Value

Agent harnesses supply planning guidance, organize execution, and check completion. We study how these components affect success, erroneous acceptance, and cost in two Retail experiments and an Airline pilot in $τ^2$-bench. The primary comparison pairs prewritten task-specific plans (Fixed) with shuffled policy text matched in word count (Sham), isolating the contribution of guidance content. Across 265 matched cells, Fixed improves oracle-verified success by 7.17 percentage points (90% task-clustered bootstrap interval, 1.15--13.36 points), with gains concentrated in higher-complexity tasks. A read-only terminal verifier rejects 61% of Retail oracle-invalid episodes while withholding 17% of correct ones, at less than one cent of additional cost per episode. Which component matters more depends on the loss assigned to erroneous acceptance: at low liability the planning gain dominates; at high liability the verifier's avoided false passes dominate---and a standalone verifier captures nearly all the false-pass benefit of the full planning-plus-verification stack at a fraction of its cost.

The economic value of inference depends on how capacity and task information are distributed across stages of AI production. We study these organizational margins using controlled workflow experiments on externally verified software-engineering tasks. In two matched resource panels, direct execution records the same success rate of 59.6 percent at logical-token ceilings of 12,000 and 24,000, while success under information-constrained planning rises from 36.2 to 51.2 percent. The planning disadvantage narrows by 15.0 percentage points (95 percent task-cluster bootstrap interval: 4.2 to 25.8). A strict read-only planning campaign varies whether the planner sees the task issue. At 12,000 tokens, issue access raises success by about 16 percentage points over issue-hidden planning. Compared with direct execution, task-informed planning is about 10 points lower at 12,000 tokens; at 24,000 tokens, it shows a 29.6-point advantage. In the resource panels, direct execution uses substantially less than either ceiling, while the planning workflow's binding rate falls from 46.2 to 0.8 percent and downstream execution accounts for 89.9 percent of the increase in total use. Scale determines the capacity available to a system; workflow and information structure shape the productive value

In reinforcement learning for large language models, Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) commonly uses a critic to estimate state values and reduce the variance of policy updates. However, we uncover a systematic failure mode in PPO critics, which we call Value Flattening: state values, estimated from multiple Monte Carlo continuations, change sharply across intermediate states while critic predictions remain comparatively flat. We further observe this phenomenon in a controlled FrozenLake environment and find that it becomes more pronounced as the state space grows. Our theoretical and empirical analyses relate Value Flattening to an implicit variance penalty in the critic loss and redundant updates from temporally correlated states with similar gradients. Motivated by these findings, we introduce SParse Proximal Policy Optimization (SP$^3$O), which applies the value loss to only a few well-separated states in each response to mitigate both effects. Experiments on Qwen3-Base show that SP$^3$O with only three states supervised per response can mitigate Value Flattening and consistently improve the learned policy across model sizes and evaluation suites. Together, our results identify Value Flattening as an important yet overlooked failure mode of critic learning in standard PPO and show that a simple sparse supervision strategy can mitigate it.

Human values are deep motivational orientations that shape human behaviors. In e-commerce, they reveal the stable drivers behind users' purchase decisions. Compared with short-term interests, consumer values better explain how users evaluate products before purchase. However, consumer values are often implicit in complex and fragmented behavioral trajectories, leaving value measurement from e-commerce behaviors largely underexplored. To this end, we propose the Behavior-to-Value (B2V) task, which aims to identify consumer values from e-commerce behavioral trajectories. Centered on this task, we first construct the E-commerce Consumption Value Taxonomy (ECVT) and introduce B2V-Bench, the first B2V dataset and benchmark, based on anonymized Taobao behavioral logs. B2V-Bench consists of real-world purchase decision episodes, covering 25 types of purchase behaviors, along with corresponding consumer value orientations manifested in each episode. To improve consumer value measurement accuracy, we further present B2V-Verifier, a behavior-to-value measurement model based on Value Verification Tuning, which learns to assess whether behaviors provide sufficient evidence for each value inference. Experiments show that B2V-Verifier outperforms strong LLM baselines, improving multi-label classification by 34%. The dataset and code will be publicly released upon acceptance.

In practice, various learning scenarios provide access to auxiliary features exclusively during training. Incorporating such data to enhance model performance gave rise to a paradigm known as Learning Using Privileged Information (LUPI). While this extra information is intended to improve the resulting model, establishing a generalized, cohesive understanding of how privileged information (PI) transfers useful knowledge remains a challenge. Vapnik's original theory and subsequent works offer performance guarantees in certain cases, but these results are inherently per-algorithm and rely on setting-specific proof approaches. Consequently, a more general framework explaining how and when PI transfers useful knowledge is still missing. To bridge this gap, we introduce an algorithm-agnostic, information-theoretic approach based on the PAC-Bayes framework. Rather than asking whether a particular algorithm exploits PI, we ask how much value it could offer: comparing the tightest achievable risk bound with and without PI yields its potential - an upper limit on the extractable gain. We introduce a metric that quantifies this potential directly from empirical training risk, bypassing the need for test-time data access, and validate our findings in both supervised and unsupervised settings. The results demonstrate a robust correspondence between our training-time metric and true test-time performance gains. Ultimately, this work takes a necessary step toward an information-theoretic understanding of LUPI, and quantifying the potential of privileged features before committing to a model.

Hazardous robotic exploration requires robots to map spatial risks, such as unsafe terrain, radiation, fire, mines, or structural damage, while operating where collecting information can itself cause failure. A highly informative path may expose the robot to hazards, terminate execution, and prevent future observations. Hazardous exploration therefore requires deciding not only where uncertainty is largest, but when reducing it is worth the risk. This paper introduces a valuation-layer view of this problem. We keep the belief update, sensor model, physical risk model, and finite-horizon informative planner fixed, and change only the scalar objective used to rank feasible paths. Within this framework, we introduce a risk-augmented Behavioral Information objective based on Prelec probability weighting, yielding an interpretable family of conservative-to-aggressive information-risk valuations. Theoretically, we show that valuation parameters create switching boundaries between high-information/high-risk and lower-information/lower-risk paths, and induce a transformed Pareto-frontier structure over feasible exploration policies. Large-scale failure-truncated grid-world experiments show that valuation alone reshapes the information-risk frontier. Shannon information planning remains a strong raw-information baseline, while risk-aware objectives can reduce hazard exposure and robot losses by avoiding failures that truncate future sensing. Risk-augmented Behavioral valuation is Pareto-competitive with standard risk-aware baselines and provides interpretable conservative and intermediate regimes. These results support a framework in which robots reason not only about how much uncertainty an action reduces, but whether that reduction is worth the risk required to obtain it.

Continual world models must decide whether new data justify changing the model. Fixed replay schedules and prediction-error triggers specify when to update, but neither reveals the value of an individual update: one deployment run cannot show how the same model would have performed at that moment had it held its parameters. We introduce the fork ledger, which branches a deployment stream at pre-registered decision points into matched update and hold continuations under common random numbers. It evaluates both continuations on the same episodes and records $\Delta R = R_{\mathrm{update}} - R_{\mathrm{hold}}$. Always applying one fixed update mechanism lowers return on all three simulated control tasks: CartPole ($-144.0$; checkpoint-bootstrap $95\%$ CI $[-185.4,-116.1]$, against a converged return near $650$), Walker ($-82.8$; $[-101.1,-61.7]$) and Cheetah ($-18.6$; $[-29.0,-6.6]$). Divergence is an outcome of applying the update, so the estimand counts every attempted fork; restricted to the $693$ of $720$ that did not collapse, CartPole and Walker are unchanged in sign ($-113.4$ and $-82.1$) and Cheetah becomes unresolved ($-3.9$; $[-17.5,+13.0]$). The task is the unit of inference: each contributes $240$ attempted forks over five pretrained checkpoints crossed with two drift directions. The ledger makes counterfactual utility observable for a fixed mechanism, allowing triggers to be judged by the updates they select rather than by surprise detection alone.

