Entailment

Legal argument mining supports passage classification, retrieval, and argument completion. This work introduces an expert-annotated dataset of 42 U.S. federal tax opinions on corporate reorganizations under I.R.C. §368. To our knowledge, it is the first expert-annotated, tree-structured argument corpus for this domain. Explicit spans receive one of five functional labels: Rule, Analysis, Conclusion, Background Facts, and Procedural History. Rule, Analysis, and Conclusion spans can be linked into directed support trees, while Background Facts and Procedural History serve a contextual function. The corpus provides span-based, sentence-based, flat, and tree-structured representations. Agreement analysis shows that functional node labels are more reliable than directed support edges and implicit intermediate conclusions. Directed-path agreement is stronger than direct-edge agreement, which indicates that broad reachability is more stable than exact local decomposition. Classification experiments show that functional labels are learnable under case-disjoint evaluation. Retrieval experiments show that supervised fine-tuning improves within-case retrieval. However, cross-case generalization remains weak. The dataset supports legal passage classification and provides a conservative benchmark for structured argument mining in U.S. federal tax case law.

Despite the success of neural models in natural language processing, their black-box nature limits interpretability and conceals the linguistic phenomena underlying their predictions. We present SLITE, an explainable hybrid model for Recognizing Textual Entailment that integrates two complementary layers of semantic analysis: a structural-relational layer, based on semantic compatibility and incompatibility between compositional entities, and a distributional-informational layer, based on structured patterns of information change between embedding-based representations of the premise and the hypothesis. We propose 17 features that combine entity-level semantic relations, polarity-sensitive lexical matching, and alignment measures over semantic sub-representations of the similarity matrix, including measures based on entropy and transfer entropy. A logistic regression trained on these features achieves an accuracy of 83% on three-class SICK and 96% on SICK-CE, outperforming IsoLex by 4 percentage points and falling within 2 percentage points of RoBERTa with a fraction of its computational complexity. Ablation studies and SHAP analysis confirm that structural-relational features are the primary drivers of classification, while distributional-informational features provide essential complementary contributions, particularly for detecting neutrality and contradiction. Our results demonstrate that further exploration of hybrid approaches is a viable and scientifically productive alternative to massive neural architectures, and we hope they will strengthen the dialogue between linguistic theory and computational modeling of inference

Spatial Transcriptomics (ST) has transformed biomedical research by enabling the spatial mapping of gene expression across tissue sections. However, high operational costs, specialized equipment requirements, and sensitivity to experimental noise limit the accessibility and scalability of ST. Recent computer vision approaches aim to overcome these limitations by predicting spatial gene expression directly from histopathology images. While effective, current approaches often suffer from gene expression over-smoothing and overly uniform predictions across tissue regions, suggesting that further progress depends on learning representations that reflect the hierarchical and asymmetric structure of gene regulation and tissue morphology. To address these issues, we propose Hyperbolic Contrastive Learning with Entailment for Spatial Transcriptomics (HyCLoST), a hyperbolic contrastive learning model that captures the intrinsic hierarchical relationships within ST data. By leveraging hyperbolic geometry and a gene-to-image entailment loss, HyCLoST learns structured, biologically grounded representations that improve gene expression prediction accuracy, achieving a 6% reduction in MSE and an 8% increase in PCC across 26 ST datasets, over previous methods. Our source code is publicly available at https://github.com/BCV-Uniandes/HyCLoST

Natural Language Inference processes pairs of sentences to extract their semantic relations. NLI has been a hot research topic, integrated as a main component in other NLP applications. Despite significant advancements in textual inference across various languages all around the world, Arabic language still suffers from limited resources in this domain. To address this gap, this paper introduces E-CONAN benchmarks that are composed of sentences pairs from various sources: (1) automatically-translated pairs, (2) human-validated machine-translated pairs, (3) hand-crafted pairs from teaching Arabic as foreign language books, and (4) headlines pairs from different news channels containing rumors. E-CONAN contains two benchmark datasets, E-CONAN-2, a 2-way dataset (RTE) and E-CONAN-3, a 3-way dataset (NLI). Additionally, we have used E-CONAN benchmarks to evaluate 9 state-of-the-art multilingual pretrained models using zero-shot classification. Models were evaluated across the ArNLI, XNLI, and E-CONAN datasets. Results show that E-CONAN is a potentially valuable resource for evaluating model generalization and even for fine-tuning pre-trained models. Its diverse composition, derived from a combination of sources, offers a broader and more robust assessment compared to XNLI and ArNLI. In addition, we have evaluated 5 LLMs on E-CONAN-3 dataset. Moreover, we incorporated MARBERT as a representative Arabic-specific baseline and conducted performance evaluation comparison to demonstrate how Arabic-specific models scale against cross-lingual and LLM-based approaches on the E-CONAN benchmarks. Furthermore, we conducted detailed qualitative and quantitative error analysis to analyze frequent error patterns. E-CONAN benchmarks will be publicly available, we hope that it will enrich research community in Arabic textual entailment and natural language inference.

