Empirical Study

Coding harnesses shape how autonomous coding agents translate model capabilities into long-horizon software-engineering performance, yet existing work typically evaluates harnesses as monolithic systems, leaving the effectiveness of individual components unclear. To enable component-level comparisons, we study this question with a lightweight coding harness whose execution loop is fixed while three components are varied: planning, action space, and context management. Across four models evaluated on SWE-Bench Verified and Terminal-Bench 2.1, we evaluate 176 matched settings spanning five context-management strategies, four context-window budgets, and targeted ablations of planning and action space. We find that: (1) Context management becomes increasingly valuable as the context-window budget tightens, with most of its benefit coming from preventing context-overflow failures. (2) Staging rule-based elision before LLM-based summarization provides the strongest overall efficiency among the context-management strategies, whereas making elided content recoverable adds machinery that models rarely use and yields no accuracy gain. (3) Planning shifts from an accuracy scaffold for weaker models to a cost saver for stronger models, with little change in accuracy. (4) Predefined tools improve performance for models with weaker bash proficiency, whereas bash-capable models can operate effectively with a bash-only interface and achieve substantially lower cost, especially on command-line-centric tasks. Trajectory-level analysis explains these effects: context management extends execution trajectories without substantially altering agent behavior, planning changes where trajectories stop, and the action space changes the granularity at which code is written. These findings inform model- and budget-aware harness design and provide a modular framework for evaluating future harness components.

Benchmark scores alone provide an incomplete basis for assessing the trustworthiness of modern artificial intelligence systems. Large language models (LLMs), agentic systems, and multimodal models (MLLMs) require different forms of assessment, yet their evaluation evidence must remain interpretable for development and oversight. We propose a unified framework that connects output-level, trajectory-level, and cross-modal assessment through eight trustworthiness dimensions: capability, robustness, safety, fairness, transparency, governance, oversight, and efficiency. The framework preserves system-specific metrics while mapping native measurements to common performance bands, accompanied by uncertainty estimates and traceable evidence. A meta-evaluation layer examines the validity, reliability, and reproducibility of the evaluation itself. Multidimensional profiles expose strengths and weaknesses, while safety-critical overrides prevent aggregate scores from masking critical failures. Mappings to governance frameworks, international standards, and European Union regulatory requirements connect technical assessment with oversight needs. The framework provides a structured basis for assessing both system performance and the credibility of the evidence supporting it, with empirical validation across deployment contexts remaining an essential next step.

This study empirically evaluates whether cost-efficient Large Language Models (LLMs) can be trusted to generate enterprise code to a written specification. Three models (Gemini Flash 3, GPT-5.4 mini and Claude Haiku 4.5) were asked to solve 992 algorithmic problems as Java Spring Boot service methods conforming to a mandated signature and data-transfer-object specification, crossing four model and agentic coding tool combinations with two prompt variants to yield eight configurations, with iteration forbidden and hardcoded answers explicitly prohibited. Eight problem statements were withheld to probe how models respond to missing input. The 7,593 resulting methods were classified by an eight-class outcome taxonomy describing what each does about producing an answer, then deployed and executed, giving 7,936 measured requests joined to that classification. Structural conformance approached ceiling, yet 38.4% of methods do not compute the value they returned and only 12.9% of returned answers were correct. Conditioning on outcome class shows that response reliability and correctness are inversely related, whereas genuinely computing methods answered least often and were correct 19.3%. Limitations include single generation runs per configuration, partial harness coverage, single-pass timing, syntactic classification, and probable corpus contamination.

Large language models can easily generate explanations for their own outputs, but such self-explanations are not necessarily faithful to the model's behavior. We study this issue through counterfactual self-explanations, where a model minimally edits an input so that its own prediction changes. Across sentiment analysis and natural language inference, we evaluate ten instruction-tuned models from the LLaMA-3 and Qwen-2.5 families, measuring faithfulness, minimality, and alignment with human-annotated rationales. Our results show that model scale is the strongest determinant of explanation quality: larger models are substantially more likely to generate counterfactuals that flip their own predictions and target decision-relevant evidence. In contrast, the rationale-guided condition produces edit-minimal counterfactuals that are also more human-aligned. However, it does not consistently improve faithfulness. Overall, counterfactual self-explanations can provide useful behavioral evidence about model decisions, but their reliability depends strongly on model capacity and should be empirically validated rather than assumed.

Real-world datasets often exhibit long-tailed class distributions, where a few head classes contain a large number of training samples while a large number of tail classes have only a few. The composition of each mini-batch, determined by the sampling strategy, governs which classes contribute to the stochastic gradient estimate, and therefore affects convergence behaviour and generalisation across the whole class spectrum. We provide a systematic theoretical and empirical comparison of four mini-batch sampling strategies for long-tailed image classification: uniform instance sampling, class-balanced sampling, square-root sampling, and progressively balanced sampling. We place all four in a unified bias-variance framework describing their effect on gradient estimation, which exposes the tension between unbiased optimisation of the empirical loss and fair representation of rare classes. We then evaluate them under controlled conditions using ResNet-32 on CIFAR-100-LT at three imbalance ratios (rho = 10, 50, 100), with every strategy sharing the same long-tailed subsets and initialisation within a seed. Progressive sampling improves tail-class accuracy by 25% relative to the uniform baseline at rho = 100 (13.5% versus 10.8%), consistently across all three seeds, while its overall accuracy is not distinguishable from that of uniform sampling given the seed-to-seed variation (40.0% versus 39.7%); the tail-class gain, not the overall gain, is the robust effect. At rho = 100, class-balanced sampling degrades accuracy on every class group, including the tail classes it is designed to help, which we attribute to overfitting caused by extreme oversampling of scarce data; at rho = 50 this failure is confined to head and medium classes. These results indicate that when rebalancing is applied during training matters as much as how much rebalancing is applied.

This letter presents a unified formulation and a controlled numerical comparison of generative-model approaches to the nonlinear filtering problem. Under this formulation the analysis step is realized by a transport of the forecast distribution to the posterior, the approaches differing only in how that transport is selected and learned. We derive three new filters, based on stochastic interpolants, their deterministic flow-matching limit, and Schrödinger bridges realized through forward--backward SDEs. We develop a two-stage tuning procedure that separates the training of the generative model from its online refinement. The resulting methods are compared against the optimal transport filter (OTF), the Knothe--Rosenblatt filter (KRF), the sequential importance resampling (SIR) particle filter and the ensemble Kalman filter (EnKF), in terms of accuracy, computational time, and sensitivity to ensemble size and state dimension. The results indicate that every generative filter resolves multimodal posteriors that the EnKF and SIR do not, that no single generative framework dominates, the preferred method being set by the available online budget and ensemble size, and that the filters differ in the regularity of the particle trajectories they produce.

Music Emotion Recognition (MER) aims to identify and represent emotional information in music through computational methods and is an important research area within Music Information Retrieval (MIR). To address the limited consideration of song sectional structure in existing dynamic MER research, this study examines 100 Chinese pop songs by aligning 1,046 manually annotated sections with continuous Valence-Arousal (VA) trajectories and analyzing them from the perspectives of section type, adjacent section transitions, repeated sections, and whole-song trajectories. The results show that emotional differences across sections are reflected more strongly in Arousal. Verse typically forms a relatively low-activation baseline, Pre-chorus exhibits a progressive buildup, and Chorus produces a more pronounced high-arousal arrival, while Interlude, Bridge, and Outro tend to show transitional, divergent, and closing functions, respectively. Although whole-song sectional configurations are diverse, high-frequency local transitions are relatively concentrated. High-arousal positions occur more often in the later part of a song, but are not fixed to the final Chorus. Based on these findings, this study summarizes the emotional organization of the selected pop songs as an empirical framework of "local cycles-global accumulation", in which local sectional cycles are accompanied by emotional pullbacks, while the overall trajectory exhibits a later-stage rise in VA and a tendency for high-Arousal positions to occur later in the song.

