blueprints, tool calls, and intermediate renders. These artifacts make an editing run traceable and allow failed segments to be diagnosed and selectively revised instead of requiring a full restart. We evaluate Crayotter on 23 editing themes against CapCut-Mate and CutClaw. Under human evaluation, Crayotter achieves an average score of 3.40/5, compared with 2.44 and 1.70 for the two baselines, with consistent gains in theme alignment, narrative coherence, and editing smoothness. We additionally describe a replayable trajectory schema and verifiable reward design that prepare these workflows for future policy optimization. Code, traces, and examples are publicly available at https://github.com/idwts/Crayotter.

Order-agnostic language models (OALMs), including discrete diffusion language models (dLLMs), are trained to predict masked tokens under arbitrary conditioning sets, allowing sequences to be generated or scored under arbitrary reveal orders at inference time. In LLaDA-2.1, we report three findings. First, the learned conditionals are not exact factorizations of a coherent joint distribution: changing only the reveal order shifts target log-likelihood by up to 0.49 nats/token, so likelihood alone mixes content difficulty with path-dependent artifacts. Second, although confidence-first (CF) decoding is order-agnostic, its reveal orders are close to left-to-right (L2R) on content tokens. Third, we propose a complementary diagnostic based on the shape of the confidence trace. A uniform-spreading theorem shows that, at fixed total likelihood, target recoverability is maximized when per-step confidence is spread uniformly; the resulting deviation motivates $\mathrm{Var}(\log q_t)$ as a diagnostic for comparing decoding paths. Across C4 and four downstream benchmarks, low variance separates structured paths from random ordering, and variance is consistently associated with downstream correctness. These results support reporting mean confidence and confidence variance jointly when comparing OALM decoding paths.

The proliferation of Reinforcement Learning from Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) datasets has exacerbated provenance collapse due to unclear lineage among existing datasets. To bridge this fragmented RLVR data landscape, we propose Atomic-source Tracing via Lineage-Aware Search (ATLAS), a systematic framework for tracing RLVR datasets back to their atomic sources, attributing over 99.7% of 1.45M instances to 20 atomic sources. Our analysis reveals that most RLVR datasets are variants of a small set of shared upstream sources, with few introducing genuinely new data, and many facing data contamination risks. These findings naturally motivate us to curate a new RLVR dataset, DAPO++, and to benchmark existing datasets from a lineage-aware perspective. To this end, we propose Source-level Counterfactual Attribution (SCA) as a guiding principle to curate a decontaminated training dataset with concentrated learning signals. Essentially, SCA measures a sample's marginal utility by comparing per-atomic-source RL checkpoints against a shared base model. Building upon these attribution signals, we further design a composite dataset quality score Q that strongly correlates with downstream RLVR performance. Experiments on Qwen3 series models verify that DAPO++ consistently improves performance on held-out benchmarks, while Q reliably predicts downstream RLVR training effectiveness. Our code and data is available at https://github.com/Celine-hxy/ATLAS.

LLM-curated tables can appear source-grounded while containing unsupported rows: the curator may recall entries from parametric memory and retroactively attach page-level citations that are not the actual source. We study this hazard in Seed2Frontier discovery: the task of finding complement Wikipedia pages from a seed page to assemble a structured table. Stage-Audit addresses it with disjoint curator-auditor write rights, a row-level source-citation gate, and a 12-check audit taxonomy over keys, schema, source roles, cardinality, and scope. On a curated 51-instance Seed2Frontier evaluation set spanning 15 top-level domains, Stage-Audit improves source-frontier precision over a vanilla LLM curator from 0.356 to 0.505 (+42% relative) and F1 from 0.334 to 0.451 (+35%), while maintaining explicit per-row source traceability. The vanilla-LLM-vs-Stage-Audit comparison isolates the policy contribution rather than LLM-based discovery in general.

AI products often route requests through version aliases, service tiers, tool choices, regional endpoints, fallback rules, or safety handling before responding. These routing steps are documented product surfaces in several widely used AI platforms and serving stacks. Routing helps AI services stay affordable, fast, and available at scale, and it shapes trust. Trust can break when routing changes the cost, quality, or accountability of a response without the user being able to tell what happened. "Which model answered?" is only part of the audit question. The runtime path matters. Adaptive AI systems should produce a runtime transparency artifact called the route receipt. A route receipt is a compact record of the route that served a request. It should capture enough material facts for people relying on the output to reconstruct important routing decisions without exposing proprietary internals or hidden reasoning. Route transparency should be part of model documentation. Model cards describe trained model artifacts, while route receipts describe the runtime conditions under which a particular answer was produced. The paper introduces the route-receipt concept, a minimal schema and redaction model, and a documentation-based survey of selected platforms showing that receipt fragments already exist without a portable per-answer record.

As software systems grow in complexity, they must satisfy an increasing number of competing quality attributes, making it essential to balance them in a principled manner -- for example, a safety requirement for sensor-fusion verification may conflict with a tight planning-cycle budget. Multi-agent large language model frameworks support this balancing process by assigning specialized agents to different objectives. However, their conflict resolution is typically heuristic. Requirements are aggregated implicitly without explicit acceptance or rejection, limiting auditability in regulated domains. We present ArgRE, a multi-agent requirements negotiation system that embeds Dung-style abstract argumentation into the negotiation stage. Each proposal, critique, and refinement is modeled as an argument, conflicts are represented as directed attack relations, and the accepted set of arguments is computed under grounded and preferred semantics. The pipeline further integrates KAOS goal modeling, multi-layer verification, and standards-oriented artifact generation. Evaluation across five case studies spanning safety-critical, financial, and information-system domains shows that ArgRE provides argument-level traceability absent from existing frameworks. Independent evaluators rated its decision justifications significantly higher than those of heuristic synthesis (4.32 vs. 3.07, p < 0.001), indicating improved auditability, while semantic intent preservation remains comparable (94.9% BERTScore F1) and compliance coverage reaches 84.7% versus 47.6%--47.8% for baselines. Structural analysis further confirms that the default pairwise protocol yields acyclic graphs in which grounded and preferred semantics coincide, whereas cross-pair arbitration introduces controlled cyclicity, leading to predictable divergence between the two semantics.

Issue-to-commit link recovery in software repositories is fundamental to software traceability and project management, yet it remains a challenging task. Prior studies show that only about 42.2% of issues on GitHub are correctly linked to their commits, highlighting the need for more effective solutions. Existing work has explored a range of ML/DL approaches, and more recently, large language models (LLMs) have been applied to this problem. However, these methods face two major limitations. First, LLMs are restricted by limited context windows and cannot simultaneously process all available data sources, such as long commit histories, extensive issue discussions, and large code repositories. Second, most approaches operate on individual issue-commit pairs, where a model independently scores the relevance of a single commit to an issue. This pairwise formulation fails to account for the complex associativity of software fixes, where an issue is often resolved by an aggregate chain of commits rather than a single atomic change. By ignoring these temporal and parental dependencies, existing methods often fail to incorporate the complete resolution logic and might misidentify intermediate commits as final fixes. Furthermore, this strategy is computationally inefficient in large repositories, as it requires exhaustively evaluating an enormous number of candidate pairs. To address these challenges, we present LinkAnchor, the first autonomous LLM-based agent designed specifically for issue-to-commit link recovery. LinkAnchor introduces a lazy-access architecture that allows the underlying LLM to dynamically retrieve only the most relevant contextual data, such as commits, issue comments, and code files, without exceeding token limits.