The reliability of Large Language Models (LLMs) is often compromised by factual inconsistencies, including hallucinations---cases where generated content is not supported by the underlying source. We present HallDetect, a lightweight, reference-free, and black-box framework for hallucination detection that we evaluate not only on summarization but across a broader range of source-grounded generation settings. HallDetect builds on decomposition-based factuality evaluation: generated content is decomposed into atomic claims, each verified by a compact encoder-based entailment model through a contrastive formulation over a multi-scale library of source chunks, and aggregated with an asymmetric score in which a single confidently contradicted claim flags the response. Under a controlled protocol in which all methods share the same 4-bit quantized backbones and consumer-grade hardware budget, HallDetect outperforms comparably resourced generative and embedding-based baselines on three of four benchmarks while remaining stable across backbone families, and yields a claim-to-span audit trail that localizes each error.

Verification for retrieval-augmented generation usually scores each retrieved chunk and drops the ones that fail. We show this cannot work for multi-hop questions, and show what does. Per-chunk scoring assumes one chunk is a sufficient premise for the answer. Multi-hop questions are built so that none is, and the paragraph carrying the answer is the one the question does not name. Entailment scoring reaches 0.643, 0.523 and 0.560 AUC on HotpotQA, 2WikiMultihopQA and MuSiQue, against 0.951 on single-hop SQuAD. Seven controls rule out model capacity, premise length, hypothesis template, decision threshold, retriever, answer-matching criterion and prompt. End to end across three datasets, three generator sizes and two prompts, per-chunk gating is significantly worse than not filtering at all in every cell, and its penalty grows with generator capability. The repair is to condition verification on the decomposed sub-question rather than the original query. Using MuSiQue's gold decomposition, entailment on a later hop rises from 0.546, which is chance, to 0.840, a paired lift of +0.355 with a bootstrap interval of [0.331, 0.382]. An off-the-shelf Qwen2.5-7B decomposer, given the question and the top retrieved paragraph, reaches 0.637 and captures 31% of that ceiling; decomposing without retrieval reaches 0.533, below the original question. Iterative retrieval systems already produce such decompositions and discard them before verifying.

Datalog rules are often used to define ontologies over Knowledge Graphs. Rule reasoners routinely optimise such ontologies by rewriting their rules into a form that can be evaluated more efficiently. These transformations preserve the entailed facts, but not the structure of the underlying derivations. A proof tree under the rewritten rules explains why a fact holds, but does not readily yield an explanation in terms of the original rules. We study the problem of constructing, from a proof of entailment under the rewritten rules, a proof under the original ones: we establish its computational complexity and identify two practically relevant languages for specifying proof transformations.

Planning over Temporal Dynamic Knowledge Graphs (TDKGs) presents theoretical challenges in open-world environments with incomplete information. Existing action formalisms often face decidability issues and the Ramification Problem, while structural abduction requires expansive combinatorial search spaces. We introduce a unified framework with two modules--PIE-Abducer (incremental direct-derivation abduction) and PIE-APT (Abductive Planning for TDKGs)--operating natively on the expressive SROIQ Description Logic. Modeling state transitions as non-monotonic updates to deductively closed DL theories, we represent actions natively in OWL. This leverages an incremental reasoner to preserve decidability and natively bypass the Ramification Problem. To address incomplete knowledge, PIE-Abducer circumvents Minimal Hitting Set (MHS) enumeration. Instead of combinatorial search, it injects the logical negation of a goal into a consistent DL branch and synthesizes missing premises via direct refutation consequences. PIE-APT employs a recursive Generate-and-Test architecture, interleaving backward-chaining A* search with PIE-Abducer to synthesize both action sequences and abductive assumptions. Candidates undergo strict validation via forward-chaining Temporal Projection to evaluate logical trajectories. We evaluate four OWL benchmarks targeting semantic abilities missing from classical planning: parameterized goals with witness search, mid-search DL entailment, open-world assumption injection, and adversarial plan synthesis. Results show qualitative superiority over classical planners and prove our direct-derivation approach significantly outperforms an MHS-faithful baseline in abductive enrichment.

