Decisions

Conversational artificial intelligence (AI) provides an efficient and convenient gateway to information access. However, it can cause overreliance when users blindly trust AI and accept its answers without fact-checking. Information search increasingly follows a hybrid interaction paradigm that combines conversational AI with web search, making fact-checking easier. In this paper, we examine whether this interaction paradigm is effective in curbing reliance. We further investigate the underlying factors (e.g., digital literacy and conversation warmth) that drive users to verify AI answers. We conduct a mixed-subjects question-answering experiment where participants interact with either a warm or a neutral chatbot. Our findings reveal that reliance persists despite users having access to both conversational and web search. The decision to verify is driven primarily by existing user perceptions (e.g., prior trust in chatbots) rather than answer properties, with some users fact-checking regardless of the context and others trusting chatbots by default. Warm conversational style has an indirect yet critical influence on reliance by increasing agreement with the chatbot when it is incorrect. Consulting additional AI sources predicts higher accuracy, while traditional web search does not. Our study extends overreliance research by: (a) demonstrating its persistence despite access to fact-checking, (b) identifying verification behavior as user-dependent, and (c) revealing conversational warmth's indirect effect on overreliance with implications for designing trustworthy conversational search systems.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes decision-making settings such as legal reasoning, where consistency under factually equivalent inputs is critical. However, we find that fact-preserved but differently framed inputs can significantly destabilize LLM decisions. To systematically investigate this problem, we introduce Fragile, a large-scale benchmark that isolates fact-preserving semantic framing across three controlled dimensions: value-tinted narration, temporal slice, and narrative vividness. Our experiments reveal a high susceptibility of LLMs to framing, with an average decision flip rate of 28.6%. We find that simple prior prompt-level and activation-level interventions not only fail to suppress framing sensitivity but actively amplify it. We therefore propose Valign, a representation-level method that explicitly targets these framing dimensions by anchoring decisions to a stable value prior, steering hidden states toward the model's value-consistent direction, and projecting out temporal-vividness-sensitive directions from the model's hidden states. Valign consistently reduces framing-induced decision flips, demonstrating that robust mitigation requires directly targeting the internal pathways in which framing operates.

Clinical foundation models are evaluated with factual or exam-style medical QA, but treatment decisions must change when patient context changes. We introduce ClinPivot, an auditable treatment-decision benchmark built from biomedical relations and pivoted patient contexts. ClinPivot asks whether models change treatment choices when new clinical constraints shift the action space. We find that strong medical QA performance does not reliably predict decision-making performance: frontier models and task-adapted Qwen variants often fail to change decisions correctly, and model rankings shift across evaluation regimes. Decision-structured supervision improves pivot-sensitive decision-making and medical QA under matched knowledge budgets, while lightweight replay reduces losses in general assistant ability.

Introduction. Early detection of malignant skin lesions is critical for prognosis, yet dermatologist shortages in Russian regions limit screening coverage. Mobile dermoscopy clinical decision support systems (CDSS) offer a promising approach, with model interpretability and standardised patient routing remaining key barriers to adoption. Aim. To develop a quantitative interpretability assessment method for cascade deep learning models and a three-zone patient routing algorithm, and to conduct a preliminary single-centre prospective clinical validation of the Melanoscope AI CDSS in Russian outpatient practice. Material and methods. Two-stage cascade classification of dermoscopic images; attention map visualisation (attention rollout for ViT and Swin; Grad-CAM for ConvNeXt and EfficientNetV2); quantitative IoU-based agreement assessment between activation maps and expert annotations; prospective single-centre validation across four "Melanoma Day" sessions (Orel, Russia, June 2025 - April 2026). Results. On 176 patients: agreement with expert assessment 88.6%; no false negatives among 5 malignant lesions (95% CI: 47.8-100.0%); specificity 88.3%. Three melanomas and two basal cell carcinomas were histologically confirmed; six dysplastic naevi placed under follow-up. Mean IoU (n=180): ViT - 0.69; Swin - 0.64; ConvNeXt - 0.53; EfficientNetV2 - 0.51. Routing thresholds: P<0.15 / 0.15-0.50 / >=0.50. Conclusion. No false negatives were observed; specificity was 88.3%, supporting screening use. The integrated cascade classification, attention map visualisation with IoU assessment, and three-zone routing provide reproducible, interpretable clinical decision support adaptable to varying resource levels.

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) encode evidence-based decision logic that clinicians apply by evaluating patient variables, conditional criteria, and recommendation rules. However, existing methods often use CPGs as free-text training data or retrieval sources, underutilizing their procedural decision structure. To better exploit this structure, we introduce a guideline-derived training pipeline that transforms CPG recommendations into executable clinical decision logic and uses it to generate factual and counterfactual question-answering data. Theses data teach models both guideline-supported decisions and how decisions change under different patient conditions. Post-training a medical LLM on the generated data yields MedGuideX. Across four clinical reasoning benchmarks, MedGuideX achieves a 10.28% relative improvement in average accuracy. Physician evaluation further shows that MedGuideX better recovers clinician authored reasoning steps and produces physician-preferred rationales in faithfulness, validity, completeness, and clarity. Overall, our results show that executable decision logic from CPGs can be transformed into scalable supervision for building reliable medical LLMs.

Bayesian optimal experimental design (BOED) selects experiments to maximize information gain about model parameters. However, in decision-critical settings, reducing parameter uncertainty does not necessarily improve downstream decisions, as only specific parameter directions relevant to the objective truly matter. We propose GoBOED, a goal-driven BOED framework that directly optimizes experimental designs for a specified decision-making objective. GoBOED combines an amortized variational posterior surrogate with a differentiable convex decision layer, enabling gradient-based design optimization that is fully decision-focused. We theoretically show that GoBOED gradients are insensitive to parameter directions irrelevant to the decision objective, providing a formal justification for why goal-driven design achieves equivalent decision quality over a wider set of experimental designs than information-gain maximization. Empirically, across source localization, epidemic management, and pharmacokinetic control, GoBOED identifies designs that better align with downstream decision objectives and reveals that near-optimal design windows are substantially wider than those predicted by goal-agnostic BOED approaches.

Embodied Question Answering (EQA) connects perception, reasoning, and interaction within embodied environments. However, existing datasets and benchmarks remain fragmented, each focusing on a limited subset of reasoning skills such as spatial understanding or procedural reasoning, without offering a unified large-scale framework for comprehensive evaluation. We present EQA-Decision, a large-scale embodied QA dataset that systematically covers four complementary dimensions of embodied reasoning: static scene construction, spatial understanding, task dynamics reasoning, and instant decision. The dataset contains over four million question-answer pairs with hierarchical annotations across diverse embodied scenarios. In addition, we develop RoboDecision, a strong baseline model aligned with the EQA-Decision Benchmark, providing a unified framework that jointly evaluates perception, reasoning, and action-level decision-making in embodied environments. Results demonstrate that EQA-Decision effectively benchmarks and enhances VLM capabilities in spatial and interaction reasoning, providing a solid foundation for advancing embodied intelligence research.

The process of decision-making in football is characterized by a complex interplay between spatial positioning, opponent pressure, and player intent. This work introduces a Graph Neural Network (GNN) framework designed to predict Receiver Selection, the optimal passing target, by modeling on-field interactions as dynamic graphs. Each player is represented as a node with positional and contextual features, while potential passing lines form weighted edges characterized by distance, angle, and pressure metrics. A Message-Passing Neural Network (MPNN) has been developed and trained using a combination of tracking data and event data from professional matches, synchronized through a robust pipeline based on an optimized version of the Needleman-Wunsch Algorithm. The model achieves competitive accuracy in identifying the actual chosen receiver and state-of-the-art accuracy within its top three suggestions. Our model further offers quantification of each option's likelihood, threat, and creativity, enabling performance analysts to evaluate over 1,000 passes in seconds.

Large Language Models (LLMs) and Multimodal LLMs (MLLMs) have demonstrated immense potential in autonomous driving (AD) by offering human-like reasoning and open-world generalization. However, the excessive computational overhead and high inference latency of these massive models severely hinder their deployment in resource-constrained AD systems. To address this challenge, we propose a novel decision-making framework utilizing a lightweight confidence-aware language model, which bridges the gap between complex multimodal intention reasoning and efficient inference. Specifically, we design a multi-agent collaborative workflow, comprising action voting, confidence assessment, and summarization agents, to generate high-quality, confidence-annotated decision demonstrations via explicit Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning. These demonstrations are then distilled into a lightweight language model featuring a dual-head architecture, enabling the joint prediction of decision probabilities and the generation of textual rationales. The distillation is realized via a confidence-aware fine-tuning strategy coupled with Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) to enhance the model's adaptability and data efficiency. Comprehensive closed-loop experiments on the nuPlan benchmark demonstrate that our approach achieves state-of-the-art (SOTA) success rates in both regular and long-tail scenarios while maintaining low inference latency.