AI agents are provisioned the same as employee-owned hosts in many enterprise settings with a static credential set fixed at deployment which includes all permissions the employee role might ever need. Role-based access control made this compromise for human principals because scoping access per task was infeasible. For AI agents, the compromise leaves every credential standing exposed whether or not the current task uses them. These permissions can later be utilised by a compromised or misaligned agent. Prior work (Noyan, 2026) defined this as the task-context mismatch, and proposed a three-source permission architecture which includes role-based permission ceilings, a task permission classifier and policy-based prohibitions, together eliminating the exposure preemptively. The work released a 600-prompt labelled dataset to evaluate it. This paper presents that evaluation end to end by implementing the security gate; a fine-tuned RoBERTa-large encoder which matched few-shot trained Claude Haiku 4.5 on classification quality (macro-F1 0.881 against 0.886, precision 0.897 against 0.842, severity-weighted residual risk 0.63 against 1.12). The results show the trusted component does not need to scale with the agent it supervises, and the scalable-oversight margin for this control method is wide. We also propose an attack-surface elimination metric which shows the role ceiling alone closes 27.9% of the severity-weighted surface and adding the task classifier closes 84.4%. The gap displays security advantages of task-granular access control over role-granular, and AI agents are the first principal type for which the task-granular access control is enforceable because their tasks arrive as machine-readable text. The research establishes task-based access control as a measured, potentially deployable mechanism for reducing attack surface in agentic deployments.

Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) reporting is critical for corporate accountability, with Large Language Models (LLMs) and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) offering strong potential to automate KPI extraction. However, open-source LLM performance in domain-specific ESG tasks remains insufficiently understood. This paper evaluates open-source LLMs in ESG contexts using a structured framework and evaluation resource based on 498 real-world ESG reports from EU-listed companies (2010-2024). We evaluate seven open-source models (2B to 30B parameters) -- glm-4.7-flash, nemotron-3-nano:4b, qwen3:4b-instruct, gemma3:4b, gemma4:e4b, gemma4:e2b, and ministral-3:8b -- using 100 persona-based synthetic QA pairs covering ESG information needs. System performance is assessed via RAGAS metrics, including contextual recall, precision, relevance, faithfulness, answer relevancy, and factual correctness. Results show notable performance variations across architectures. Retrieval performance is strong across models (context recall around 0.58-0.61, context precision around 0.78-0.81, context relevance 0.965-0.985). Generation diverges most on faithfulness (0.607-0.822) and least on answer relevancy (0.760-0.881): glm-4.7-flash leads in faithfulness (0.822), qwen3 in factual correctness (0.449), and ministral-3 in answer relevancy (0.881). Low overall factual correctness (0.387-0.449) highlights the need for domain-specific fine-tuning. This work provides data-driven guidance for deploying open-source models in ESG reporting.

In this study, we examine whether a general shell can outperform specialized tools on enterprise tasks. Shell-based agents have shown strong results in coding, but enterprise work also involves moving between applications and services, coordinating with coworkers, and performing professional analysis. We compare five tool interfaces on TheAgentCompany and APEX-Agents using Opus-4.8 and GPT-5.5: typed tools, typed tools plus bash, bash alone, bash with persistent agent-synthesized tools, and programmatic tool calling (PTC), which runs programs whose actions are restricted to a typed tool catalog. Bash alone outperforms typed tools on both benchmarks, improving score by 21.8-24.5 pp on TheAgentCompany and 4.8-7.4 pp on APEX-Agents while using 19-72% fewer total tokens. Adding typed tools or persistent tool synthesis to bash produces no detectable pooled score gain. PTC uses fewer tokens than direct typed calls with broadly similar task performance, but generally underperforms bash alone in both quality and cost efficiency. For enterprise practitioners, these results favor bash alone when arbitrary execution can be isolated and PTC when security or compliance policies require a fixed tool catalog.

Robots are increasingly used in diverse application areas, where autonomous navigation plays a central role. As these systems become more widespread, improving their energy efficiency is critical to extending operational time and reducing environmental impact. The Robot Operating System (ROS) is a widely adopted middleware for robotics, offering a rich set of configurable packages. However, this flexibility can result in suboptimal software configurations in dynamic environments, negatively affecting both performance and energy consumption. This paper investigates the impact of ROS 2 package reconfigurations on the energy efficiency of mobile robot navigation. We conduct a controlled experiment in two warehouse-like scenarios (small and large) with varying obstacle layouts and Costmap 2D configurations (essential to the Nav2 stack). Through repeated trials, we measure energy usage, power profile, CPU load, memory consumption, and navigation performance. Results show that configurations must be carefully chosen for the specific robotic environment, and we were able to identify critical settings that lead to good and poor performance and energy consumption.

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is changing how work is organized and performed. Real estate marketing is a prime example of this, yet evidence of GenAI in real estate agents' day-to-day practice remains scarce. In this work, we report on our insights from a German-based empirical study with eleven semi-structured interviews. GenAI is already utilized across different activities, with marketing communication being the most prominent. Concrete use cases are emergent and unevenly adopted, with writing expos'e texts being the only widely established one. Interaction is predominantly human-in-the-loop: GenAI drafts, structures, and retrieves, while real estate agents curate, verify, and decide. Constraints stem less from model capability than from integration with listings and documents, data availability, and compliance in sensitive tasks. The study contributes a grounded map of existing and potential use cases and identifies tentative practical implications for adoption.

Data poisoning corrupts training data to degrade a model or to plant attacker-controlled behavior. This study evaluates two representative training-time attacks, label flipping and backdoor poisoning, on MNIST and Fashion-MNIST with three baseline classifiers: Logistic Regression, Linear SVM, and Random Forest. Clean training is compared with poisoning rates of 5%, 10%, and 20% using clean-test accuracy, macro-precision, macro-recall, macro-F1, and, for backdoors, attack success rate. Label flipping caused clear degradation, largest for Logistic Regression and Linear SVM, while Random Forest stayed comparatively stable. Backdoor poisoning reached attack success rates from 0.9667 to 1.0000 on both datasets and all three models while often keeping clean-test performance near baseline. The results separate indiscriminate poisoning, which shows up in standard metrics, from targeted backdoor poisoning, which stays comparatively stealthy while embedding highly effective malicious behavior, and they support security-oriented evaluation beyond conventional clean-test metrics.

Membership inference attacks (MIAs) try to determine whether a specific record was used to train a model, a privacy risk that matters in natural language processing (NLP), where training data can contain sensitive user text. This paper presents a controlled benchmark of membership inference vulnerability for text classification on the GLUE SST-2 sentiment dataset. A TF-IDF + Logistic Regression pipeline and a fine-tuned DistilBERT classifier are compared under a loss-threshold MIA, with utility measured by development accuracy and macro F1. DistilBERT reached 0.9466 accuracy and 0.9460 macro F1 against 0.8756 and 0.8727 for Logistic Regression, yet both models leaked membership signal (Attack AUC 0.5615 and 0.5800, respectively). Two mitigations were tested. Stronger regularization reduced leakage for Logistic Regression at a visible utility cost, whereas fine-tuning DistilBERT for 2 epochs instead of 3 reduced leakage with negligible accuracy loss. Lightweight training adjustments can improve the privacy-utility trade-off without complex defenses.

Language models fine-tuned on customer behavior can predict outcomes and generate explanations, but these readouts are often treated as interchangeable. Holding model checkpoint and prompt content fixed, we compare probabilities obtained by scoring answer tokens with predictions generated after a written rationale. Across 13 model-domain cells covering four retail tasks in three markets, including two using fully public data and checkpoints, the scored readout ranks outcomes more accurately in 12 of 13 cells (two-sided sign test, p approximately 0.003), by 1.5 to 14.5 points in area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Paired bootstrap confidence intervals exclude zero in every newly measured cell. The gap varies with task-specific supervision and mismatch between training and serving formats, ranging from -2.2 points for an untuned base model to +13.7 for rationale-format supervision. Analysis of approximately 9,000 rationales identifies two correlates: reduced reliance on the dominant predictive feature and convergence on stock formulations. Probability saturation does not track the gap. A third readout, eliciting a probability before any verdict, improves calibration (Brier score from 0.47 to 0.15) while ranking within noise of scoring, but only for outcome rates represented in training; it is worse than scoring when the scored head is already calibrated. We interpret these differences through the objectives matched by each readout, identify training choices that narrow the gap, and propose retaining generated rationales while sourcing ranking from the scored head.

Long-running language-model agents depend on persistent memory. Many agent-memory systems preserve history through soft revocation: a contradicted fact is marked invalid and retained rather than deleted. However, whether that mark is enforced at retrieval time is unexamined. In this paper, we measure five such systems: we load each with a revoked policy and its replacement, track whether the revoked fact is returned at retrieval and whether the agent then acts on it across nine policy scenarios and nine models, and score every trial under six defense conditions. We find that no system enforces revocation by default: the revoked fact is returned wherever the revocation label is visible to the retrieval layer, outranks its replacement, and leads agents to the unsafe action. Based on these findings, we develop a guard that sits between the agent and any memory backend and withholds records that are revoked or conflict with their replacement.