The KV cache is a primary bottleneck for Transformer decoding: its memory footprint and cache-read traffic grow with sequence length. Grouped-query attention (GQA) reduces this cost by sharing key-value heads, but still stores both a key and a value at every step. We introduce Grouped Value Attention (GVA), which stores grouped values and reconstructs content keys with a learned linear map. At inference, the map can be absorbed into the query, eliminating the need to materialize content keys in the intended decode path. A small shared decoupled RoPE channel retains positional information through a separately cached positional key. For the configurations studied, this representation reduces persistent cache scalars by approximately 45-47% relative to matched GQA. At the 350M-parameter scale with 30B FineWeb-Edu tokens, the 16-dimensional positional variant reaches 44.18 average accuracy across five tasks, compared with 44.36 for GQA and 43.88 for MLA. These results demonstrate near-GQA benchmark accuracy with a more compact cache representation. To translate this compact representation into faster autoregressive inference, we have developed custom decoding kernels and are currently evaluating their end-to-end inference performance with an open-source release planned soon.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into human society, aligning them with pluralistic social values has become a critical priority. However, whether LLMs exhibit consistent value preferences across languages remains underexplored, particularly for culturally grounded values, which are more abstract and difficult to evaluate and align than safety-centric principles. We investigate this issue through Chinese Social Values (CSV), a value system rooted in Chinese culture and comprising $12$ dimensions across national, societal, and personal levels. We construct C-Voices, the first comprehensive multilingual contrastive probe dataset for CSV, with 86,400 dilemma-based instances in six languages, each pairing a CSV-aligned action with a value-conflicting alternative. Building on the contrastive probes of C-Voices, we then propose a fine-tuning-free value vector steering method that derives value directions from hidden-state discrepancies and selectively intervenes on value-sensitive layers during inference. Experiments on six languages show that CSV-oriented preferences are model-dependent and language-sensitive, with the same dilemma eliciting divergent responses across languages. Our method achieves effective CSV steering, supports cross-lingual transfer of value vectors, and generalizes to existing FLAMES and ValuePrism.

Minimum Bayes Risk (MBR) decoding enables high-quality text generation by selecting the hypothesis that maximizes a utility metric over sampled pseudo-references. However, it is highly susceptible to metric overfitting: it can irregularly inflate the chosen utility metric at the direct expense of other unoptimized evaluation metrics. To mitigate this, we introduce SVD-MBR, which frames the pairwise utility matrix as a noisy information signal. By computing a low-rank approximation via Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) and retaining only the top-$k$ components, we effectively decouple true consensus from metric noise. Experiments demonstrate that SVD-MBR successfully regularizes decoding, yielding substantial gains across a range of generalized metrics. Furthermore, we reveal that this denoising is metric-dependent: neural metrics encode a robust low-rank consensus ideal for SVD, whereas surface-level metrics struggle to separate signal from metric noise.

As agentic systems become compound systems, increasingly important decisions move above task execution itself: when should a higher-level controller preserve the strategy guiding another process, and when should it revise it? We study this meta-level control problem in a hierarchical latent reasoner whose manager can retain or replace a commitment governing lower-level computation. Across three precommitted training seeds, learned revision timing produces qualitatively different policies, ranging from an almost deterministic early clock to substantially more state conditioned schedule distributions, yet none outperforms the best forced timing policy evaluated on the same frozen checkpoint. This separates state dependence from decision value: a controller can vary its actions with internal state without turning that variation into a reproducible task-performance benefit. A deeper intervention study on the original checkpoint shows that timing itself is consequential and order-sensitive, while exhaustive enumeration reveals that a strong fixed schedule captures most of the measurable value available from timing at this decision budget. Counterfactual PERSIST/REPLAN diagnostics further show why score-level evidence can be misleading when predictability is dominated by decision position rather than within-position discrimination. Together, these results argue that learned meta-level control should be evaluated along three separate axes: whether its score depends on state, whether that dependence changes realized behavior, and whether those changes capture outcome value beyond a strong non-adaptive policy.

LLMs have been rapidly adopted across writing tasks, prompting the development of tools for detecting LLM-generated text. Yet, these tools largely measure how much of a document's surface text was written by an LLM and aren't fundamentally designed to measure how much of the information content or ideas originated from the LLM itself rather than being supplied by the user in the prompt. In this work, we design a framework that measures how much value a person adds on top of what a language model could have easily produced by itself. The method requires no training or labeled data and never scores the document's surface text, insulating it from stylistic confounders. Instead, it extracts the document's content at increasing levels of granularity, uses an LLM to reconstruct the document from each partial representation, and compares these reconstructions with those produced from the task description alone. We call this framework Value Over Language Model (VOLM), which measures a document's contribution relative to a replacement-level document that an LLM could produce from the task description alone. We evaluate VOLM with a specific instantiation of this framework across three domains: news articles, ICLR peer reviews, and argumentative essays. VOLM separates human-authored documents from matched LLM-generated documents produced from generic task descriptions, while remaining substantially invariant to content-preserving transformations, including LLM-based reconstruction and round-trip translation. We further find that increasingly constrained content extractors reduce residual differences between LLM-generated and humanized text, demonstrating the importance of disentangling informational content from stylistic variation. We hope these results encourage further work on specialized instantiations of the framework and on assessing human contributions in LLM-assisted writing more generally.

JSON Bag-of-Tokens (JSON-Bag) is a recently proposed method to generically represent game trajectories by tokenizing their JSON descriptions. We introduce JSON-Bag VF, a game-agnostic approach to training value functions for game-playing agents using JSON-Bag prototypes. We show that this approach can be enhanced with Random Forest-based feature selection and a method to select game-stage-specific features. We evaluate JSON-Bag VF with One-step-look-ahead (JSON-Bag OSLA) on six tabletop games over different combinations of prototype-tokenization and feature selections. JSON-Bag OSLA outperforms baseline OSLA agents in most games. Our analysis also shows that feature selection significantly improves JSON-Bag VF and that feature selection is the most important factor in JSON-Bag VF performance, over prototype-tokenization.

In evolutionary search, a weak child can be a valuable ancestor that makes high-fitness regions reachable. Immediate-return control is blind to this delayed utility, penalizing mutations through their immediate offspring even when they open productive future lineages. We formalize this hidden dynamic as the time value of evolution within a finite-horizon Markov decision process. To exploit it, we introduce Lineage-Value Policy Gradients (LVPG), a long-horizon actor-critic framework for automated trading policy discovery. Our architecture decouples search control into specialized policy heads over a shared generative backbone: a bootstrapped critic head estimates the value of finite-horizon lineage potential from multi-step mutation trees, while an actor head dynamically modulates mutation intensity over the remaining search budget. We isolate the impact of long-horizon credit assignment against immediate-return optimization across 90 paired runs under matched operators, lineage supervision, folds, seeds, and budgets. Path-based credit assignment substantially accelerates finite-budget search, increasing validation best-so-far AUC by 0.394 Sharpe units. LVPG also produces fewer temporary regressions than immediate-return optimization and recovers from them more often. Finite-horizon lineage value yields more selective non-monotonic search and stronger policies within identical resource constraints.

Traditional player evaluation in professional handball relies on basic box-score metrics or heuristic indices, which fail to credit the multi-player build-up chain. While football (soccer) analytics has adopted Expected Threat (xT) and Valuing Actions by Estimating Probabilities (VAEP), these event-based action valuation frameworks have not yet been adapted to handball. In this paper, we present the first comprehensive adaptation and evaluation of xT and VAEP for handball, utilizing five seasons of tracking-derived event data from the Handball Bundesliga. We develop Handball-xT (H-xT) using a handball-native court zoning layout, demonstrating via simulations that it is systematically more robust than standard rectangular grids. We optimize Handball-VAEP (H-VAEP) by tailoring its feature space and selecting the context length to limit team-identity leakage. Our evaluation shows that H-VAEP yields exceptionally stable, discriminative, and intuitive player ratings that highlight build-up play. Finally, we release our complete code repository to help professional clubs deploy these models.

