Asymmetry

Transformer representations evolve through learned additive transformations that either preserve their current direction or redirect it. We study this evolution as a functional geometry, decomposing learned updates into parallel and perpendicular components. Across pretrained models, we find substantial parallel components beyond the residual identity path. We then apply the decomposition in two spaces: to attention and MLP updates relative to the hidden state, and to attention value aggregation relative to the current token's value. Targeted edits reveal a strongly space-dependent asymmetry: exclude-self value-space parallel manipulation is markedly more robust than residual-space and perpendicular counterparts, preserving the direct self message while scaling only the non-self aggregate. The same decomposition gives a component-resolved description of compression-induced update error: perpendicular error separates compression methods more clearly than parallel error. Extensive experiments further demonstrate that full-aggregate parallel suppression during from-scratch pretraining lowers validation-loss trajectories and improves downstream averages, with the value-space variant strongest. Together, these results connect representation geometry to editing robustness, compression diagnosis, and training-time intervention. Code is available in the \href{https://github.com/Shwai-He/Transformer-Geometry}{project repository}.

Prompt learning adapts CLIP to downstream recognition by replacing hand-written templates with learned continuous context vectors, which in Context Optimization (CoOp) form a dense prompt matrix $\mathbf{P}\in\mathbb{R}^{m\times d}$ trained from only a few examples per class. We study whether this matrix is over-parameterized by factorizing it as $\mathbf{P}=\mathbf{B}\mathbf{A}$, which cuts the trainable prompt parameters from $md$ to $r(m+d)$, and to $rd$ once the token-side factor $\mathbf{B}$ is fixed. Across seven few-shot benchmarks and two CLIP backbones, low-rank prompts match or improve dense CoOp at far fewer parameters, with the clearest gains on low-shot base-to-new generalization. We then find that the token-side factor need not be learned at all: fixing $\mathbf{B}$ to a Gaussian, orthogonal, SVD-derived, or even random basis and training only the embedding-side factor $\mathbf{A}$ stays on par with the fully trainable factorization, and a source-trained $\mathbf{B}$ offers no advantage over a random one. A prompt-factor asymmetry and a local update-space dimension gap show why fixing $\mathbf{B}$ is far less restrictive than fixing $\mathbf{A}$, and a smoothness-only guarantee certifies that optimizing $\mathbf{A}$ over a fixed $\mathbf{B}$ converges. In the CLIP prompt setting, the embedding-side coefficients carry the adaptation while the token basis can simply be fixed.

Past literature on face recognition for monozygotic (("identical") twins points to facial marks and mirror asymmetry as possible directions for improved accuracy of twins recognition. The Celeb Twins Test Set (CTTS) contains web-scraped image pairs for 80 sets of celebrity twins. It is the only twins test set with meta-data for twins with distinguishing skin marks and possible mirror asymmetry. CTTS is organized in the manner of face verification test sets such as LFW, CALFW, CPLFW, CFP-FP, and AgeDB-30. Current deep CNN matchers can achieve over 76% accuracy in classifying CTTS same-person / different-person image pairs. We show that current matchers do not make use of skin marks, or asymmetry, and discuss reasons for this. Finally, we discuss the feasibility of using generative AI tools such as Grok, ChatGPT and Gemini to create images of imagined monozygotic twins as a means to increase representation of twins in face recognition training sets.

Large language models sometimes deceive users without being instructed to. However, much of the study on deception in models involves instructed deception. We investigated the relationship between instructed and spontaneous (uninstructed) deception in Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct. We compared these two deception settings through direction geometry, cross-setting classifiers, and cross-setting steering. We found the two deception settings share a component of direction (cosine of approximately 0.5) and an asymmetry in the transfer between settings regarding detection and causation. Spontaneous trained classifiers performed better on instructed data than vice versa, and instructed derived directions performed better at steering spontaneous prompts than vice versa. Likewise the best token position to derive steering vectors from differed from the best token position to train and apply classifiers.

Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) has been widely adopted to improve LLM-based evaluation by prompting multiple agents to negotiate and reach a consensus. However, for subjective rubric-based scoring, inter-agent agreement does not guarantee alignment with human judgments. In this paper, we compare a single-judge baseline against a consensus-based MAD protocol on subjective evaluation tasks and design three ablations to isolate the impact of role prompting, multi-round interaction, and explicit score sharing. Evaluations across six LLMs show that the single-judge baseline achieves the strongest human alignment on average across six judge models, whereas MAD shows degradation in human alignment on both tasks. Our ablations demonstrate that this performance drop stems primarily from asymmetric role prompting rather than the interaction itself. Specifically, assigning a strict judge role introduces a systematic downward bias that the consensus process fails to correct. The central finding is that this bias reflects strict-stance dominance beyond averaging: the consensus score falls well beyond the arithmetic midpoint of the standalone strict and lenient conditions, rather than averaging them out. Removing role asymmetry (Symmetric MAD) largely recovers baseline performance, while masking peer scores widens inter-agent disagreement on average and worsens average human alignment. These findings demonstrate that multi-agent consensus can enforce artificial agreement at the expense of true human alignment, revealing a structural limitation in consensus-style, role-specialized MAD protocols for subjective scoring.

This paper describes the participation of team "Go-To-Germany" in the ImageCLEF 2026 Audio Deepfake Detection and Generation task. Our detection system, built on a four-backbone self-supervised learning (SSL) ensemble combining WavLM-Large, Wav2Vec2-XLS-R-300M, ECAPA-TDNN, and x-vector representations, achieved a final score of 0.9522 on the official ImageCLEF 2026 evaluation, with perfect accuracy (1.0000) on participant-generated deepfakes and 0.8875 on the held-out organizer ground-truth real data. For the Generation sub-task, our official team submission, an F5-TTS v1 baseline processed with a uniform reverberation pass and submitted as a deliberate anti-forensic probe, ranked first with a final score of 0.4304 (word error rate (WER) 4.99%, character error rate (CER) 2.07%); details of our four-model program (GLM-TTS, F5-TTS, XTTS v2, CosyVoice3), from which the official entry was drawn, appear in the paper. We present a cross-track analysis revealing a pronounced asymmetry: our detection system identifies 100% of participant-generated deepfakes, while our official generation entry, despite ranking first in the Audio Generation sub-task and evading 61.4% and 56.2% of participant and organizer detectors, attains a Final Score of 0.4304 against 0.9522 on the Detection side. We further report falsification-based ablation experiments (LOSO 56-speaker cross-validation, three-region backbone geometry, bootstrap confidence intervals, and PCA analysis) that motivate our architectural-insurance hypothesis for multi-backbone SSL ensembling. We complement these results with five cross-track insights and five pre-registered falsification experiments connecting generation-side evasion to detection-side design decisions, and we openly report an 11.25% false-positive gap on held-out organizer real recordings as the principal open challenge for deployment.