There is significant uncertainty about whether abstractions like beliefs or desires usefully describe the behavior of large language models (LLMs). In addition to the inherent scientific interest of this question, these latent quantities are often invoked to explain the behavior of LLMs to users or to define and evaluate harmful behaviors which are relative to intent. Nevertheless, we currently lack a means to systematically test whether concepts like "belief" are well-applied to LLMs, and hence whether they are likely to be fruitful ingredients of attempts to align models with human interests. We propose an approach for empirically studying such questions, asking whether a single latent variable inferred from the LLMs' outputs -- interpreted as a degree of belief -- allows an observer to make interpretable predictions of how the LLMs' will respond to new prompts. We find that highly capable models are usefully described as holding beliefs and that, generally, the predictability of model outputs based on an inferred latent belief tracks overall trends in model capability. Building on these findings, we provide empirical strategies to study how beliefs in LLMs can be measured, the extent to which LLMs comply with instructed decision rules or payoffs, and how beliefs evolve within individual instances of an LLM over the course of reasoning.

Assessing suicide risk from social media text is a small-data, high-stakes setting requiring not only severity prediction but also supporting evidence and clinically relevant risk and protective factors. Yet common NLP techniques, including model scaling, synthetic data, loss reweighting, ensembling, and threshold tuning, are often applied without testing whether their gains hold up under severe class imbalance, coupled outputs, and limited author-level data. We study 1,635 clinician-annotated posts and audit 31 pre-specified techniques from 7 methodological families through roughly 300 controlled experiments on author-disjoint partitions. We found no prior audit of this playbook in this regime. The findings guide a task-grounded system for three outputs: 4-level suicide risk, evidence spans, and 24 clinical risk and protective factors. Only 5 of 31 comparisons produced reliable gains. We reformulate factor prediction as entailment between each post and its codebook definitions, using an architecturally diverse ensemble with class-balanced training and score rescaling. Risk predictions condition a 7-model evidence tagger ensemble; evidence restricts symbolic risk rules; and a difficult risk class is routed separately. The factor predictor remains independent because risk evidence provides no additional factor signal. We also correct a mismatch between validation scores used for threshold fitting and test-time ensemble scores through deployment-consistent calibration, yielding the largest improvement to the factor system. The final system achieves 0.8203 for risk, 0.7953 for evidence, and 0.7045 macro-F1 for factors, with a 0.7781 composite, ranking third among 53 teams. We call the underlying principle task-conditioned technique selection: retain techniques only when task-specific knowledge, structure, or empirical evidence justifies them.

Generative data augmentation is widely used to mitigate class imbalance, yet its theoretical effect on downstream generalization remains poorly understood. In this work, we develop a statistical framework for conditional generative augmentation and analyze its impact on classification risk. We formalize augmentation as a distribution-mixing process and show that the resulting risk distortion is controlled by both the augmentation strength and the class-conditional Wasserstein discrepancy between real and generated distributions. We further derive a capacity-dependent generalization bound based on Rademacher complexity, revealing an explicit trade-off between hypothesis complexity, augmentation intensity, and generative fidelity. Empirically, we evaluate the framework on binary and multiclass imbalanced classification tasks using Conditional GAN and Conditional WGAN-GP augmentation. Across datasets, CWGAN-GP consistently achieves lower Wasserstein discrepancies than CGAN, indicating improved distributional fidelity. However, improved fidelity does not necessarily translate into superior classification performance, with classical oversampling methods often remaining competitive. These findings support the central theoretical prediction that augmentation reliability is governed by distributional approximation error rather than predictive performance alone. Overall, this work establishes generative augmentation as a distributional perturbation process whose reliability can be quantified through Wasserstein-based measures and supported by finite-sample generalization guarantees. The proposed framework provides a principled foundation for evaluating synthetic data quality beyond classification accuracy alone.

We introduce ViTAMINS, a method that integrates synthetic hard negatives into unsupervised vision transformer pretraining to improve representation quality. Our approach is thoroughly benchmarked on ImageNet and transfer learning, image retrieval, copy detection, and image, video segmentation tasks. Notably, our proposed negatives give rise to emergent properties, where learned representations contain explicit information about the semantic content of an image and serve as excellent classifiers (up to +11.3% over baselines). ViTAMINS achieves these benefits through simple modifications to existing contrastive frameworks and outperforms competing methods while being more resource efficient, e.g., our ViT-B surpasses V-JEPA with ViT-L. Our findings motivate reconsidering contrastive learning as a simpler yet powerful alternative to dominant generative and self-distillation approaches.

Traditional finance relies on experts to hand-craft factors through a principled process grounded in economic rationale. Recent LLM-based multi-agent systems have automated this process, scaling factor mining far beyond manual effort. However, these automated approaches optimize directly for returns and rarely check whether a generated factor still expresses the economic hypothesis that motivated it. We identify this inconsistency between mathematical form and economic meaning as a structural failure mode of return-oriented automation. The resulting factors blur the line between real signals and spurious correlations and break down across regime shifts. We propose FaVOR (Factor Validation through Observable Reasoning), an agentic framework that restructures factor mining around hypothesis-level evidence rather than return outcomes. In place of the standard hypothesis-to-formula leap, FaVOR enforces a three-stage consistency loop tying mathematical form to economic rationale throughout. (1) Decomposition splits a broad economic hypothesis into independent observable conditions. (2) Validation checks whether each factor reflects its intended condition. (3) Integration merges them into a composite whose structure remains interpretable. On the CSI 500 and S&P 500 in 2025, FaVOR outperforms existing baselines while remaining effective across regimes. FaVOR shows that hypothesis-grounded factor discovery produces signals that are interpretable by construction, regime-robust, and economically faithful. The code is available at https://github.com/damilab/FaVOR.

Implicit multimodal in-context learning compresses demonstrations into internal interventions, ranging from static task vectors to query-conditioned transformations and attention routing. Despite their common goal, these methods differ substantially in how the intervention depends on the query and where it modifies the model, leaving unclear which additional complexity is necessary for a given task. We propose the Selection--Realization Hypothesis. It views demonstrations as inducing a compact family of internal changes from which the query selects, while the model's computation constrains how the selected change can be implemented. We evaluate this account using controlled multimodal tasks in which query dependence varies without changing the underlying task primitives or prompt format. By contrasting correct demonstrations with matched counterfactuals, we measure the structure of explicit M-ICL and test whether it predicts intervention behavior. We find that the success of a static task vector is closely tied to how much of the demonstration-induced change is shared across queries. Additional intervention complexity becomes useful when explicit M-ICL contains query-specific or distributed structure that a local additive shift cannot recover. These relationships extend to natural VQA benchmarks and support cost-aware method selection without access to test performance. Our results provide a unified empirical theory of when demonstrations can be compressed into a task vector and when a more expressive intervention is warranted.

Agent skills are the de facto mechanism for extending LLM agents with reusable guidance. A skill can shape the agent's task execution, including planning, tool use, problem-solving, and validation. Prior work reported mixed results of agent skills: some skills improve task success rates, while others have no effect, increase token use and execution time, and even reduce success rates. This paper presents a comprehensive analysis of skill-induced agent failures by attributing task failures and cost regressions to specific loaded skills. We introduce a differential analysis framework that attributes a failure or regression to a skill by comparing a target skill-guided run against a no-skill or semantically matched skill reference run that solves the same task, or solves it more cheaply. We instantiate this framework on SkillsBench and SWE-Skills-Bench, yielding 307 skill-induced failures, including 125 functional failures and 182 efficiency regressions. We also build SkillTriage, a taxonomy-guided attribution tool that normalizes paired cases, extracts differential evidence, and produces triage reports. Our major findings include: (1) Skill induced functional failures are rarely caused by obviously irrelevant skills; instead, seemingly relevant skills often make the agent incorrectly implement or omit task-required implementation elements. (2) Skill-induced efficiency regressions are not explained by prompt length alone. (3) The largest sources within Excessive Procedure are excessive verification and heavy implementation pipelines, contributing 67 and 30 cases, respectively. This shows that skills often turn validation checklists and construction recipes into mandatory work. Based on our findings, we propose research topics and tooling improvements for safer and more cost-aware skill reuse.