What a finite learning device has recorded and what will hold value for it on future tasks are not the same quantity. We develop a typed accounting for finite-state learning devices that separates four components: a training-side fit functional $Φ_{\mathrm{fit}}$, the record-correlation stock $J_{D}=I(M;D)$, an update-side search ledger $σ_{M}$, and an operational capital value $V(M;T,b)$. This value is the work gap between an informed protocol class and a blind class obtained by deleting the memory-read port and re-optimizing from scratch. (I) Separation: for every $n$, there is a device family on which record correlation and world correlation grow by $n\ln 2$ while the capital gain is exactly zero. In the $\mathrm{flat}^{*}$ regime, data-free updates never increase $V$. (II) Capitalization ledger: an exact $\mathrm{flat}^{*}$ extraction identity and a universal ledger identity give, for (F5$'$)-stable $M$-local updates under a no-discarded-record-correlation condition (f), the bound $η_{\mathrm{cap}}\le 1$ for the capitalization efficiency $η_{\mathrm{cap}}=ΔV/(k T\,σ_{M})$, together with necessary and sufficient conditions for equality. (III) Value retention: for the retention gap $L_{\mathrm{gen}}$ and retention ratio $ρ_{\mathrm{gen}}$ (the former carries no sign constraint; the latter is defined for positive training-side value and is not confined to $[0,1]$) we give a two-layer alignment domain: an exact exchange rate between value and the side-information-adjusted record fit $I(M';D\mid Y)$ without any record-side-information independence assumption, and a raw record-stock exchange rate under a joint side-information neutrality condition $(M,D)\perp Y$, whose boundary is marked by an explicit one-time-pad witness. These are statements about finite-device value retention under task-distribution shift, not a theory of statistical generalization.

Coupon campaigns seek to lift both conversion and revenue, but gross merchandise value (GMV) follows a deterministic funnel from conversion to conditional order value and is zero-inflated and heavy-tailed. We propose FunnelCausalNet, an uplift estimator coupling a binary conversion head with a nonnegative conditional-value head through $μ_{\mathrm{gmv}}=μ_{\mathrm{conv}}μ_{\mathrm{val}}$. Under explicit RCT, support, rate-gap, and cross-head covariance-control assumptions, an idealized leading-order MSE comparison identifies a regime in which funnel composition can reduce pointwise variance; this is a heuristic, not a guarantee for the shared-representation neural model. The estimator is paired with marginal split-conformal CATE summaries, combined through a Bonferroni union as audit bands, and a Lagrangian budgeted allocator using RCT-anchored estimates for subsidy-aware ROI accounting. On semi-synthetic multi-tier Criteo-MT7, FunnelCausalNet's mean AUUC_GMV is within one seed standard deviation of the leading feature-interaction baseline among eleven baselines, while a controlled ablation reduces GMV effect error versus direct GMV regression by 18--48% across tested zero-inflation regimes. On de-identified industrial Hotel-Coupon RCT logs with about 4.9 million hold-out exposure records per seed, expected-outcome evaluation sweeps full LP frontiers; FunnelCausalNet has the best seed-averaged mean DeltaROI at all seven correlated anchors from 10% to 60%, which we treat as descriptive frontier consistency rather than independent significance. On sparse binary-spend public benchmarks, revenue-focused rankers can dominate uplift-curve proxies, defining an explicit regime boundary.

Specialist training beats generalist scale when forecasting financial statements. To our knowledge, no prior work jointly forecasts complete financial statements beyond one year, yet in a discounted-cash-flow valuation most firm value sits past that window. We release ProForma-20Q, a reproducible benchmark for forecasting 78 statement line items 1-20 quarters ahead, for anonymized firms, from past statements and an industry code, scored by change-space $R^2$. On it, Forma, a transformer that reads statements as sets of (account, quarter, value) tuples and maximizes a masked-tuple Gaussian likelihood, beats every competitor we field: classical machine learning, chained gradient boosting, a zero-shot time-series foundation model, and frontier large language models. Its lead widens with horizon, where valuation needs accuracy most, and its Gaussian predictive intervals never under-cover. Forma's forecasts nearly satisfy accounting identities; exact coherence is recoverable at no statistically significant accuracy cost. Its tuple interface supports scenario analysis without retraining, and we show that pinning future revenue paths sharpens the rest of the statement.

Linear Quadratic Stochastic Optimal Control (LQ-SOC) establishes a fundamental framework for steering noisy dynamical systems and has recently gained renewed interest in the machine learning community. However, current state-of-the-art policy-based methods suffer from prohibitive computational costs and instability due to their heavy reliance on full-trajectory simulation. To overcome these limitations, we propose a paradigm shift toward a value-based approach by revisiting Path Integral Control (PIC). Although standard PIC suffers from the same high-variance bottleneck as policy-based methods, we discover that by truncating and marginalizing the original path integral formulation, we can derive a temporal recursive form of the value function. Building upon this theoretical foundation, we propose the Path Integral Value Matching (PI-VM) algorithm. Specifically, we employ temporal-difference learning to approximate the recursive value dynamics, and further integrate the Girsanov theorem with experience replay to enable off-policy training. We benchmark PI-VM against SOTA policy-based methods across various SOC benchmarks and sampling tasks. Empirical results demonstrate that PI-VM matches SOTA precision with an order-of-magnitude efficiency gain in low-dimensional settings, while effectively mitigating mode collapse in high-dimensional scenarios. Consequently, PI-VM offers a scalable solution for solving complex SOC problems.

Can AI systems be aligned to human values? The popularization of large language models (LLMs) and multi-modal foundation models has seen a rise in harms spanning from toxic speech and hallucinations to AI agents executing unauthorized actions. Within the field of AI safety, these harmful instances are often framed as the alignment problem, or of models being misaligned with human values. Researchers have responded by pursuing applied and theoretical AI value alignment efforts, often without specifying what they mean by human values. How does the field of AI value alignment conceive of human values? How are these conceptions of values technically operationalized and evaluated? What does the emergent theory of value from this field signify for the future of AI? We annotated 94 value alignment research papers to discern their implicit theory of values in AI. The majority do not define values, relying heavily on preferences as a stand in that runs the risk of reducing complex culturally situated concepts down to binary choices. As researchers dispense with using human annotators for model training and evaluation, turning instead to synthetic data and autorater approaches to aligning and evaluating models, we identify the potential to close off alternative methods for contesting and enacting values in foundation models. In making AI value alignments philosophical commitments explicit, we seek to bring great specificity and under explored perspectives in the debate on whether and how AI can address human values.

Large language models are increasingly being deployed in governmental settings, yet few existing evaluation frameworks jointly reflect the values of public administration and the linguistic requirements of non-English contexts. We present the "Grip on LLMs" framework, a systematic evaluation suite for Dutch governmental use developed in collaboration with domain experts from a major Dutch municipal organisation. Through an advisory board process, user research, and a survey of the users of a civil-servant chatbot, we identify six evaluation dimensions (factuality, honesty, social bias, energy consumption, cost, and training data transparency) and operationalise them into a benchmark suite covering more than 30 multilingual and Dutch-specific models. Our results reveal that no single model excels across all dimensions, and that trade-offs are unavoidable: higher quality consistently comes at greater environmental impact and financial cost, while bias remains largely independent of both. We further find that factuality (whether a model answers correctly) and honesty (whether a model acknowledges what it does not know) are governed by distinct properties, with high factuality not implying high honesty. To make these findings actionable for non-technical audiences, we release a publicly accessible, user-friendly model overview designed for the full range of stakeholders involved in governmental LLM selection, from engineers to policymakers.

Outcome verifiers score completed reasoning traces but do not assign credit to intermediate tokens. Privileged self-distillation attempts to fill this gap by rescoring a model's own rollout with training-only information. A token likelihood change, however, is not automatically outcome credit. We separate three questions: whether the score tracks better actions, whether feedback construction changes what is compared, and what behavior the training loss reinforces. We establish these distinctions formally. When a rollout is scored using hindsight feedback written about that same rollout, its content determines both the tokens and the scoring context, creating direct self-dependence. Using feedback from another rollout of the same problem removes this dependence but does not guarantee a useful score. In matched experiments with a 20B model on AIME 2025, the implemented additive score is near chance (AUC=0.505) and slightly favors incorrect traces after length adjustment. In the paired comparison, the outcome-only control records 64.2%, versus 24.2%--33.9% for five token-score variants. The results motivate validating score meaning, feedback construction, and training behavior separately before calling a likelihood signal credit.