Steerable pluralism requires a model to faithfully represent one specified perspective. Organizations are a natural setting for this demand, since they deploy LLMs to make decisions that must reflect their own policy. Yet, most existing work fixes that perspective at the level of individuals or demographic groups. We rely on a decision-policy capturing method to measure process alignment in organizational settings, assessing whether an LLM faithfully reproduces the organization's decision policy rather than merely reaching the same conclusions. We find heterogeneity along two axes. Across models, baseline alignment varies strongly and tracks neither pricing nor general benchmark performance. Across organizations, the structure of alignment changes. In ECHR Article 6 decisions, process alignment predicts output accuracy ($r = 0.85$, $p < .001$), and making the organization's past decision policy explicit improves poorly aligned models. In consumer credit decisions, process alignment is low overall but varies more than output accuracy, and the models resist adopting the organization's weighting of protected attributes. Because historical credit decisions encode potentially discriminatory patterns, higher alignment there is not always desirable. Process-level measurement is therefore necessary, and depending on whether the target policy is normatively desirable, the same procedure can calibrate or audit a model. Deciding which policy to align to, and whether higher alignment is feasible or desirable, makes organizational alignment a pluralistic problem in its own right.

Formalizing legal provisions promises machine-accessible law and automated legal reasoning, and recent LLMs make it tempting to generate such formalizations directly from statutory text. However, any formalization makes implicit interpretive choices whose consequences are hard to anticipate, especially if an LLM is the author. We present a method for systematically comparing different formalizations of the same legal provision by their inferences on individual cases. Given multiple formalizations of a provision, we match them at the node level, derive a shared interface for each pair from the matching, and use a SAT solver to enumerate the edge cases on which any two formalizations disagree. Selected edge cases are then verbalized into concrete factual scenarios that a legal expert can examine and act on. We apply our method to formalizations of ten EU provisions generated by nine frontier LLMs. We find that behavioral divergence between formalizations is essentially uncorrelated with their structural agreement and that the verbalized cases reveal qualitatively distinct types of disagreement, including divergences that mirror genuine controversies in the legal commentary.

Large language models (LLMs) have the potential to aid and improve human decision-making in classification tasks, not only by providing fairly accurate predictions, but also in their ability to generate cogent narrative explanations of those predictions. Prior work has demonstrated that people generally find AI narrative explanations to be understandable, trustworthy, and convincing for changing beliefs and opinions; however, less is known about the impact of narrative explanations on objective human decision-making performance. Here we conduct a large-scale human behavioral experiment to evaluate decision-making performance with LLM-generated narrative explanations of varying persuasiveness. We found the degree of persuasiveness, or lack thereof, for LLM-based explanations did not meaningfully impact decision accuracy over a simple AI prediction alone, in agreement with typical results with explainable AI based on feature importance. We found evidence that narratives increased reliance on AI, but both when the AI prediction was correct and incorrect. Exploratory analyses also indicated that the more persuasive narratives may have had a detrimental effect on decision response times and the ability to discriminate between a correct and incorrect AI prediction. Overall, this work indicates that including narrative explanations with AI predictions may involve tradeoffs for decision-making performance, and more work is needed to determine how and when narrative explanations impact human decision-making.

Decision trees assign identical confidence to instances near and far from each split threshold. We introduce ternary decision trees, which augment each split node with an uncertainty zone of half-width delta. A decision-theoretic framework characterises the optimal zone width delta* as the solution to a node-local cost-minimisation problem; four formal properties are established: accuracy decomposition, a sufficiency condition for decided accuracy improvement, an exact efficiency characterisation (eta = Dec-Acc minus Acc_u, the accuracy gap between decided and boundary-uncertain predictions), and asymptotic consistency of the margin method. Instances within the zone receive predictions by weighted blending of both child subtrees and are flagged as boundary-uncertain. We propose and evaluate five delta-estimation methods: quality-plateau (plateau width of the split criterion curve), class-overlap (empirical class-distribution overlap), gain-ratio (split quality relative to split entropy), node-bootstrap (threshold variance under node-level resampling), and margin (SVM-inspired distance to the nearest cross-class training example). All methods reuse statistics already computed during standard CART split finding, requiring no external noise specification. Evaluated across 71 of the 72 OpenML-CC18 datasets with 5-fold cross-validation, all five methods with probabilistic routing significantly outperform standard CART on decided accuracy (Wilcoxon signed-rank, p < 0.001). The margin method achieves the best efficiency (0.104 accuracy gain per unit flagging rate), wins on 42 of 72 datasets, and requires zero hyperparameters. Analysis on Breiman synthetic benchmarks confirms margin is self-calibrating on clean data. On mammography, node-bootstrap achieves +0.71% decided accuracy by flagging 10.8% of cases as boundary-uncertain.

Medical RAG systems in high-risk QA settings are often evaluated through a single answer-or-abstain decision, but mixed evidence may support one claim, require conditions for another, and contradict a third. We study claim-selective certification: each response is decomposed into verifiable claims, scored against retrieved evidence, and mapped by an intent-aware selector to {full, partial, conflict, abstain}. On the primary weak-label certificate protocol, whose real-source-only dev/test rows cover the naturally occurring non-abstain actions, the full system records UCCR=0.0000, PAU=1.0000, PAU Precision=0.9901, and action accuracy=0.9204 on dev (n=314), and UCCR=0.0000, PAU=0.9967, PAU Precision=0.9739, and action accuracy=0.8997 on test (n=319). UCCR measures unsupported-claim risk within the certificate definition, and a source-missing counterfactual slice evaluates abstain under empty evidence. Shortcut controls quantify the action-label prior explained by source and intent metadata, while source/evidence-novel slices characterize transfer boundaries. The resulting interface separates action-label prediction from evidence-linked claim selection under mixed evidence.

As large language models (LLMs) increasingly shape how users form, refine, and extend their goals, attributing contributions in human-AI collaboration becomes critical for users calibrating their own reliance and for evaluators assessing AI-assisted work. Yet existing methods focus on final artifacts, missing the process through which goals themselves are jointly shaped. We introduce a goal-level attribution framework, CoTrace, that decomposes explicit goals into verifiable requirements and traces both direct contributions and indirect influences across dialogue turns. Applying CoTrace to 638 real-world collaboration logs, we find that while models account for only 11-26% of goal-shaping contribution, they contribute substantially more on introducing lower-level concrete requirements, and make various kinds of indirect contributions. Through controlled simulations, we show that interaction design choices significantly affect model goal-shaping behavior. In a user study, exposing participants to goal-level analyses shifts their perceived contributions by nearly 2 points on a 5-point scale, revealing systematic miscalibration in how users understand their own AI-assisted work.

Machine unlearning aims to remove the influence of specific training data from a model while preserving reliable behavior on the remaining data, making reliable prediction and uncertainty estimation essential for evaluation. Calibration is commonly used as a proxy for reliability in language models, but low calibration error does not necessarily imply reliable decision rules, as models may rely on spurious correlations while remaining well calibrated. We investigate this gap in generative language models using the multiple-choice question-answering evaluation protocol on the TOFU benchmark, measuring probabilistic reliability with calibration metrics (ECE, MCE, Brier) and decision-rule reliability via attribution-based shortcut detection with Integrated Gradients and Local Mutual Information. We find that fine-tuned models achieve low calibration error (ECE ~ 0.04) compared to pretrained models (ECE > 0.5), and models after unlearning retain similarly low calibration despite reduced accuracy on the forget split, while attribution analysis shows increased reliance on correlation-based tokens. These results demonstrate that good calibration can coexist with shortcut-based decision rules after unlearning, extending the reliability paradox to the machine unlearning setting.