Large Language Models often produce confidently stated yet unreliable outputs, posing critical challenges for deployment in safety-sensitive applications. Existing uncertainty metrics such as semantic entropy capture agreement at the level of semantic equivalence, but largely ignore the logical relationships between distinct answers. As a result, they tend to overestimate uncertainty and falsely flag hallucinations in settings where generated responses are diverse in form yet logically compatible (e.g., differing only in granularity or specificity). We propose Logical Graph Uncertainty (LGU), a framework that explicitly models implication and incompatibility among answers. LGU aggregates probability mass along entailment chains onto the most specific hypotheses the answers support, measures the entropy of the resulting distribution, and penalizes mutual incompatibility among those hypotheses. Across multiple question-answering benchmarks and model families, LGU ranks first on average among existing uncertainty measures, with its largest gains---up to +7.1% AUROC and +3.5% AUARC over semantic entropy---on questions whose sampled answers are logically structured.

We study Controlled Query Evaluation (CQE), a declarative approach to confidentiality-preserving data access, in the context of Description Logic (DL) ontologies, and for confidentiality policies expressed through Epistemic Dependencies (EDs). We first address the problem of answering queries (specifically, Boolean unions of conjunctive queries) under known semantics for CQE (GA- and IGA-entailment). Our results show that if the TBox is expressed in $\text{DL-Lite}_{\mathcal{R}}$, CQE is computationally intractable in general. Moreover, in the presence of EDs, the IGA semantics has recently been proven not to satisfy an important confidentiality preservation property known as indistinguishability. With the goal of defining computationally easier and confidentiality-preserving forms of CQE, we introduce a new semantics for CQE, based on the notion of minimal policy violation (MPV). We show that the new semantics provides a sound approximation of the previous ones, while satisfying the indistinguishability property. We also prove that, in the case of $\text{DL-Lite}_{\mathcal{R}}$ ontologies, query entailment under the MPV semantics can be decided in polynomial time in data complexity. Finally, we present a software implementation of our framework that we used to evaluate the feasibility of this new approach using an existing benchmark for OWL 2 QL.

This paper presents the methodologies and results of the NOWJ team's participation across all five tasks of the COLIEE 2026 competition. For Task 1 (Legal Case Retrieval), we propose a four-stage pipeline comprising candidate filtering, dense retrieval with complementary embedding models, cross-encoder reranking via fine-tuned generative rerankers and MLP-based pairwise classification, and adaptive per-query cutoff prediction. For Task 2 (Legal Case Entailment), we combine BM25 filtering, T5-based reranking, and LLM-based entailment verification with consensus ensemble. For Task 3 (Statute Law Retrieval and Entailment), we adopt a retrieval-augmented generation framework with dense retrieval, attention-based reranking, and few-shot-prompted LLM reasoning. For Task 4 (Legal Textual Entailment), we introduce a dynamic routing pipeline that classifies query difficulty and dispatches cases to either a balanced few-shot solver or a structured zero-shot chain-of-thought solver. For the Pilot Task (Legal Judgment Prediction), we combine hierarchical transformers with CRF layers, argument relation mining, and probabilistic argumentation graph reasoning.