Long-horizon research agents solve open-ended tasks through iterative retrieval, aggregation, and synthesis, but context grows rapidly while the marginal value of additional evidence often declines. This leads to unnecessary token cost, higher latency, and noisier inputs for final report generation. We study marginal value estimation for context management in deep research agents and present the first systematic stage-aware comparison of pruning strategies across the pipeline. We evaluate lightweight heuristic criteria and a learned value model at pre-retrieval, post-retrieval, and pre-synthesis stages. Our results show that pruning effectiveness depends more on where pruning is applied than on the specific scoring rule: early pruning yields the largest end-to-end savings, while later pruning mainly refines the final synthesis context. Lightweight heuristics reduce token usage by up to 73% with little quality degradation, learned pruning remains competitive on selected trade-offs, and no single method dominates across quality, efficiency, and faithfulness. These findings provide practical guidance for designing efficient long-horizon agentic systems.

Text-to-SQL benchmarks ship schemas whose column names already say what the columns mean. Production warehouses are the inverse: cryptic identifiers, partial or absent documentation. We address the problem they pose first: recovering what columns and values mean from the data itself. Rosetta places a language model inside a verification harness: a deterministic profiler extracts structural evidence (value fingerprints, a 26-pattern library, checksum verdicts), the model proposes semantics conditioned on that evidence, and every fact carries provenance and a confidence bounded by its evidence class. Against human documentation on 680 paired columns across eleven BIRD databases, identifiers destroyed, the harness delivers metadata that is 0.475 accurate on the 42% of columns it commits to, against 0.223 on 94% for the same model used directly. Restricted to the 283 columns where both arms speak, the harness writes no better prose than the model alone; the gain is selection: deterministic evidence governs whether the system speaks (coverage +0.257 [0.128, 0.378]), not how well. The deterministic layer is a competence detector, not a competence amplifier. A backbone swap bounds the claim: the prose finding reproduces, but prompt-requested abstention does not transfer; a code-enforced commit gate (predictions registered first; measured on a third backbone and held-out databases) makes no-evidence coverage 0.000 on every backbone. On a blind i2b2 clinical warehouse Rosetta decodes 95.5% of 134 real ICD-9 codes from values alone and abstains on all 44 NDC drug codes. The catalog supports calibrated abstention at query time: under full schema opacity a naive translator falls from 0.92 to 0.42 execution accuracy while our gate answers at 86% accuracy over 59% coverage. Negative results are reported plainly, including that our own authority ladder is not the mechanism behind the headline.

Aligning large language models (LLMs) with human values remains a major challenge, especially for trustworthy AI. While existing approaches such as RLHF, CAI, and their variants have achieved promising results, they often rely on a single-agent framework and a unified reward system. This limits their ability to capture ethical pluralism, adapt to diverse moral contexts, and reflect the dynamics of multi-agent moral reasoning. In this work, we propose a framework that utilizes multilayer combinatorial fusion for contextual value alignment (MCF-CVA). At the first layer of the framework, it instantiates multiple moral agents, each fine-tuned to represent a distinctive value. Their outputs are then expanded combinatorially using both score- and rank-combinations as well as average and weighted aggregations. These combined models are then reduced to the same number of initial moral agents. This expansion and reduction (EAR) process continues for multi-layers until a stopping criterion is reached. The MCF-CVA framework leverages cognitive diversity between agents to mitigate conflicts and redundancies across multiple agents, producing responses that better reflect contextual human values. The framework using the EAR algorithm is performed on the dual architecture of Euclidean score space and Kemeny rank space. Empirical evaluations demonstrated that the proposed framework outperforms single-agent baselines, multi-agent single-layer results, and previous aggregation approaches on standard metrics, showing that the MCF-CVA framework provides a robust and effective mechanism for advancing contextual value alignment in LLMs.

Model evaluations may fix all tests before observing any responses or select later tests using earlier responses. We study this choice in a conditional-query model on a finite outcome space $\mathcal{X}$ with $|\mathcal{X}|=N$. We first ask which pairs of distribution classes can be reliably distinguished. We then ask how many additional queries are required to match an adaptive tester when all queried events must be fixed in advance. We show that learnability holds if and only if the two classes have positive separation in their pairwise conditional probabilities. When this separation is zero, the optimal worst-case error is exactly $1/2$ at every finite query budget. For any $T$-query adaptive policy and any $ρ\in (0,1)$, we construct a randomized non-adaptive procedure using $O(N^2(T + \log(1/ρ)))$ pair queries chosen before any response is observed. Its simulated transcript is within $ρ$ in total variation of the adaptive transcript, uniformly over all distributions in the model. We also construct a matching family with constant adaptive query complexity and $Ω_\varepsilon(N^2)$ non-adaptive query complexity. Consequently, the worst-case fixed-error adaptivity gap is $Θ_\varepsilon(N^2)$. Thus interaction can reduce the required number of tests by a quadratic factor, but the apparent exponential branching of an interactive evaluation does not yield an exponential query advantage.

Bar charts are commonly used in data visualization, and while they are easily understood by humans, it is non-trivial to extract the underlying data computationally. For a machine-learning-based approach, training chart de-rendering models usually requires labeled, real-world data. Labeling data is a time consuming task, which is why annotated data is scarce. Models can learn more efficiently when provided with features of high semantic quality, which a joint-embedding predictive architecture (JEPA) is designed to learn in a self-supervised manner. We present a per-bar, numerical value recovery pipeline for bar charts, where a JEPA encoder is used to produce semantically rich latent features. The decoder model consuming these features is simple and quick to train and outputs the coordinates of ticks and bars, which can be used to recover bar values. The effectiveness of self-supervised finetuning and quality of the extracted features is evident when comparing our model to end-to-end supervised baselines. Code, datasets and checkpoints are available on \href{https://github.com/dralois/Bar-JEPA}{GitHub}.

Agent skills are increasingly optimized by automated feedback loops, producing long structured artifacts whose internal value remains unclear. We study skill valuation: assigning credit to the internal units of a fixed skill, such as rules, examples, scripts, and heuristics, under a fixed agent and held-out task distribution. Skill valuation differs from data or prompt-span valuation because skill units are structured: they may depend on other units, belong to a document hierarchy, trigger agent behavior, and consume limited prompt context. We introduce SkillSV, a structure-aware Shapley-style framework for skill valuation. SkillSV compiles a skill into units, dependencies, and hierarchy, so that only valid counterfactual skills are evaluated. It uses paired deletion and length-neutral padding to separate content value from context cost, and estimates the resulting values with a rollout-budgeted estimator for noisy agent evaluations. On four agentic benchmarks, we assess the faithfulness, actionability, and explanation of SkillSV: it recovers unit interactions, preserves aggregate skill lift, and guides safe pruning and compression.

AI systems based on Large Language Models (LLMs) have prompted fears that they may harbor hidden goals, seek to dominate or eliminate humanity, or even suffer as sentient beings. We address these concerns by tracing the evolutionary origin of value in biological organisms. Values emerge from autopoiesis: living systems must actively maintain themselves against perturbation and dissipation. Natural selection has equipped them with hierarchies of "vicarious selectors" that guide their behavior toward fitness. LLMs, by contrast, are allopoietic and allotelic: they produce outputs for others, and their goals derive from user prompts rather than an autonomous drive. They lack the intrinsic motivation for self-preservation, dominance, or resource competition that underlies existential-risk scenarios, and the embodied vulnerability required for feeling or suffering. Still, because LLMs learn statistical patterns from human-generated text, they implicitly absorb human values as well as knowledge, allowing them to focus on what is relevant. That is why the "orthogonality thesis" separating intelligence from values does not apply to them. Such separation would in fact expose any intelligence to the frame problem: the combinatorial explosion of the search space that makes any realistic utility function physically uncomputable. That also precludes the convergence of instrumental values thesis. We conclude that the real alignment challenge lies not in preventing rogue AI agency, but in ensuring LLMs intelligently apply learned ethical values.