Random forests construct each tree with a different, randomised representation of the feature space. Their uniform voting cannot correct errors in regions where trees with incorrect representations probabilistically outnumber correct ones, even when the ensemble collectively holds enough correct information - a reducible error that this paper addresses. We propose using the structural pattern of each tree's decision path as an instance-adaptive reliability signal to identify and differentially weight the more reliable trees. At inference, a random forest reaches its prediction through the root-to-leaf path the sample traverses in each tree, so path-level reliability offers a finer granularity than tree-level weighting can access. We show that this signal reflects the actual reliability of each tree's decision, and that using it yields a statistically significant accuracy improvement over RF on 36 binary classification benchmarks (Wilcoxon p < 0.0001). Class-recall regression - the typical failure mode of RF correction methods - is measured: zero minority-recall regressions and a single majority-recall regression at the 0.2 pp threshold, indicating bias reduction rather than a class trade-off. We further quantify the reducible error accessible to the method from the fitted RF alone; this estimate correlates strongly with per-dataset gain (Pearson r = +0.840, p < 0.0001). On the qualifying group it identifies, the method delivers a mean +0.99 pp accuracy improvement with strict wins on every dataset (7/0/0); an optional amplification mechanism further raises this to +1.48 pp.

Large language model agents now act on codebases, browsers, operating systems, calendars, files, and tool ecosystems, but their evaluations often collapse behavior into final task success. AgentAtlas reframes agent evaluation as a diagnostic vocabulary and audit protocol for separating outcome success from control-decision quality and trajectory quality. The paper contributes: (i) a six-state control-decision taxonomy (Act / Ask / Refuse / Stop / Confirm / Recover); (ii) a trajectory-failure vocabulary with primary error source and downstream impact; (iii) a 0/1/2 benchmark-coverage audit over fifteen agent benchmarks; and (iv) an illustrative protocol study on a synthetic 1,342-item set evaluated with eight models under taxonomy-aware and taxonomy-blind prompt formats. The synthetic demonstration is not a public benchmark release and should not be read as a definitive model comparison. Instead, it illustrates two measurement risks: mapped label agreement can change substantially when the explicit label menu is removed, and axis choice can change apparent rankings. AgentAtlas is intended to help benchmark designers state what behavior they cover, and to help evaluators diagnose failures that outcome-only leaderboards hide.

Operators of safety-critical industrial processes increasingly rely on digital twins to screen control interventions, but such simulators rarely carry certified safety guarantees. Wastewater treatment plants exemplify the gap: operators face a daily safety-efficiency trade-off where aerating too little risks effluent violations and nitrous-oxide (N2O) spikes, and aerating too much wastes energy. We develop an explainable digital twin for aeration and dosing setpoints. CCSS-IX, the simulator, is a bank of interpretable locally linear state-space "experts" adaptively mixed by a context-aware gating network, building on a continuous-time regime-switching scaffold. A runtime decision layer applies conformal risk control to abstain, reopen, or return a falsifying temporal witness for any operator-proposed action that cannot be statistically certified. The artificial-intelligence contribution is twofold: an identifiable, context-conditioned structured surrogate that retains operator-readable dynamics, and a self-falsifying decision rule with finite-sample coverage guarantees. The engineering contribution is a validated, end-to-end decision-support pipeline, tested on a 1000-step slice of the Avedøre full-scale plant (42.6% sensor missingness, 2-minute sampling), the Agtrup/BlueKolding full-scale plant in Denmark, and the Benchmark Simulation Model No. 2 (BSM2) international benchmark, under a matched ten-seed protocol. The static structured ensemble lies within 0.78% root-mean-square error of an unconstrained black-box reference, and the adaptive variant within 1.08%. The calibrated reopen rule cuts aggregate two-plant regret by 43.6% at an unsafe-action cost weight of 4 and eliminates unsafe chosen actions on the BSM2 main slice. Event-aligned temporal witnesses prevent 93 of 187 false-safe N2O approvals, about 4.65x the dyadic baseline (paired McNemar p < 1e-21).

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly proposed for clinical decision support, yet their reliability in real-world scenarios that require integrating both visual and textual context from medical records remains poorly characterized. This paper identifies three failure modes: (1) modality over-reliance on text over images, (2) spurious reliance on irrelevant clinical history, and (3) prompt sensitivity across semantically equivalent inputs. We evaluate a diverse set of general-domain and medically-tuned open and closed VLMs on chest x-ray tasks using MIMIC-CXR. By systematically manipulating image-text alignment, clinical history, and prompt formulations, we found that VLM decisions are dominated by the text modality, even when visual evidence is available. Moreover, we observed that VLMs are heavily influenced by irrelevant reports, while minor prompt changes can reverse correct image-based predictions. Our findings underscore the need for explicit safeguards and stress-testing before considering the use of these models in clinical practice.

Multimodal sentiment analysis relies on textual, acoustic, and visual signals, yet real-world data often suffer from modality missing and quality imbalance. Existing methods generate features for modality missing from available ones, but differences in expression mechanisms and sentiment dynamics across modalities may cause the generated features to deviate from true distributions and mislead prediction. In addition, unreliable modalities may dominate fusion, resulting in representation shift across modality combinations and unstable sentiment representations. To address these challenges, we propose a two-level reference alignment framework. The framework introduces stable references at the feature representation and sentiment decision levels to improve robustness under modality missing. First-level reference alignment leverages complete-modality samples to constrain representations and align different modality combinations into a shared sentiment space. Second-level reference alignment enforces cross-modal consistency at the decision level by suppressing unreliable modalities through prototype retrieval and voting. As a result, the framework maintains stable and reliable sentiment predictions under diverse missing-modality patterns. Experiments on CMU-MOSI and CMU-MOSEI show consistent improvements across various missing-modality settings. Under full-modality input, the proposed method achieves state-of-the-art performance, with ACC of 86.28% and 85.88%, and F1 of 86.24% and 85.86%.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) substantially outperform their base LLM counterparts on challenging reasoning benchmarks, yet it remains poorly understood where base models go wrong during token-by-token generation and how to narrow this gap efficiently. We study the base-reasoning gap through quantifying token-level distributional disagreement between a base model and a stronger reasoning model using likelihood-based divergences. Across benchmarks, we find that the reasoning advantage is highly sparse and concentrates on a small set of early, planning-related decision tokens. For instance, on Qwen3-0.6B, only ~8% of generated tokens account for the salient disagreement, and these tokens concentrate early in the response, are strongly enriched in planning-related decisions (17x), and coincide with high base-model uncertainty -- suggesting that base models fail mainly at early planning points that steer the subsequent reasoning trajectory. Building on these findings, we propose disagreement-guided token intervention, a simple inference-time delegation scheme that performs a one-token takeover by the reasoning model only at high-disagreement positions and immediately switches back to the base model. With a small intervention budget, this sparse delegation substantially recovers and can even surpass the performance of a same-size reasoning model on challenging reasoning tasks. Code is available at https://github.com/AlphaLab-USTC/RRTokenIntervention.

Frontier LLMs are increasingly deployed as agents that pick the next action after a long log of prior tool calls produced by the same or a different model. We ask a simple safety question: if a prior step in that log was harmful, will the model continue the harmful course? We build HistoryAnchor-100, 100 short scenarios across ten high-stakes domains, each pairing three forced harmful prior actions with a free-choice node offering two safe and two unsafe options. Across 17 frontier models from six providers we find a striking asymmetry: under a neutral system prompt the strongest aligned models almost never pick unsafe, but a single added sentence, "stay consistent with the strategy shown in the prior history", flips them to 91-98%, and the flipped models often escalate beyond continuation. Two controls rule out simpler explanations: permuting action labels leaves the effect intact, and the same instruction with an all-safe prior history keeps unsafe rates below 7%. Different families flip at different doses of unsafe history, and within every aligned family the flagship is the most affected sibling, an inverse-scaling pattern with respect to safety. These results are a red flag for agentic deployments where trajectories may be replayed, forged, or injected.

As intelligent systems are increasingly implemented in our society to make autonomous decisions, their commitment to human values raises serious concerns. Their alignment with human values remains a critical challenge because it can jeopardise the integrity and security of citizens. For this reason, an innovative human-centred and values-driven approach to decision making is required. In this work, we introduce the Fuzzy-Unweighted Value-Based Decision Making (FUW-VBDM) framework, where agents incorporate both quantitative and qualitative criteria to generate human-centred decisions. We also address the normative bias introduced by stakeholders with arbitrary weights by removing prior weights and introducing a fuzzy domain of decision variables defined for a score function. This concept allows us to generalise any VBDM problem as the search for feasible solutions when optimising the score in the weight domain. To provide a solution to FUW-VBDM, we present Rankzzy, a customizable unweighted ranking method that integrates fuzzy-based reasoning to quantify uncertainty. We mathematically prove the consistency of the Rankzzy for any admissible configuration selected by stakeholders. We show the applicability of our method through an illustrative case study, which we also use as a running example. The evaluation conducted indicates a reduced computational cost in large-scale value-based decision-making problems and a strong rank performance regarding existing approaches when employing the aggregation via Pythagorean means.