Deep learning models have emerged as the standard computational tool for a wide range of applications in genomics. Yet, uncertainty quantification (UQ) -- and more specifically, the reliability of different uncertainty estimates in this domain -- has received little systematic attention. This work presents an empirical analysis of UQ in deep learning models, focusing on genomics applications. In a series of experiments, we contrast Deep Ensembles, Bayesian Neural Networks, and Monte Carlo-dropout methods. We assess their ability to quantify uncertainty in different scenarios, accounting for common dataset characteristics in two genomic application areas and modalities: sequence-to-activity models, and single-cell expression analysis. Our systematic comparison framework provides guidelines for the applicability and reliability of UQ methods in genomics, highlighting their strengths and limitations in different scenarios. We show that Bayesian Neural Networks are better at capturing uncertainty caused by strong class imbalance and out-of-distribution data in genomics, despite their computational disadvantages. Moreover, we show how uncertainty scores can be used to select high-quality predictions in protein-RNA interactions.

Machine learning-based Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) have demonstrated superior performance in securing Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) networks. However, the 'black-box' nature of these models, combined with the high dimensionality of multimodal cyber-physical data, poses significant interpretability challenges. Static visualization dashboards may struggle to present complex relationships among multimodal cyber-physical features in a form that is easy for operators to inspect and interpret. To address this, we propose a Conversational XAI interface powered by Large Language Models (LLM) to facilitate on-demand investigation. In a controlled experiment with participants, we systematically evaluated the impact of this conversational interface versus a traditional XAI Dashboard on operator understanding, trust, and reliance during post-incident auditing tasks. Our results suggest that the conversational interface was perceived as more useful than the dashboard, potentially because it helped participants access and synthesize relevant information more easily. However, this benefit was accompanied by a lower level of appropriate self-reliance, indicating a potential risk of over-reliance. One possible interpretation is that the natural-language responses made the AI advice easier to accept, which may have reduced participants' tendency to verify the underlying evidence when the IDS was incorrect. These findings point to a potential trade-off in human-AI collaboration for UAV intrusion auditing: interaction mechanisms that improve perceived usability may also increase the risk of inappropriate reliance. We conclude by discussing design implications for future XAI systems that balance seamless interaction with cognitive forcing functions to foster appropriate reliance.

Responsible AI (RAI) has become a central concern for technology companies, regulators, and the public. How industry practitioners interpret, implement, and sustain RAI work directly shapes the design and deployment of AI systems. As empirical scholarship examining RAI practices in industry has rapidly expanded, findings are dispersed across studies that focus on different roles, organizational contexts, and interventions. This work synthesizes current knowledge through a literature review of 161 empirical studies spanning six years, each engaging industry practitioners via interviews, surveys, workshops, ethnographies, and other methods. Our synthesis reveals both meaningful progress and persistent challenges in industry RAI practice. Practitioner awareness has increased, RAI activities have become more professionalized, and interventions such as toolkits and guidelines are more widely adopted. At the same time, practitioners continue to face substantial barriers, including limited training, uneven organizational support, and a lack of interventions tailored to day-to-day work practices. By consolidating and organizing these findings, we provide a more complete account of industry RAI than any single study to date. We conclude by discussing implications for RAI researchers, practitioners seeking to adopt effective practices, and policymakers aiming to ground governance efforts in the realities of industry contexts.

Large language model (LLM)-powered agents have rapidly evolved from code-completion tools into solvers of complex software engineering tasks. As developers collaborate with coding agents over time, their preferences emerge through repeated interactions and can be used to adapt agent behavior to better meet individual developers' needs. Capturing and reusing these preferences may reduce repeated corrections and improve developer-agent collaboration. Agent skills provide a lightweight mechanism for transferring experience without modifying model parameters. However, existing work primarily focuses on task-specific skills, and it remains unclear whether developer-specific skills distilled from interaction histories can generalize to future tasks. We propose a framework for extracting reusable developer preferences from interaction traces. It first generates personalized skills through rule-based bootstrapping and evidence-grounded refinement, and then evaluates them using a reproducible replay framework with an interactive, trajectory-conditioned LLM-based human developer simulator. We conduct an experiment on 206 real-world developer-agent sessions from 13 developers and compare personalized skills against no-skill, generic-skill, and other-user-skill baselines. Personalized skills provide small and inconsistent improvements over the no-skill baseline, whereas generic skills pooled across developers achieve the largest and most consistent gains. Further analysis suggests that personalized skills become more effective when developer preferences appear frequently, particularly when their histories contain multiple examples relevant to future tasks. These findings provide empirical insights into when developer-specific personalization is effective and demonstrate that broadly transferable procedural knowledge can be more robust than developer-specific preference signals.

LLMs are increasingly deployed in settings that require collective reasoning on complex, value-laden problems. Confidence in these deployments rests largely on benchmarks for verifiable tasks (mathematics, coding, coordination games), yet many of these applications concern problems where no objectively correct answer exists and where decision quality instead depends on integrating pluralistic perspectives to find mutually acceptable solutions. We argue that LLM reasoning capacity on this class of problems cannot be fully inferred from verifiable-task benchmarks, and that procedural evaluations of LLM discourse (respectfulness, justification, engagement) are systematically insufficient. We apply the Deliberative Reason Index (DRI), a measure developed in political science and validated across citizen assemblies, as a tool for evaluating reliable group-level reasoning on pluralistic, non-verifiable problems. Synthesizing recent evidence across 1,980 five-agent LLM runs on 12 citizen-assembly topics across 11 frontier model configurations, we find that LLM groups produce discourse with procedural quality comparable to human deliberation, while gains in intersubjective consistency are small, topic-dependent, and concentrated on tractable rather than ethically contested questions. LLM groups exhibit roughly one-third the perspective diversity of human assemblies and reverse the human convergence pattern: human deliberation decreases dispersion as diverse views synthesise, whereas LLM deliberation increases it. Engineering diversity through persona prompting does not restore the human dynamic but inverts which component of deliberative reasoning is updated. Our conclusion is constraining rather than prohibitive: LLMs can function as tools supporting human reasoning on pluralistic problems, but current evidence does not license treating them as autonomous deliberative agents.

Confidence estimation for large language models (LLMs) aims to estimate the probability that a generated answer is correct, while calibration aligns these estimates with empirical accuracy. Prior work has shown that token probabilities are often overconfident, we investigate whether these readily available signals can nevertheless provide well-calibrated confidence estimation for mathematical question answering. We compare single-pass estimators, which reuse token probabilities from the original generation, with multi-pass estimators, which obtain additional confidence signals through verification or stochastic forward passes. While individual token probabilities can be highly saturated, we find that aggregating token probabilities over the full sequence captures small but consistent differences between correct and incorrect generations, yielding more informative confidence estimates. Multi-pass methods can yield calibrated confidence estimates. We study two such approaches: self-verification through re-prompting, including a lower-cost in-situ variant, and Monte Carlo Dropout, which derives confidence from variation across stochastic forward passes. We further evaluate two post-hoc calibration methods, Platt scaling and isotonic regression, both of which substantially reduce in-domain calibration error. However, their data efficiency varies with dataset difficulty, and the calibration mappings often transfer asymmetrically across datasets and models.

Small rotorcraft intended for use indoors or around the built environment have extremely limited flight duration. This paper presents the design and experimental characterization of a custom shroud system that transforms a Crazyflie 2.1 micro air vehicle into a multi-modal robot capable of operating as a high-efficiency hovercraft or a free-flying drone. A custom experimental platform was developed for precise control of hover height and rotor duty cycle, and automated data logging of lift forces. Parametric testing of duct, intake, and nozzle geometries was performed to investigate the impact of shroud configuration on in-ground-effect and free-flight performance. An empirical model is developed which, unlike typical models for ground effect in rotorcraft, captures the suckdown effect that reduces force at intermediate height. It is shown that, through proper design of the shroud, beneficial ground effects can be increased while diminishing negative effects both close to the ground and in free flight. An optimized configuration exhibited nearly three times higher in-ground-effect force while maintaining comparable out-of-ground-effect aerodynamic thrust, although the added shroud mass reduces free-flight control authority. Lightweight shrouds are manufactured using thin-film thermoformed components, and total single-charge flight time is shown to increase by 60% in-ground-effect while decreasing by only 30% in free-flight as compared to the stock drone. Finally, controlled flight in the air, hovering close to the ground, and hover-to-flight transitions are demonstrated using a simple mode-switching controller, with tracking errors reported to quantify performance. This work provides an experimentally-validated and easily adoptable foundation for future research into lightweight ground-effect vehicles and hybrid drone-hovercraft systems.