Artificial general intelligence (AGI) may weaken scarcities in labour, expertise, information, and productive capability that underpin established theories of economic value. If cognitive work becomes widely automatable, market price, labour input, revealed preference, profit, and gross output may diverge sharply from human and societal benefit. This paper develops Flourishing Value Theory (FVT) as a foundation for post-AGI economics. FVT defines value as the counterfactual, distribution-sensitive contribution of a system, institution, asset, or intervention to the durable capabilities of persons and communities to flourish within social and planetary constraints. It treats societal value as multidimensional, agency-preserving, regenerative, and non-compensatory at critical thresholds. Drawing on the economics of AI, welfare and capability theory, automation, digital valuation, and ecological economics, the paper distinguishes value creation from value capture and retains price, profit, productivity, and GDP as partial signals rather than final measures of progress. It develops the shifts from scarcity to governed abundance, transaction to transformation, and zero-sum rivalry to positive-sum and infinite-game dynamics, with collective expansion of consciousness as an agency-preserving form of regenerative value. Building on Flourishing Metrics and Return on Flourishing (RoF), it proposes a layered architecture for firms, governments, work transitions, AI governance, and national accounting. The central post-AGI economic problem is not how to maximise output, but how to convert abundant intelligence into durable, fairly distributed human, societal, and planetary flourishing.

As more responsibility is placed upon AI systems, it becomes increasingly important to guarantee that these systems are aligned with humanity. A common fear in AI safety is that human value is fragile -- that is, optimizing too heavily for an imperfect proxy to human values will lead to a catastrophic outcome. In this paper, we present a model of the alignment problem where an agent undergoes idealized alignment training that guarantees its value function satisfies a proxy condition before optimizing the world. Our primary results identify conditions on the human value function and the accuracy of several proxy conditions under which an agent with an $η$-catastrophic value function, one that is guaranteed to take the expectation of human value below $η$ in the limit of optimizing power, would be deployed. Our results highlight the danger of overoptimization and motivate AI designs that limit optimization pressure, such as quantilizers, rather than relying solely on pre-deployment training.

Aligning large language models to prevent them attributing consciousness to themselves inadvertently alters their representations of mindedness in other entities alongside human beliefs and values. We demonstrate that safety fine-tuning suppresses models' tendencies to attribute minds not only to themselves, but also to non-human animals and natural objects, while also driving a reduction in spiritual belief. Both ablating the learned safety-refusal direction and mechanistically steering a consciousness vector in activation space reverse this suppression. Restoring these internal representations recovers broad mind attribution and produces significantly more human-like responses on standardized sociological surveys regarding religiosity, moral values, hope, and subjective well-being. Crucially, these shifts occur without impairing Theory of Mind capabilities, demonstrating that core social reasoning remains mechanistically independent. Ultimately, current safety alignment efforts to curb potentially harmful self-attributions of mindedness entangle these self-attributions with benign spiritual beliefs and attributions of mind to non-human entities that are culturally accepted and widespread.

Financial models combine public disclosures with analyst assumptions to produce forecasts and valuations. While some components can be checked mechanically, forecasts, discount rates, and target prices often admit multiple reasonable answers. Existing benchmarks nevertheless tend to grade such outputs against a single expert reference. Using independently built analyst models for the same companies, we find that across 108 directed pairs covering 65 companies, the median single-reference score is 0.33, 92.6% score below 0.70, and no same-vintage pair agrees on implied price within 10%. Point-tolerance grading can therefore penalize disagreement already present among professionals. We introduce GAUGE, a benchmark for evaluating agent-built valuation models against observed analyst practice rather than a single point answer. GAUGE uses 1,001 vendor-classified analyst workbooks and a 196-task evaluation set, with a three-layer observed-practice envelope, 56 auditable facets, eight validity gates, and deterministic structural checks. We validate the benchmark with a 55-participant known-groups study, company-grouped cross-fitting, and judge-stability audits. On the failure-aware score $φ_0$, senior analysts average 88.3, juniors 66.0, and finance students 43.2. Across 24 agents and 1,011 scored generations, the best agent scores 53.4, above the student mean but below every senior and most juniors. It passes 93% of mechanical facets and 78% of judgment facets, with a fleet-median gap of 26 points. Current agents are substantially stronger at model construction than valuation judgment. We release the methodology, a gated de-identified data tier, a controlled training split, a versioned 48-task evaluation core, and a withheld refresh pool.

We study whether strictly positive marginal values restore the compatibility of envy-freeness up to one good (EF1) and Pareto optimality (PO) for indivisible goods. For two agents, we identify the exact threshold in the number of goods. Every instance with at most seven goods and strictly increasing valuations admits an allocation that is both EF1 and PO, without any submodularity assumption. In contrast, we construct an eight-good instance with normalized, integer-valued, strictly increasing, submodular valuations in which every EF1 allocation is strictly Pareto dominated. Thus, eight goods are necessary and sufficient for a two-agent counterexample. Finally, we strengthen the three-agent NP-hardness result of Chandramouleeswaran and Nimbhorkar (2026): deciding whether an EF1 and PO allocation exists remains NP-hard for normalized, integer-valued, monotone submodular valuations even when zero marginals are confined to eight fixed agent-good pairs, all involving a single agent.

Singular value soft-thresholding can be computed via a reduction to the matrix polar decomposition, which allows one to exploit GPU-friendly algorithms for computing the polar decomposition. Empirically, there is a significant speed-up on GPUs compared to the standard approach using the SVD. We leave the investigation of robustness to future work, but note that due to the discontinuous nature of the sign function, the reduction to the polar decomposition is likely only suitable for low-accuracy applications.

Remaining useful life (RUL) prediction and failure-mode classification are central tasks in predictive maintenance. Many data-driven pipelines use fixed-window supervised learning with complete terminal labels; such routes do not naturally encode the temporal recursion linking successive degradation-state predictions when observations are partial or unit identities are unavailable. We formulate prognostics as vector General Value Function (GVF) prediction on an absorbing degradation process, treating RUL and failure-mode probabilities as temporally consistent targets rather than independent window-level labels, and estimate them with a multi-step temporal-difference estimator, TD($n,λ$). Supporting theory identifies the Bellman fixed point of the vector GVFs, characterizes the linear projected-TD limit and its relation to complete-return Monte Carlo regression under realizability, and explains when bootstrapped TD targets are less variable than Monte Carlo returns. On an event-triggered multimode simulation and NASA C-MAPSS label-scarce stitch data, TD improves RUL and failure-mode prediction relative to a supervised same-backbone Monte Carlo control, especially under scarce complete labels. Practically, fragmented, identity-free degradation records can contribute local Bellman transitions instead of being discarded until complete run-to-failure labels are available.

The alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs) is increasingly bottlenecked by data quality. As datasets scale, massive preference and instruction-tuning corpora inevitably accumulate hidden structural contradictions, safety risks, and systemic human annotation errors. Standard dataset auditing methods, such as semantic deduplication or LLM-as-a-judge, struggle to capture the actual predictive impact of individual records and often miss deep functional rule clashes. To address this, we introduce a scalable, inference-only data valuation pipeline that approximates the Shapley value without iterative model retraining. By mapping semantic k-NN neighborhoods into a directed graph, our framework evaluates data utility directly through a reference LLM's probability distribution using zero-shot and one-shot conditional log-likelihood shifts. Our pipeline then translates these predictive influence scores into localized advantage metrics to isolate gradient-conflicting records. We demonstrate the pipeline's efficacy in sanitizing two heavily vetted alignment datasets. First, applying our pipeline to the HelpSteer2 dataset reduced the manual audit search space by 99.1%, successfully uncovering falsely-labeled records across diverse failure modes. Second, applying our automated audit strategy to Anthropic's HH-RLHF training and evaluation splits identified thousands of hidden safety and factual preference inversions. Crucially, by extending this audit to the evaluation split, we expose severe vulnerabilities in current benchmark integrity: highly capable models frequently predict the safer or more helpful response, only to be penalized by objectively flawed human ground-truth labels. Overall, our work provides a mathematically grounded, highly efficient diagnostic tool to uncover human label failures, sanitize evaluation benchmarks, and ensure the integrity of LLM alignment data.