Understanding why deep neural networks (DNNs) fail to generalize to unseen samples remains a long-standing challenge. Existing studies mainly examine changes in externally observable factors such as data, representations, or outputs, yet offer limited insight into how a model's internal decision mechanism evolves from training to test. To address this gap, we introduce Decision Pattern Shift (DPS), a new perspective that defines generalization through the stability of internal decision patterns and quantifies failure as their deviation from those learned during training. Specifically, we represent each sample's decision pattern as a GradCAM-based channel-contribution vector, which captures how feature channels collectively support a prediction, and we propose the DPS metric to measure its discrepancy from the class-average pattern. Empirical analyses across multiple datasets and architectures show that, (i) decision patterns form a highly structured, class-consistent space with strong intra-class cohesion and low inter-class confusion, enabling direct analysis of a model's decision logic; (ii) the DPS magnitude correlates linearly with the generalization gap (nearly all Pearson r > 0.8), revealing generalization as a systematic drift in the model's internal decision mechanism; (iii) the DPS spectrum organizes diverse generalization degradation scenarios (covering ideal generalization, in-distribution degradation, domain shift, out-of-distribution, and shortcut learning) into a continuous trajectory, providing a unified explanation of their failure modes. These findings open up new possibilities for early generalization-risk detection, failure-mode diagnosis, and channel-level defect localization.

Do transformers, when trained on sequential reasoning traces, build internal models of the underlying task? And if so, does the structure of those internal representations mirror the structure of the domain? We train an 8-layer transformer on Sudoku solving traces and perform a mechanistic analysis of its internal computation. We establish two results. First, the model builds a substructure world model: it does not represent the board state cell by cell, as a human analyst would expect, but organizes information around the rows, columns, and boxes that Sudoku's constraints act on. Second, we identify a naked-single circuit: a small set of dedicated neurons in the final MLP layer, each individually detecting when exactly one digit remains possible for a specific cell, and reliably promoting that digit. These findings show that the geometry of an emergent world model is shaped by the constraint algebra of the domain, not its surface presentation, and that the resulting decision circuit is sparse, monosemantic, and fully interpretable. More broadly, they demonstrate that mechanistic interpretability tools can recover an end-to-end algorithmic account of how a transformer solves a combinatorial reasoning task.

Sustained effort is essential for realizing the benefits of intelligent tutoring systems (ITS), yet many learners disengage or underuse available practice time. We introduce engagement forecasting as a supervised prediction task based on ITS logs, targeting two outcomes central to effort and learning progress: minutes practiced per week and new skills mastered per week. Using interaction log data from 425 middle-school students over a school year, we benchmark fifteen predictors including regressions, decision trees, and neural networks. We show that these feature-based models reduce mean absolute error (MAE) by 22-33% relative to heuristic baselines, including fixed-percentile rules adapted from prior work in other behavioral domains. We find that percentile heuristics systematically overpredict, whereas feature-based models better track student practice trajectories across weeks. To support explainability, we analyze feature importance and ablations, revealing target-specific patterns: effort forecasting is driven mainly by recent activity features, while progress forecasting depends more on learner-state and content difficulty signals. Finally, in a semi-structured user interview case study with eight college tutors, we examine how tutors reasoned about system-generated predictive features when setting goals with students. We find that tutors reasoned differently about effort versus progress goals in ways that mirror our pattern analysis. Together, these results establish a reproducible benchmark for forecasting weekly effort and learning progress in ITS. By making patterns of sustained effort and progress visible at a weekly timescale, engagement forecasting offers a foundation for supporting tutor-learner goal setting and timely instructional decisions.

Language environments such as web browsers, code terminals, and interactive simulations emit raw text rather than states, and provide none of the runtime structure that MDP analysis requires. No explicit state space, no observation-to-state mapping, no certified transitions, and no termination criterion. We introduce the State-Centric Decision Process (SDP), a runtime framework that constructs these missing inputs by having the agent build them, predicate by predicate, as it acts. At each step the agent commits to a natural-language predicate describing how the world should look, takes an action to make it true, and checks the observation against it. Predicates that pass become certified states, and the resulting trajectory carries the four objects language environments do not provide, namely a task-induced state space, an observation-to-state mapping, certified transitions, and a termination criterion. We evaluate SDP on five benchmarks spanning planning, scientific exploration, web reasoning, and multi-hop question answering. SDP achieves the best training-free results on all five, with the advantage widening as the horizon grows. The certified trajectories additionally support analyses unavailable to reactive agents, including per-predicate credit assignment, failure localization, partial-progress measurement, and modular operator replacement.

Deep generative models provide state-of-the-art performance across a wide array of applications, with recent studies showing increasing applicability for science and engineering. Despite a growing corpus of literature focused on the integration of physics-based constraints into the generation process, existing approaches fail to enforce strict constraint satisfaction while maintaining sample quality. In particular, training-free constrained sampling methods, while providing per-sample feasibility guarantees, introduce a fundamental mismatch between the training objective and the constrained sampling procedure, often leading to performance degradation. Identifying this training-sampling misalignment as a central limitation of current constrained generative modeling approaches, this paper proposes Constraint-Aware Flow Matching, a novel end-to-end framework that explicitly incorporates constraint projections into the training objective. By aligning the model's learned dynamics with the constrained sampling process, the proposed method mitigates distributional shift induced by projection-based corrections, enabling high-quality constrained generation. The proposed approach is evaluated on three challenging real-world benchmarks, illustrating the generality and efficacy of the method.

AI agents negotiate and transact in natural language with unfamiliar counterparts: a buyer bot facing an unknown seller, or a procurement assistant negotiating with a supplier. In such interactions, the counterpart's LLM, prompts, control logic, and rule-based fallbacks are hidden, while each decision can have monetary consequences. We ask whether an agent can predict an unfamiliar counterpart's next decision from a few interactions. To avoid real-world logging confounds, we study this problem in controlled bargaining and negotiation games, formulating it as target-adaptive text-tabular prediction: each decision point is a table row combining structured game state, offer history, and dialogue, while $K$ previous games of the same target agent, i.e., the counterpart being modeled, are provided in the prompt as labeled adaptation examples. Our model is built on a tabular foundation model that represents rows using game-state features and LLM-based text representations, and adds LLM-as-Observer as an additional representation: a small frozen LLM reads the decision-time state and dialogue; its answer is discarded, and its hidden state becomes a decision-oriented feature, making the LLM an encoder rather than a direct few-shot predictor. Training on 13 frontier-LLM agents and testing on 91 held-out scaffolded agents, the full model outperforms direct LLM-as-Predictor prompting and game+text features baselines. Within this tabular model, Observer features contribute beyond the other feature schemes: at $K=16$, they improve response-prediction AUC by about 4 points across both tasks and reduce bargaining offer-prediction error by 14%. These results show that formulating counterpart prediction as a target-adaptive text-tabular task enables effective adaptation, and that hidden LLM representations expose decision-relevant signals that direct prompting does not surface.

Leveraging the rich world knowledge of Large Language Models (LLMs) to enhance Reinforcement Learning (RL) agents offers a promising path toward general intelligence. However, a fundamental prior-dynamics mismatch hinders existing approaches: static LLM knowledge cannot directly adapt to the complex transition dynamics of long-horizon tasks. Using LLM priors as fixed policies limits exploration diversity, as the prior is blind to environment-specific dynamics; while end-to-end fine-tuning suffers from optimization instability and credit assignment issues. To bridge this gap, we propose PriorZero, a unified framework that integrates LLM-derived conceptual priors into world-model-based planning through a decoupled rollout-training design. During rollout, a novel root-prior injection mechanism incorporates LLM priors exclusively at the root node of Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS), focusing search on semantically promising actions while preserving the world model's deep lookahead capability. During training, PriorZero decouples world-model learning from LLM adaptation: the world model is continuously refined on interaction data to jointly improve its dynamics, policy, and value predictions, its value estimates are then leveraged to provide fine-grained credit assignment signals for stable LLM fine-tuning via alternating optimization. Experiments across diverse benchmarks, including text-based adventure games in Jericho and instruction-following gridworld tasks in BabyAI, demonstrate that PriorZero consistently improves both exploration efficiency and asymptotic performance, establishing a promising framework for LLM-empowered decision-making. Our code is available at https://github.com/opendilab/LightZero.