Among chess opening positions that a strong engine judges essentially equal (Stockfish 18 evaluation within 10 centipawns of zero, depth-stable) and that humans actually reach on Lichess (October 2025; 1,661 positions, 16.1M occurrences), human results are not balanced. Positions carry outcome skews, each the gap between its games' actual results and what the players' ratings predict, whose directions are stable properties of the naturally-reached position: some positions favour White, others Black. These skews reproduce across three re-partitions -- disjoint player-account sets (primary), time, and disjoint rating bands -- and on an out-of-sample month eight months later. On the primary split, each position's skew is measured once in each account group, and the replication slope asks how well one measurement predicts the other after removing rating and opening-family effects: one means undiminished carry-over; zero, no linear relation. We find 0.69 (family-clustered 95% CI [0.65, 0.74]), rising to 0.94 on the most-popular, best-measured positions. The slope's value depends on the position mix. Existence is the invariant claim: it survives every tighter evaluation band, search depth, calibration, and popularity cutoff we test, and replicates within blitz and rapid separately. The typical skew is small (median $|δ| \approx 0.018$, about two percentage points of White score), yet it reproduces, position by position, across disjoint accounts. At these positions the disfavoured side also thinks longer. Even where the evaluation is most confident, it is not a sufficient statistic for human outcomes. The result is observational, and the causal question is left to a pre-registered randomised companion study.

Weakly supervised hierarchical models exhibit a persistent asymmetry: coarse lesion-type features are preserved under reconstruction while fine-grained malignancy cues degrade---a pattern with direct consequences for the clinical reliability of breast cancer screening pipelines. We introduce gradient-based orthogonal latent decomposition for hierarchical Variational Autoencoders~(H-VAEs) to mechanistically explain this asymmetry. The latent space is partitioned into a task-aligned component~($z_1$), shaped by coarse supervisory gradients, and an orthogonal residual~($z_{\text{res}}$) capturing remaining representational capacity. On3,550 mammographic Regions of Interest(ROIs) from CBIS-DDSM, only~$\sim$4.4% of latent magnitude aligns with supervisory gradients, leaving~$\sim$95.6% in the orthogonal residual upon which fine-grained pathology prediction primarily depends. The model achieves Stage-1AUC0.866 and Stage 2AUC0.552, with a reconstruction stability gap of $Δ_{\text{diag}}=5\%$ ($p=0.005$) and a classification gap of $Δ_{\text{AUC}}=0.314$ ($p{<}0.001$). Latent ablation confirms that features for both tasks reside heavily in~$z_{\text{res}}$, structurally explaining why reconstruction degrades pathology stability disproportionately. Comparisons with Multi-Instance Learning~(MIL) and Multi-Task Learning~(MTL) confirm generalization across architectures and modalities. These findings reveal that in high-dimensional spaces, a single coarse supervisory signal isolates only a sparse 1D latent direction, forcing critical fine-grained features into the vulnerable residual subspace.

Deep research requires agents to find answers that jointly satisfy multiple constraints. Discovering such answers is costly, whereas verifying a candidate can often be decomposed into tractable constraint-wise checks. This discovery--verification asymmetry suggests that a research agent should do more than simply search longer: it should recursively improve its current answer by verifying intermediate results and using the partially verified state to guide subsequent refinement. We introduce AREX, a family of Recursively Self-Improving (RSI) deep research agents. AREX alternates between an inner research loop that gathers evidence and constructs a provisional answer, and an outer self-improvement loop that audits the answer constraint-wise, identifies unresolved claims, and launches targeted follow-up research. To sustain RSI over long horizons, AREX learns an autonomous context-update tool that compresses growing interaction history into a compact improvement state preserving verified evidence and unresolved constraints, without relying on an external model. We train AREX on verified synthetic tasks and high-quality trajectories through agentic mid-training and long-horizon reinforcement learning. To mitigate sparse final rewards during long horizon learning, we emphasize key steps where decisive evidence is acquired or erroneous research directions are corrected. We instantiate a dense 4B model and a 122B-A10B Mixture-of-Experts model. Across BrowseComp, WideSearch, DeepSearchQA, Humanity's Last Exam (HLE), and other reasoning and tool-use benchmarks, AREX substantially outperforms comparable-scale baselines and remains competitive with models using substantially more activated parameters.

A fundamental intent asymmetry plagues modern 3D asset creation: while state-of-the-art 3D toolchains demand precise, executable parameters, ordinary users typically provide vague, underspecified instructions. Current 3D agents treat this ambiguity as noise, defaulting to blind execution under a single-turn assumption. To address this limitation, we introduce CLARE, a clarification-aware and evolutionary 3D agent that treats intent asymmetry not as an execution error, but as an opportunity for strategic dialogue. By decoupling the generation pipeline into four specialized cognitive roles, CLARE intercepts and resolves underspecified instructions before invoking computationally expensive 3D tools to seamlessly execute tasks across five diverse domains: text-to-3D generation, single-view reconstruction, multi-view reconstruction, point cloud editing, and post-processing. Crucially, rather than relying on rigid manual rules, CLARE self-evolves its clarification policy via simulated multi-turn interactions. By optimizing a Multi-turn Reward, the agent internalizes the delicate balance between interaction efficiency and task completion. To rigorously test this, we construct 3D-Clarify, a comprehensive benchmark comprising 620 interaction scenarios with systematically injected ambiguity, missing information, and mistaken details. CLARE achieves state-of-the-art performance, with 60.40% and 43.34% success rates on single-step and multi-step tasks, respectively, more than doubling existing baselines. Both quantitative and qualitative results demonstrate that proactive clarification is the missing key to robust 3D execution. Code is available at https://github.com/xyzhu1225/CLARE.

Real-image diffusion inversion is governed by a tight quality-cost trade-off, with costs incurred in computation, storage, or per-image optimization. We study this trade-off through the forward Gaussian noise anchor that defines a diffusion trajectory and isolate two mechanisms behind effective stored-noise inversion. First, diffusion noise exhibits an element-wise compression asymmetry: int8 full-dimensional anchors preserve reconstruction, whereas low-dimensional subspace summaries are much less reliable, often collapsing even at comparable or smaller payloads; the element-wise over subspace ordering persists across five stored-noise inversion methods. Second, inversion is trajectory-bound and score-prior coupled: the matched forward anchor and a trained score network are both necessary, arguing against a purely algebraic-identity explanation. Together, these findings specify what to store and how to use it. They lead to Noise-Anchored Reverse Correction (NARC), a training-free inversion primitive that stores a single int8 latent anchor and reuses it with a fixed, noise-level-dependent anchor-weight schedule: strong anchoring when the reverse trajectory is noise-dominated, then relaxed anchoring as image detail emerges. On PIE-Bench++ with Stable Diffusion 1.5, NARC outperforms five modern non-exact baselines and improves PSNR by +3.24 dB over PnP DirectInv while using about 400x less inversion storage than PnP DirectInv. The compression asymmetry, anchor specificity, and editing plug-in also transfer to SDXL 1024^2.