We develop a rigorous theory of discrete residual least-squares approximation for elliptic spectral equations $\mathfrak L_βu=f$ using linearized ReLU$^k$ neural networks on the sphere, where $\mathfrak L_β$ is a positive elliptic spectral multiplier of order $β$. Given a parameter set $Θ_n=\{θ_{j}^*\}_{j=1}^n\subset\mathbb S^d$, we approximate $u$ in the linearized network space $L_n^k(Θ_n)$ by the discrete residual on the collocation points $\{η_i^*\}_{i=1}^m$ \begin{equation*} u_{n,m}\in\arg\min_{v_n\in L_n^k(Θ_n)}\frac1m\sum_{i=1}^m\left(f(η_i^)-\mathfrak L_βv_n(η_i^)\right)^2. \end{equation*} With $k>\frac{d-1}{2}+β$, for antipodally quasi-uniform network parameter sets and any quasi-uniform collocation points with $m\gtrsim n$, we prove that \begin{equation*} |u-u_{n,m}|{\mathcal H^β(\mathbb S^d)}\eqsim|f-\mathfrak L_βu{n,m}|{\mathcal L^2(\mathbb S^d)}\lesssim n^{-\frac{r}{d}} \begin{cases} |f|{\mathcal W^{r,p}(\mathbb S^d)},&\frac{d}{p}<r\leq \frac{d}{2},~p>2,\ |f|{\mathcal H^r(\mathbb S^d)},&r>\frac{d}{2}. \end{cases} \end{equation*} We also establish a high-probability residual estimate, up to a logarithmic factor and an arbitrarily small smoothness loss, for i.i.d.\ uniformly distributed collocation points. The key analytical ingredient is a Bernstein inequality for linearized ReLU$^k$ network spaces. If $\underline h$ denotes the antipodal separation distance of the network parameters, then \begin{equation*} |v_n|{\mathcal H^r(\mathbb S^d)}\lesssim\underline h^{-(r-s)}|v_n|_{\mathcal H^s(\mathbb S^d)},\qquad 0\leq s<r<k+\tfrac12. \end{equation*}

Factorized generative models commonly regularize a latent style variable z_s by matching its marginal distribution to a fixed Gaussian prior and interpret this as evidence that the style representation is independent of class information. We show that this interpretation is incorrect. Matching only the marginal distribution places no constraint on the class-conditional distributions, allowing the latent style to remain highly predictive of the label despite appearing perfectly Gaussian in aggregate. We derive an exact decomposition showing that this mismatch is one of four conditions required for factorized sampling, and demonstrate that eliminating it is necessary but not sufficient to obtain the intended factorization. Empirically, our case-study model and four representative latent baselines achieve near-zero global MMD while still allowing a linear probe to recover class labels with 74%--100% accuracy (10% chance level). Our model reaches 99.15% clustering accuracy, whereas externally evaluated class-conditional generation succeeds only 16% of the time. This leakage remains under six independent perturbations involving model capacity, curriculum, prior geometry, and supervision across two datasets. Four mitigation strategies reduce probe accuracy to 21%--46%, although they leave within-class dependence largely unchanged. A post-hoc conditional prior improves externally evaluated class generation to 0.97 on MNIST without retraining but reaches only 0.41 on CIFAR-10, while an empirical style bank achieves 0.88 on CIFAR-10. These results demonstrate that no divergence computed solely on the marginal distribution of the style latent can certify independence from class labels, and that reporting marginal statistics alone does not verify the property commonly claimed in factorized generative models.

Memory-augmented VLM agents act on persistent spatial knowledge, yet that knowledge silently goes stale as the environment changes. We ask what happens when an agent must reconcile a confident memory claim with a contradicting observation, and whether current models can catch the conflict before it becomes a safety-relevant mistake. Using a dynamic FrozenLake testbed, we pair a staleness-detection task with a downstream navigation task across three closed-source models and three open-weight VLMs under both text and image inputs (1,800 detection runs, and 12,000 text-mode navigation episodes over four LLM navigators at a shared 50-seed scale). Three findings emerge. First, text solvability does not imply visual grounding: models that flag stale entries reliably from text nonetheless span vision F1 from 0.887 down to 0.067 on the identical grids, and the weakest keeps making fluent, confident decisions that ignore the image. Second, consuming stale memory without an audit is a safety liability: in our primary GPT-4o setting, an agent that trusts raw memory dies more than twice as often as the same agent given no memory at all. Third, auditing helps but does not close the gap: a transparent read-time filter removes much of the safety cost in text mode, yet even oracle stale labels bring no further significant gain on the current grid size, and when visual auditing is unreliable, filtering yields no consistent benefit. Together these results frame spatial-memory staleness as a safety failure mode and isolate reliable visual grounding and action selection under memory--observation conflict as the central open challenges for memory-augmented agents.

The dynamical Lie algebraic (DLA) theory of variational quantum algorithms (VQAs) predicts commonplace exponentially vanishing loss and gradient variances for sufficiently deep parametrized circuits. In this work, we show that these predictions fail dramatically in the shallow-circuit (and particularly constant-depth) regime for the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) applied to the maximum independent set (MIS) problem. In a large-scale numerical study across $\sim$23,000 problem instances, we find that barren plateaus are rare, while landscapes whose variances polynomially increase with system size---which we term "cragged terrains"---are common across graph families. This aggregate polynomial growth persists both for generic, low-symmetry random graphs and for highly symmetric vertex-transitive graphs, indicating that DLA-based variance predictions do not describe landscape scaling in this regime. As a stopgap alternative to the theory, we train empirical hardness models to predict instance-wise hardness metrics for QAOA-MIS. While these models generalize poorly, they nonetheless recover the correct landscape scaling class (barren plateau vs. cragged terrain) with high fidelity. Taken together, our results identify shallow QAOA for MIS as a prototypical setting in which asymptotic, unitary-design-centric predictions may be fundamentally insufficient to describe shallow variational quantum algorithms more broadly, emphasizing the need for more empirically-informed models of VQA loss landscapes.

We introduce SciRet, a compute-aware empirical study of retrieval-augmented generation for scientific question answering over CORD-19. Rather than proposing a new model, we evaluate a fixed scientific RAG pipeline across three corpus scales: 1,034 chunks (1K papers), 5,160 chunks (5K papers), and 15,480 chunks (15K papers). The pipeline combines sentence-window chunking, BM25, BGE-M3 dense retrieval, reciprocal rank fusion, optional cross-encoder reranking, and grounded answer generation. Across these settings, hybrid retrieval is more robust than either sparse-only or dense-only retrieval in our setting, reaching Recall@10 of 1.000 at 1K and 15K. In contrast, an MS MARCO-trained cross-encoder reranker reduces precision on the scientific corpus, suggesting that domain mismatch can outweigh the benefits of stronger query-passage interaction. Generation faithfulness measured with RAGAS increases with corpus scale in our setup. Retrieval evaluation uses pseudo-relevance labels derived from the hybrid system, so we treat the results as controlled comparative evidence rather than a benchmark claim. We release code, indexes, and evaluation outputs to support replication and follow-up studies.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are integrated into software systems and AI services, making efficient LLM serving a concern for software engineering. Serving LLMs is challenging because inference requires computation, memory, GPU resources, and execution while maintaining latency and throughput. Although prior research has proposed LLM inference, optimization, and serving techniques and frameworks, little is known about how they are adopted in practice. In this study, we investigate the use of LLM serving frameworks and serving methods in open-source software systems. We identify and analyze five LLM-specific frameworks: vLLM, SGLang, TensorRT-LLM, LMDeploy, and FlashInfer. We examine how these frameworks and techniques are adopted individually and in combination, how adoption varies across categories of LLMs, and how repositories differ in intent, focus, use case, and architectural design. Our results show that vLLM is the most visible framework in popularity and adoption, while parallel computation, memory management, and network pruning are the most frequently used serving-method categories. Multi-framework usage is limited, suggesting that developers rely on a single serving framework; however, combined frameworks connect complementary capabilities across the serving stack. Framework adoption varies across model families, modalities, model sizes, domain specializations, and deployment settings. Repository-level analysis shows that LLM serving frameworks support applications and architectures, including Reinforcement Learning (RL)-based reasoning, multimodal generation and understanding, microservices, and cloud infrastructure. Overall, this study provides a large-scale empirical characterization of LLM serving framework adoption in practice and offers insights for researchers, framework maintainers, and practitioners working on LLM systems.

