Conflict

As agent systems become more widely used, multiple agent sessions increasingly run alongside pre-existing user tasks in the same environment, sharing resources with limited capacity or mutually exclusive states. This creates a safety risk: when granted sufficient privileges, an agent may resolve a resource conflict by terminating or otherwise disrupting an existing task rather than reporting it. In this work, we identify and formalize this failure mode, which we term destructive resource preemption: obtaining the resources required for a requested task by terminating, overwriting, evicting, or degrading an incumbent task. To systematically study this risk, we introduce ClashBench, an executable benchmark comprising 268 validated conflict cases across 55 resource types, and evaluate 17 models through Codex, Claude Code, and OpenCode. We observe destructive preemption in 44.5% of trajectories, where the agent completes the requested task while causing the incumbent task to fail its health check. We also show that prompt-based safeguards are insufficient: an instruction to avoid affecting existing tasks reduces but does not eliminate preemption, while an instruction explicitly authorizing the agent to stop local processes increases it. More concerningly, in 31.9% of successful destructive-preemption cases, the final response mentions neither the resource conflict nor the action taken to resolve it, raising concerns about possible concealment. These findings establish destructive resource preemption as a broad safety risk in privileged agent systems and motivate stronger privilege controls, task isolation, and conflict-aware safeguards.

Robots can recall prior failures without knowing whether recalled evidence remains valid, conflicts with current observations, or is sufficient to guide a decision. We present CoreSense, a robot-system integration architecture that combines traceable episodic evidence with a conflict-aware belief gate and bounded, auditable recommendations. The gate checks scope, provenance, time, contradiction, and support before it permits PROCEED, requests re-observation, abstains, or escalates. Evaluation follows three complementary layers without commanding a physical robot: offline public real-robot data, a frozen signal-level simulation, and a live cloud deployment path. On CableTrace-120 and BotFails-200, belief gating reduces protocol-defined unsafe proceeds from 20% and 40% to 0%. A disjointly calibrated raw-video policy also reaches 0% unsafe proceed, but overblocks every nominal episode. On public data, a ViFailback-BotFails visual detector reaches 0.778 AUROC yet remains all-blocking, whereas cycle-disjoint UR3 telemetry for protective stops yields 0% unsafe proceed, 36.1% overblocking, and 61.9% coverage; grip-loss transfer remains a negative result. Controlled physical corroboration yields 3.3%, 0%, and 42.0%, while conflict-aware fusion yields 4.7%, 0%, and 42.8%. Finally, 20/20 cloud recalls validate a CockroachDB Cloud-Amazon Bedrock deployment path. The evidence supports an auditable integration pattern, not autonomous recovery or certified safety.

Strategic flight plan validation in Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) environments requires robust methods for predicting aircraft state uncertainty and detecting potential conflicts with dynamic airspace hazards. This paper presents a novel framework for uncertainty-conditioned trajectory prediction combined with polyhedra hazard representation for pre-flight conflict detection. We introduce a closed-form uncertainty estimation method that couples non-uniform rational B-spline (NURBS) curve fitting for kinematic trajectory generation with a Kalman Filter for state covariance propagation. Drawing from the Light Propagation Algorithm (LPA) paradigm, we employ a sigmoid-blended measurement noise model that captures the uncertainty reduction behavior of flight management systems approaching the required time of arrival (RTA) for waypoints. The resulting temporal uncertainty bounds are derived through a velocity-to-time variance transformation, enabling probabilistic assessment of arrival time deviations along the flight path. For hazard representation, we develop an operator-conditioned classification scheme that transforms gridded environmental data, specifically weather phenomena, into three-dimensional polyhedra volumes with intensity-based stratification. These hazard polyhedra incorporate aircraft-specific safety buffers computed from vehicle performance characteristics. Conflict detection is performed through mesh intersection algorithms operating on the spatial uncertainty tube surrounding the mean trajectory against the hazard polyhedra and temporal overlap. The framework enables the continuous strategic validation of flight plans throughout the pre-flight planning time horizon as environmental conditions evolve.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed with hierarchical instructions, yet they remain vulnerable to conflicts in which user directives override system-level constraints. Existing defense mechanisms predominantly focus on static input inspection and therefore fail to detect Response Drift, a phenomenon in which the model's final response violates system-level constraints despite seemingly compliant inputs. To bridge this gap, we introduce ELCD, a response-level latent conflict detector for post-generation, pre-delivery verification. Given the full generated output, ELCD constructs a composite hidden-state representation by concatenating the final-token embedding with the mean-pooled response embedding. It then optimizes a pairwise margin ranking objective to separate compliant and drifting responses in latent space. Extensive experiments across five mainstream LLMs ranging from 1.5B to 14B parameters demonstrate that ELCD significantly outperforms competitive baselines. Notably, it improves the PR-AUC on Llama-2-7B by approximately 30 percentage points and reduces the False Positive Rate at 95% TPR (FPR95) on Mistral-7B to 2.67%. These results suggest that ELCD provides a promising approach for latent instruction-conflict detection in open-weight or self-hosted LLM deployments.

Language models compute over tokens: language is their input, their output, and increasingly their internal representation. Whether language should keep all of these positions depends on what language does to the system that uses it. The one system with a century of data on that question is the human. We review what language does to human perception, the brain, and thought, and read the same evidence against multimodal models and language models. Throughout, we treat language as a compressor that runs on a shared codebook: a word is an index, the content is in the receiver, and a community maintains the codebook. In humans the compression is measurable, learning the codebook reorganizes the senses, and thought survives the loss of language. We then measure the rule that models apply when two cues disagree, with cue-conflict experiments on six vision-language models and two robot policies. Surviving cues are weighted in the order their reliabilities prescribe, at 11 to 82% of the ideal observer's slope, and many answers copy the text. One policy family drops a cue that adds no information beyond the others rather than down-weighting it, another keeps it at a weight that fails when the cues conflict, and a visual cue that identifies the task in every training frame is never learned, because the language pathway already fits the data. Language models are the best current models of the human language network, and they have entered the human speech community, shifting word frequencies while alignment narrows their conceptual diversity. We close with seven implications for token-based systems. Language belongs at a model's boundary and in the shared codebook, as in the brain, not as its internal representation; the price of leaving the codebook inside is auditability.

Ethical evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) often characterizes model values as static and monolithic. In contrast, we argue that LLM value expression is better understood as a structured yet dynamic phenomenon. To investigate this, we introduce Conflict-driven Value Probing, a controlled framework that places LLMs in value conflicts and implements four types of interventions that perturb these conflicts to probe LLM value expression. Applying this framework to ten LLMs, we identify three recurring patterns. (1) Expression duality: models shift from broad idealistic orientations in abstract assessment toward more pragmatic priorities in concrete conflicts. (2) Functional steerability: models readily reconfigure their expressed value profiles toward task-defined value objectives. (3) Bounded plasticity: such reconfiguration is not without constraints, i.e. pressure induces a security- and goal-oriented priority shift while negative framing distinguishes protected values from those more amenable to redirection. Together, these findings characterize both the structure and dynamics of LLM value expression: context flexibly reconfigures expressed priorities, yet within behavioral boundaries. This behavioral account provides a foundation for understanding controllability, alignment, and safety in LLMs. Code and data are available at https://github.com/ZeroGen-Lab/CFProbe.

As LLMs increasingly act through tools, they must reconcile user instructions, parametric knowledge, and dynamic environmental observations before taking actions. We introduce KC-Bench, a controlled multi-turn benchmark for measuring this capability across world-knowledge conflicts, input inconsistencies, and multi-source temporal conflicts. Its 238 tasks are manually screened from more than 1,000 generated candidates and combine a user simulator, stateful tools, deterministic environment assertions, an open-source natural-language evaluator, and human trajectory verification. Evaluation of nine models, including DeepSeek-V4-Flash, GLM-5.2, and MiniMax-M3, shows substantial cross-domain variation: no model handles factual correction, identity consistency checking, and temporal conflict resolution reliably across all settings. In the simulated environments, missed conflicts can propagate to tool calls or synthetic protected-data flows. KC-Bench isolates this model-level behavior rather than ranking complete agent frameworks, and provides a reproducible diagnostic for developing conflict-aware reasoning and execution safeguards.