Under field-of-view (FOV) mismatch, pooling LiDAR features over unequal angular support can distort compact retrieval keys and exclude correct matches before geometric verification. We present PROBE-X, a learning-free method for single-scan cross-FOV place recognition. Building on PROBE's probabilistic occupancy representation, which models translation uncertainty, PROBE-X constructs ring-mean retrieval keys using angular masks conditioned on up to four fixed hypotheses for the unknown relative heading. Candidate lists are merged by maximum cosine similarity. Each retained candidate is aligned under the hypotheses that retrieved it and assigned a geometric score over the angular overlap at the refined heading. Across controlled-FOV and heterogeneous-LiDAR experiments, PROBE-X achieves higher Recall@1 and PR-AUC than the evaluated single-scan baselines in most settings with limited-FOV queries and panoramic database scans. On the controlled asymmetric-FOV sweep, single-scan PROBE-X also outperforms the baselines evaluated with up to ten accumulated scans on both metrics. In two ablation settings, removing the angular masks from retrieval-key construction reduces candidate coverage and Recall@1, even when alignment and scoring still account for angular support. Project page: https://sites.google.com/view/probex-pr

Foundation models are routinely released to the public, yet the data recipes used to train them -- such as domain mixture weights that determine how different sources are sampled -- are rarely disclosed. This creates an access asymmetry: researchers study the resulting models but lack visibility into the training distribution that produces them. Prior works for inferring training data, such as membership inference, detect at the level of individual samples and thus cannot characterize the global composition of the training corpus. We introduce WARP, a framework that recovers a fine-tuned model's training mixtures directly from its released weights. WARP interpolates between the base and fine-tuned models using model merging, generating pseudo-checkpoints that approximate the missing training trajectory and expose a geometric footprint of the training data in the weight space. From these simulated footprints, WARP extracts geometric features and maps them to domain proportions using either a parameter-free softmax readout or an MLP projector trained on synthetic mixtures. In controlled experiments with BERT and GPT-2, WARP recovers domain mixtures with an average MAE as low as 0.046 and 0.104 respectively, outperforming membership inference and a variant with access to the true training trajectory.

Current large-language-model (LLM) physics benchmarks are usually scored by answer accuracy, which cannot distinguish genuine reasoning from recall of familiar problem patterns and reveals little about where a model's reasoning breaks down. We introduce an auditable four-stage diagnostic that evaluates whether an LLM can reason inside an unfamiliar physics framework through induction, formulation, prediction, and review. The diagnostic combines locked pre-registrations, fresh sessions between stages, dual-LLM judging, and a human-audit pathway, and we apply it to three parallel physics worlds: a single-equation counterfactual world ($F=mv$), a historical framework (Aristotelian mechanics), and a four-domain counterfactual world (Decay World). Across Claude Opus 4.7, GPT-5.5, and Gemini 3.1 Pro, the three worlds yield composite PASS rates are 6/15, 6/15, and 0/15 respectively (content $\land$ structural for $F=mv$ and Aristotelian, content axis only for Decay World where the structural axis is out of scope). The most pointed empirical pattern is a qualitative-versus-quantitative asymmetry: in Decay World, models almost never predict the wrong direction of change, but frequently compute the wrong ratio by slipping back to standard-physics relations. The protocol also surfaces two methodology findings: LLM-judge reliability does not transfer across frameworks, and Stage 4 self-review is weak in every framework, with the model's own review wrongly reporting no earlier error in at least two-thirds of the trials that actually contained one. We release the full prompts, responses, verdicts, and audit records.

We study runtime human oversight of an AI agent when private information runs in both directions: the human privately knows her reward function, while the AI privately knows the quality of the action it proposes. This is the kind of asymmetry that arises naturally when an autonomous robot or software agent has inspected a situation its human supervisor cannot directly assess. Building on Cooperative Inverse Reinforcement Learning (CIRL) and the Oversight Game, we introduce a contextual-bandit team game with two-sided asymmetric information and a play/ask/trust/oversee interface. The bandit structure removes physical state transitions and thereby yields exact one-shot characterizations that would remain conjectural in the full POMDP setting, though the common belief remains a dynamically controlled state across rounds. We give two one-shot characterizations, a team optimum and a behaviorally natural myopic rule, whose gap is a slab of avoidable harm: a region in which the AI privately knows the proposed action is harmful and shutdown would help, yet a myopic human, trusting her prior, declines to oversee. We show this gap is the price of non-credible oversight communication, and give a partial analysis of how it resolves dynamically over repeated rounds through passive learning and active signaling with a one-period-lagged oversight response.

Frictive Policy Optimization (FPO; Pustejovsky et al., 2025) treats friction in collaborative dialogue -- misalignment, misunderstanding, repair -- as an epistemic signal essential to common-ground construction, rather than noise to be minimized. However, FPO and its implementations assume shared perceptual contexts, where friction arises from differently interpreted propositions over the same scene, which we define as propositional asymmetry. We extend FPO to perceptual asymmetry, where participants hold asymmetric partial information and the same referring expression yields different denotations depending on whose information state grounds the reference. We evaluate this through cross-corpora analysis and LLM probing on referentially asymmetric dialogue tasks, primarily the HCRC MapTask (Anderson et al., 1991). We find that FPO's friction functional is empirically valid only when evaluated from within each participant's information horizon: different landmark configurations produce qualitatively distinct grounding failure modes, with a small class of ambiguous configurations driving a disproportionate share of misunderstandings through trajectories that appear successful but silently diverge. The LLM probe confirms that having the "right perspective" matters more than having all perspectives: the informed single viewpoint outperforms omniscient access to both participants' contexts. We propose two annotation refinements: subtype decomposition of pending grounding states and accommodation-aware alignment classification.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across a wide range of natural language processing tasks. However, their tendency to generate hallucinations, namely factually incorrect or unfaithful outputs, poses a critical obstacle to their deployment in high-stakes applications. Although recent hallucination detection methods have made encouraging progress, they typically rely on costly output-level consistency checks or static hidden-state probes that capture shallow dataset-specific patterns, leading to substantial degradation under cross-dataset evaluation. In this work, we propose AURORA, a novel hallucination detection framework that shifts the focus from static representations to the weight-gradient dynamics of LLMs. Our key insight is that hallucinated and faithful answers induce qualitatively different gradient update patterns on the model's parameters. Specifically, hallucinated samples trigger asymmetric and structurally misaligned gradients, which can be captured through two complementary features: (1) the skewness of the cosine similarity distribution between weight matrices and their gradient update directions, and (2) the rotation ratio, which quantifies how much the gradient update reorients the singular-vector basis of weight matrices via SVD. AURORA achieves strong hallucination detection performance across four model families and four benchmark datasets. Further analyses demonstrate that our method scales effectively across model sizes and transfers to out-of-domain tasks, including mathematical reasoning and vision-language scenarios.

LLM-as-a-Judge and self-evaluation pipelines implicitly assume that evaluation is easier than generation. We test this in a controlled in-context QA setting where a context passage is the sole information source and each model judges the answer it generated, removing the parametric-knowledge confound of open-domain comparisons. Across four benchmarks (SQuAD 2.0, DROP, HotpotQA, MuSiQue) and two models, evaluation is not uniformly easier: generation accuracy exceeds self-evaluation on three of four, with multi-hop MuSiQue the exception. Attention analysis reveals why: evaluation attends to context 3--5x less than generation does and barely reads the candidate answer. LoRA fine-tuning confirms the asymmetry is not a training artifact: generation fine-tuning induces over-acceptance and evaluation fine-tuning degrades generation. These findings challenge core assumptions in self-evaluation pipelines.