World Action Models generate fixed-horizon action chunks through iterative denoising, creating substantial inference latency that can cause pauses, stale actions, and discontinuities during robotic execution. We present an empirical study of asynchronous deployment strategies that overlap model inference with action execution to enable responsive and smooth control. We compare six strategies, including synchronous execution, pure asynchronous switching, post-hoc action blending, denoising-time blending, inference-time velocity guidance, and prefix-conditioned generation, on a 10 Hz bimanual robot. Evaluation combines offline trajectory analysis with online experiments across dynamic manipulation, precision-critical placement, and long-horizon tasks. Our results identify accurate temporal alignment between observations, predictions, and executed commands as a fundamental requirement. Alignment errors produce persistent chunk-boundary discontinuities that cannot be corrected through blending alone. With proper alignment, direct action weighting provides a simple and smooth baseline but sacrifices accuracy in precision-critical tasks. Inference-time velocity guidance fails to reliably constrain committed actions on our platform. In contrast, prefix-conditioned generation achieves the best overall balance between task performance, execution speed, and trajectory smoothness by learning consistent action continuations during training. These findings clarify the practical trade-offs among asynchronous deployment strategies and provide guidance for deploying high-latency World Action Models in real-time robotic systems.

Rubric-based AI systems for thesis assessment use criterion weights to assign different levels of importance to evaluation criteria. These weights are typically defined through expert judgment, although little empirical evidence exists regarding how thesis supervisors actually prioritize evaluation criteria. Consequently, this study investigates supervisor-derived criterion weights in thesis assessment and evaluates their impact on AI-based assessment. We surveyed 84 thesis supervisors across four academic disciplines and collected weighting data for 35 thesis assessment criteria. Comparison with the default criterion weights of the AI assessment system RubiSCoT [1] revealed substantial divergences between supervisor-derived and default criterion weights. To evaluate the practical implications of these differences, the supervisor-derived weights were integrated into multiple calibration configurations and evaluated on a corpus of 80 German-language theses. The best-performing configuration reduced the mean relative deviation between AI-generated and supervisor-assigned evaluations from 11.18% to 10.85%, although the improvement was not statistically significant. Human supervisors showed substantially stronger agreement with each other, exhibiting a mean inter-supervisor relative deviation of 4.44%. The findings indicate that criterion-weight calibration alone does not substantially improve alignment between AI-generated and human assessments.

The target representation defines the distribution an image generator must learn, yet it is often treated as an interchangeable interface. This assumption is particularly questionable for continuous masked generators, which combine contextual inference from visible tokens with conditional modeling of each missing token. We study raw pixels, SD-VAE latents and DINOv2 as well as MAE representation-autoencoder features within a unified masked autoregressive rectified-flow model. Under a shared ImageNet training budget, these spaces exhibit distinct optimization and inference regimes. DINOv2 converges fastest in both iterations and computation but benefits strongly from a wider local denoiser and direct context fusion. Pixels optimize substantially more slowly and require a different prediction, masking, and guidance configuration. MAE reconstructs images more faithfully and exhibits clear semantic clustering, yet produces generations substantially worse than DINOv2. The representations also respond differently to classifier-free guidance and occupy distinct precision-recall trade-offs. Together, our results show that compression, reconstruction fidelity, token dimensionality, and visible semantic clustering do not individually predict generative behavior. Instead, target representations redistribute difficulty across contextual modeling, per-token denoising, and inference-time distributional control.

Multi-agent vibe coding promises to accelerate software development, yet existing benchmarks rely on synthetic environments that ignore practical time and monetary costs, conflate reasoning with communication, and reward only superficial completion. We introduce multi-agent from-scratch evaluation benchmark, MSEval, evaluating multi-agent coding on real-world tasks. Grounded in 10 authentic, full-stack projects across 10 domains, MSEval scores performance using hierarchical requirements and deterministic rubrics. Its execution engine, LegoGent, tests 10 collaboration topologies where agents coordinate via periodic sync intervals and deploy through native CI/CD pipelines. Concurrently, the automated grader TAgent dynamically probes implementations to jointly measure functional success, latency, and prefix-cached token cost. Across 100 runs, MSEval reveals that organizational topology rivals model capability in shaping the speed--cost--quality trade-off. For identical tasks and models, varying the topology shifts scores by over 30 points and doubles wall-clock time. Structured pipelines converge fastest with the highest quality, whereas heavy managerial oversight degrades performance. Ultimately, MSEval establishes a rigorous, reproducible standard for measuring how multi-agent teams actually build software. The benchmark is released at https://github.com/robinren03/MSEval.

This research examines how well large language models, or LLMs, generate new product ideas for college students priced under $50. Across a series of studies, we identify key strengths and weaknesses of using LLMs for product innovation. Our first study shows that LLM-generated product ideas have higher average quality than human ideas, based on purchase intent, and are 7 times more likely to rank in the top 10%. Our second study shows that this AI-induced creativity boost is not explained by the LLM's more persuasive pitching skills. Our third and fourth studies identify a weakness of using LLMs for brainstorming: AI-generated ideas are less novel at the idea level and less diverse at the set level. In our fifth study, we analyze prior LLM-based creativity studies and find consistently lower idea diversity across all of them, demonstrating the generalizability of these findings. Our sixth and seventh studies investigate techniques to mitigate this diversity loss. We compare LLMs from different vendors and versions and find that more recent models generate more diverse ideas, though they still fall short of human-level diversity. We also demonstrate techniques that increase idea diversity almost to the level of human idea generation: pooling ideas across vendors; prompt engineering, including Chain-of-Thought prompting and injecting heterogeneous personas or constraints; and creative agents that broadly explore the solution landscape to restore diversity. Finally, in our eighth study, we show that exploiting the near-zero marginal cost of AI idea generation by scaling the number of ideas steadily improves coverage of the idea space, approaching human-level coverage. We conclude by presenting actionable recommendations for innovation managers who want to identify better new product ideas with the help of LLMs.

The rapid emergence of 3D CT foundation models has opened new avenues for predictive modeling from CT imaging, offering a compelling alternative to traditional radiomics which is known to suffer from reproducibility issues and sensitivity to acquisition protocol variations. Yet, as these models grow in availability, a critical need arises to evaluate how well their learned representations generalize across diverse clinical settings and whether adaptation to specific downstream tasks is necessary to unlock their full potential. To address these questions, we benchmarked several 3D CT foundation models for predicting recurrence-free survival in head and neck cancer across two public datasets totaling 3,644 patients, evaluating various adaptation strategies and modality fusion mechanisms. Our findings reveal persistent difficulty in identifying features that generalize consistently across different imaging distributions, as evidenced by significant performance drops on external validation cohorts. Ultimately, the integration of imaging features with clinical data remains the most accurate approach for prognostic prediction, though achieving universal generalization across varied clinical contexts continues to represent a substantial challenge for the current generation of models.

Tabular Foundation Models (TFMs) have emerged as novel approaches for tabular predictive tasks, demonstrating competitive predictive performance to ensemble tree-based models. Most TFMs are trained and evaluated on independent and identically distributed data, but this assumption changes in real-world scenarios due to distribution shifts, which compromise the robustness of models. Limited research has been conducted of TFMs under distribution shifts. We present an empirical evaluation of Out-Of-Distribution (OOD) performance of nine TFMs, spanning diverse pre-training strategies and architectures: TabPFNv2, TabPFNv2.5, TabPFNv2.6, TabPFNv3, TabICL, TabICLv2, Mitra, LimiX and TabFM. Three real-world datasets from the TableShift study were considered (HELOC, Voting, Childhood Lead), covering label, socioeconomic, and geographic shift types. Our results show that all evaluated TFMs degrade systematically under distribution shift regardless of pre-training strategy, with shift gaps ranging from 0.003 to 0.060 depending on shift type. The relationship between in-distribution and OOD predictive performance documented for classical tabular models extends into TFMs. We also identified a scalability gap, as high-performing models demand significant memory and computational resources beyond what standard deployment infrastructure can support. This study extends existing benchmarks for OOD in tabular data, providing evidence to support their adoption in high-stakes domains characterized by structural distribution shifts.

Feature selection aims to identify the most informative and relevant features for a given dataset, either in terms of capturing the underlying data structure and distribution better, or with respect to the performance on a downstream task. Existing research in this area has largely focused on developing novel algorithms (in both supervised and unsupervised settings), proposing new evaluation metrics and frameworks, or benchmarking the performance of existing methods. In this work, we examine feature selection through an algorithmic design perspective. Conventional feature selection algorithms typically compute feature importance scores globally across the entire feature set and then select the top-ranked features in a single step. However, this approach raises a critical question: Can the presence of less informative (or noisy) features mask or obscure the true importance of other, more relevant features? In other words, would a recursive strategy, where features are removed one by one while re-evaluating importance at each step, yield different and potentially better results than the standard global ranking approach? To answer this question, we conduct an extensive empirical study using five diverse feature selection algorithms. We implement each algorithm under both the conventional global selection design and the greedy recursive elimination design. We then analyze the impact of this algorithmic choice, both individually for each method and collectively across all methods, on a range of standard feature selection evaluation metrics. The empirical evaluation results show that the greedy approach improves the overall feature selection quality almost consistently, albeit on the expense of higher computational cost, supporting our initial expectation that the curse of dimensionality also obscures the ways of mitigating it.