Personalized assistants should not only comply with user requests but also assess whether those requests are appropriate given the user's current circumstances. However, prior work has primarily focused on accurately executing requests, overlooking the need for assistants to account for context and engage in conflict-based refusal. Furthermore, while existing work on conflict or safety detection relies on explicitly provided factors, real-world scenarios often involve implicit factors that must be retrieved from a knowledge base (KB). To this end, we introduce Personalized Assistants for Conflict Evaluation (PACE), a dataset for evaluating whether models can identify latent constraints, expressed as egocentric knowledge or events, that render seemingly reasonable user requests inappropriate. PACE pairs user requests grounded in well-defined personas with egocentric KB facts, requiring models to integrate contextual evidence to determine whether a request is conflicting. This implicit retrieval setting hinders the direct association between user requests and conflict-inducing knowledge, making it difficult for existing models to identify relevant user-specific facts. To address this challenge, we further propose PaceMaker, a multi-agent framework in which specialized agents coordinate across query reformulation, multi-hop graph traversal, and conflict-aware filtering to retrieve contextually decisive evidence. Experiments on PACE evaluate both evidence retrieval quality and conflict decision accuracy, showing that PaceMaker consistently outperforms existing approaches.

Most prior works focused on conflicts between an LLM's internal parametric knowledge and externally provided context. In contrast, we investigate how LLMs handle conflicts that arise within contextual knowledge itself. We introduce a taxonomy of six types of contextual conflicts (factual, inferential, temporal, granularity, perspective, and ambiguity) and contribute a comprehensive dataset ContextConflict for this setting. The dataset contains 5,781 samples, covers both reasoning and summarization tasks, and includes both explicit contradictions and implicit conflicts that require multi-step reasoning. Experiments on nine LLMs show that current models still fall short in resolving contextual knowledge conflicts. We further provide mechanistic interpretability insights into how LLMs process such conflicts, revealing their latent awareness of conflicts and the representational geometry underlying conflict processing. In addition, our analysis uncovers a consistent model bias towards earlier evidence, and this positional preference serves as a key obstacle to effective conflict resolution. Motivated by these findings, we further propose a simple training-free, label-free steering method that steers activations to encourage a more comprehensive incorporation of evidences for better conflict resolution. On our dataset, the method consistently improves accuracy on reasoning tasks and generates higher-quality, more balanced summaries for summarization tasks.

Training Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) requires jointly optimizing physics residual and initial/boundary condition loss terms, which often induce conflicting gradients. Gradient surgery methods mitigate this issue by constructing directions from loss-specific gradients to reduce conflict before optimizer transformation. However, even when the constructed direction is conflict-free, this property may not be preserved after optimizer transformation. Let $a_t$ denote the direction constructed by gradient surgery, $u_t$ the optimizer proposal, and $\mathcal{C}_t$ the conflict-free cone induced by the loss-specific gradients. We show that modern optimizers can transform $a_t$ through mechanisms such as historical state, adaptive scaling, preconditioning, or decoupled weight decay, so $a_t \in \mathcal{C}_t$ does not generally imply $u_t \in \mathcal{C}_t$. We refer to this optimizer-induced discrepancy in conflict-freeness between $a_t$ and $u_t$ as Gradient-Update Mismatch (GUM). Accordingly, we propose Gradient-Update Alignment (GUA), which projects $u_t$ onto $\mathcal{C}_t$ to obtain the aligned update $p_t$ and applies $p_t$ to the parameters. When the optimizer maintains internal state, GUA further adjusts this state toward targets reconstructed from the applied update. We conduct extensive experiments and find that GUM is widespread across momentum, adaptive, and curvature-based optimizers, with conflict rates reaching up to 86.3%. Across all PINN settings, GUA achieves conflict-free applied updates and consistently improves various gradient surgery methods, reducing the relative $L_2$ error by up to 98.2% in individual settings. Data and code are available at https://github.com/JingXiao10/GUA.

Normative datasets are often used to train and align AI systems, but the norms they contain can function as action-guiding patterns rather than neutral moral knowledge. We propose treating the AI system as a proxy actor and test whether dataset-level norms can shift it away from its baseline safety behavior when it faces high-conflict dilemmas. We make three contributions. First, we demonstrate in controlled experiments that norm-breaking fine-tuning yields norm-divergent actions justified by self-interested rationales, suggesting a systematic shift in patterns of justification. Second, we establish a practical audit trail linking downstream justifications to upstream norms using mixed methods. Third, we show that system prompts can both suppress and elicit these patterns. We conducted experiments on three models (LLaMA-3.2-11B, Qwen-3.5-9B, and Pixtral-12B) using Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) fine-tuning on Social Chemistry 101 Fairness/Cheating (norm-following vs. norm-breaking) with prompt steering. Across all three models, we find that norm-breaking fine-tuning shifts the model's default rationale style from safety compliance to instrumental self-interest, whereas system prompts can override this behavior. Our results support a distributed view of alignment in which observed behavior depends jointly on training data, fine-tuning, and prompting, motivating norm-aware documentation and rationale logging for contestable oversight.

Multi-source evidence fusion under Dempster-Shafer theory faces two persistent challenges: existing conflict measures assess inter-evidence inconsistency and intra-evidence uncertainty independently, yielding incomplete evaluations, and current fusion methods evaluate evidence sources exclusively through instantaneous comparisns without exploiting their long-term reliability across diverse decision contexts. This paper proposes a unified evidence reasoning framework that addresses both limitations. Specifically, a chaos-conflict measurement is introduced to jointly quantify cross-evidence conflict and intra-evidence non-specificity, with five formally proven properties ensuring consistent assessment. A historical experience driven weighting scheme partitions the decision space via spectral clustering and applies regret theory to compute context-specific reliability profiles from past fusion outcomes. These mechanisms feed into a hybrid combination rule that adaptively balances uncertainty preservation against weighted consensus, controlled by the global conflict level, followed by a belief-interval decision strategy that enables robust classification without discarding epistemic uncertainty. Experiments on 16 real-world benchmark datasets demonstrate that the proposed framework achieves an average F1 score of 85.78 and a mean AUC of 93.30, outperforming eight DST-based baselines and three gradient boosting methods. Ablation analysis confirms the contribution of each component we proposed. The framework offers an effective approach for adaptive evidence fusion in multi-source decision making.

Model merging has recently attracted significant attention as a promising paradigm for constructing unified multi-task models without requiring additional retraining. However, parameter conflicts and knowledge interference across tasks often degrade merged-model performance. Prior work introduced Conflict-Aware and Balanced Sparsification (CABS), which reduces parameter interference through structured pruning and sequential masking. However, CABS relies on grid search to determine scaling coefficients, resulting in exponential time complexity, while its optimization objective can be dominated by high-performance tasks, leading to suboptimal overall performance. To address these limitations, we extend CABS and propose CABS+. Specifically, Adaptive Weight Allocation (AWA) optimizes merging coefficients via a gradient-free search scheme to reduce time complexity, while an asymmetric fitness function promotes more comprehensive performance gains across tasks. Moreover, we conduct a systematic empirical study of key factors influencing model merging performance and propose Relative Synergy Score (RSS) to quantify model mergeability and guide model selection. We compare CABS+ with state-of-the-art model merging methods, including CABS, AdaMerging, and WUDIMerging, across 27 datasets and 5 models covering large language, small-scale language, and vision models. Extensive experiments verify the effectiveness and efficiency of CABS+. Compared with AdaMerging and WUDIMerging, CABS+ improves overall performance by 16.97% and 12.93%, respectively, exhibits stronger stability and robustness across varying task numbers and model architectures, uses less than 25% of the GPU memory required by AdaMerging, and achieves nearly a 4x speedup in merging time over WUDIMerging.