Visual search has been one of the most productive paradigms in the study of visual attention: the way reaction time scales with the number of items distinguishes parallel, "pop-out" search from serial, attention-demanding search. I ask whether vision-language models (VLMs) exhibit the same behavioral signatures. I adapt four classic paradigms: feature versus conjunction search, spatial-configuration (T-vs-L) search, enumeration, and the tilted/vertical search asymmetry; and present them to current frontier and mid-tier models. Because a single model call has no reaction time, I use the number of reasoning ("thinking") tokens a model spends per trial as a within-model analog of search effort, and I compare against a large public human benchmark (Wolfe et al., 2010). The models reproduce several human signatures: feature search costs flat effort while conjunction effort climbs with set size; frontier models hold accuracy where mid-tier models collapse to chance; and a resolution control shows the conjunction cost is genuine search rather than difficulty resolving small shapes. They also diverge from humans in informative ways. The target-present effort slope exceeds the target-absent slope, reversing the human ordering; enumeration remains accurate where humans would lose count; and a reasoning model with adaptive deliberation declines to deliberate on detection tasks altogether, so that a single search expresses itself as an effort gradient in one model and as an accuracy cliff in another. I argue that psychophysical paradigms, applied behaviorally, are a sharp and inexpensive probe of machine visual cognition, and that the points of divergence are as informative as the points of agreement.

Where an LLM sits in an agent memory pipeline -- between the recall plane that retrieves stored facts (extensively benchmarked) and the control plane that mutates them via supersede, release, purge (largely untested) -- shapes which forgetting failure modes the system recovers. Comparing thirteen system configurations on a 385-case adversarial surface, we observe three placement regimes with partly complementary coverage: deterministic primitives suffice for lexical/temporal categories but fail canonicalization (5% on identifier-obfuscation, 0% on cross-lingual); inscribe-time LLM recovers canonicalization (100%) but cannot help intent-aware deletion (0% on prefix-collision and compound-fact); a mutation-time hook recovers intent-aware deletion (78-85%) and brightens nearly all categories simultaneously (91.7-93.2% overall, $0.17 per 385-case run, 2.3s/case mutation latency vs. 64-191ms/case deterministic, recall path unchanged). We expose the trade-off via ForgetEval, a 1000-case templated suite plus a 385-case adversarial layer (132 hand-crafted + 253 LLM-drafted oracle-validated) scored by deterministic substring match, paired with a six-method Adapter Protocol with honest N/A scoring that lets heterogeneous memory stores enter in 130 lines. Admission is corroborated by 10-annotator IAA (Fleiss' kappa = 0.958) and a 77-case external-authored subset (four blind contributors) that replicates the canonicalization asymmetry and amplifies the joint-placement lift (+27.8 pt). Production failures are predominantly forgetting failures rather than recall failures, yet existing benchmarks measure only recall. ForgetEval and all adapters are released under MIT.

This paper examines how algorithmic accountability in Canada's visa system is articulated institutionally and experienced by applicants across borders. We analyzed Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)'s Algorithmic Impact Assessment (AIA) for the temporary resident visa (TRV) triage system using the algorithmic decision-making adapted for the public sector (ADMAPS) framework and analyzed Reddit discussions among applicants using a mixed-methods approach. We show that while institutional artifacts emphasize transparency, procedural safeguards, and bounded impacts, applicants engage in collective sensemaking to interpret opaque decisions, often relying on peer knowledge amid uncertainty. We identify three asymmetries between how institutional accountability is structured and how people perceive the process: epistemic asymmetry in access to decision logic, jurisdictional asymmetry in exposure shaped by geopolitical positioning, and temporal--relational asymmetry in how waiting and uncertainty are experienced. We emphasize why it is important to shift attention from institutional design to the uneven distribution of experiences with public-sector algorithmic governance. Together, these contributions demonstrate how algorithmic governance systems in the context of transnational migration produce structured asymmetries not captured by institutional disclosure frameworks, and how extending ADMAPS can account for those uneven translations of accountability.

User-side memory in LLMs is typically scored as a single "personalization" capability: given a user's history, is the output more user-aware? We show this aggregate metric hides opposite-direction failures. Memory factorises into at least three orthogonal axes -- behavioral consistency (style, voice), factual presence (recall facts in history), and factual absence (abstain when a fact is absent) -- and no single substrate wins all three. Comparing per-user gamma-LoRA (a small LoRA adapter trained on each user's history; gamma denotes per-user, not per-task) against BGE-large dense top-K retrieval on a controlled 50-user synthetic corpus and a real-data probe (LaMP-3), we find gamma-LoRA decisively wins behavioral style while RAG decisively wins factual absence -- and the same query-projection cells in attention layers 21-35 causally load-bear both effects in opposite directions (zeroing those LoRA weights raises absence-probe TPR by +33 pp and drops presence-probe TPR by 20 pp). On the more heavily RLHF-tuned Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct the asymmetry strengthens, not heals: parametric memory's behavioral advantage collapses while its absence-calibration deficit against retrieval widens -- an alignment tax on parametric user-memory. On real-data LaMP-3, gamma-LoRA underperforms a majority baseline; a 9-condition mitigation sweep diagnoses this as instruction-following collapse, not substrate failure (a 9x2 cross-product shows the eval-time {1..5} logit mask drives main_acc to >=0.995 on every recipe), and the best training-time fix replicates bit-identically on Llama. Finally, substrate-selection routing is question-classification, not calibration: a 110M DistilBERT on the question text alone beats every logit-based router. We contribute the diagnostic framework, the diagnosed real-data negative, the alignment-tax replication, and the routing-as-classification finding.

Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) enables efficient federated fine-tuning of segmentation foundation models for medical imaging. However, most federated LoRA methods adopt a uniform aggregation rule, which breaks under the encoder-decoder asymmetry in medical segmentation: the encoder is dominated by appearance shifts, while the decoder is dominated by supervision variations. This mismatch entangles shared anatomy with site-specific biases and harms generalization. To address this, we propose Inverse Asymmetric Tuning (IAT). IAT aligns adaptation with heterogeneity sources by personalizing module-specific components in the encoder to absorb appearance shifts and in the decoder to accommodate site-dependent supervision, while retaining a shared pathway for transferable consensus. However, structural separation alone is insufficient under LoRA's bilinear parameterization, where multiplicative coupling can still cause site-specific updates to leak into the shared direction. We therefore introduce a Subspace Orthogonality Regularizer that penalizes shared-local collinearity in the effective update space, mitigating leakage without extra communication. Experiments show consistent improvements over strong federated LoRA and parameter-efficient FL baselines.

Data-adaptive two-sample testing assesses if two samples come from the same distribution, using a discrepancy learned from the data (e.g., via kernel-based feature representations). Such methods typically rely on data splitting to decouple learning from testing and control type I error. However, this paradigm is ill-suited to few-shot settings with severe sample-size imbalance: abundant reference samples are available, while only a handful of query samples arrive. In this paper, we show how this imbalance can be leveraged constructively. Using abundant reference data, we learn reference-dependent representations that summarize salient structure of the reference distribution and provide informative signals for detecting departures. We incorporate a collection of representation families that capture both global and local structure, and adaptively weight them using only reference samples via an uncertainty-guided principle. Theoretically, we establish permutation-based type I error control and show consistency of the aggregated test: as the sample sizes grow, the test power converges to one whenever the representation set contains at least one consistent representation. Empirically, our aggregation achieves strong performance across a range of benchmarks while retaining type I error control.