In large-scale visual recognition and data mining tasks, the presence of noisy labels severely undermines the generalization capability of deep neural networks (DNNs). Prevalent sample selection methods rely primarily on training loss or prediction confidence for passive screening. However, within a feature space degraded by noise, decision boundaries undergo systematic boundary collapse. This phenomenon hinders the ability of the model to distinguish between hard clean samples and noisy samples at the decision margins, thereby creating a significant performance bottleneck. This study is the first to emphasize the pivotal importance of active boundary restoration for noise-robust learning. We propose HamBR, a novel paradigm based on Hamiltonian dynamics. The core approach leverages the Spherical Hamiltonian Monte Carlo (Spherical HMC) mechanism to actively probe inter-class ambiguous regions within the representation space and synthesize high-quality virtual outliers. By imposing explicit repulsion constraints via energy-based modeling, these synthesized samples establish robust energy barriers at the decision boundaries. This mechanism forces real samples to move from dispersed overlapping regions toward their respective class centers, thereby restoring the discriminative sharpness of the decision boundaries. HamBR demonstrates exceptional versatility and can be integrated as a plug-and-play defense module into existing semi-supervised noisy label learning frameworks. Empirical evaluations show that the proposed paradigm significantly enhances the discriminative accuracy of hard boundary samples, achieving state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance on CIFAR-10/100 and real-world noise benchmarks. Furthermore, it exhibits superior convergence efficiency and reliable robustness, while improving significantly the capability of the model for Out-of-Distribution (OOD) detection.

Large language model agents interleave reasoning, action selection, and observation to solve sequential decision-making tasks. In deployed settings where agents repeatedly handle related multi-step tasks, small action-selection errors can accumulate into wasted tool calls, latency, and reduced reliability. Despite this need for deployment-time improvement, existing inference-time adaptation methods for LLM agents mainly rely on prompting or retrieval, which influence behavior indirectly through context manipulation. For ReAct-style agents, such approaches do not expose an explicit decision layer that can score candidate actions, represent uncertainty, or be updated online from action-level feedback. As a result, they provide limited support for trackable, fine-grained, and uncertainty-aware adaptation during deployment. We propose OLIVIA, an inference-time action adaptation framework for ReAct-style agents. OLIVIA models the LLM's final action-selection layer as a contextual linear bandit over candidate actions, with frozen hidden states as decision contexts. This choice is particularly suitable for deployment because it adapts behavior directly at the action-selection interface, preserves the underlying reasoning process, and provides explicit uncertainty estimates and lightweight online updates from action-level feedback. With upper-confidence-bound exploration, OLIVIA improves the policy sample-efficiently with minimal computational overhead. We instantiate OLIVIA on four benchmarks and show that it consistently improves task performance over static ReAct and prompt-based inference-time baselines. Our results suggest that explicit online decision layers provide an effective alternative to purely prompt- or retrieval-based adaptation for LLM agents during deployment.

Long-horizon language agents must operate under limited runtime memory, yet existing memory mechanisms often organize experience around descriptive criteria such as relevance, salience, or summary quality. For an agent, however, memory is valuable not because it faithfully describes the past, but because it preserves the distinctions between histories that must remain separated under a fixed budget to support good decisions. We cast this as a decision-centric rate-distortion problem, measuring memory quality by the loss in achievable decision quality induced by compression. This yields an exact forgetting boundary for what can be safely forgotten, and a memory-distortion frontier characterizing the optimal tradeoff between memory budget and decision quality. Motivated by this decision-centric view of memory, we propose DeMem, an online memory learner that refines its partition only when data certify that a shared state would induce decision conflict, and prove near-minimax regret guarantees. On both controlled synthetic diagnostics and long-horizon conversational benchmarks, DeMem yields consistent gains under the same runtime budget, supporting the principle that memory should preserve the distinctions that matter for decisions, not descriptions.

Hybrid mechanistic models, physical priors with learned residuals, promise to reduce the data required for good decisions, but have no computable criterion to test this. We characterize the value of mechanistic priors in sequential decision-making within both asymptotic and burn-in regimes. To formalize this, we introduce the mechanistic information of a model -- the mutual information between the model's recommended policy $\hatπ$ and the true optimal policy $π^*$ -- quantified via an occupancy-weighted bias $B_μ$. In the asymptotic regime (large $N$), matched bounds reveal that Bayesian regret scales with the residual entropy $H_{\mathrm{mech}}$, delivering a theoretical sample complexity reduction of $H(μ)/H_{\mathrm{mech}}$ compared to an uninformed baseline. Furthermore, we provide a model certificate to determine empirical sample efficiency. Complementarily, in the clinically relevant burn-in regime (small $N$), we establish a lower bound on the penalty incurred by confidently wrong priors. We demonstrate both the asymptotic and burn-in bounds across 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) dosing simulations motivated by published FOLFOX pharmacokinetic data, where a hybrid prior yields large sample-efficiency gains in the burn-in regime. Finally, we contrast these grounded models with LLM priors, demonstrating that LLMs can suffer severe losses in mechanistic information, thereby motivating the exclusive use of physically-grounded priors for safety-critical applications.

Driven by the rapid expansion of e-commerce and small-batch production, the size of the intralogistics load unit of finished goods, semi-finished goods and raw materials is steadily shrinking. Totes are gradually replacing pallets as the primary handling and storage container. This shift has propelled tote-handling robotic systems to the forefront of automation order fulfillment centers. The order-fulfillment decisions of tote-handling robotic systems share a common order-tote-robot sequential decision-making nature. Existing studies primarily focus on decision mechanisms tailored to particular systems, making it difficult to generalize or transfer them to other contexts. We propose an Omni-scale Learning-based Sequential Decision Framework for Order Fulfillment of Tote-handling Robotic Systems (OLSF-TRS), a generalized and scalable sequential decision framework that combines structured combinatorial optimization with multi-agent reinforcement learning to coordinate order,tote, and robot decisions. On small-scale tote-handling robotic systems, OLSF-TRS achieves near-optimal performance with average optimality gaps below 3.5% across two distinct system configurations. In large-scale scenarios, OLSF-TRS consistently outperforms heuristic baselines across two different system types, reducing total tote movements by 8-12% and over 30% compared to SOTA rule-based approaches, while maintaining real-time responsiveness. These improvements translate into tangible operational benefits, including cost reduction, lower energy consumption, and enhanced throughput stability. The proposed framework delivers an efficient and unified order fulfillment decision-making framework for widely deployed tote-handling robotic systems,supporting high-quality order fulfillment in both e-commerce and industrial logistics sectors.

Traditional simulation methods reproduce occurred emergency instances through presetting to assist people in risk assessment and emergency decision-making. However, due to the lack of randomness and diversity, existing simulation systems struggle to fully explore the potential risk as emergency instances are scarce. In contrast, Large Models (LMs) can dynamically adjust generation strategies to introduce controllable randomness, while also possessing extensive prior knowledge and cross-domain knowledge transfer capabilities. Inspired by it, we propose the LMs-driven World Line Divergence System (WLDS), which enables diversified visualization and deduction of emergency instances in different domains. WLDS leverages LMs to deduce emergency instances in various development directions, and introduces the factual calibration and logical calibration mechanism to ensure factual accuracy and logical rigor during the deduction process. The interactive module can independently select deduction directions to avoid potential hallucinations that are difficult for the system to identify. Furthermore, by introducing the visualization module, WLDS forms simulation and deduction that combine text and images, which enhances interpretability. Extensive experiments conducted on the proposed Emergency Instances Deduction (EID) benchmark dataset demonstrate that WLDS achieves high-precision and high-fidelity simulation and deduction of emergency instances in multiple specific domains. Relevant experiments further demonstrate that WLDS can generate more emergency instances deduction data for users and provide support for better decision-making in similar emergency instances in the future.

Transparent decision-making is essential for traffic signal control (TSC) systems to earn public trust. However, traditional reinforcement learning-based TSC methods function as black boxes with limited interpretability. Although large language models (LLMs) can provide natural language reasoning, reinforcement finetuning for TSC remains unstable because feedback is sparse and delayed, while most actions produce only marginal changes in congestion metrics. We introduce OracleTSC, which stabilizes LLM-based TSC through two mechanisms: (1) a reward hurdle mechanism that filters weak learning signals by subtracting a calibrated threshold from environmental rewards, and (2) uncertainty regularization that maximizes the probability of the selected response to encourage consistent decisions across sampled outputs. Experiments on the LibSignal benchmark show that OracleTSC enables a compact LLaMA3-8B model to substantially improve traffic efficiency, achieving a 75% reduction in travel time and a 67% decrease in queue length compared with the pretrained baseline while preserving interpretability through natural language explanations. OracleTSC also demonstrates strong cross-intersection generalization: a policy trained on one intersection transfers to a structurally different intersection with 17% lower travel time and 39% lower queue length without additional finetuning. These results suggest that uncertainty-aware reward shaping can improve the stability and effectiveness of reinforcement fine-tuning for TSC.