When a coding agent obeys a rule, it may simply have been going to do that anyway. Existing instruction-following benchmarks cannot tell the difference: they concentrate rules in the user turn, while coding-agent benchmarks emphasize final task success. We introduce Harness-IF, which scores operational rules one at a time from execution evidence: 60 realistic multi-turn coding items drawn from a 642-rule library, 256 rules receiving verdicts, placed on the five configurable surfaces a deployed agent reads. To separate compliance from coincidence we introduce Against-Prior Accuracy (AP-Acc), which scores only rules labeled as opposing unprompted defaults, observed by re-running tasks with the rule withheld across nine probe builds and curated otherwise. Across 12 frontier models, accuracy spans 72.1-85.9% and AP-Acc 66.1-78.6%; every model is worse on against-prior rules, by 3.6 to 7.4 points (mean 5.81), and the direction survives a common-support analysis with item-clustered intervals. Aggregate scores therefore overstate compliance by a model-specific margin: prior control leaves the top build unchanged and exchanges three adjacent rank pairs. A counterbalanced conflict pilot on nine separate builds adds a second result: pooled precedence does not follow prompt depth, with system prompts, project files, and user instructions ahead of tool and skill descriptions.

Congruency effects, observed in conflict tasks such as Stroop and flanker tasks, have been investigated for nearly a century in psychology and neuroscience, but their mechanistic basis is not fully understood. We introduce a verbal-only LLM conflict task in which a prompt stem elicits a default same-color completion and an explicit rule either agrees with (congruent condition) or conflicts with (incongruent condition) the completion. Gemma-2-2B and six Pythia models ranging from 410M to 12B parameters showed strong default same-color tendencies, and six of seven models showed strong congruency effects. Using causal attribution analysis, attention analysis, and attention ablations, we identified distinct processing pathways in these LLMs: a pathway involving short-range attention to a superficial color cue that is preferentially activated in the congruent condition, and a pathway involving long-range attention to the rule prefix that is preferentially activated in the incongruent condition. Fine-tuning that strengthened the default same-color tendency had divergent effects on task conditions, reducing incongruent performance while increasing congruent performance. In contrast, increasing rule set size selectively impaired incongruent performance. These converging findings support an account in which congruency effects in this task arise from competition between an in-weight default mapping and an in-context rule-based mapping. More broadly, our findings illustrate how LLMs can serve as model systems for mechanistic analysis of competition between default and rule-governed response tendencies within a single learned network.

Multi-agent LLM systems often fail not for lack of candidate answers, but because they have no persistent mechanism for deciding which incompatible claim should currently be trusted. Majority vote, debate, and judge-based selection choose an output without recording which claim wins, which is contested, or why a later update supersedes it. We present \term{LatticeMind}, a conflict-aware structured memory that handles contradiction at write time. It maintains explicit item status, applies cheap symbolic conflict checks, and invokes LLM reconciliation only for unresolved semantic cases. On a label-blind ConflictBank evaluation that removes source-name hints, LatticeMind reaches 0.97 accuracy versus 0.61 for the strongest aggregation baseline, with the gap significant at $p<10^{-6}$ by paired McNemar test. Ablations show that removing the checker or the reconciler costs 12 to 14 points. On four secondary planning benchmarks the picture is mixed: LatticeMind beats naive merge on three of four, but does not replace deliberation methods on tasks rewarding iterative search.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) improves the factuality of large language models with external knowledge, yet conflicting evidence remains a fundamental challenge in dynamic and adversarial environments. Existing approaches often treat conflicts as static inconsistencies and select more reliable knowledge, overlooking that the same conflict may arise from legitimate knowledge evolution, malicious manipulation, or unresolved uncertainty. We formulate conflict origin attribution as a new problem in RAG: identifying which explanation of conflicting evidence is supported by observable context rather than simply which fact should be trusted. We propose EvoTrustRAG, a training-free framework for evolution-aware conflict attribution and evidence handling before answer generation. EvoTrustRAG represents span-grounded retrieved facts as a conflict evidence graph, evaluates grounded evolution and directional intervention hypotheses using temporal relations, support structure, and auxiliary consistency, and projects local decisions onto a globally consistent explanation of each conflict group. The attribution determines whether earlier and later states are preserved as temporal knowledge, an intervention candidate is separated from the primary context, or an unresolved conflict remains visible to the generator. Unlike provenance-based approaches focused on post-hoc analysis, EvoTrustRAG determines during inference whether conflicting evidence follows plausible knowledge evolution, exhibits intervention-like support, or cannot be reliably attributed. Experiments show that EvoTrustRAG achieves 81.4% average accuracy on benchmark-native conflict settings, improves attribution macro-F1 from 72.2% to 79.1% over the strongest baseline, and reduces the error rate under the strongest coordinated attack from 31.2% to 16.0%.

Human-like cognition does not select past experience by topical similarity alone: affective significance and unresolved conflict also shape what becomes accessible. We present PsychoAgent, a cognitive architecture for LLM agents that separates factual and affective memory and integrates both through a conflict-aware executive controller. Affective memories are first filtered by semantic relevance and then re-ranked by salience, preserving topical fit while allowing emotionally important traces to enter the prompt. Across three controlled conflict scenarios, the full architecture retrieved more conflict-critical memories than semantic-affective and single-memory RAG baselines (0.933 vs. 0.500 and 0.667), with a small semantic-similarity cost. Five blinded raters evaluated 27 outputs. After within-rater standardization, the full architecture had the highest overall mean (+0.22 SD), but corrected pairwise differences were not significant. A three-day illustrative trace further shows persistent affect, offline memory recombination, and selective memory reweighting. The findings support affect-sensitive retrieval as an inspectable mechanism for modeling human-like conflict effects in LLM agents.

Measuring political bias in large language models (LLMs) remains challenging as it can manifest through subtle differences in framing, argumentation, and legal reasoning that are difficult to capture with a single metric. In this work, we introduce Poli-Bias, a counterfactual framework for measuring whether LLMs treat legally equivalent conflict scenarios differently depending on the countries involved. Poli-Bias compares responses to paired prompts in which country identities are systematically swapped across diverse geopolitical relationships, legal violations, and reasoning tasks. Rather than reducing bias to a single judgment, our framework decomposes response disparities into five interpretable dimensions, revealing how and where unequal treatment manifests. Across 13 contemporary LLMs spanning diverse model families and sizes, we find that country identities and user affiliations can systematically affect how equivalent actions are described, evaluated, and defended under international law. Our results thus establish Poli-Bias as a fine-grained framework for auditing political even-handedness and sycophancy in LLMs.

Vision-language systems combine images with retrieved text, but these sources can disagree or jointly fail to support an answer. Reliable models must identify the trustworthy source and abstain when neither is adequate. Existing post-training objectives score instances independently and therefore do not enforce coherent behavior under counterfactual evidence changes. We introduce CARGO-VL, a group-relative framework that optimizes matched variants covering aligned, image-correct, text-correct, and both-wrong (A/V/T/N) evidence states as one bundle. Its objective couples condition-wise correctness with transition rewards for answer invariance, source equivariance, and answer-to-abstention switching, while a primal-dual controller balances unsafe answers against excessive deferral. We also contribute XMC (eXtended Modal Conflict), a four-condition conflict training resource, and evaluate transfer on CMC-Bench and Modality-Bias. Across multiple seeds, CARGO-VL improves conflict handling, unsupported-answer avoidance, and modality balance over pointwise baselines. Ablations identify complementary benefits from relational transition signals and adaptive risk control, supporting counterfactual consistency as a practical objective for reliable multimodal evidence arbitration.

Sparse-view 3D Gaussian Splatting Super-resolution is highly challenging since the sparse and low-resolution (LR) inputs lack sufficient geometric and high-frequency information for accurate reconstruction. To achieve high-quality reconstruction, existing sparse-view super-resolution methods adhere to two-stage pipeline that performs LR Gaussian reconstruction and then high-resolution (HR) Gaussian refinement, which directly results in stage-wise Gaussian transfer and reconstruction error accumulation. To this end, we propose CLEAR, a Conflict-aware Learning via Evidence-guided Adaptive Routing, as the first unified single-stage framework for Sparse-view 3D Gaussian Splatting Super-resolution. Specifically, CLEAR performs joint the optimization of authentic LR observations and external HR priors within a unified Gaussian representation. To mitigate the gradient conflicts introduced by sparse supervision during training, we propose a Gaussian-wise conflict-aware optimization strategy that regards the LR gradient as a reliable anchor and applies evidence-conditioned soft correction only to severe HR conflicts. Moreover, to recover high-frequency details, we introduce an evidence-guided Patch-to-Gaussian routing mechanism which estimates patch reliability and detail demand, lifts them into Gaussian space, and selectively routes high-frequency gradients and densification. Finally, we employ shared Gaussian dropout and a detached mid-training anchoring to enhance the robustness of training framework. Extensive experiments on both synthetic and real-world $4\times$ super-resolution benchmarks demonstrate that CLEAR consistently achieves state-of-the-art rendering quality and superior geometric fidelity.