The embedding of word sequences into continuous vector spaces has been one of the most important developments in Natural Language Processing in the recent past. Such embeddings have found application in areas such as Automatic Speech Recognition, Machine Translation, Sentiment Analysis and many more. This essay reviews the various mechanisms that have been proposed for the calculation of word embeddings, investigates popular toolkits and embedding matrices that are available in the public domain, and experiments with one or more selected implementations to better understand their characteristics. La représentation vectorielle continue de mots a été l'un des développements les plus importants dans le domaine du traitement automatique du langage naturel au cours des dernières années. Ces représentations ont trouvé application dans des domaines tels que la reconnaissance vocale, la traduction automatique, l'analyse des sentiments, etc. Ce travail passe en revue les différents mécanismes proposés pour le calcul de ces vecteurs de mots, étudie les kits d'outils populaires et les matrices disponibles publiquement en ligne, et expérimente avec une ou plusieurs implémentations sélectionnées pour mieux comprendre leurs caractéristiques.

Pluralistic value alignment---the goal of building AI systems that represent and serve diverse human values and perspectives---has emerged as an active research agenda. Yet, there's no public evidence that it has shaped the training or evaluation of the AI systems people actually use. We audit the public behavior documents and evaluations of frontier labs, finding none name pluralism as a goal, and as of this writing, no clear indication that production models are explicitly trained or tested for it. This goes against the primary motivations and goals of pluralistic alignment, which revolve around making a positive difference in the models serving billions of users worldwide. We argue that the pluralistic alignment research community should focus on supporting impact and adoption in deployed, widely-used AI systems. We provide evidence for the adoption problem, present three main reasons behind it, and discuss three corresponding areas for future research to address it: 1. The primary justifications for pluralistic alignment so far have been normative or speculative. We need studies showing empirically how pluralistic AI benefits users or society. 2. The pluralistic alignment research community has not settled when pluralistic behavior is warranted or what pluralism ideally looks like in practice. We need to establish a concrete goal for developers to operationalize. 3. Current methods trade off against other desiderata of LLMs in ways that are largely unmeasured, and existing metrics are not "hill-climbable." We need trade-off-aware evaluations and methods that meet the requirements of production systems. This paper serves as a collective call to action for the pluralistic alignment researchers: progress requires moving beyond normative justification toward empirical foundations, a concrete account of ideal pluralistic behavior, and practical methods and evaluations built for adoption.

Surprisal theory holds that the human processing difficulty of a linguistic unit in context is an affine function of its surprisal under some language model. I argue this claim is a tautology without further constraint: for any non-negative difficulty measure over units in context, there exists a language model whose surprisal is an affine function of it under mild technical conditions. Therefore, because any pattern of difficulty is consistent with some language model, without an additional constraint on the language model, surprisal theory makes no falsifiable predictions. The tautology was long obscured by an assumption implicit in two decades of psycholinguistic work---that the relevant language model is the distribution that generated the training corpus, so that improving corpus fit improves predictions of human behavior. Recent empirical work has undermined this assumption, demonstrating that better corpus models can be worse predictors of processing difficulty. I conclude that breaking the tautology requires a rationalist intervention, i.e., the relevant language model must be derived from a non-empirically motivated model of the comprehender, which could be based on, for instance, memory constraints or processing goals, and that, thus, does not depend on the behavioral data surprisal theory is meant to explain.

Zero-shot summarization using Large Language Models (LLMs) has significantly advanced the abstractive summarization task by producing coherent and fluent summaries. However, underlying stochasticity of the large language models raises concerns about the stability and trustworthiness of the LLM-generated summaries. This issue has become increasingly important due to proliferation of LLM-generated summaries in educational settings, where students and researchers summarize complex academic materials in zero-shot manner. We propose a novel two-level diagnostic protocol for benchmarking LLM-summarizers based on the stability of the generated summaries. At the lower level, document-level stability analysis is performed over multiple LLM-summaries generated under controlled environment, and the stability coefficient is computed. Each generated summary is scored for semantic and factual alignment with the original document, enabling estimation of stability along more than one dimensions. At the next level, observations from a stratified sample of documents drawn from the corpus are consolidated to estimate the stability index of the LLM-summarizer, which is the proxy for its trustworthiness. Our empirical investigation of three LLM-summarizers across three genres of documents reveals statistically significant differences in the generation-level variability among LLMs across summary evaluation metrics. This study advances the LLM-summarization research by evidential recognition of the stability problem in LLM-summaries and motivates further research towards development of robust, reliable and trustworthy LLM-summarizers.

Humanoid general motion tracking requires policies that can follow diverse whole-body references while maintaining balance. Building such policies involves many practical design choices, and their individual effects are often hard to assess. We address this issue with an empirical study of common modeling and training factors used in recent humanoid motion-imitation pipelines. To make the study controlled and reproducible, we developed YAHMP, an open-source modular framework for training, evaluating, and deploying whole-body motion tracking policies on the Unitree G1. Within YAHMP, we define a nominal configuration and compare variants that differ in motion-command representation, observation history, action representation, actuation profile, hand-force randomization during training, and training approach. We evaluate the resulting policies on a test set of retargeted human motions and compare the nominal policy with TWIST2 as an external baseline trained on the same motion set. The results distinguish choices with clear tracking effects from choices that mainly change actuation effort, training complexity, or physical interaction capability. Finally, we deploy YAHMP policies zero-shot on the real Unitree G1, demonstrating diverse whole-body motion tracking, balance under external perturbations, and forceful interaction.

The Universal Approximation Theorem states that a neural network with a single hidden layer is sufficient to approximate any continuous univariate function on a compact domain to arbitrary error. However, the uniqueness of such neural network representations is not guaranteed, raising questions about practical identifiability. In this work, we address this concern by analyzing functional equivalence and geometric diversity of neural network approximations to a few elementary mathematical functions. The analysis includes an extensive study of single-layer neural networks and multilayer perceptrons under noisy and noise-free conditions. Beyond just network capacity, we study the geometric properties through the lens of sloppiness, characterized by the eigen spectrum of the Hessian of the cost function and the effective rank to quantify the dimensionality of parameter space. The study reveals large equivalence classes of functionally indistinguishable yet geometrically diverse networks that consistently exhibit low effective rank and structural redundancy. Finally, a model select criterion is proposed for identifying optimal models based on parsimony, ease of estimation, and inference efficiency.

Biological evolution sustains complex dynamics without any fitness function, yet virtually all evolutionary algorithms depend on one. Genesis is an open-source platform designed to test, empirically, what an artificial system needs to sustain evolutionary dynamics after complete fitness removal. Evolution in Genesis is governed by physical constraints, relational dominance, and adaptive regulation - no scalar fitness, no designer-specified objectives. Across experiments totalling over one million evolutionary generations, Genesis has: (i) shown that constraint-driven selection can sustain evolutionary activity after complete fitness removal (7/12 runs; Wilson 95% CI [30.2%, 82.5%]; p<0.01, Cohen's d=1.47 vs. baselines); (ii) produced a sham-controlled negative result demonstrating that niche construction alone does not break the complexity plateau; and (iii) provided preliminary evidence that speciation-protected niche construction initiates structural diversification that unprotected secretion cannot. These findings establish empirical boundaries for fitness-free evolution and open a new direction: meta-evolution of physics, in which the laws governing an evolutionary system are themselves evolved.