Legal information processing spans retrieval, entailment and judgment prediction problems, requiring text matching, reasoning and robust generalisation with limited supervision. We report Team DU's participation in all five tasks of COLIEE 2026, using open-weight systems for legal case retrieval, case entailment, statute retrieval and entailment, and legal judgment prediction. For Tasks 3 and 4, all models predate the 15 July 2025 cutoff required by the rules. For Task 4 (statute entailment), a cross-architecture ensemble of nine models from three families achieves 96.3% accuracy, placing first among 33 submissions from 11 teams. For the Pilot Task (tort prediction and rationale extraction), a multi-view system combining five claim-level models and refining the verdict using features derived from the claim predictions achieves 73.1% TP accuracy and 68.2% RE F1 as an unofficial submission, scoring above all official entries on TP and matching the highest on RE. For Task 2 (legal case entailment), changing only the prompt from single- to multi-selection raises F1 from 0.343 to 0.555 in post-competition evaluation on released gold labels, exceeding the best official submission (F1 = 0.490). For Task 3 (statute retrieval and entailment), replacing the entailment model with Qwen3-235B and a structured legal reasoning prompt raises accuracy from 79.3% to 91.5% in post-competition analysis. For Task 1 (legal case retrieval), a learning-to-rank system combining lexical and semantic retrieval with structural, citation authority, and temporal features (34 in total) achieves F1 = 0.314 (rank 11 of 54 submissions from 22 teams). Overall, legal information processing benefits from different inductive biases across tasks, with cross-architecture ensembling, feature-based reranking and retrieval-augmented prompting each proving most effective in different settings.

While multi-agent debate (MAD) frameworks have shown significant potential in general reasoning, their effectiveness in highly structured, knowledge-heavy legal domains remains under-explored. In this work, we introduce the Legal Multi-Agent Debate (L-MAD) framework to systematically evaluate different debate structures and aggregation methods within Legal Textual Entailment. By assigning distinct expert personas to multiple agents, L-MAD improves upon strong single-agent baselines by up to 8%. Furthermore, analyzing how debate scales reveals a clear trade-off: increasing the agent population reduces inconsistency and improves accuracy, whereas extending discussion rounds induces a detrimental \textit{over-deliberation drift} where agents reinforce each other's mistakes. Ultimately, our findings outline the practical boundaries and safety margins of deploying collaborative multi-agent systems in high-stakes legal reasoning environments.

Many representation learning problems involve directed relations, such as lexical entailment, sentence entailment, ontology hierarchy, and citation links. Standard Euclidean, cosine, and Mahalanobis heads are symmetric, while generic neural scorers can model directionality but provide limited geometric structure. This paper proposes a role-aware neural convex divergence head for asymmetric representation learning. The head applies source- and target-role projections before evaluating an input-convex neural Bregman divergence, yielding a nonnegative structured score in the role-projected space. We characterize its projected-space identity, source-role convexity, directional-gap decomposition, and Hessian-based local curvature. Experiments on lexical, sentence, ontology, and directed graph benchmarks compare symmetric distances, unstructured asymmetric scorers, order/hyperbolic baselines, plain ICNN-Bregman heads, and the proposed role-aware variant. Across ten random seeds on the main semantic and ontology benchmarks, role-aware projections consistently improve directional accuracy over plain ICNN-Bregman heads while preserving zero observed negative divergence rate. The results also identify a boundary case: on large fixed-feature citation prediction, specialized symmetric or hyperbolic baselines remain stronger in ranking accuracy. Overall, the proposed head is best understood as a structured and interpretable plug-in distance module for tasks where directional relations matter.

Explanations for emotion classifiers are usually produced post hoc, with no guarantee that they reflect the computation behind the label. We present an explication interface for event-based emotion analysis. A parser maps the input text to an explication, a short script in the closed vocabulary of Natural Semantic Metalanguage organized into twelve typed slots, and a fixed decision list of rules transcribed from published semantic definitions computes the label from the explication alone. The faithfulness guarantee is therefore causal and definitional, while all empirical risk lives in the learned parser, which the per-line entailment interface makes auditable against the input. On crowd-sourced event descriptions, our fine-tuned parser reaches 0.33 accuracy and 0.48 selective accuracy on a small held-out set, suggesting that the interface trades insignificant accuracy difference to a black-box model for a verifiable, inspectable decision basis for first-person event-based emotion analysis. We also release EmoExpl-1200 with per-line verification metadata and the full rule set.