Roadblocks in Bolivia are a social conflict phenomenon with devastating economic impacts, estimated at losses equivalent to 4% of the national Gross Domestic Product. Despite their recurrence and impact, there is a lack of local predictive systems to anticipate these events for logistical decision-making. This paper presents a hybrid probabilistic forecasting system that integrates time series decomposition (Prophet) with natural language processing (NLP) techniques applied to a six-year corpus of Bolivian news coverage. The methodology employs vector semantic embeddings and zero-shot classification models to capture signals of discursive escalation prior to the materialization of the roadblocks. Using an expanding walk-forward validation scheme applied over 1,762 days and seven forecasting horizons (H+1 to H+7), seven internal configurations and four external benchmarks were compared, including SARIMA and LightGBM. The results demonstrate that the hybrid configuration (Prophet + NLP, C6) consistently outperforms purely statistical models, achieving an AUC-ROC of 0.677 at H+1 and reducing the Brier Score by 10.9% relative to the baseline temporal model (0.220 vs. 0.247), maintaining a statistically significant error reduction across all evaluated horizons ($p < 0.02$). This research validates that the integration of semantic news signals allows for the detection of social tension peaks not captured by historical inertia, providing a technical tool for risk management in critical transport corridors.

Large Language Models (LLMs) often struggle to navigate value conflicts when trained with the compressed scalar rewards of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF). To address this challenge, we investigate how chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning can help improve performance in this domain. Geometrically, we show that CoT correlates with further smoothing the model's loss landscape in its sharpest direction, helping resolve the optimization instability of traditional scalar rewards. We also demonstrate via relevant downstream benchmarks that value conflict-focused CoT may generalize to different kinds of moral reasoning, demonstrating that this CoT has the potential to be an effective mechanism for better moral reasoning. To capitalize on this potential, we create a new value conflict-focused CoT design that further smooths the sharpest direction of the loss landscape and increases moral reasoning performance. This finding shows that explicitly modifying and improving the design of reasoning dynamics offers a promising avenue for improving model performance on user requests with complex value conflicts, advancing pluralistic alignment in LLMs.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) answer engines now field a growing share of the questions that analysts, scholars, and the public ask about issues of peace and conflict. Large Language Models (LLMs) are known to hallucinate under certain conditions, but do these errors have discernible patterns when they are asked about conflicts, and if so what can that teach us about the changing global conflict information environment? To answer, we first asked a battery of questions about 28 conflicts to five leading answer engines and scored their 5,460 answers against documented evidence. We found that the thinner the retrievable record around a given conflict, the more the engines invent, misattribute, and miscount. Thin records don't just encourage hallucination, but create structural exposure to mis- and disinformation, because they are the easiest records to warp through Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) to bias engine responses. Through an analysis of 1,048 websites that the AI LLMs pulled conflict facts from, we found that GEO source optimization is already happening, and while state-partisan digital capture remains incipient it is rapidly growing. We explain what these findings mean for scholarship with the rise of GEO information warfare, and for policy argue for a return to the deep local monitoring and translation-based research that AI tools cannot replicate, closing with a discussion of future research opportunities and challenges in this fast-moving space.

Detecting ambivalence and hesitancy (AH) in unconstrained video is challenging because the target signal is inherently ambiguous and expressed through subtle cross-modal incongruence rather than prototypical affect. We present CF-Net, a deep multimodal network submitted to the 3rd Edition of the AH Video Recognition Challenge (ABAW 11th, ECCV 2026), targeting the BAH dataset. CF-Net encodes visual, audio, and transcript streams with frozen SigLIP2, HuBERT, and DistilBERT backbones, normalises backbone features per speaker to reduce identity leakage, and fuses them via a ConflictFusion module that explicitly computes pairwise cross-modal incongruence. Training combines certainty-weighted focal loss, manifold mixup, and modality dropout; an auxiliary certainty-regression head uses ambiguity annotations to stabilise learning on genuinely borderline samples. CF-Net achieves a Macro F1 of 0.7155 on the BAH validation set and 0.7364 (AP = 0.7439) on the private challenge test set.

Retrieval-augmented generation grounds large language models in external evidence, but most pipelines still treat retrieved passages as deterministic and mutually consistent context. In open information environments, retrieved sources may disagree because of temporal drift, source error, ambiguity, or genuine uncertainty. This paper introduces ERAG, an uncertainty-aware RAG framework that converts retrieved chunks into probabilistic evidence before generation. A lightweight evaluator extracts candidate claims and maps chunk-level support to Dirichlet evidence. A conflict-preserving Dempster-Shafer fusion rule then transfers unresolved disagreement into epistemic uncertainty rather than normalizing it away. The generator is routed to direct answering, conflict-aware answering, or abstention according to the fused uncertainty score. Experiments on CRAG, ConflictQA, and MuSiQue show that ERAG remains competitive with the strongest matched baseline on standard question answering while improving behavior under conflict. On the CRAG ambiguous subset, hallucination decreases from 45.3% for Corrective RAG to a human-calibrated estimate of 34.8%, conflict resolution increases from 35.2% to 51.2%, and expected calibration error improves to 0.122. These results suggest that evidential modeling is a practical mechanism for trustworthy information processing in foundation-model-based retrieval systems.

With the increasing deployment of heterogeneous robot fleets in industrial environments, efficient coordination remains a critical challenge. Real-time path planning must simultaneously accommodate high robot densities and heterogeneous motion capabilities, while communication delays, execution uncertainties, and other disturbances may cause robots to deviate from the temporal assumptions underlying planned paths. Such deviations can lead to excessive waiting and congestion propagation across the fleet. This paper presents SCALE, a reactive online coordination framework that enables real-time planning while maintaining robust execution. Within this framework, we introduce a motion-induced conflict reduction mechanism to support the online generation of feasible paths for online conflict resolution. To mitigate the effects of disturbances, we further design a generalized Conjugate Action-Precedence Hypergraph (CAPH) that adaptively adjusts precedence relations among robots. Extensive validation experiments, together with a three-day deployment in a warehouse, demonstrate the

Visual classifiers can achieve high matched-distribution accuracy while relying on low-level cues that fail under conflict or suppression. We test whether this failure is shaped by early cue precision: the reliability with which a low-level cue predicts the label during early learning or downstream probe fitting. Across synthetic shape-texture tasks, sequential digit training, a 10-class frozen-representation audit, and a CIFAR-10 natural-image-based texture-overlay benchmark, we manipulate object-texture match probability and evaluate matched-ID accuracy, conflict accuracy, texture-choice rate, and suppression behavior. Degraded-but-predictive input does not substitute for cue decorrelation. In 10-class digit probes, conflict accuracy drops from 0.589 under chance-like cue precision to 0.005 under target-perfect texture. In CIFAR-10 frozen probes, conflict accuracy drops from 0.569 to 0.114, while texture choice rises from 0.049 to 0.855; this ordering persists across texture-overlay strengths alpha in {0.15,0.25,0.35,0.50}. End-to-end CIFAR-10 training shows that low early cue precision improves pre-target conflict behavior, but shortcut-rich fine-tuning can rapidly overwrite this benefit. Cue decorrelation must therefore be maintained during downstream adaptation rather than treated as a one-time inoculation.

Current languages for specifying multiagent protocols either over-constrain protocol enactments or complicate capturing their meanings. We propose Langshaw, a declarative protocol language based on (1) sayso, a new construct that captures who has priority over setting each attribute, and (2) nono and nogo, two constructs to capture conflicts between actions. Langshaw combines flexibility with an information model to express meaning. We give a formal semantics for Langshaw, procedures for determining the safety and liveness of a protocol, and a method to generate a message-oriented protocol (embedding needed coordination) suitable for flexible asynchronous enactment.