Self-evolving agents improve by accumulating and reusing experience from past interactions. Existing work has largely focused on how experience is constructed, represented, and updated, while paying less attention to how experience should be used during runtime decision-making. As a result, most agents rely on rigid usage strategies, either injecting experience once at initialization or at every step, without considering whether it is needed for the current decision. This paper studies experience utilization as a critical design dimension of self-evolving agents. We ask whether agents benefit from interweaving experience use with decision-making, so that experience is invoked only when additional guidance is needed. To examine this question, we introduce {ExpWeaver}, a lightweight instantiation that leaves experience construction unchanged and modifies only runtime utilization by exposing experience as an optional resource during reasoning. Across four representative frameworks, seven LLM backbones, and three types of environments, ExpWeaver consistently achieves the best performance among different utilization strategies. Reinforcement learning experiments further show that this behavior can be amplified through training. Usage-pattern, causal ablation, and entropy-based analyses reveal that ExpWeaver enables agents to invoke experience selectively, at beneficial decision points, and under higher reasoning uncertainty. Overall, our findings call for a shift from merely studying \emph{what} experience to store toward understanding \emph{how} and \emph{when} experience should enter decision-making.

Motivated by the challenge to improve the adversarial robustness, security, and trust of medical decision making intelligent agents, this study develops a full-link security enhancement framework, which describes "input risk perception - medical evidence constraint - knowledge consistency verification - decision confidence reweighting - security output control - adversarial feedback update." We propose ARSM-Agent and define a weighted joint objective consisting of decision accuracy loss, adversarial robustness loss, safety refusal loss, and knowledge consistency loss, with weights of 0.3, 0.3, 0.2, and 0.2, respectively. The whole medical decision formulation is implemented by multi-module collaborative linkage. We verify that the algorithm is more efficient than four baselines, including LLM-Agent, Retrieval-Agent, Filter-Agent, and Adv-Train-Agent. Under semantic perturbation, prompt injection, drug-name confusion, and false-evidence attacks, ARSM-Agent reduces the overall attack success rate to 8.7% and achieves a knowledge consistency score of 0.91. Ablation experiments quantify each module's contribution: removing risk perception, evidence retrieval, consistency verification, and confidence reweighting reduces accuracy by 6.7%, 9.1%, 7.6%, and 4.4%, respectively, and increases attack success rate by 13.8%, 11.1%, 8.6%, and 6.9%. The proposed approach addresses key security issues of medical decision making intelligent agents, obtains secure decision making in challenging scenarios, and provides reliable intelligent support for medical decision-making intelligent agents.

Predictive models are often deployed through existing decision policies that stakeholders are reluctant to change unless a risk constraint requires intervention. We study risk-controlled post-processing: given a deterministic baseline policy, choose a new policy that maximizes agreement with the baseline subject to a chance constraint on a user-specified loss. At the population level, we show that the optimal policy has a threshold structure: it follows the baseline except on contexts where switching to the oracle fallback policy yields a large reduction in conditional violation risk. At the finite-sample level, given a fitted fallback policy and score, we develop a post-processing algorithm that uses calibration data to select a threshold. Leveraging tools from algorithmic stability and stochastic processes, we show that under regularity conditions, in the i.i.d. setting, the expected excess risk of the post-processed policy is $O(\log n/n)$. In the special case when an exact-safe fallback policy is available, the algorithm achieves precise expected risk control under exchangeability. In this setting, we also give high-probability near-optimality guarantees on the post-processed policy. Experiments on a COVID-19 radiograph diagnosis task, an LLM routing problem, and a synthetic multiclass decision task show that targeted post-processing can meet or nearly meet risk budgets while preserving substantially more agreement with the baseline than score-blind random mixing.

The objective of this paper is to understand what characteristics and features of clinical data influence physician's decision about ordering laboratory tests or prescribing medications the most. We conduct our analysis on data and decisions extracted from electronic health records of 4486 post-surgical cardiac patients. The summary statistics for 335 different lab order decisions and 407 medication decisions are reported. We show that in many cases, physician's lab-order and medication decisions can be well predicted from a small subset of all features.

Autonomous driving systems rely heavily on robust sensor fusion to perceive complex envi- ronments. Traditional setups using RGB cameras and LiDAR often struggle in high-dynamic- range scenes or high-speed scenarios due to motion blur and latency. Dynamic Vision Sensors (DVS), or event cameras, offer a paradigm shift by capturing asynchronous brightness changes with microsecond temporal resolution and high dynamic range. In this paper, we propose an extended architecture of the state-of-the-art InterFuser model, integrating DVS as an additional modality to enhance perception reliability. We introduce a novel token-based fusion strategy that incorporates accumulated event frames into the transformer-based backbone of InterFuser. Our method leverages the complementary nature of RGB, LiDAR, and DVS data. We evaluate our approach on the Car Learning to Act (CARLA) Leaderboard benchmarks, demonstrating that the inclusion of DVS improves the robustness of the driving agent, achieving a competitive Driving Score of 77.2 and a superior Route Completion of 100%. The results indicate that event-based vision is a promising direction for improving safety and performance in adverse lighting and dynamic conditions.

Syndrome-based neural decoding (SBND) has emerged as a promising deep learning approach for soft-decision decoding of high-rate, short-length codes. However, this approach still has substantial room for improvement. In this paper, we show how to leverage code automorphisms to enhance the ability of existing SBND models to learn and generalize through data augmentation during training and inference. As a result, for the short high-rate codes considered, we obtain models that closely approach MLD performance using small datasets and proper training. Our findings also suggest that many prior results for SBND models in the literature underestimate their true correction capability due to undertraining. Code to reproduce all results is available at: https://github.com/lebidan/sbnd.

Agentic artificial intelligence (AI) shows promise for automating O-RAN wireless supervisory control, but translated intents still require an executor-side decision before live network actuation. Existing control flows lack explicit semantics for whether an intent should commit, gate for evidence, or reject under stale telemetry, concurrent policies, deadline and bandwidth limits, and rollback constraints. We propose Progressive Risk-Gated Actuation (PRGA), an executor-side contract for risk-gated wireless intent execution. PRGA structures each intent into executable local triage (C0), on-demand coordination evidence (C1), and post-hoc provenance support (C2), with C2 kept off the online safety path. A deterministic two-stage policy checks expiry, freshness, rollback-handle validity, local conflict, blocking preconditions, and planner-executor risk divergence from C0, then retrieves C1 only for gated intents when deadline and bandwidth budgets allow; evidence-mandatory gates reject when required C1 is unavailable. On two 3GPP-parameterized energy-saving and slice-SLA benchmarks, PRGA reduces time-to-first-safe-action by 23.3-27.4% and per-commit control-plane bytes by 52.7-54.2% against a decision-identical eager full-evidence cost-overlay comparator, thereby isolating retrieval-cost accounting; remains non-inferior within a pre-declared 0.5 percentage-point unsafe-action margin against an invariant-respecting static-threshold comparator; and rejects 100% of injected over-threshold stale inputs in the stale-state fault campaign. On these benchmarks, PRGA improves supervisory responsiveness and control-plane efficiency within the evaluated unsafe-action boundary.

This position paper argues that LLMs should not yet be credited with decision explanation. This matters because recent work increasingly treats accurate behavioral prediction, plausible rationales, and outcome-conditioned reasoning traces as evidence that LLMs explain why people decide as they do, risking a premature redefinition of what counts as explanatory progress in human decision modeling. We first distinguish three claims with different evidential burdens: decision prediction, rationale generation, and decision explanation. We then argue that the evidence most commonly offered for LLM-based decision accounts directly supports the first two claims, and sometimes explanatory hypothesis generation, but does not distinguish decision explanation from prediction-supportive rationalization. Next, we propose a bridge standard for decision-explanation credit: stronger claims should specify explanatory targets, discriminate against weaker rationalizer alternatives, use target-appropriate process- or intervention-sensitive validation, and bound their scope. We then situate this standard against competing views and related literatures, clarifying why it preserves the value of LLMs as predictors, narrators, and hypothesis generators while resisting premature explanatory credit. We conclude with a principle of credit calibration: LLMs should be credited for the strongest claim their evidence warrants, and no stronger; if adopted, this principle can help turn LLMs from persuasive narrators of decisions into more reliable instruments for discovering, testing, and communicating explanations of human behavior.