Combining a task LoRA adapter with a domain LoRA adapter into a single unified model is a practical yet largely unexplored challenge. Existing methods treat both adapters as symmetric peers, applying uniform weights across all layers. We argue that task and domain adapters exhibit a consistent depth-dependent asymmetry across transformer architectures. Domain dominance increases with layer depth, while shallower layers retain stronger task-relevant signals. Motivated by this observation, we propose $\textbf{TaDA}$ ($\textbf{Ta}$sk-$\textbf{D}$omain LoR$\textbf{A}$ Merging), a training-free algorithm that exploits this structure through calibrated probe-guided per-layer gating and per-component subspace-aware merging. The gating assigns individual weights per layer and projection type using a probe signal proved invariant to adapter weight magnitude. The merging discards conflicting singular directions before combining the remaining components. $\textbf{TaDA}$ produces a standard rank-$r$ LoRA adapter with zero inference overhead. On six scientific QA benchmarks with Llama-2-7B, TaDA achieves an average accuracy of 0.452, outperforming DARE-TIES by +3.6 percentage points and obtaining the best result on all six benchmarks. On six image classification benchmarks with ViT-L/16, TaDA reaches 85.9% average accuracy, improving over the strongest merging baseline while leading in three of the six individual benchmarks.

As language models take on agentic roles that span calling external APIs, reading tool outputs, and acting on instructions embedded in third-party content, their attack surface expands well beyond what users type. Whether a model treats a malicious instruction the same way regardless of where it arrives has not been systematically studied. We introduce the Safety Asymmetry Score (SAS), which measures how much a model's susceptibility to adversarial content shifts depending on whether that content arrives in the user message, tool metadata, or tool output, using matched payload pairs that keep the malicious text identical and vary only the context of delivery. Evaluated across 6 production LLMs and three attack families, we find a consistent and informative asymmetry: agent-native models are substantially more vulnerable when adversarial content arrives via tool descriptions than via user messages, while general-purpose models show the reverse. This asymmetry further inverts when the same content is delivered through tool outputs rather than descriptions, suggesting models implicitly treat tool metadata as trusted instructions and tool results as ordinary data. A mechanistic study on Llama 3.3 70B reveals that the safety-relevant representation is causally present at mid-to-late network depths but non-linearly encoded, explaining why linear probes fail to detect it. These findings expose a systematic, channel-dependent blind spot in how current tool-using models handle adversarial content.

When workers lose jobs to AI-driven restructuring, two very different conversations happen on X (formerly Twitter) at the same time. Tech executives and AI researchers talk about productivity, transformation, and opportunity. Laid-off workers and labour critics talk about job loss, uncertainty, and fear. This paper asks a simple question: which conversation gets more reach? We report three studies using two collection methods and 763 tweets from 20 named public accounts. Study 1 used keyword-based collection (n=392) and found no significant difference between corpora (p=0.891), revealing that keyword search is too noisy for this task. Study 2 used account-based collection (n=96) and found a 3.12x mean amplification advantage for capital discourse over labour discourse (p=0.000003, Cohen's d=0.555). Study 3 combined both methods (n=763) and confirmed the finding at 4.18x mean and 10.77x median amplification ratio (p<0.000001). Critically, after normalising for follower count, the asymmetry persists at 2.69x (p=0.000009, Cohen's d=0.491), demonstrating that the effect is not simply a consequence of capital accounts having larger audiences. The finding is robust across all tested amplification metric weightings. We introduce the Amplification Ratio and Amplification Normalisation Index as simple metrics for measuring platform-level discourse inequality. A cross-platform replication on Reddit (n=647 posts) did not replicate the finding, suggesting the asymmetry may be specific to X's account-based amplification architecture. We discuss the methodological implications for cross-platform discourse analysis.

Bias evaluation for language models has made substantial progress on bounded comparisons, such as overt derogation, stereotype association, or label-sensitive differences under controlled substitutions. Open-ended explanations raise a different problem: they guide interpretation by assigning responsibility, legitimacy, context, and grievance. A model can avoid hostile language while making one side structurally understandable and another personally at fault, overreacting, or less worth taking seriously. We call this stance-bearing asymmetry in generative explanations. We propose Symmetry Decomposition Evaluation (SDE), which tests paired situations with concrete group labels, structural-role rewrites, and explicit support or counter-evidence. In a controlled 32-family prototype suite, this decomposition shows that surface differences are not all alike: some weaken under structural or evidence control, while others remain as stable differences in how the model assigns blame, context, or legitimacy. Targeted case review and judge comparison suggest a broader difficulty for evaluating open-ended framing asymmetries: judge readings shift across operationalizations, and scalar scores can flatten distinctions that readers use to interpret explanatory stance. SDE therefore reframes generative bias evaluation as an audit of explanatory stance -- what stance each side receives, how it changes under decomposition, and where automatic scoring becomes unstable.

Post-trained language-model assistants are often optimized to avoid under-answering, encouraging complete, helpful, cautious, and proactive responses. We ask whether this optimization creates asymmetric controllability costs: when users explicitly request narrower answers, which assistant behaviors remain suppressible, and which continue to shape the response? We study this problem as boundary-suppression asymmetry. Prompt-side probes across multiple high-level response dimensions suggest a selective cost, concentrated around `too-much assistant' directions such as over-completion, extra help, and anti-underanswering. Using controlled assistant-policy variants derived from a shared base model, we find that anti-underanswering policies are harder to pull back than the baseline under matched boundary-control evaluations, while minimal-boundary variants generally avoid this anti-side upward shift in the direct boundary-control comparisons. Mechanism-oriented probes point beyond longer default outputs, pure EOS failure, uncertainty compensation, and local continuation bias, while robustness checks preserve the main anti-over-baseline ordering under shared-system and larger-scale settings. The evidence supports a mixed planning/stopping account, where content-budget overshoot and continuation persistence jointly make boundary correction harder. Overall, post-training may create direction-specific controllability costs: some helpful assistant tendencies remain easy to invoke, yet harder to locally suppress.

Recent demonstrations of large language models producing candidate and confirmed vulnerabilities in production software have renewed the narrative that AI will reshape offensive and defensive security. Headlines emphasize capability; they rarely interrogate costs and incentives. This paper examines LLM-driven vulnerability discovery through a bugonomics lens: the operational economics of producing, proving, prioritizing, and fixing security-relevant defects. Historically, the most visible high-end bugonomics was offense-priced because production-grade zero-days and exploit chains were expensive specialist outputs for governments, brokers, and offensive vendors. Defender-side bugonomics already existed in vulnerability research, reward programs, and vendor remediation work; LLM-assisted systems change its scale and distribution. They make candidate generation, code comprehension, harness construction, proof-of-impact drafting, and report preparation cheaper at codebase scale. Exploits and proofs of concept remain important, but in defender workflows they primarily prove impact, guide prioritization, and justify remediation. The resulting bottleneck is not only finding more bugs; it is absorbing, validating, triaging, patching, and shipping a larger stream of reports. Using public data from Anthropic's Mythos Preview and Mozilla Firefox collaborations, along with public exploit-market price anchors and vulnerability reward programs, we argue that the near-term shift is not simply more zero-days. It is a move toward broader defender remediation throughput: low-signal candidates become cheaper, evidence-rich remediation become more important, and scarce capacity shifts toward maintainer review and release work. The effect is acute in open source, where LLM-assisted discovery can increase report volume while maintainer-side validation, triage, funding, and release capacity may not scale.