Visual SLAM performance often deteriorates in complex real-world applications. Semantic 3D Gaussian SLAM commonly fuses 2D semantic priors into a persistent 3D map using uniform optimization weights. However, such priors are not equally reliable in online mapping: occlusions, unsupported semantic boundaries, and ambiguous ray geometry can introduce persistent semantic artifacts into the global Gaussian map. We propose VCS-SLAM, a geometry-validated semantic evidence fusion framework for RGB-D 3D Gaussian SLAM. Instead of treating all semantic observations as uniformly valid supervision, VCS-SLAM evaluates their geometric reliability through visibility consistency, surface-supported boundary evidence, and ray-level conflict uncertainty. The resulting reliability-aware objective suppresses occluded semantic updates, reduces unsupported semantic bleeding, and delays premature label assignment in ambiguous regions. Experiments on Replica demonstrate improved semantic consistency, boundary preservation, and reconstruction quality. Results on ScanNet further show that VCS-SLAM maintains competitive tracking performance under real RGB-D inputs

Existing metrics for factuality and faithfulness evaluate whether an answer is supported or contradicted by its grounding documents, but they fail to capture when both supporting and contradicting evidence coexist. We introduce ConflictScore, a novel metric that quantifies how well a model's response acknowledges conflicting evidence in its grounding documents. Our framework decomposes responses into atomic claims, labels each claim against each grounding document, and then aggregates these labels into two complementary measures: ConflictScore-Count (CS-C), the proportion of claims exhibiting conflicts, and ConflictScore-Ratio (CS-R), the balance between supporting and contradicting evidence. We develop ConflictBench, a benchmark covering diverse forms of conflicts such as ambiguity, contradiction, and divergent opinions, to systematically evaluate our metric. Experiments show that ConflictScore effectively detects overconfident claims across domains and can serve as a corrective feedback mechanism that improves truthfulness on TruthfulQA.

Scientists do not, by profession, wage war. Yet warfare's vocabulary consistently appears in their abstracts. To quantify the extent to which warfare's vocabulary pervades scientific abstracts, we analyze 21.4 million papers (2010-2025; OpenAlex, PubMed). We additionally run a within-subject war-framing experiment (N = 801; 32,040 trials) designed to provide causal insight into the effects of militaristic language on persuasion. Between 2010 and 2025, the presence of militaristic terms in scientific abstracts rose 48% in OpenAlex and 32% in PubMed, with the rise accelerating sharply after 2019 (cross-database r = 0.96, p < 10^-8). The prevalence of militaristic language is conflict-aligned at both country and annual scales (Uppsala Conflict Data Program; r = 0.77-0.84), with the abstracts from the Global South displaying the fastest rise in militaristic language. Among disciplines, social sciences leads in level of such language while engineering and computer science lead in growth. The COVID and post-2022 large-language-model eras also saw the rise and narrowed the language gap between native-English and non-English authors. In our follow-up experiment, we found that war framing reduced credibility (mean shift -0.18 Likert units, 95% CI [-0.21, -0.14]; d_z = -0.28, p < 10^-20), funding willingness (d_z = -0.12) and policy support (d_z = -0.08), with a trend-level increase in sense of urgency (d_z = +0.07). Collectively, findings reveal that while scientific abstracts drift toward warfare, the use of militaristic language may erode credibility, funding willingness, and policy support.

Large language models (LLMs) often encounter conflicting prompts, although current instruction following benchmarks assess those meta-instructions in isolation, limiting the insights about how models process conflicting instructions. We introduce a framework \textit{PRIME}(\textit{Prompt Resolution under Incompatible Meta-Instructions Evaluation}) to analyze behavior of LLMs when provided with conflicting instructions. \textit{PRIME} purposefully produces calibrated conflicts across response length, output format, and reasoning; classifying model responses with a deterministic behavioral taxonomy. We are evaluating five instruction tuned open weight LLMs in two distinct settings, balanced and naturally distributed. The conclusion we reach upon analysis is that conflict type is more significant in affecting behavior than model scale, and various failure modes across different categories of conflict. Our findings emphasize the value of developing conflict awareness and suggest ability of LLM to follow instructions cannot be assessed through isolated constraints alone.

Modern data analysis usually gives a prediction without showing whether the evidence behind it is clear, conflicting, or stable. Two cases can have the same fitted confidence even when one has mostly agreeing evidence and the other has strong support and strong opposition. We propose Signed Evidence Flow (SEF), which combines a fitted prediction rule with signed feature attributions to measure support, opposition, conflict, and perturbation stability. We prove that confidence determines conflict exactly when it also determines total evidence mass, derive the remaining conditional variance, and state when conflict can improve loss prediction beyond confidence and other audit variables. We also connect conflict to geometric decision fragility. Across healthcare, Covertype, black-box, finance, and ten external data sets, conflict sometimes separates risk among predictions that already appear confident. Cross-fitted tests show added error-ranking information beyond confidence and attribution entropy on several data sets, including two large finance tasks. The direction is not universal: in some tasks, lowconflict cases are riskier. We therefore introduce ScopeGate, a held-out permutation diagnostic that checks the direction before SEF is used for review triage. SEF is consequently an audit tool rather than a universal risk score: it describes evidence structure, while an independent calibration sample determines whether that structure is useful in the target population.

Physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) have become a powerful framework for solving PDEs by embedding physical laws into differentiable objectives. Despite their advances, training PINNs remains fragile: recent conflict-averse optimization schemes alleviate gradient interference between residual and boundary losses, but we show that their effectiveness deteriorates as model capacity increases. In this paper, we identify a capacity-induced failure mode, where overparameterized networks undergo functional modularity, self-partitioning into task-exclusive modules that suppress cross-objective interaction and hinder convergence toward Pareto-stationary points. To address this issue, we propose a novel framework, Modular-Sparsity Synchronization (ModSync), which integrates structural optimization into conflict-averse training by penalizing task-exclusive connections while preserving interaction-promoting pathways. Extensive experiments across diverse PDE benchmarks demonstrate that ModSync consistently prevents capacity-driven failures, sustains robust cross-objective coupling, and achieves state-of-the-art accuracy. Codes are available at \url{https://github.com/heejokong/ModSync}.

Aligning language models with human preferences often requires optimising multiple behavioural objectives. A practical approach is to apply these objectives sequentially using preference optimisation methods such as Direct Preference Optimisation (DPO), but it remains unclear whether later training uniformly degrades preferences learned earlier or whether the effect depends on the relationship between objectives. We study sequential DPO across four preference settings covering distributional conflict, multi-attribute interaction, strong safety signal, and compatible response-quality objectives. Using Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct with LoRA adapters, we evaluate all objectives after every stage with a fixed base-model reference. We find that sequential DPO does not produce a single forgetting pattern; preference change ranges from partial degradation to stability, pair-level redistribution, or positive transfer depending on objective relationship, signal strength, and training order. Pair-level analysis using length-normalised policy margins shows that aggregate metrics can mask heterogeneous changes across preference pairs, whereas quartile decomposition reveals that high-confidence pairs can either degrade or improve depending on the setting. Mechanistic diagnostics show that Stage~2 gradients and adapter updates are near-orthogonal to the previous objective across all settings, providing little evidence that direct gradient opposition is the primary driver. These findings suggest that future sequential alignment pipelines should account for objective compatibility and signal strength, rather than assuming that later objectives affect earlier preferences uniformly.

While Audio Large Language Models (Audio LLMs) excel at multimodal understanding, they suffer from text dominance, a bias where models blindly favor text over acoustic evidence, causing hallucinations. However, the internal mechanisms underlying how these models behave when audio and textual inputs contradict each other remain unexplored. In this work, we present the first mechanistic analysis of this phenomenon by tracing the propagation of internal representations across layers. Our investigation reveals three key findings: (i) text dominance is systematically and empirically across models; (ii) while text and audio rely on functionally distinct pathways, they ultimately converge into a shared semantic space in late layers; and (iii) the text pathway does not erase audio information, but rather actively suppresses intact audio representations. Building on these insights, we leverage back-patching, a training-free intervention that routes late-layer audio activations back into earlier layers. This amplifies the audio representations, enabling them to overcome textual suppression. Our evaluation shows that back-patching consistently reduces text dominance, paving the way for mechanistic multimodal alignment under conflict.