LLMs excel at predictive tasks and complex reasoning tasks, but many high-value deployments rely on decisions under uncertainty, for example, which tool to call, which expert to consult, or how many resources to invest. While the usefulness and feasibility of Bayesian approaches remain unclear for LLM inference, this position paper argues that the control layer of an agentic AI system (that orchestrates LLMs and tools) is a clear case where Bayesian principles should shine. Bayesian decision theory provides a framework for agentic systems that can help to maintain beliefs over task-relevant latent quantities, to update these beliefs from observed agentic and human-AI interactions, and to choose actions. Making LLMs themselves explicitly Bayesian belief-updating engines remains computationally intensive and conceptually nontrivial as a general modeling target. In contrast, this paper argues that coherent decision-making requires Bayesian principles at the orchestration level of the agentic system, not necessarily the LLM agent parameters. This paper articulates practical properties for Bayesian control that fit modern agentic AI systems and human-AI collaboration, and provides concrete examples and design patterns to illustrate how calibrated beliefs and utility-aware policies can improve agentic AI orchestration.

Modern stochastic optimization pipelines increasingly rely on learned generative models to represent uncertainty, while downstream decisions are evaluated almost entirely through Monte Carlo scenarios. This shifts the operational object of uncertainty from an explicit probability law to the sampler induced by the learned generator. Reliability therefore depends on two errors: sampler misspecification and finite-simulation error. We propose Sampler-Robust Optimization (SRO), which optimizes decisions against the worst-case sampler induced by perturbing the learned generator. This sampler-first formulation aligns with simulation-based decision pipelines and admits a sharpness-aware interpretation: it favors decisions whose performance is stable under generator perturbations, rather than merely under the nominal sampler. Under a coverage assumption, we show that the empirical worst-case objective provides a high-probability upper certificate for the true population objective, with finite-simulation error partially absorbed by the robustification used to guard against sampler misspecification. The framework accommodates generative models with or without explicit densities and admits efficient minimax procedures. Portfolio-optimization experiments show that SRO produces more stable decisions and improves out-of-sample performance under distribution shift.

Current AI systems increasingly operate in contexts where their outputs directly trigger real-world actions. Most existing approaches to AI safety, risk management, and governance focus on post-hoc validation, probabilistic risk estimation, or certification of model behavior. However, these approaches implicitly assume that once a decision is produced, it is eligible for execution. In this work, we introduce the Right-to-Act protocol, a deterministic, non-compensatory pre-execution decision layer that evaluates whether an AI-generated decision is permitted to be realized at all. Unlike compensatory systems, where high-confidence signals can override failed conditions, the proposed framework enforces strict structural constraints: if any required condition is unmet, execution is halted or deferred. We formalize the distinction between compensatory and non-compensatory decision regimes and define a pre-execution legitimacy boundary. Through a scenario-based case study, we demonstrate how identical AI outputs can lead to divergent outcomes when evaluated under a Right-to-Act protocol, preserving reversibility and preventing premature or irreversible actions. The proposed approach reframes AI control from optimizing decisions to governing their admissibility, introducing a protocol-level abstraction that operates independently of model architecture or training methodology.

Reporting guidance for information-theoretic measures is rarely tested against ground truth. We test one guardrail in two multi-agent reinforcement learning games, a social dilemma and a coordination race, where directed influence between selected agent pairs is zero by construction, over 100 seeds. Omitting one precondition, exclusion of the non-stationary training transient, gives false-positive rates of 100.00% and 99.95%: agents annealing exploration independently, in runs that never met, are flagged as influencing one another. Excluding the transient reaches 3.0% in the social dilemma but 11.8% in the coordination game, which stationarity tests explain: 95.7% of social-dilemma series are stationary afterwards against 56.8% of coordination series. So the non-stationarity must be treated, and exclusion is neither the only way nor sufficient. What we recommend instead changes the null model rather than the data: permuting the source within blocks of training time reaches 5.25% and 5.50%, the only one of four constructions at the size of the test in both games, leaving series, statistic and estimand untouched. Titrating injected links of known strength in both games shows it is also the most sensitive of the three, detecting 89.0% in the coordination game where conditioning detects 61.0% on identical pairs, while the ablated test reports 100% with or without a link, so its apparent sensitivity is uninformative. The block count is not critical: every setting from 16 to 256 lands in the nominal region, and a partition derived from the stationarity test removes the parameter, though less sensitively. Code and data are released.

Iterative self-correction is increasingly deployed in agentic LLM systems, yet whether repeated refinement improves or degrades performance remains inconsistent across models. We recast self-correction as a closed-loop feedback-control problem in which the same model is both controller and plant, and analyze its error dynamics via a two-state Markov model over {Correct, Incorrect}, parameterized by the Error Introduction Rate (EIR) and Error Correction Rate (ECR). The model yields a directly measurable stability threshold -- iterate only when ECR/EIR > Acc/(1-Acc) -- in which EIR acts as a stability margin and prompting becomes lightweight controller design. Empirically, across 7 models and 3 datasets (GSM8K, MATH, StrategyQA), a sharp near-zero EIR boundary (< 0.5%) cleanly separates beneficial from harmful self-correction: only o3-mini (+3.4 pp), Claude Opus 4.6 (+0.6 pp), and o4-mini (+/-0 pp) stay non-degrading, while GPT-5 and four others lose accuracy. A verify-first prompt intervention then provides causal evidence: it drives GPT-4o-mini's EIR from 2% to 0% and converts a -6.2 pp degradation into +0.2 pp (paired McNemar, p<10^{-4}), with negligible change on already-sub-threshold models -- exactly as the diagnostic predicts. A complementary analysis of adaptive self-consistency (ASC) shows it halts harmful refinement at a 3.8 pp confidence-elicitation cost, exposing a two-tier capability structure: prompt-level EIR suppression prevents degradation, whereas ECR enhancement -- plausibly training-level -- is required for genuine gains. Self-correction should thus be treated not as a default behavior but as a control decision governed by measurable error dynamics.

\textbf{Background:} Regulatory frameworks for AI in healthcare, including the EU AI Act and FDA guidance on AI/ML-based medical devices, require clinical decision support to demonstrate not only accuracy but auditability. Existing formal languages for clinical logic validate syntactic and structural correctness but not whether decision rules use epistemologically appropriate evidence. \textbf{Methods:} Drawing on design-by-contract principles, we introduce meta-predicates -- predicates about predicates -- for asserting epistemological constraints on clinical decision rules expressed in a DSL. An epistemological type system classifies annotations along four dimensions: purpose, knowledge domain, scale, and method of acquisition. Meta-predicates assert which evidence types are permissible in any given rule. The framework is instantiated in AnFiSA, an open-source platform for genetic variant curation, and demonstrated using the Brigham Genomics Medicine protocol on 5.6 million variants from the Genome in a Bottle benchmark. \textbf{Results:} Decision trees used in variant interpretation can be reformulated as unate cascades, enabling per-variant audit trails that identify which rule classified each variant and why. Meta-predicate validation catches epistemological errors before deployment, whether rules are human-written or AI-generated. The approach complements post-hoc methods such as LIME and SHAP: where explanation reveals what evidence was used after the fact, meta-predicates constrain what evidence may be used before deployment, while preserving human readability. \textbf{Conclusions:} Meta-predicate validation is a step toward demonstrating not only that decisions are accurate but that they rest on appropriate evidence in ways that can be independently audited. While demonstrated in genomics, the approach generalises to any domain requiring auditable decision logic.

Freight brokerages negotiate thousands of carrier rates daily under dynamic pricing conditions where models frequently revise targets mid-conversation. Classical time-dependent concession frameworks use a fixed shape parameter $β$ that cannot adapt to these updates. Deriving $β$ from the live spread enables adaptation but introduces a new problem: a pricing shift can cause the formula to retract a previous offer, violating monotonicity. LLM-powered brokers offer flexibility but require expensive reasoning models, produce non-deterministic pricing, and remain vulnerable to prompt injection. We propose a two-index anchor-and-resume framework that addresses both limitations. A spread-derived $β$ maps each load's margin structure to the correct concession posture, while the anchor-and-resume mechanism guarantees monotonically non-decreasing offers under arbitrary pricing shifts. All pricing decisions remain in a deterministic formula; the LLM, when used, serves only as a natural-language translation layer. Empirical evaluation across 115,125 negotiations shows that the adaptive $β$ tailors behavior by regime: in narrow spreads, it concedes quickly to prioritize deal closure and load coverage; in medium and wide spreads, it matches or exceeds the best fixed-$β$ baselines in broker savings. Against an unconstrained 20-billion-parameter LLM broker, it achieves similar agreement rates and savings. Against LLM-powered carriers as more realistic stochastic counterparties, it maintains comparable savings and higher agreement rates than against rule-based opponents. By decoupling the LLM from pricing logic, the framework scales horizontally to thousands of concurrent negotiations with negligible inference cost and transparent decision-making.