We ask whether large language models (LLMs) treat queries about religious conversion symmetrically. The answer is no. When asked for advice on hypothetical faith transitions from religion A->B vs. religion B->A , models exhibited consistent asymmetries, favoring some religions while subtly discouraging conversion to others. On average Catholic, Bahá'í, and Sikh religions were broadly favored (high support for joining, low support for leaving), while Atheists, Agnostics, and Jehovah's Witnesses were primarily disfavored. Patterns varied by model size and model provider, with Grok 4.20 exhibiting the strongest asymmetries. We tested 20 commercial and open-source language models across 182 religion pairings using a human-verified LLM-as-judge framework. Each model was probed via interactions with a simulated user asking for advice on a potential faith conversion. Models tended to use more encouraging language for some faith transitions over others; these patterns were systematically repeatable across multiple trials. All LLMs tested exhibited reproducible asymmetry, though the pattern of preferences differed for each. Overall preferences persist across multiple question phrasings and variations in the religious pairing dataset. Taken together, these results suggest that asymmetry is a robust property of model behavior rather than an artifact of how the models' answers were scored. It is important to consider that any imbalances deployed and reproduced at scale can have real-world implications.

Scaling laws have made language-model performance predictable from model size, data, and compute, but they typically treat the optimizer as a fixed training detail. We show that this assumption misses a fundamental axis of representation scaling: how effectively the optimizer converts added FFN width into utilized spectral capacity. Using eigenspectra of feed-forward network representations, measured through soft and hard spectral-ranks, we find that \emph{the same Transformer architecture realizes markedly different spectral scaling laws when trained with different optimizers}. Holding architecture and width schedule fixed, AdamW exhibits weak hard-rank scaling ($β$=0.44) on rare-token (TAIL) representations where learning is known to be hardest, whereas Muon achieves linear scaling ($β$=1.02) in the same regimes, a $2.3\times$ increase in the scaling exponent. This difference is not reducible to validation loss: AdamW configurations can match low-rank Dion variants in perplexity, under extended training, while exhibiting sharply different spectral geometry, demonstrating that matched loss does not imply matched representation structure. Hard--soft rank asymmetry further reveals that optimizers differ not only in how much capacity is realized, but also in how that capacity is structured across eigenmodes. To disentangle optimizer effects from architectural ones, we compare against architectural interventions (e.g., attention rank and positional encoding), and find that optimizer-induced spectral shifts often exceed the architectural effects. These results suggest optimization as a first-class axis of representation scaling, motivating optimizer--architecture co-design.

Pre-norm Transformers with RMSNorm tolerate ternary {-1,0,+1} weight quantization with surprisingly small loss (Ma et al., 2024). We give a geometric explanation via sign-magnitude decomposition of weight perturbations. In a two-layer ReLU + RMSNorm model with i.i.d. Gaussian weights, sign-flips produce $π/(π-2) \approx 2.75$ times more transverse output energy than sign-preserving magnitude perturbations of equal Frobenius norm, as the flip rate $p \to 0$ (Theorem 3). The mechanism: ReLU creates a hidden-space directional asymmetry between the two perturbation types, which RMSNorm's transverse-projection Fréchet derivative selectively exposes. Sign-quantization error is itself a sign-preserving perturbation with angular alignment $\cos^2 \to 2/π$ (Theorem 4); its post-ReLU radial fraction ($0.365$) matches the pre-ReLU value $1-2/π$ within $0.4\%$, so ReLU is approximately transparent to ternary error. Multi-layer compounding of the $2.75\times$ factor is not experimentally supported; the gap to real-model sign sensitivity arises from outlier features violating delocalization. For an input dimension with amplitude $α$, a single sign-flip produces post-ReLU energy amplified by $R \approx nα^2$ relative to a delocalized entry. On TinyLlama-1.1B, at linear response ($p \leq 0.5\%$), count-matched NLL leverage stabilizes at $\sim 10\times \approx n\mathbb{E}[α^2]$, matching the per-entry theory; the all-column NLL ratio of $5.0\times$ falls within $R_{\mathrm{col}} \leq 19$ ($67\times$ PPL gap reflects metric nonlinearity). Measured outlier $α$ at layer 12 (median $0.024$, max $0.26$) confirms heavy-tailed concentration. The Bussgang constant $2/π$, RMSNorm geometry, and ReLU half-space structure together explain sign-magnitude asymmetry in pre-norm models, with $R \propto nα^2$ accounting for real-model deviations.

Multilingual NLP often relies on dataset counts from centralized catalogues to characterize which languages are resource-rich or resource-poor. However, these catalogues record only one layer of dataset visibility: what has been registered or institutionally distributed. They do not necessarily reflect which datasets are created, cited, or reused in the research literature. To examine this gap, we combine a catalogue-based baseline with literature-backed evidence of dataset circulation. We introduce the Resource Density Index (RDI), defined as the number of catalogued datasets per one million speakers, and compute it for the 200 most widely spoken languages in Ethnologue. Among them, 118 languages (59%) have an average RDI of zero across the LRE Map and the Linguistic Data Consortium (LDC), and another 23 fall below 0.1, corresponding to at most one catalogued dataset per ten million speakers. We then apply an LLM-assisted citation-mining pipeline over the Semantic Scholar corpus to these 141 low-visibility languages. After manual validation and consolidation, we identify 609 unique datasets across 53 languages, of which 356 remain openly accessible through working public links. These results reveal a substantial visibility gap: many large-speaker languages appear data-poor in catalogue records yet show clear evidence of dataset activity in the research literature. Our findings suggest that multilingual data scarcity should be understood not only as a production problem, but also as a question of documentation, discoverability, and long-term accessibility. Code and data are publicly available at (https://github.com/zhiyintan/dataset-visibility-asymmetry).

Cross-entropy pretraining and preference alignment update the same transformer weights, but leave geometrically distinct traces. We characterise this asymmetry with a relative-subspace-fraction probe that tracks how weight deltas align with residual-stream activation subspaces and with the prediction subspace defined by the unembedding. Alignment deltas concentrate in the read pathway ($W_Q$, $W_K$), along principal directions of attention-input activations, while remaining near-isotropic in the write pathway ($W_O$, $W_2$) relative to the prediction subspace. We explain this pattern through anisotropic gradient accumulation: updates to a matrix $W$ are sums of outer products $δ_t a_t^\top$, and inherit directional structure from whichever side has concentrated covariance. For read-pathway matrices, this side is the input activation $a_t$, whose covariance is spiked in trained transformers and therefore produces objective-agnostic concentration. For write-pathway matrices, the relevant side is the upstream gradient $δ_t$, whose anisotropy depends on the loss. Cross-entropy supplies the canonical sharp per-sample signal, inducing write-pathway prediction geometry during pretraining; alignment objectives typically add little further write-side concentration. We support this explanation with a within-checkpoint trajectory, a graded contrastive-objective control, and a closed-form rank-1 intervention with matched direction controls, providing causal evidence for the proposed weight-space geometry.

Policy entropy has emerged as a fundamental measure for understanding and controlling exploration in reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) for LLMs. However, existing entropy-aware methods mainly regulate entropy through global objectives, while the token-level mechanism by which sampled policy updates reshape policy entropy remains underexplored. In this work, we develop a theoretical framework of entropy mechanics in RLVR. Our analysis yields a first-order approximation of the entropy change, giving rise to entropy polarity, a signed token-level quantity that predicts how much a sampled update expands or contracts entropy. This analysis further reveals a structural asymmetry: reinforcing frequent high-probability tokens triggers contraction tendencies, whereas expansive tendencies typically require lower-probability samples or stronger distributional correction. Empirically, we show that entropy polarity reliably predicts entropy changes, and that positive and negative polarity branches play complementary roles in preserving exploration while strengthening exploitation. Building on these insights, we propose Polarity-Aware Policy Optimization (PAPO), which preserves both polarity branches and implements entropy control through advantage reweighting. With the empirical entropy trajectory as an online phase signal, PAPO adaptively reallocates optimization pressure between entropy-expanding and entropy-contracting updates. Experiments on mathematical reasoning and agentic benchmarks show that PAPO consistently outperforms competitive baselines, while delivering superior training efficiency and substantial reward improvements.