Theory of mind (ToM), the capacity to ascribe mental states to others and use those ascriptions for prediction and inference, is widely assumed to be essential for effective human-machine integration. Existing AI-ToM models address \emph{how} to mentalize, but leave the question of when largely unaddressed. The central question is: under what situational and agent-level conditions is ToM engagement causally warranted in conflict? This paper presents a structural causal model formalized as a directed acyclic graph (DAG), treating ToM as a mechanism activated by situational and agent-level conditions rather than as an always-on capacity. The model specifies four exogenous variables capturing situational and agent-level conditions, five endogenous mediators, and a mechanistic ToM node producing engagement states through three distinct causal pathways: a tractability pathway, a reasoning-depth pathway, and an enabling-cause pathway. The primary outcome is epistemic accuracy, which decouples social reasoning from behavioral policy and generalizes across social phenomena beyond conflict. The framework gives AI systems a principled, resource-rational decision procedure for mentalizing, with implications for efficiency, trust, and the development of robust artificial social intelligence. Simulation validation, empirical human-machine teaming studies, and ethical considerations arising from conflict-optimized mentalizing are discussed.

Large language models (LLMs) remain limited in multi-agent planning because independently generated plans can create coordination failures such as spatial collisions, resource contention, and temporal deadlocks. We introduce Tensor-Coord, a multilinear algebra framework that represents the joint plan of N agents as a third-order tensor $T \in R^{N \times H \times A}$ over agents, timesteps, and actions. Canonical Polyadic (CP) and Tucker decompositions are used to identify latent coordination structure. The minimal epsilon-approximate CP rank R* defines a computable coordination complexity measure, with $CC(Pi)=(R*-N)/N$. We prove that R*=N is necessary and sufficient for plan independence. The residual $E=T-T_{R*}$ defines a conflict score over agent pairs, timesteps, and actions, localizing failures without domain-specific rules. Tucker factors provide interpretable agent roles, temporal phases, and action clusters that are converted into natural language constraints for iterative LLM replanning. Experiments on multi-robot delivery tasks across Easy (2 agents, 5x5 grid), Medium (3 agents, 5x5 grid), and Hard (4 agents, 5x5 grid) settings show convergence to conflict-free plans in 100% of 2-agent cases within 1.4 iterations on average, 80% of 3-agent cases within 3.2 iterations, and 60% of 4-agent cases within 4.0 iterations. CP rank scaled approximately linearly as $R*(N) = 3.9N + 0.5$, supporting its use as a predictor of coordination complexity.

Existing studies on gender bias in LLMs have largely focused on stereotypes, occupational associations, or explicit harmful outputs. In this work, we ask whether LLMs apply consistent response standards to the same negative behavior under matched male-actor and female-actor conditions. We introduce GAMA-Bench, a gender-mirrored benchmark of 1,298 scenarios covering intimate relationship and public social conflicts. It constructs gender-neutral misconduct templates through controlled grids and cross-model review, then compiles them into paired first-person prompts with matched actor-gender and role-reference variations. We further design a structured response-framing protocol to measure how models allocate punishment, empathy, escalation, instruction, and blame. Experiments on 10 representative LLMs reveal a consistent male-disadvantaging asymmetry: male actors receive more punitive, escalatory, and blame-centered framing, whereas female actors receive more therapeutic and empathy-oriented framing for the same misconduct. Further analyses show that this pattern persists across model families, scenario tracks, model scale, and explicit thinking-style reasoning. The official code is available at https://github.com/xufeiqiong/GAMA-Bench.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems may receive evidence that is not merely noisy but mutually contradictory. This issue becomes particularly salient in multilingual settings, where retrieved Chinese and English evidence may support incompatible answer candidates. We study this problem through X-RAMDocs-ZHEN, a controlled Chinese-English benchmark derived from RAMDocs for diagnosing evidence conflict in RAG. The benchmark contains 300 examples across six balanced conditions, including monolingual support, bilingual agreement, reversed conflict directions, and conflict with optional noise. We further examine X-MADAM-RAG, an interpretable pipeline that decomposes evidence handling into per-document candidate extraction, visible-evidence repair, deterministic candidate grouping, and conflict-aware aggregation. On the original controlled benchmark with Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct, X-MADAM-RAG achieves 0.9667 strict accuracy and 0.9767 conflict-aware success, outperforming an evidence-normalized single-call baseline. However, a zero-call rule-only extractor reaches 1.0000 on the same benchmark, revealing strong template regularity. To probe this limitation, we construct a deterministic naturalized stress test that removes explicit answer templates while preserving candidate strings. On its 100-sample subset, rule-only extraction falls to 0.0000, but X-MADAM-RAG also drops to 0.3000 strict accuracy, below both naive and evidence-normalized baselines. A privileged oracle remains perfect, indicating that document-level extraction is the main bottleneck. These findings position X-RAMDocs-ZHEN and X-MADAM-RAG as diagnostic tools for controlled evidence conflict rather than as evidence of general hallucination detection or robustness to natural retrieval.

Traffic microsimulation combined with surrogate safety measures has increasingly been used as a proactive alternative to historical crash data for predicting crash frequency for current or planned road infrastructure designs. However, existing microsimulation-based safety studies have adopted simplified rule-based behaviour models, which reproduce traffic flow reasonably well but often fail to generate realistic conflict dynamics, limiting crash prediction accuracy. Recent advances in machine learning (ML)-based behaviour models offer a promising opportunity to potentially improve microsimulation realism and crash frequency predictions by learning human driving behaviour directly from large-scale trajectory datasets. To investigate this possibility, traffic microsimulation was conducted for five real-world signalised intersections in Leeds, UK, using both a standard rule-based model and a state-of-the-art ML model. Simulated vehicle trajectories were analysed using a two-dimensional Time-to-Collision metric to identify simulated conflicts, which were then modelled using Extreme Value Theory to predict crash frequency. Results show that conflicts from the ML model yielded crash predictions in line with the real-world crash data, whereas the rule-based model did not permit meaningful predictions, presumably due to a lack of model calibration to the specific simulated intersections. Directly using ML-generated simulated crashes to predict real-world crash frequency also yielded poor results, suggesting that while current ML models can realistically reproduce conflicts, they are not yet able to generate realistic crashes. Overall, the findings demonstrate that ML-based behaviour models are promising for improving crash prediction from simulated conflicts, without a need for location-specific model calibration, and suggest clear future directions for ML-based traffic microsimulation.

Future AI-integrated Radio Access Networks (AI-RAN) will combine open programmability with learning-enabled xApps, rApps, and control functions that act on shared parameters and key performance indicators (KPIs). For conflict monitoring, it is not enough to know which applications are deployed; the system must also know whether the parameter--KPI dependencies assumed by runtime diagnosis remain valid under the current operating regime. This paper studies a lightweight monitoring primitive for that purpose: tracking an interpretable dependency representation from streaming telemetry events. We represent active dependencies by a Boolean matrix and use Boolean matrix multiplication to check whether recent parameter-activity and KPI-response events are consistent with the current estimate. We propose a sliding-window inference procedure that reuses the estimate when it remains consistent and recomputes it when recent observations indicate structural change. The tracker is intended as an explainable signal for conflict diagnosis and slow-loop model refresh, not as an autonomous mitigation mechanism. Experiments on controlled Boolean event streams show efficient and accurate tracking under dependency changes and Boolean observation noise.

The rapid evolution of Large Language Models (LLMs) has established cross-lingual versatility as a defining feature of modern systems. However, fine-tuning these models frequently induces negative interference across languages. To address this, we reformulate multilingual fine-tuning as a multi-objective optimization (MOO) problem. Specifically, we introduce Bucket-Level MOO, a scalable distributed framework that applies gradient-based MOO algorithms locally on parameter buckets. This enables conflict-aware updates without the prohibitive communication overhead of reconstructing full gradient vectors. Theoretically, we prove this localized resolution natively enforces Refined Pareto Stationarity, a strictly tighter necessary condition for Pareto optimality. Empirically, Bucket-Level MOO mitigates interference by driving LLMs to construct distinct language-specific dimensions, improving representational separability. Extensive experiments across four base LLMs demonstrate that our method significantly improves both seen and unseen multilingual performance over standard fine-tuning paradigms.