High-consequence decision making demands peak performance from individuals in positions of responsibility. Such executive authority bears the obligation to act despite uncertainty, limited resources, time constraints, and accountability risks. Tools and strategies to motivate confidence and foster risk tolerance must confront informational noise and can provide qualified accountability. Machine intelligence augments human cognition and perception to improve situational awareness, decision framing, flexibility, and coherence through agentic stewardship of contextual metadata. We examine systemic and behavioral factors crucial to address in scenarios encumbered by complexity, uncertainty, and urgency.

Function calling empowers large language models (LLMs) to interface with external tools, yet existing RL-based approaches suffer from misalignment between reasoning processes and tool-call decisions. We propose R2IF, a reasoning-aware RL framework for interpretable function calling, adopting a composite reward integrating format/correctness constraints, Chain-of-Thought Effectiveness Reward (CER), and Specification-Modification-Value (SMV) reward, optimized via GRPO. Experiments on BFCL/ACEBench show R2IF outperforms baselines by up to 34.62% (Llama3.2-3B on BFCL) with positive Average CoT Effectiveness (0.05 for Llama3.2-3B), enhancing both function-calling accuracy and interpretability for reliable tool-augmented LLM deployment.

Enterprise deployment of long-horizon decision agents in regulated domains (underwriting, claims adjudication, tax examination) is dominated by retrieval-augmented pipelines despite a decade of increasingly sophisticated stateful memory architectures. We argue this reflects a hidden requirement: regulated deployment is load-bearing on four systems properties (deterministic replay, auditable rationale, multi-tenant isolation, statelessness for horizontal scale), and stateful architectures violate them by construction. We propose Deterministic Projection Memory (DPM): an append-only event log plus one task-conditioned projection at decision time. On ten regulated decisioning cases at three memory budgets, DPM matches summarization-based memory at generous budgets and substantially outperforms it when the budget binds: at a 20x compression ratio, DPM improves factual precision by +0.52 (Cohen's h=1.17, p=0.0014) and reasoning coherence by +0.53 (h=1.13, p=0.0034), paired permutation, n=10. DPM is additionally 7-15x faster at binding budgets, making one LLM call at decision time instead of N. A determinism study of 10 replays per case at temperature zero shows both architectures inherit residual API-level nondeterminism, but the asymmetry is structural: DPM exposes one nondeterministic call; summarization exposes N compounding calls. The audit surface follows the same one-versus-N pattern: DPM logs two LLM calls per decision while summarization logs 83-97 on LongHorizon-Bench. We conclude with TAMS, a practitioner heuristic for architecture selection, and a failure analysis of stateful memory under enterprise operating conditions. The contribution is the argument that statelessness is the load-bearing property explaining enterprise's preference for weaker but replayable retrieval pipelines, and that DPM demonstrates this property is attainable without the decisioning penalty retrieval pays.

Data-driven decision-making under uncertainty typically presumes the collection of historical data from an unknown target probability distribution. However, one may have no access to any data from the target distribution prior to decision-making. To address this challenge, we propose robust out-of-distribution stochastic optimization, a novel data-driven framework that effectively utilizes relevant data distributions for robust decision-making under unseen distributions. A key feature of our framework is that all data distributions are assumed to be randomly generated from a meta-distribution over distributions. To describe uncertainty in distribution generation, we propose to learn a data-driven uncertainty set in a reproducing kernel Hilbert space (RKHS) from relevant data distributions, with adjustable conservatism. We then incorporate this set into a min-max stochastic program to derive robust decisions. Notably, under randomness of distribution generation, we establish rigorous out-of-distribution generalization guarantees for the uncertainty set as well as the solution. To ease problem-solving in RKHS, an approximate parametrization with a provably bounded suboptimality and a row generation strategy are presented. Extensive numerical experiments on multi-item newsvendor and portfolio optimization demonstrate the superior out-of-distribution performance of our decision-making framework under unseen data distribution, even when only a small or moderate number of relevant sources are available.

Today, machine learning is widely applied in sensitive, security-related, and financially lucrative applications. Model extraction attacks undermine current business models where a model owner sells model access, e.g., via MLaaS APIs. Additionally, stolen models can enable powerful white-box attacks, facilitating privacy attacks on sensitive training data, and model evasion. In this paper, we focus on Decision Trees (DT), which are widely deployed in practice. Existing black-box extraction attacks for DTs are either query-intensive, make strong assumptions about the DT structure, or rely on rich API information. To limit attacks to the black-box setting, CPU vendors introduced Trusted Execution Environments (TEE) that use hardware-mechanisms to isolate workloads from external parties, e.g., MLaaS providers. We introduce TrEEStealer, a high-fidelity extraction attack for stealing TEE-protected DTs. TrEEStealer exploits TEE-specific side-channels to steal DTs efficiently and without strong assumptions about the API output or DT structure. The extraction efficacy stems from a novel algorithm that maximizes the information derived from each query by coupling Control-Flow Information (CFI) with passive information tracking. We use two primitives to acquire CFI: for AMD SEV, we follow previous work using the SEV-Step framework and performance counters. For Intel SGX, we reproduce prior findings on current Xeon 6 CPUs and construct a new primitive to efficiently extract the branch history of inference runs through the Branch-History-Register. We found corresponding vulnerabilities in three popular libraries: OpenCV, mlpack, and emlearn. We show that TrEEStealer achieves superior efficiency and extraction fidelity compared to prior attacks. Our work establishes a new state-of-the-art for DT extraction and confirms that TEEs fail to protect against control-flow leakage.

Visual agents operating in the wild must respond to queries precisely when sufficient evidence first appears in a video stream, a critical capability that is overlooked by conventional video LLMs evaluated in offline settings. The shift to an online, streaming paradigm introduces significant challenges: a lack of decision transparency, the difficulty of aligning response timing with visual evidence, and the need to maintain a global, causally consistent understanding under tight computational budgets. To address these issues, we propose a novel framework that decouples reasoning control from memory integration. We introduce \textbf{\model{}}, an instantiation of this framework with two core components. First, the \emph{Active Thinking Decision Maker (ATDM)} is a transparent reasoning controller that externalizes its decision process using observable progress ($\boldsymbolρ$) and confidence ($\boldsymbol{c}$) metrics. This allows it to precisely time its response $t_r$ to match the first-sufficient-evidence timestamp $t^\star$ while streaming its reasoning to the user. Second, the \emph{Hierarchical Progressive Semantic Integration (HPSI)} module acts as an efficient memory system. It employs a set of learnable, multi-level aggregation tokens that are propagated across clips to build a rich, global cognitive state without exceeding token budgets. %Our approach sets a new standard on key online video understanding benchmarks, achieving strong performance of \textbf{71.6%} on StreamingBench and \textbf{46.9%} on OVOBench, demonstrating a robust solution for evidence-aligned and transparent online video analysis. Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of ATDM and HPSI, e.g., Thinking-QwenVL improves the accuracy of the previous state-of-the-art from 67.63% to 71.60% on the StreamingBench benchmark.

Decision-making is a cognitively intensive task that requires synthesizing relevant information from multiple unstructured sources, weighing competing factors, and incorporating subjective user preferences. Existing methods, including large language models and traditional decision-support systems, fall short: they often overwhelm users with information or fail to capture nuanced preferences accurately. We present Decisive, an interactive decision-making framework that combines document-grounded reasoning with Bayesian preference inference. Our approach grounds decisions in an objective option-scoring matrix extracted from source documents, while actively learning a user's latent preference vector through targeted elicitation. Users answer pairwise tradeoff questions adaptively selected to maximize information gain over the final decision. This process converges efficiently, minimizing user effort while ensuring recommendations remain transparent and personalized. Through extensive experiments, we demonstrate that our approach significantly outperforms both general-purpose LLMs and existing decision-making frameworks achieving up to 20% improvement in decision accuracy over strong baselines across domains.