Because mathematics is highly abstract, a single statement can take very different forms depending on what subfield it is framed in. There are many examples where breakthroughs occurred after researchers discovered that a question had already been answered in a different field. At the same time, the growth of new resources related to formalization has increased the need for tools that enable efficient and reliable navigation between mathematical 'languages' (e.g., from Lean to natural language). In this paper, we investigate whether current embedding models capture mathematical equivalence. To do this, we introduce the Mathematically Equivalent but Lexically Different Pairs (MELD) Dataset, a collection of mathematically equivalent statements that are expressed in very different language. We show that current state-of-the-art embedding models tend to group statements by the terminology used to make them instead of the underlying math. Motivated by this, we propose a contrastive approach to learning embeddings of mathematical text that focuses on aligning informal statements with different formalizations. Our experiments demonstrate that this leads to improvements not only on informal-formal retrieval tasks but also on MELD, which only contains natural language statements.

Robots operating in everyday environments must understand fine-grained human actions, intentions, and contextual cues from broad views where people occupy only small regions, a capability unmet by current systems. While open-vocabulary action recognition methods remain limited to assigning predefined labels, and vision-language models (VLMs) face an inherent trade-off between informational richness and factual fidelity in their outputs, neither approach achieves the deep semantic interpretation required for reliable human-robot interaction. We propose Gold Points Sniper (GPS), a novel framework that empowers lightweight VLMs with self-guided multimodal reasoning capabilities for fine-grained human action understanding. Our approach comprises three key modules: Gold Points Extractor trains VLMs to identify critical action-relevant details, Selective Socratic Questioner validates and refines these details through selective self-questioning, and Semantic Entailment Evaluator quantitatively assesses factual consistency using semantic entailment classification. Extensive experiments on our curated instruction-tuning dataset based on the CAP benchmark demonstrate that GPS-enhanced lightweight VLMs achieve substantial performance improvements, with some models reaching performance comparable to proprietary GPT-4o while maintaining superior factual accuracy. Our work establishes a reliable foundation for fine-grained action understanding in domestic robotics, enabling robots to safely interpret human behavior through information-dense yet factually grounded descriptions. Source code, training configurations, annotation prompts, and dataset details are released at https://github.com/Haodi-Liu/GPS-Gold-Point-Sniper.

Decomposing compound sentences into atomic, verifiable claims is a prerequisite for reliable automated fact-checking. Prior work has relied on token-overlap (Jaccard) metrics that systematically underestimate decomposition quality for paraphrastic claims, and has lacked formal termination analysis for the repair loop. We present Credence, a revised claim decomposition and evaluation framework addressing both shortcomings. Our contributions are: (1) Semantic-F1: we use BGE-large cosine similarity fidelity metric that resolves Jaccard's penalisation and improves downstream fact-checking accuracy; (2) Convergence theorems: we formally characterise four properties of the repair pipeline, establishing that rule-based repair is monotone and finitely terminating under an oracle parser assumption; LLM-based self-repair is provably non-monotone and requires an early-exit guard; (3) Three evaluation benchmarks spanning social-media, encyclopaedic, and news domains for cross-domain generalisation measurement; (4) Multi-model benchmarking across four decomposer models (3.8B-12B) and a closed API model. Experiments on SocialClaimSplit, WikiSplitBench, and ClaimDecompBench show that Semantic-F1 outperforms Jaccard-F1 by +15-32pp. EPR ranges from 0.94 to 1.00 on SocialClaimSplit and WikiSplitBench, while ClaimDecompBench includes lower base EPR cases (down to 0.824) due to harder news-domain constructions, and rule-repair reduces the Atomicity Violation Rate (AVR) by 47-100% relative to the base model without degrading fidelity.

Abduction is a central approach to explain missing entailments from a knowledge base by providing a hypothesis, that would, if added to the knowledge base, make the missing entailment become true. Abduction under repair semantics has recently been investigated in detail, where several desirable properties and optimality criteria were considered, such as signature-restrictions and minimality in size and of introduced conflicts. Naturally, hypotheses that satisfy more than one of these properties or combine a property with an optimality criterion would be even more desirable for applications. So far, such hypotheses have not been investigated in the literature. In the present paper, we consider the ABox abduction problem for hypotheses satisfying more than one property or additional optimality criteria, for EL_bot under brave and AR semantics. Our main observation is that often requiring additional properties for hypotheses does not lead to an increase of complexity.