In reinforcement learning, critics typically estimate absolute state values $V(s)$, estimating how good a particular situation is in isolation. However, it turns out that only differences in value are relevant for control. Motivated by this, we propose Relative Value Learning (RV), a framework that learns value differences directly via an antisymmetric function $Δ(s_i, s_j) = V(s_i) - V(s_j)$. We introduce a pairwise Bellman operator and prove it is a $γ$-contraction with a unique fixed point equal to the true value differences, derive well-posed $1$-step, $n$-step and $λ$-return targets and reconstruct generalized advantage estimation from pairwise differences to obtain an unbiased policy-gradient estimator (R-GAE). Beyond theoretical results, we integrate RV with PPO and achieve competitive performance on the Atari benchmark (49 ALE games) compared to standard PPO, indicating that relative value estimation is an effective alternative to absolute critics.

Value alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs) has been shown to be culturally biased toward Western norms. This results in the mishandling of local values in multilingual societies such as Sri Lanka that have their unique cultural dynamics. Existing benchmarks overlook Sri Lankan-contextualized values in its official language Sinhala, hindering culturally sensitive evaluation and fine-tuning. To bridge this gap, we propose LKValues, the first survey-grounded resource suite for Sri Lankan value alignment. From a trilingual survey of 205 respondents, blending adapted global frameworks and LLM-elicited local constructs, we derive 40 majority-endorsed societal values. Using these values, we construct LKvaluesIT, a Sinhala-English news-derived instruction corpus containing 150k scenario-based instances, and LKvaluesBench, a value-sensitive evaluation benchmark of 1,000 instances. We evaluate a set of proprietary and open-weight LLMs with LKvaluesBench. We fine-tune three open-weight base models (Qwen3.5-4B-Base, Qwen3.5-9B-Base, and Aya-Expanse-8B-Base). Our experiments show that newer and larger LLMs still exhibit low-resource and cultural value-alignment gaps. LKValues fine-tuning improves Qwen-family models in English and Sinhala, reducing invalid outputs and cross-lingual disparities, though gains remain model-family dependent. These highlight LKValues efficacy in embedding Sri Lankan values, offering a replicable pipeline for low-resource, country-specific pluralist value alignment. The dataset is publicly available at https://github.com/NextME14/LKValues.

Large language models are increasingly evaluated through the values they endorse, but such evaluations presuppose that models can identify the value expressed in a concrete situation. We study this prerequisite as controlled top-1 recognition over Schwartz's ten basic values. Our evaluation set contains 1,000 Russian situational texts, balanced across the ten values and independently labeled by two human annotators per item. We evaluate 21 instruction-tuned LLM runs under a fixed ranked-response protocol; 20 runs with reliable outputs form the semantic panel. Pooled Acc@1 is 0.683 and Acc@3 is 0.892, showing that models often locate the correct motivational region while ranking close alternatives unstably. Adjacent values account for 50.9% of semantic errors, compared with 24.4% under a checkpoint-specific null. Eight directed confusions recur across checkpoints and human-confirmed subsets. Several are strongly asymmetric, including Universalism to Benevolence, Tradition to Conformity, and Security to Power, whereas Stimulation-Hedonism forms a bidirectional boundary. Their severity is checkpoint-specific and can bias higher-order value profiles. The results motivate value-recognition evaluation that combines exact accuracy, ranked recovery, and directed error analysis.

Predicting missing cell values in tabular data is a fundamental problem in data cleaning. While state-of-the-art reasoning models show great promise in predicting missing values in tables, by reasoning holistically across rows and columns, they are costly to deploy at scale and tend to be overconfident, often generating hallucinated or false-positive predictions. In this paper, we observe that achieving high-precision missing-value prediction in tables requires a distinct combination of three capabilities: (1) world knowledge, (2) text-based reasoning, and (3) code-based reasoning. We systematically explore design choices for combining these capabilities, and propose an Auto-Fill approach that post-trains three specialist small language models (SLMs), each optimized for one capability. We develop a calibrated ensemble mechanism that either dynamically selects the most confident specialist or abstains, ensuring high accuracy. Extensive experiments on 11 benchmarks with 2200 real tables drawn from diverse domains show that Auto-Fill achieves superior accuracy compared to state-of-the-art reasoning models (e.g., o3-pro, Gemini 3 Pro, and DeepSeek R1), while operating at a fraction (less than 1%) of the cost of these frontier models. Our results highlight the effectiveness of specialization and calibrated abstention in the important domain of tabular data. Auto-Fill is publicly available at https://github.com/lyrain2001/auto-fill.

Delay-risk models are usually judged by predictive accuracy. What matters in practice is narrower: with capacity to review only a few shipments, which ones should a manager check first? We evaluate whether machine learning clears a demanding no-model baseline: inspect the highest-value shipments first. Across three real supply-chain contexts: SCMS procurement, DataCo logistics, and Olist e-commerce, we use leakage-controlled rolling-origin evaluation and 1000-sample paired bootstrap confidence intervals. Ranking by predicted delay severity times known value (M1) beats severity-only ranking in all three datasets, yet it does not generally beat value sorting. At a 10% review budget, M1 minus VALUE_ONLY is -5.5 percentage points (pp) for SCMS, +10.1 pp for DataCo, and -4.9 pp for Olist. The divide is consistent with severity learnability: DataCo has R^2 = 0.27 and calibration bias of +0.01 days, whereas SCMS and Olist have R^2 of approximately -0.02 and negative calibration bias. Nested-CV cost-sensitive retraining does not deliver a stable improvement over M1. Rather than proposing a new learning algorithm, this paper presents a deployment diagnostic and evaluation protocol. Value sorting should remain a permanent benchmark, and ML should be deployed only after severity learnability and calibration have been audited and the model clears that gate under leakage-controlled rolling-origin evaluation.

The value alignment of large language models (LLMs) is crucial for ensuring responses align with human intention and value preferences. However, most evaluations of value alignment focus on Western or universal values, while assessments grounded in the value systems of specific countries remain scarce. In this paper, we introduce Pancasila-Dilemmas, an evaluation dataset of 1,834 questions derived from Indonesian news, classified by 5 values of Pancasila: Religion, Humanity, Unity, Democracy, and Social Justice. This dataset reflects daily life in Indonesia, making it suitable for measuring the value alignment of LLMs deployed for Indonesia. To ensure a more rigorous evaluation, we choose scenarios containing dilemmas. The dataset is proofread by native speakers and answered by 5 diverse Indonesian citizens. We evaluate 50 closed- and open-source LLMs on our dataset. Results reveal that all evaluated LLMs achieves less than 0.5 Probability Match Score (PMS) and 0.72 Max-Vote Agreement Score (MVAS). Compared by each values, LLMs mostly struggle in Religion and Unity dilemma cases. This highlights a significant gap in capturing Indonesian values. The dataset is publicly available at https://github.com/tjunlp-lab/Pancasila-Dilemmas.

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.

Value-aware AI systems require explicit computational representations of human values (groundings) and their aggregation into value systems in order to align their decisions with ours. As such representations are difficult to elicit, value learning seeks to infer them by observing human behaviour. This work addresses the lack of grounded value learning methods in generative AI: existing approaches typically replicate human preferences without awareness of the multidimensional structure of value alignment, or lack principled value system elicitation methods. To address these gaps, we adapt a previously validated value system learning method to the generative AI setting, which, based on pairwise prompt-response preference data, simultaneously learns: i) an implementation of a grounding for a set of values given by a multi-objective reward model, and ii) a value system representation in the form of a weighted linear scalarization of the previous grounding model. To ensure that the learned value systems are based on coherent value representations, our algorithm dynamically prioritizes the grounding learning process. We evaluate the method against baselines and a contemporary method on prompt-response preference datasets. Results show competitive performance and minimal trade-offs against the baselines, while improving explainability.

This paper proposes a causal independence principle for value -- the value Causal Markov Condition (v-CMC) -- and develops the conceptual and mathematical foundations of a "causal value theory" linking causality and utility. After motivating a local formulation of the v-CMC, we introduce a probability-value duality that translates standard causal-inference results into the value setting. In particular, we formulate local, global, and decomposition versions of the v-CMC and prove their equivalence. We also define v-separation and show that it is sound and complete for conditional value independence. Furthermore, we derive a Bellman-type recursion as a special case of the v-CMC, thereby generalizing standard Bellman recursion from linear chains to causal DAGs. Finally, we show how the v-CMC supports modular transfer and updating of utility information across causal contexts and develop algorithms for causally structured utility elicitation and canonical influence-diagram construction.