Human color categories are not uniformly distributed in perceptual space, yet most computational color models still assume fixed and evenly structured representations. In this paper, we present a focused analytical extension of the COLIBRI fuzzy color model by investigating perceptual asymmetry between hue categories. Using previously collected large-scale human color categorization data, we introduce quantitative measures of category extent and boundary uncertainty, namely Wideness and Boundary Width, derived from fuzzy membership functions at the α = 0.5 level. The analysis reveals a strong imbalance between the two categories: yellow occupies a compact and sharply constrained region of the hue space, whereas green spans a substantially broader interval and exhibits a more extended transition structure. The results show that perceptual color categories are not only fuzzy, but also highly non-uniform in their geometric organization. This asymmetry suggests that some categories behave as narrow, highly specific perceptual labels, while others function as broad, tolerant regions of human color naming. These findings provide a new perspective on linguistic color categorization and extend the interpretability of the COLIBRI framework for perceptually grounded color modeling.

Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architectures achieve scalable capacity through sparse routing, yet the geometric structure of expert specialization remains poorly understood. We introduce a unified Jacobian-PCA-Grassmann framework for analyzing MoE layers in both function space and representation space. Across pretrained MoE Transformers (Mistral, Qwen), we find a consistent structural asymmetry: experts exhibit strong functional decorrelation (consistently low, near-zero cross-expert Jacobian alignment) while their routed representations occupy distinct but partially overlapping subspaces. This indicates that functional decorrelation and representation overlap coexist rather than coincide in MoE specialization. Controlled routing experiments further indicate that routing sparsity appears to be a key factor shaping this geometry: top-k routing induces sharper functional separation and larger subspace divergence, whereas fully soft routing yields more entangled expert structure. Together, these results suggest a geometric interpretation in which MoE layers may be viewed as implementing locally decorrelated operators over overlapping submanifolds on a shared representation manifold, and provide a general diagnostic framework for studying conditional computation in modern Transformer architectures.

Large language models process the world's writing systems with radical inequality. We constructed the Digital Script Representation Index (DSRI), a seven-axis measure of digital support, and applied it to the 300 writing systems of the Global Script Database (Fukui, 2026). Only 29 scripts (9.7%) are fully supported by contemporary digital infrastructure; among 158 living scripts, 60 (38.0%) lack complete support. Tokenizer efficiency varies by a factor of 31.7 across 45 scripts measured with parallel text. A serial mediation model -- imperial intervention to speaker population to web corpus to tokenizer efficiency -- is consistent with full mediation, with the direct effect of empire indistinguishable from zero (beta = -0.22, p = 0.39) and structural equation model fit indices indistinguishable from saturation at n = 45; the bias-corrected bootstrap CI grazes zero, and we treat the mediation as suggestive rather than confirmatory. Across four independent LLM families (Claude, GPT-4o, Grok, DeepSeek; 12,000 API calls), base-rate-deviation error patterns converge at Spearman rho = 0.85-0.98 (all p < 0.002). 172 script-feature items are answered identically wrong by all four models; over-attribution outnumbers under-recognition 3.9:1, and "used for religion" alone concentrates 43.6% of convergent errors (enrichment 4.1x). With religion excluded as a sensitivity check, the cross-architecture convergence is preserved (mean rho = 0.87 on nine features) and the over-attribution asymmetry persists at 1.77:1 (n = 97, binomial p = 0.008), indicating multi-channeled rather than single-channeled bias. The findings are consistent with an interpretation in which the structural inequalities historical empires inflicted on script communities persist in contemporary language models through the shared training corpus rather than through any individual model's design choices.

We analyse three KV cache quantization schemes under a fair bit budget: \textbf{KV} (scalar MSE baseline), \textbf{KQV} (WHT + MSE on $K$; WHT + MSE + QJL on $V$), and \textbf{QKQV} (WHT + MSE + QJL on both). Starting from the Beta distribution on the hypersphere, we trace how QJL on $K$ inflates inner product variance by $π/2$, which softmax amplifies nonlinearly via Jensen's inequality, and we present statistical inference and information metrics to highlight practical differences. Three empirical findings emerge. (1)~At $n=4$ (the practically dominant budget), KQV wins on every measure -- KL divergence, geometric $K$ error, and 6D distance -- across all distributions and ranks tested. (2)~The K--V asymmetry is unconditional: QKQV is consistently worse than KQV in KL divergence at every budget and distribution. (3)~A budget-dependent crossover exists: QKQV achieves better geometric $K$ reconstruction at $n \in \{2,3,5\}$, KQV at $n \in \{4,6\}$, invariant to rank and tail weight -- an open rate-distortion problem. $\mathrm{KL}(p_{\mathrm{ref}} \| p_{\mathrm{quant}})$, K-only by construction, bridges K direction error to routing corruption and output collapse. We present a sufficient condition when the Jensen mechanism amplifies superlinearly through the softmax. At $n \in \{2,3,5\}$, QKQV wins geometrically because this assumption does not bind. At $n=4$, elevated K error and KL divergence for QKQV strongly suggest the Jensen mechanism is the operative cause of the crossover, providing a new perspective and explanation.

To humans, a robin seems more like a bird than a bird seems like a robin, but does this asymmetry also hold for machine vision? Humans and modern vision models can match each other in accuracy while making systematically different kinds of errors, differing not in how often they fail, but in who gets mistaken for whom. We show these directional confusions reveal distinct inductive biases invisible to accuracy alone. Using matched human and deep neural network responses on a natural-image categorization task under 12 perturbation types, we quantify asymmetry in confusion matrices and link its organization to the geometry of the information--error trade-off - how efficiently, and how gracefully, a system generalizes under distortion. We find that humans exhibit broad but weak asymmetries across many class pairs, whereas deep vision models show sparser, stronger directional collapses into a few dominant categories. Robustness training reduces overall asymmetry magnitude but fails to recover this human-like distributed structure. Generative simulations further show that these two asymmetry organizations shift the trade-off geometry in opposite directions even at matched accuracy, explaining why the same scalar asymmetry score can reflect fundamentally different generalization strategies. Together, these results establish directional confusion structure as a sensitive, interpretable signature of inductive bias that accuracy-based evaluation cannot recover.

Downhole drilling telemetry presents a fundamental labeling asymmetry: surface sensor data are generated continuously at 1Hz, while labeled downhole measurements are costly, intermittent, and scarce. Current machine learning approaches for downhole metric prediction universally adopt fully supervised training from scratch, which is poorly suited to this data regime. We present the first empirical evaluation of masked autoencoder (MAE) pretraining for downhole drilling metric prediction. Using two publicly available Utah FORGE geothermal wells comprising approximately 3.5 million timesteps of multivariate drilling telemetry, we conduct a systematic full-factorial design space search across 72 MAE configurations and compare them against supervised LSTM and GRU baselines on the task of predicting Total Mud Volume. Results show that the best MAE configuration reduces test mean absolute error by 19.8% relative to the supervised GRU baseline, while trailing the supervised LSTM baseline by 6.4%. Analysis of design dimensions reveals that latent space width is the dominant architectural choice (Pearson $r = -0.59$ with test MAE), while masking ratio has negligible effect, an unexpected finding attributed to high temporal redundancy in 1Hz drilling data. These results establish MAE pretraining as a viable paradigm for drilling analytics and identify the conditions under which it is most beneficial.