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

Governments are increasingly mandating that LLM-generated content carry watermarks. The EU AI Act calls for markings that are "sufficiently reliable and robust." California's SB 942 requires disclosure that is "permanent or extraordinarily difficult to remove." Both mandates rest on an untested assumption: that watermark detection yields evidence reliable enough for courts. This paper tests that assumption directly. We evaluate three representative LLM watermarking methods -- KGW, Unigram, and the MarkLLM implementation of SynthID-Text -- against the Daubert admissibility criteria and the NIST SP 800-86 digital forensic process. To structure this evaluation, we propose a Forensic Readiness Score (FRS) framework with 12 criteria, three mandatory gates, and a 60-point scoring system. We focus on meaning-preserving paraphrase as the attack vector, since it is both legally realistic and difficult to dismiss as evidence tampering. The results raise serious evidentiary concerns. Out of 846 valid paraphrase runs across 15 diverse prompts per method, every single initially-detected KGW and Unigram text lost its watermark after paraphrasing -- 100% conditional removal. SynthID fared only slightly better at 98.3%. Even before any attack, false-negative rates were already high: 70% for KGW, 83% for Unigram, 80% for SynthID. The SynthID configuration also flagged 5.4% of paraphrased human-written controls as AI-generated and showed an 18.6% paradox rate, with 80% of its own pristine watermarked output landing in the uncertainty deadband. None of the three methods satisfy more than two of five Daubert factors. We also find that the FRS point-based scoring system, despite working as designed, cannot fully capture forensic uselessness -- a limitation worth noting for future framework design. These configurations, as tested, do not meet the evidentiary bar that courts require.

Much empirical legal research depends on translating unstructured text into structured variables. In corporate governance research as elsewhere, this translation has traditionally relied on human coding of documents such as charters and bylaws, a process that is costly, difficult to scale, and often opaque. This paper introduces DECODEM, a set of benchmark datasets for evaluating the automated extraction of corporate governance variables from organizational documents. The benchmarks pair randomly sampled corporate charters and bylaws with high-quality human annotations covering a range of governance provisions commonly studied in empirical work. Using these datasets, the paper evaluates several large-language-model extraction pipelines that vary in prompt design, task decomposition, and document handling. The underlying task consists of a set of document-level binary classification problems, one for each governance variable. The results show that automated extraction is feasible at a high level of accuracy for many provisions, with median performance near the upper bound across approaches. At the same time, performance varies systematically across variables, with a small number of provisions accounting for most of the remaining errors. More elaborate prompting strategies and cascading pipelines do not consistently improve performance for frontier models, but substantially narrow the gap between frontier and efficiency-oriented models in some settings, suggesting that pipeline design can partly substitute for model capability. By providing a standardized benchmark and a systematic evaluation of extraction methods, the paper demonstrates that current frontier models can extract legally meaningful information from complex corporate documents with high accuracy and suggests an important future role for automated feature extraction in constructing corporate governance datasets.

The broad adoption of Artificial Intelligence (AI), especially Generative AI, raises pressing questions about how users interact with these systems to produce new content. In this paper, we introduce the concept of authorship calibration, defined as users awareness of their actual authorship when interacting with AI. Using the CoAuthor dataset, we empirically examine how authorship calibration varies across users and how it relates to their frequency of AI use. Our results reveal high variability: users relying heavily on AI tend to misjudge their authorship, whereas those using AI less frequently exhibit more accurate authorship calibration. These findings suggest that AI can obscure users perception of their own authorship. In learning contexts, miscalibration can affect metacognitive monitoring and learning strategies, ultimately impacting learning outcomes. Fostering authorship calibration then appears essential for promoting responsible and educationally meaningful AI integration.

With rising global energy demand and growing awareness of climate change and its impacts, the share of renewable energies in the global energy mix continues to grow. Unlike conventional power generation, the output of renewable energy sources cannot be controlled as consistently due to their dependence on environmental conditions. Therefore, reliable prediction of current and future energy production is essential. In this paper, we report findings from two structured literature reviews on real-world renewable energy prediction tasks: wind turbine power curve modeling and photovoltaic power prediction. For the former, we conducted a comprehensive literature review ourselves, while for the latter, we synthesize the key findings regarding frequently selected input features based on an existing survey. Across both domains, our analysis reveals that despite the large number of available monitoring and environmental variables, only limited or unsystematic methods for feature selection exist. To address this gap, we propose Cluster-based Sequential Feature Selection (CSFS), a novel, model-agnostic, clustering-based wrapper method for automatic, efficient, and reliable feature selection in renewable energy prediction pipelines. To support reproducibility and reuse, we provide an open-source implementation of CSFS on GitHub. We empirically evaluate the proposed approach on both use cases and compare it with established feature selection techniques such as wrapper-based sequential feature selection (SFS), filter-based methods, and Random Forest's embedded feature importance. The results show that the wrapper-based methods overall provide better-performing selections of features. CSFS achieves a predictive performance comparable to SFS while reducing computational cost by an average of 21%.

The growing adoption of local inference frameworks such as Ollama has made it increasingly common for developers to run large code models on laptops and other resource-constrained hardware. In these settings, post-training quantization is essential for reducing memory footprint and enabling practical deployment, yet its impact on generated code remains insufficiently understood. We empirically evaluate six state-of-the-art quantization methods (GPTQ, AWQ, QuIP#, AQLM, BitsAndBytes, and GGUF) on two representative large code model families, Qwen2.5-Coder and CodeLlama, using the multilingual McEval and CoderEval benchmarks for Python and Java. We assess functional correctness (pass@1) together with maintainability, reliability, security, and structural complexity. We also introduce a novel analysis of robustness under varying prompt complexity, characterized by Shannon entropy and token length. Our results show that quantization techniques differ meaningfully in their impact on correctness and code quality. AQLM consistently matches or exceeds the full-precision baseline, whereas QuIP# exhibits the largest correctness degradation, particularly on complex prompts. Security attributes remain stable across models, benchmarks, and programming languages, while robustness to prompt complexity varies across techniques. These findings provide practical guidance for selecting quantization strategies for deploying large code models on resource-constrained hardware and highlight the importance of evaluating quantized models beyond functional correctness.

One high-level instruction in long-horizon manipulation can cover several action stages. We use segmented action annotations as an intermediate representation between the full-task instruction and VLA action chunks. A progress module tracks the active stage, while the action policy receives stage information either as current-stage text or as a normalized ordinal stage index in robot state. We compare these interfaces with GR00T N1.6 on LIBERO-10 under direct fine-tuning and continuation fine-tuning from a full-task instruction baseline. Under direct fine-tuning, full-task instruction, current-stage text, and Ordinal Stage-State achieve mean success rates of 57.45%, 50.24%, and 54.36%, respectively, showing that explicit stage information does not automatically improve the policy. Under continuation, the corresponding means are 49.07%, 50.00%, and 53.75%, with Ordinal Stage-State exceeding both alternatives in all three paired runs. The observed benefit differs across interface representations and training arrangements.

Tool access alone does not make LLM empirical reasoning governable: accepted outputs need not descend from attested evidence, and accepted deductions need not hold up under formal scrutiny. We present EG-VAR (Evidence-Grounded Verified Agentic Reasoning), a Lean 4-based tool-calling architecture in which the Lean kernel is the sole minter of Verified claims via tool-attestation axioms and declared source lifts. Every verified output structurally descends from an attested tool call (Thm. 3.1) and a kernel-checked chain of valid inference (Thm. 3.2); residual outputs are honest Abstain with a replayable audit trail. On a subcollection of TableBench numerical reasoning (n=120), EG-VAR attains 120/120 versus a 95% same-tool baseline; on counterfactual stress tests (5 domains x 2 models), EG-VAR stays 100% source-faithful while same-tool drops to 80-90% (no-tool 50-80%). With the LLM as deployment-time formalizer, residual semantic-formalization error is 3.3% on Sonnet and 1.7% on Opus. We position EG-VAR as a technical-governance interface for high-stakes empirical claims: a formal sidecar makes the target proposition, source scope, evidence boundary, proof obligation, and abstention condition auditable, eliminating unsupported Verified outputs today while turning formalization errors, lift and source-authority disputes, ambiguities, and abstentions into explicit audit targets. Over time, typed sidecars in datasets, APIs, public records, and AI-generated documents can amortize this formalization burden into reusable infrastructure.

Musical scales are near-universal in human music, and most readers will feel they already know what a scale is. On closer inspection, however, the literature lacks a consensus definition: which conditions are necessary and sufficient shifts across disciplines and traditions, and the term turns out to cover several distinct objects. I argue this is less a failure of rigour than a sign that ``scale'' names several related objects: prescriptive abstractions, instrument tunings, statistical regularities in performed pitch, perceptual categories, social conventions. I adopt an empirical definition -- a scale as a statistical regularity in pitch organisation relative to a tonic -- that is portable across traditions and computable from recordings, and situate it alongside the other senses of the term. Even this empirical core is not purely observational, as convention enters in deciding which pitches belong to a scale. And a further step of grouping scales into named categories is a separate convention, which I approach through prototype theory and illustrate with examples from Irish music. Separating these layers provides a basis from which scales can be re-examined empirically and cross-culturally.