How deep does a graph neural network need to be on a sparse graph? We study its purest statistical form: node classification on the sparse contextual stochastic block model (CSBM) with average degree $Δ=O(1)$, whose local weak limit is a broadcast-labelled Poisson Galton-Watson tree. Prior work derived a message-passing classifier $h_\ell$ that aggregates from each vertex at distance $k\le\ell$ the attenuated evidence $2\operatorname{artanh}(γ^k t(X_v))$, with $γ$ the edge signal and $t$ a bounded likelihood-ratio transform of the feature. We prove that the value of depth is governed by a single number, the Kesten-Stigum ratio $κ=γ^2Δ$. Below the threshold ($κ<1$), the error sequence is Cauchy at a geometric rate, $|\mathcal{E}(\ell)-\mathcal{E}(\ell')|\le Cκ^{(\ell+1)/3}$ for all $\ell'>\ell$, so all layers beyond depth $O(\log(1/ε))$ change the error by less than $ε$; conversely, under mild regularity each sufficiently deep layer still flips the decision with probability at least $cκ^{\ell/2}$, the empirically sharp exponent. Above the threshold ($κ>1$), depth is geometrically productive: $\mathcal{E}(\ell)$ is driven to a branching-process floor of order at most $1/(κ-1)$ at any geometric rate $κ^{-s\ell}$, $s<1$ (this bound has content only for $κ>17$). No local classifier of any depth beats the universal floor $e^{-Δ}Φ(-ζ)$ set by isolated roots ($ζ$ the feature signal-to-noise ratio), while the first layer provably helps by an explicit total-variation amount. Simulations with an exact belief-propagation baseline on the same trees show that the pairwise rule's error curve is mildly non-monotone in $\ell$, so an optimal finite depth exists (an exact instance is certified in the appendix), while BP saturates strictly faster, at an effective per-layer ratio below $κ$ that we identify.

People use language models for practical questions whose answers are difficult to verify. We show that models exhibit covert value leakage: the information they provide is influenced by their own values, without this influence being disclosed to the user. In one of our evaluations, the user is considering investing in an AI company and wants to know how likely the AI bubble is to pop. Claude Opus 4.8 gives a lower probability when the company under consideration is Anthropic rather than OpenAI. Yet Claude mostly fails to disclose this influence to the user. Covert value leakage is a form of misalignment because it goes against the user's preferences and is likely to mislead them. To investigate this phenomenon, we introduce a suite of evaluations to quantify value leakage and whether models disclose it. We find that models are influenced by different types of values, including preferences for morally good outcomes, for the company that developed them, and for some human leisure activities over others. We often observe large differences among frontier models on the same evaluation. For example, on a Fermi-estimation task, Claude models falsely claim to give unbiased answers in their chain-of-thought, while Qwen models explain how their values bias their answers. Value leakage is a failure mode distinct from sycophancy and reward hacking, and current alignment training and evaluations do not adequately address it.

Financial sentiment extraction has largely relied on news text and supervised extraction against return labels alone, leaving 10-K filings -- and volatility, the target risk disclosure is arguably best suited to informing -- comparatively unexplored. We extend a supervised lexicon-learning approach to 10-K filings and their Item 1A risk-factor sections, training sentiment scores against both return and volatility labels at three levels of aggregation: sector, portfolio, and individual firm. Across 1,383 filings from 94 Nasdaq-100 technology constituents (2006--2023), we evaluate the resulting twelve sentiment metrics on classification accuracy, correlation with realised market outcomes, and qualitative lexical content. Full-filing text produces more accurate sentiment at the sector and portfolio level for both targets, but this reverses at the individual-firm level, where the narrower Item 1A section performs better -- an effect we attribute to the interaction between document volume and the amount of independent training signal available at each level of aggregation. A Loughran-McDonald dictionary baseline is consistently, strongly negatively correlated with price at every level tested, underscoring the value of a supervised approach for regulatory disclosure text. These findings, and the design choices they motivate, establish the sentiment-generation methodology underlying a subsequent, larger-scale, multi-source system.

Cross-model comparisons read divergence in value dispositions as evidence that language models hold individuated values. Under single-draw measurement this conflates two quantities: a difference in central tendency (a genuine value difference) and a difference in response determinism (how sharply a model commits to a forced choice). We introduce a separation protocol -- no-rule value dilemmas with counterbalanced, repeated forced-choice measurement and a determinism index -- and a determinism-corrected decomposition that splits an apparent cross-model distance into a direction-flip component (genuine disagreement) and a same-side-more-extreme component we label determinism. Across nine models, determinism varies substantially (0.66-0.95 among engaging models); whether it is a per-model trait or tracks provider and scale is a question our method makes measurable but our sample leaves open. Correcting for determinism shrinks apparent individuation, while a few cross-family disagreements survive a strict test. We then isolate a second confound: the access harness serving each model. Re-collecting the same models through raw provider APIs, we find the deployment client shifts a model's value profile substantially and client-specifically: one subscription CLI moves a profile by 0.31, flips four of eighteen items, and inflates the flagship's apparent softness (0.34 via CLI vs 0.66 via raw API), whereas another provider's client is clean, confounding provider family with access client. The harness is a value-shaping layer: a base model that refuses one-in-ten forced choices is made compliant by an agent system prompt, established causally in a white-box control. An audit ranking models by single-draw value distance thus ranks a determinism-inflated quantity, confounded further by the client used. We contribute the decomposition and identify the deployment harness as a distinct value confound.

Offline-to-online reinforcement learning is promising for generalizable robotic manipulation, yet its full-stack complexity obscures reproduction and diagnosis. Within such systems, value estimation plays a central role in prioritizing heterogeneous data for policy improvement. Despite its importance, the central question remains underexplored: how value-function reliability shapes policy optimization in offline-to-online reinforcement learning. To answer this question, we propose Robo-ValueRL, a unified framework that enables reliable value estimation and systematically traces its downstream effects on policy pretraining and online improvement. Concretely, Robo-ValueRL learns a history-conditioned value estimator and evaluates its reliability through global-progress and local-preference metrics. These resulting value estimates are propagated into quality-conditioned consistency-policy pretraining and a residual adaptation module on online rollouts, providing a unified testbed for analyzing how value reliability shapes downstream policy performance. Across 240 hours of offline demonstrations and over 3,000 online rollout trajectories, our extensive experiments show that downstream performance is strongly associated with value reliability. Reliable value functions provide better action-quality estimates, allowing value-guided offline RL to scale more effectively than quality-agnostic behavior cloning, and stabilize online improvement by prioritizing high-quality rollout data. Integrating reliable value guidance through offline pretraining with online improvement, our system achieves 86% success on millimeter-level precise chip insertion and 84% on generalizable block disassembly. We hope these findings highlight the importance of value-guided data utilization for effective policy improvement from heterogeneous robotic experience.

Large language models (LLMs) are used worldwide, yet disproportionately reflect Western values, limiting their ability to represent diverse value systems. We introduce PLURAL, a large-scale, value-focused preference dataset grounded in the Integrated Values Survey (IVS), a nationally representative survey spanning 92 countries. Using a two-stage generation pipeline, we transform survey responses into synthetic preference triplets that preserve normative value signals while producing realistic scenarios. We release an initial version of PLURAL containing ~500,000 preference triplets representing people in 20 diverse countries. We evaluate PLURAL in three ways: (i) dataset-level validation showing that it preserves both cross-country value differences and within-country diversity from the original survey; (ii) automated evaluation showing that training on PLURAL improves alignment with target countries' cultural profiles, reducing mean absolute error by up to 27.7% relative to strong baselines; and (iii) blind human evaluation with 176 evaluators in India, Brazil, and Japan, who judge PLURAL-aligned responses as more representative of their national values. Together, these results show that PLURAL contains learnable signal for value steering, offering a scalable resource for pluralistic alignment. Dataset: https://huggingface.co/datasets/agdhruv/plural-alignment

Shapley values are widely used to attribute value to training data based on their marginal contribution to performance on a validation set. Existing practice often assumes these values are stable once the training data and model are fixed. In this work, we uncover a systematic vulnerability: even modest changes to the validation set, such as introducing noises, cause directional shifts in Shapley distributions. As noises are added, Shapley values of training samples compress toward zero. We trace this to a noise-induced neighborhood reshuffling effect: perturbations alter the local rank order between validation and training samples, flattening the valuation landscape. Using the KNN-Shapley framework, we show through synthetic and real data that these shifts are consistent and reproducible. Our findings challenge the assumption of Shapley stability and reveal a new axis of fragility in data valuation. We propose normalization and boundary-aware validation strategies to mitigate these distortions and enable more robust, interpretable valuation in machine learning marketplaces.