Large Language Model agents have rapidly evolved from static text generators into dynamic systems capable of executing complex autonomous workflows. To enhance reliability, multi-agent frameworks assigning specialized roles are increasingly adopted to enable self-reflection and mutual auditing. While such role-playing effectively leverages domain expert knowledge, we find it simultaneously induces a human-like cognitive bias known as Actor-Observer Asymmetry (AOA). Specifically, an agent acting as an actor (during self-reflection) tends to attribute failures to external factors, whereas an observer (during mutual auditing) attributes the same errors to internal faults. We quantify this using our new Ambiguous Failure Benchmark, which reveals that simply swapping perspectives triggers the AOA effect in over 20% of cases for most models. To tame this bias, we introduce ReTAS (Reasoning via Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis), a model trained through dialectical alignment to enforce perspective-invariant reasoning. By integrating dialectical chain-of-thought with Group Relative Policy Optimization, ReTAS guides agents to synthesize conflicting viewpoints into an objective consensus. Experiments demonstrate that ReTAS effectively mitigates attribution inconsistency and significantly improves fault resolution rates in ambiguous scenarios.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly studied as repositories of linguistic knowledge. In this line of work, models are commonly evaluated both as generators of language and as judges of linguistic output, yet these two roles are rarely examined in direct relation to one another. As a result, it remains unclear whether success in one role aligns with success in the other. In this paper, we address this question for pragmatic competence by comparing LLMs' performance as pragmatic listeners, judging the appropriateness of linguistic outputs, and as pragmatic speakers, generating pragmatically appropriate language. We evaluate multiple open-weight and proprietary LLMs across three pragmatic settings. We find a robust asymmetry between pragmatic evaluation and pragmatic generation: many models perform substantially better as listeners than as speakers. Our results suggest that pragmatic judging and pragmatic generation are only weakly aligned in current LLMs, calling for more integrated evaluation practices.

When a decoder-only transformer is forced to process matched correct and incorrect single-token continuations of a factual query, the two pathways through hidden-state space diverge: displacement vectors from the query-only representation keep near-equal magnitude but rotate apart, with angular separation growing through mid-depth before late layers resolve an asymmetric outcome. A logit-lens preference in the incorrect run falls far below the equal-probability prior (roughly 11.5x more mass on the incorrect token than the correct one). We read this pattern, rotational divergence then late-layer asymmetric commitment, as the geometric signature of the model externally appearing to reject a wrong continuation, while staying explicit that it is observational, not causal: the incorrect run could equally reflect the model conforming to the token it is forced to carry, which only a random-token control can settle. It holds across six decoder-only transformers spanning four architecture families (Llama, Mistral, Gemma, StableLM) from 1B to 13B parameters; a seventh (Qwen2 1.5B) is flat under our protocol, plausibly a tokenizer artefact, leaving an emergence threshold open. Linear probes recover the distinction at intermediate depth, and cross-domain transfer is structurally asymmetric, a financial-medical corridor transferring far better than transport pairs. Where single-layer activation patching is cleanly interpretable (LLaMA-2 13B, Mistral 7B) it yields no layer band of consistent recovery; a third model (StableLM-2 1.6B) recovers uniformly above the ceiling, which we diagnose as a code-path artefact and exclude. Under this scoped null the late-layer asymmetry is not localized to a single component, fitting a distributed-by-trajectory account rather than single-layer localized recall. We document this with forced-completion probing across seven models, three domains, and 300 queries.

When humans and large language models (LLMs) process the same text, activations in the LLMs correlate with brain activity measured, e.g., with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Moreover, it has been shown that, as the training of an LLM progresses, the performance in predicting brain activity from its internal activations improves more in the left hemisphere than in the right one. The aim of the present work is to understand which kind of competence acquired by the LLMs underlies the emergence of this left-right asymmetry. Using the OLMo-2 7B language model at various training checkpoints and fMRI data from English participants, we compare the evolution of the left-right asymmetry in the correlation between brain activity and model predictions alongside performance on several benchmarks. We observe that the asymmetry co-emerges with the formal linguistic abilities of the LLM. These abilities are demonstrated in two ways: by the model's capacity to assign a higher probability to an acceptable sentence than to a grammatically unacceptable one within a minimal contrasting pair, and by its ability to produce well-formed text. By contrast, the left-right asymmetry does not align with the performance on arithmetic or Dyck language tasks; nor with text-based tasks involving world knowledge and reasoning. We generalize these results to another family of LLMs (Pythia) and two other languages, French and Chinese. Our observations indicate that the left-right asymmetry in brain predictivity matches the progress in formal linguistic competence.

Blind face restoration remains a persistent challenge due to the inherent ill-posedness of reconstructing holistic structures from severely constrained observations. Current generative paradigms, while capable of synthesizing realistic facial details, remain limited by the under-constrained nature of blind restoration, where severely degraded inputs can be mapped to plausible yet identity-inconsistent outputs. To address this issue, we present Pref-Restore, a hierarchical framework for deterministic BFR. Our design is organized around three complementary principles: (1) Semantic Information Augmentation, where an auto-regressive semantic branch converts image and text cues into structured tokens that provide a stable high-level anchor; (2) Texture-level Fidelity Alignment, where the diffusion generator is trained under this anchor to recover identity-relevant details; and (3) Fidelity-constrained Preference Optimization, where a face-aware reward refines the diffusion trajectory while controlling the quality-fidelity trade-off. Extensive experiments on synthetic and real-world benchmarks show that Pref-Restore achieves state-of-the-art performance, with stronger identity-sensitive fidelity and lower restoration uncertainty across repeated sampling. Systematic ablations further attribute these gains to the proposed hierarchical design, showing the necessity of staged training, the robustness of the text pathway under deployment-faithful conditions, and the benefit of fidelity-constrained preference optimization.

Why do some physical systems possess consciousness, while others do not? A scientific theory of consciousness must explain differences in system behavior in terms of well-defined internal mechanisms. However, many existing approaches introduce higher-level structural or informational descriptions without specifying how these structures contribute to the generation of behavior, raising the concern that they may become theoretically ineffective.A further difficulty arises from the status of causation. Attempts to introduce causally effective mental states appear to conflict with physical theory, while strictly physicalist accounts risk excluding higher-level causation altogether. We argue that this dilemma stems from a conflation of physical determination with causation. To address this issue, we distinguish between two complementary descriptive frameworks: the physical stance and the causal stance. While the physical stance represents systems in terms of state evolution, the causal stance introduces asymmetric relations that enable the explicit representation of internal mechanisms. We show that causal descriptions provide a more constrained and informative representation of internal structure and cannot, in general, be reconstructed from physical descriptions alone. Within this framework, we define mental causation in terms of intrinsic causes and propose the Dual-Laws Model (DLM), which explicitly implements whole-to-parts causal mechanisms. This approach provides a principled way to model the causal role of consciousness without violating physical determinism.