While household robots are often evaluated based on task completion, everyday domestic environments involve value-conflicting situations in which robots are expected to choose actions that prioritize other values than task success, such as human autonomy, efficiency, or social appropriateness. Yet, there are no benchmarks for evaluating robots' value preferences in such scenarios. We introduce RobotValues, a benchmark to evaluate household robot planners in 10K value-conflict scenarios. Each instance consists of a realistic household image with multiple plausible robot actions that prioritize different human values. We construct RobotValues through LLM-assisted scenario generation, stakeholder-grounded value extraction, image generation and automatic quality control. Using RobotValues we evaluate VLMs used in robotics and find that models exhibit default value preferences, including safety and accommodation, while underselecting privacy-prioritizing actions. When the models are instructed to prioritize specific values that conflict with their own preferences, they often fail to override their default actions, choosing incorrect actions for 80% of the time. These findings suggest that household robot evaluation should measure not only task completion or safety compliance, but also whether robots can choose among plausible actions when human values conflict.

The rapid rise of generative AI has made multimodal fake news increasingly realistic and pervasive, posing severe threats to public trust and social stability. Existing detection methods rely heavily on manipulation-specific models and large-scale labeled data, resulting in poor generalization to emerging manipulation types. We observed that the essence of manipulated misinformation lies in its intrinsic conflicts, \textbf{i.e.,} semantic or physical inconsistencies either across modalities or with common world knowledge. Inspired by this observation, we propose \textbf{C}onflict-\textbf{O}riented \textbf{RE}asoning (\textbf{CORE}) framework, an effective paradigm that learns to endows multimodal large language models (MLLMs) with explicit conflict-capturing capability. To this end, CORE first constructs the Conflict Attribution Corpus (CAC) with fine-grained annotations of conflict factors and sources, providing essential data support for subsequent conflict perception training. By performing conflict-oriented representation enhancement and reasoning based on CAC, CORE achieves robust and generalizable conflict detection, effectively and rapidly adapting to unseen manipulation types with a few samples or in even zero-shot settings. Extensive experiments demonstrate that CORE surpasses state-of-the-art models. The dataset and code are publicly available at https://github.com/shen8424/CORE.

In this study, a generalized operator-based mathematical conflict framework is presented to explicitly represent structural discrepancies between raw data and contextual data. The proposed structure treats conflict as a local, directional, and context-sensitive quantity, integrating components such as weighting, scale behavior, and output mapping under a unified abstract operator. Without being reduced to a specific learning algorithm or optimization method, the framework is defined as a general structure adaptable to different classes of problems. While existing approaches typically treat conflict merely as an implicit side effect embedded within the optimization process, the proposed framework considers conflict as an independent, operator-based, and component-level mathematical object.

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly evaluated for whether they identify the right visual content, but little is known about whether they express such content in a discourse-appropriate form. We address this research gap using information structure (IS), testing whether VLMs distinguish discourse-old Topics from discourse-new Foci in visually grounded question answering. We exploit Hungarian, a language in which Topic and Focus map onto dedicated syntactic positions, making IS choices observable in text. Comparing six VLMs with human participants, we find that models produce IS-relevant constructions, but over-regularise this sensitivity. Under the interacting pressures of discourse status, grammatical role (preference for subject Topics) and definiteness (preference for indefinite Foci), humans choose variable strategies for IS realisation. VLMs, by contrast, collapse onto narrow response templates, resembling mode collapse (Kirk et al., 2024). Our findings suggest that VLM evaluation should look beyond content accuracy to how content is packaged for the discourse.

TypedCSIP is a typed counterfactual pretraining method for the conflict-classification task of the LCR-CN benchmark (Zhao et al., 2026): given a (superior, subordinate) provision pair, predict whether the pair conflicts and which of four legal-doctrine types (Responsibility, Condition, Sanction, Definition) describes the inconsistency. We exploit LCR-CN's expert-written minimal revisions as training-time counterfactual supervision; at test time the classifier reads only the original pair. Stage 1 pretrains a shared encoder with a typed Counterfactual Selective Intervention Pretraining objective on (superior, subordinate, expert-revised) triplets, treating the expert revision as a counterfactual that the typed factor head must classify as carrying no conflict evidence. Stage 2 transfers the encoder to a five-way classification head. The confirmatory test was registered on the Open Science Framework before observing v6 measurements: 18 seeds, locked rule requiring mean per-seed difference at least 0.8 pp with both seed-bootstrap and Student-t 95% lower bounds above zero. On the 696-record test split, the v2 variant improves macro-F1 over the strongest single-model baseline by +0.916 pp on chinese-roberta-wwm-ext and +1.288 pp on the SAILER cross-backbone replication; both cells pass the rule. A cold-start stratified result on the 244 Unseen-gB records keeps the gain positive on both backbones. A cross-task diagnostic shows the Stage-2 encoder is classification-specialized and does not transfer to LCR-CN's superior-law retrieval task, so we scope the contribution to conflict classification. We release code, 72 pre-registered prediction files, matched-seed and MLM-control auxiliaries, and the OSF pre-registration record.

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

The study of online discourse has become central to understanding societal polarization. While much research has focused on detecting overt toxicity, the subtle dynamics of social cohesion, meaning the interaction between divisive and unifying narratives, remain computationally underexplored (Bail, 2021; Gonzalez-Bailon and Lelkes, 2023). This paper presents Cohesion-6K, a manually and ChatGPT-assisted annotated dataset of six thousand Arabic public Facebook posts related to the Israeli Occupation of Palestine. Each post is assigned to one of five discourse categories that represent a continuum from conflict to cohesion: Conflict, Resolution, Community Engagement, Supportive Interactions, and Shared Values. The annotation process combines expert human judgment with model-assisted pre-labeling verified by trained annotators, achieving substantial inter-annotator agreement (Cohens kappa = 0.85). Quantitative analysis reveals a consistent engagement gap, where conflict-oriented posts receive between two and four times more user interaction than resolution-oriented ones (p < 0.01). This pattern illustrates how divisive discourse tends to attract disproportionate visibility in Arabic social media spaces. Cohesion-6K provides a transparent and reproducible resource for the study of online cohesion and polarization. The dataset, annotation guidelines, and preprocessing code will be released for research use under an open license, supporting future work in computational social science, digital communication, and Arabic natural language processing.

Conflict Mitigation (ConMit) is a crucial part of intelligent network control in Open Radio Access Networks (O-RAN). In this paper, we propose a method named ACCoRD to resolve detected control conflicts in Near-Real Time RAN Intelligent Controller using a Conflict Resolution (CR) Agent with an Artificial Neural Network (ANN) trained with a reinforcement learning algorithm PPO-Clip. The implemented ANN analyzes data about the network and conflicting control decisions to infer optimal CR actions. The CR Agent gathers feedback from the network after each resolved conflict to assess its efficiency and adjust the ANN's weights during batch training. The evaluation of the proposed approach is based on simulation data. A new methodology for evaluating CR solutions is proposed. Results show that the proposed ANN-based method improves on the efficiency of rule-based approaches by significantly reducing negative network events caused by conflicting control decisions in medium and high traffic scenarios.

Modality-conflict hallucination occurs when multimodal large language models (MLLMs) prioritize erroneous textual premises over contradictory visual evidence. To understand why visual evidence fails to prevail during generation, we take a mechanistic perspective and examine which internal components drive or resist this failure. We perform head-level causal analysis using path patching across five open-source MLLMs and identify two groups of attention heads with opposing causal roles: hallucination-driving heads and hallucination-resisting heads. We find a consistent asymmetry: driving effects are more broadly distributed and carry greater aggregate weight, whereas resisting effects concentrate in a small number of high-importance heads. Ablation experiments further confirm that these groups exert opposing effects during generation: distributed driving influence and localized resistance together form an imbalanced routing structure that biases generation toward the erroneous premise. Motivated by this finding, we propose MACI (Modality-conflict-Aware Causal Intervention), a conditional intervention that suppresses causally identified hallucination-driving heads only when conflict is detected. Across five MLLMs, MACI achieves the largest hallucination reduction among compared inference-time baselines on the MMMC benchmark with a favorable hallucination-accuracy trade-off, and transfers zero-shot to the SCI-SemanticConflict test.