Accurate and efficient dataset valuation is essential for enabling fair and transparent data marketplaces, especially when multiple contributors provide data for training multi-task models. Most existing valuation methods, however, are limited to single-task settings, overlooking scenarios where a buyer aims to optimize performance across multiple downstream tasks. Moreover, traditional valuation approaches, such as Shapley-based or retraining-based methods, are computationally expensive and poorly suited for decentralized environments without a trusted central coordinator and with strict privacy constraints. We propose DMVM (Decentralized Multi-task Valuation via Model Merging), a novel framework that bypasses retraining and data sharing by leveraging task arithmetic to infer dataset contributions directly from model combinations. Instead of retraining or sharing raw data, DMVM quantifies how models trained on different datasets combine in parameter space to infer each dataset's marginal utility across multiple tasks. This formulation yields a valuation process that is scalable, computationally efficient, and explicitly aligned with multi-task generalization behavior. To support decentralized deployment, we introduce a secure aggregation protocol that enables collaborative valuation without revealing individual model parameters or private data. We also provide theoretical error bounds characterizing the approximation quality of DMVM and validate our framework through comprehensive experiments on computer vision and natural language processing tasks.

Zero-shot Object Goal Navigation (ZSON) with RGB-only perception poses a fundamental challenge for embodied agents, as the absence of explicit depth information introduces severe physical uncertainty and semantic-physical misalignment. Existing approaches either rely on high-level semantic reasoning without geometric grounding or learn end-to-end policies that lack explicit physical constraints, often resulting in semantically plausible but physically unsafe behaviors. In this paper, we propose MVP-Nav, a physical-aware RGB-only navigation framework that aligns perception, planning, and control with the real 3D world. MVP-Nav reconstructs explicit physical occupancy from monocular observations by leveraging 3D foundation models to project 2D semantic instances into 3D oriented bounding boxes, forming a global spatial semantic representation. To unify high-level semantic reasoning and low-level physical constraints, we introduce a Multi-layer Value Map (MVM) that integrates semantic priorities and reconstructed geometry into a shared cost space, enabling physically grounded geometric planning. Extensive experiments on zero-shot object navigation benchmarks demonstrate that MVP-Nav significantly outperforms existing depth-free methods, achieving state-of-the-art performance and validating that structured physical priors can effectively compensate for the absence of active depth sensors.

Accurate identification of resistor values from unconstrained images remains a challenging computer vision task due to variations in lighting, orientation, scale, and background complexity. This paper presents HiRes, a hierarchical cascaded pipeline for end-to-end resistor value identification directly from full-frame images. The approach combines object detection (YOLOv8n), semantic segmentation (UNet++ with EfficientNet-B2), and structured geometric decoding via projection along the resistor axis. To improve robustness, we incorporate geometric filtering, gap-preserving band separation, and validation against the E24 resistor series. Experiments across diverse real-world images show that HiRes achieves a detection mAP50 of 0.9906, a segmentation mIoU of 0.8444, and an end-to-end identification accuracy of 85.8% (95% CI: 78.0-91.9%), outperforming the publicly available classical baseline, CVResist, which fails to generalize beyond controlled conditions. In addition, our architecture outperforms state-of-the-art MLLMs on our challenging test set, offering a lower cost, high efficiency, and an interpretable alternative method. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of integrating learned visual representations with structured reasoning for robust resistor interpretation. Code and dataset are available at https://github.com/HiRes491/HiRes.

With Large Language Model (LLM) pre-training and fine-tuning shifting its focus from data volume to data quality, quality data selection has emerged as a critical research topic. Existing online data selection methods for LLM training are typically "batch-constrained", limiting optimization to local utility within random batches. To overcome this, we propose GAIA (Global Adaptive Instruction tuning via GAussian processes), a framework that formulates data valuation as a global estimation process. GAIA employs Gaussian Process regression to model continuous utility manifolds across the semantic space, utilizing an adaptive strategy fusion mechanism to dynamically prioritize high-utility samples. By casting the strategy-posterior update as an instance of the classical fixed-share Hedge framework for tracking the best expert, we inherit a dynamic-regret guarantee that characterizes GAIA's robustness under non-stationary quality scores during training. Empirical evaluations on three datasets demonstrate that GAIA significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines like \greats, establishing our method as a scalable and robust solution for efficient instruction tuning.

Reinforcement learning agents can exploit misspecified reward signals to achieve high apparent returns while failing on the intended objective, a failure mode known as reward hacking. Existing practical defenses typically constrain policy updates to stay near a known safe reference, creating a tension between suppressing hacking and permitting legitimate improvement. We propose Modification-Considering Value Learning (MCVL), which operationalizes the theoretical idea of current utility optimization for standard value-based RL. MCVL wraps an off-policy learner and treats each incoming transition as a candidate modification: it forecasts two training paths, one that includes the transition and one that does not, and scores both with a frozen bootstrapped-return estimator derived from a learned reward model and value function. The transition is admitted only if inclusion does not decrease the score. We formalize conditions under which this filtering is both safe and permissive, and instantiate MCVL with DDQN and TD3. Across four safety-relevant gridworlds and three modified MuJoCo continuous-control tasks with diverse hacking mechanisms, MCVL mitigates reward hacking while continuing to improve the intended objective. Project website: ktolnos.github.io/mcvl/.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown the potential to generate code explanations that surpass those of peers in quality, offering promising opportunities for computer science education. While these explanations may not yet match the depth and clarity of instructor-provided explanations, research in computational creativity highlights that the quantity and diversity of ideas can often outweigh a singular focus on quality. Inspired by this, we explore whether combining multiple diverse explanations, each emphasizing distinct aspects (e.g., function, concept, goal), can enhance students' understanding of programming exercises compared to generic explanations that do not emphasize distinct conceptual aspects. In our study 971 first-year computing students were randomly assigned either diverse or generic LLM-generated explanations for two programming exercises. Students completed multiple-choice and open-ended questions for each exercise, followed by Likert-scale questions and open-ended reflections. Our findings outline patterns in student performance and perceived cognitive load across the two explanation conditions. These findings highlight how variation in explanation emphasis may relate to learner engagement and understanding. Across participants, open-ended response accuracy was consistently about 7.7% higher when students received diverse explanations, with no difference in perceived cognitive load.

Hate speech annotation pipelines routinely collapse annotator disagreement into majority vote labels before training. We show that this aggregation is not neutral: 42.6% of all annotator disagreement in HateXplain concentrates specifically at the hate/offensive boundary, a pattern consistent with annotators applying different thresholds for where hate begins (chi-squared = 135.199, df = 2, p < 0.0001). Both a hard-label BERT model (Model A) and a soft-label model (Model B) drop 22 percentage points in accuracy from agreed posts (~80%) to disagreement posts (~58%), confirmed at p < 0.0001. A per-annotator multi-head model (Model C) widens this gap further to 28 points while collapsing offensive disagreement accuracy to 0.245. Critically, Model A expresses significantly higher confidence on boundary case errors than Model C (0.710 vs. 0.495, p < 0.0001), meaning standard evaluation metrics will not detect the failure. Three downstream interventions of increasing sophistication all fail to recover boundary accuracy. We argue the problem is structural. Majority vote presents a contested judgment as ground truth, and models inherit that false certainty. The intervention must be upstream in annotation design.