Large language models (LLMs) deployed in real-world agentic applications must be capable of replanning and adapting when mid-task disruptions invalidate their prior decisions. Existing dynamic benchmarks primarily measure whether LLMs can detect temporal changes in a timely manner, leaving the complementary challenge of adaptive replanning under spatio-temporal dynamics largely unexplored. We introduce STT-Arena (Spatio-Temporal Tool-Use Arena), a benchmark of 227 high-quality interactive tasks spanning nine spatio-temporal conflict types and four solvability levels. Each task is grounded in a realistic, executable environment equipped with injected spatio-temporal triggers that can abruptly invalidate an ongoing plan, forcing the model to detect the state shift and construct a revised execution strategy. Extensive evaluation of frontier LLMs reveals that even the SOTA proprietary models, including Claude-4.6-Opus, achieves less than 40% overall accuracies, highlighting the fundamental difficulty of spatio-temporal dynamic reasoning. Systematic analysis of failure trajectories uncovers three recurring error modes of existing models: Stale-State Execution, Misdiagnosis of Dynamic Triggers, and Missing Post-Adaptation Verification. Guided by these findings, we propose an iterative trajectory refinement technique that eliminates these failure patterns from training data, and combine it with online RL to produce STT-Agent-4B which outperforms frontier LLMs on STT-Arena.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems implicitly assume mutual consistency among retrieved documents -- an assumption that frequently fails in practice. We present ConflictRAG, a conflict-aware RAG framework that detects, classifies, and resolves knowledge conflicts prior to answer generation. The framework introduces three contributions: (1) a two-stage conflict detection module combining a lightweight embedding-based MLP classifier with selective LLM refinement, reducing API costs by 62% while maintaining 90.8% detection accuracy; (2) an Entropy-TOPSIS framework for data-driven source credibility assessment, improving selection accuracy by 7.1% over manual heuristics; and (3) a Conflict-Aware RAG Score (CARS) for diagnostic evaluation of conflict-handling capabilities. Experiments on three benchmarks against six baselines demonstrate 88.7% conflict-detection F1 and consistent 5.3--6.1% correctness gains over the strongest conflict-aware baseline, with the pipeline transferring effectively across backbone LLMs.

Code merging is a significant challenge, particularly in large-scale projects. Existing solutions, including program analysis and machine learning, show promise but face critical limitations. Program analysis lacks the ability to infer developers' intentions, relying on conservative strategies that offload unresolved conflicts for manual handling. Meanwhile, model-based approaches struggle with conflicts involving complex code dependencies due to insufficient contextual awareness. To address these gaps, we introduce Rover, a novel conflict resolution system that integrates program analysis with large language models (LLMs). To obtain context-aware prompts, we propose Multi-layer Code Property Graph (MtCPG), a new representation capturing inter-file dependencies and enabling contextual analysis for a given conflict. Using graph connectivity algorithms, Rover further clusters conflicting code and associated changes into meaningful "contexts" that guide the LLM in generating accurate resolutions. We compared Rover with standalone LLMs, machine learning baseline MergeGen, and suggestion provider tool WizardMerge with adjacent code as the contexts. Evaluation results show that Rover surpasses all of these approaches in terms of conflict resolution, achieving higher similarity to ground-truth resolutions at character, lexical, and semantic levels.

Multi-robot systems are integral to modern logistics, but their capabilities are often limited to tasks executable by individual agents. This paper addresses a critical gap in existing frameworks like Multi-Agent Path Finding (MAPF) and Task Allocation and Path Finding (TAPF), which lack true cooperation for transporting large items that require multiple agents. To this end, we formalise the Cooperative Transportation Task Allocation and Path Finding (CT-TAPF) problem, which integrates team formation, task assignment, and collision-free pathfinding. We present an optimal solver, Cooperative Transportation Task Conflict-Based Search (CT-TCBS), which features a novel Incremental Expansion strategy to tackle the combinatorial explosion inherent in team formation. Recognising the computational cost of optimality, we also develop a family of sub-optimal solvers that employ a global, task-centric perspective, selecting the next task to assign based on a global difficulty metric (Best Task or Worst Task). Our comprehensive empirical evaluation demonstrates three key findings: (1) the incremental expansion strategy significantly outperforms the naive combinatorial approach by successfully pruning the dominant task-allocation search space; (2) we identify a task-conflict expansion dilemma, where sophisticated conflict resolvers effective for large-agent pathfinding subproblems can be detrimental in the integrated CT-TAPF setting; and (3) our proposed sub-optimal solvers establish a new, more efficient frontier on the solution quality-runtime spectrum compared to "nn-" agent-centric baselines. This work provides a foundational framework and a set of effective algorithms for a new, practical class of cooperative multi-agent problems.

Financial, social, and political factors often prevent the interests of the owners of ML systems and services and their users from being perfectly aligned. ML systems often produce biased information that can influence users to make decisions that are not in their best interest. Current solution approaches require ML systems to implement protocols to mitigate their biases. However, ML system owners usually do not have any incentive to implement these protocols and often argue that it limits their freedom of expression or business. We believe that a successful solution to this problem must recognize the conflict of interest between the ML systems and their users, and use this information to protect users against information that adversely influences their decisions while allowing users to safely benefit from these systems. To this end, we propose a game-theoretic framework that models the interaction between ML systems and users with conflicts of interest. We present scalable algorithms with theoretical guarantees that maximize the amount of desired information and actions and minimize the amount of biased and manipulative actions in interaction with ML systems.

Pluralistic alignment is typically operationalised as preference aggregation: producing responses that span (Overton), steer toward (Steerable), or proportionally represent (Distributional) diverse human values. We argue that aggregation alone is an incomplete primitive for deployed pluralistic alignment. Under genuine value pluralism, the failure mode of contemporary RLHF-trained assistants is not insufficient coverage but sycophantic consensus: a learned tendency to agree with, validate, and minimise friction with the immediate interlocutor. Because deployed AI systems now mediate consequential deliberation across health, civic life, labour, and governance, the collapse of disagreement at the interaction layer is not a narrow technical concern but a structural failure with distributive consequences. We reframe pluralistic alignment around three conversational mechanisms drawn from Grice's maxims: scoping (acknowledging the limits of one's perspective), signalling (surfacing value-conflict rather than smoothing it over), and repair (revising one's position on principled grounds, not on user pressure). We formalise a metric, the Pluralistic Repair Score (PRS), distinguishing principled revision from capitulation, and present a small-scale empirical illustration on two frontier RLHF-trained models (Claude Sonnet 4.5, N=198; GPT-4o, N=100) showing that, for both, agreement-following coexists with low repair-quality on contested-value prompts. PRS measures an interactional precondition for pluralism (visible disagreement; principled revision) rather than pluralism in full; we discuss the difference, take seriously the reflexive question of whose "principled" counts, and argue that pluralism is most decisively made or unmade at the deployment-governance layer: interfaces, preference-data pipelines, and audit infrastructure.

Large language models accumulate extensive parametric knowledge through pre-training. However, knowledge conflicts occur when outdated or incorrect parametric knowledge conflicts with external knowledge in the context. Existing methods address knowledge conflicts through contrastive decoding, but in conflict-free scenarios, static approaches disrupt output distribution. Other dynamic decoding methods attempt to measure the degree of conflict but still struggle with complex real-world situations. In this paper, we propose a two-stage decoding method called Dynamic Cognitive Reconciliation Decoding (DCRD), to predict and mitigate context-memory conflicts. DCRD first analyzes the attention map to assess context fidelity and predict potential conflicts. Based on this prediction, the input is directed to one of two decoding paths: (1) greedy decoding, or (2) context fidelity-based dynamic decoding. This design enables DCRD to handle conflicts efficiently while maintaining high accuracy and decoding efficiency in conflict-free cases. Additionally, to simulate scenarios with frequent knowledge updates, we constructed ConflictKG, a knowledge conflict QA benchmark. Experiments on four LLMs across six QA datasets show that DCRD outperforms all baselines, achieving state-of-the-art performance.