In this paper, we integrate the defeasible logic of Kraus, Lehmann and Magidor (KLM) with the standpoint logic framework of Gómez Álvarez and Rudolph. This is done with the goal of formally expressing knowledge taking into account multiple (possibly contradicting) viewpoints, which in turn may hold defeasible beliefs. In doing so, we utilise Defeasible Restricted Standpoint Logics (DRSL), introduced by Leisegang et al. Our work expands on previous work by providing a foundational representation result for DRSL semantics and systematically lifting several well-known entailment relations from the propositional case to the standpoint-enhanced setting. In particular, we characterise the semantics for DRSL through a set of KLM-style postulates adapted for the standpoints case. We furthermore provide a means to lift preferential entailment, and the class of entailment relations based on single ranking functions from the purely propositional to the standpoint-enhanced context, including rational and lexicographic closure. We show this can be done equivalently through semantic and algorithmic means. Furthermore, we show that, for each considered form of entailment, the complexity class of entailment checking does not change when moving from propositional KLM to DRSL.

Recent work in defeasible reasoning has seen notions of preferential semantics and entailment in the style of Kraus et al. applied to modal logics. However, work in this field has focussed primarily on satisfiability checking, and monotonic notions of entailment, which may be inferentially weak. One particular modal logic where this has been introduced is propositional standpoint logics, where modalities can express the views of different viewpoints. This has resulted in the formalisation of propositional defeasible standpoint logic (PDSL). In this paper, we propose a means of lifting the class of (non-monotonic) rational entailment relations from traditional KLM-style reasoning to a fragment of PDSL. In order to do so, we extend the expressivity of PDSL via situated standpoint conditionals, allowing us to talk about a defeasible conditional holding in the context of a given standpoint. This allows us to re-characterise the syntax of PDSL in terms of situated conditionals, and shows that a large fragment of PDSL is expressible as a set of situated conditionals. We then focus on characterising non-monotonic entailment in this fragment, defining a method to transport any ranking-based entailment relation from the propositional case into the PDSL case. This is first described in the general case and then considered in the specific cases of rational and lexicographic closures, providing a faithful translation of each inference into PDSL. We also show that entailment-checking in this fragment of PDSL can be done largely using algorithms from the propositional case, while preserving complexity bounds.

Grounded claim factuality checking is important for large language model (LLM) applications such as retrieval-augmented generation, as it helps users assess the correctness of generated outputs. Existing metrics using entailment classifiers require dataset-specific threshold tuning, while LLM-based approaches often use direct prompting, which underutilises the reasoning capabilities of LLMs. We address this by formulating grounded claim factuality checking as a true/false reading comprehension task and prompting LLMs with explicit test-taking strategies for efficient reasoning. Our method reduces token usage by over 80% compared to unguided open-ended reasoning, and achieves competitive performance to more expensive alternatives across two factuality benchmarks, setting a new state of the art on one. To further reduce inference cost, we train small language models (SLMs) to replace LLMs in the checking pipeline. Using supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and a self-revision mechanism, the SLMs learn to improve their factuality judgements. Experimental results show that the resulting SLMs perform on par with strong baselines, combining low inference costs with generating supporting rationales to support interpretability. Code and datasets will be released upon acceptance.

This paper establishes and proves complexity results for entailment for cumulative propositional dependence logic and for cumulative propositional logic with team semantics. As recently shown, cumulative logics are famously characterised by System~C and exactly captured by the cumulative models of Kraus, Lehmann and Magidor. This gives rise to the entailment problem via relational models, which is specifically considered here.

We present a new algorithm for deciding formula entailment in orthologic (a sound approximation of classical logic) that avoids the costly preprocessing phase of prior implementations while retaining the same $\mathcal{O}(n^2(1+|A|))$ worst-case complexity. We then introduce a family of synthetic SAT benchmarks based on the observation that, for any formula $φ$, the equivalence $φ\leftrightarrow \mathrm{NF}_{\mathrm{OL}}(φ)$ is a tautology whose Tseitin encoding yields unsatisfiable instances that are hard for state-of-the-art SAT solvers yet have short orthologic proofs. Applied to EPFL arithmetic circuits, our algorithm solves these instances efficiently while Kissat times out on a significant fraction. Finally, we show that using orthologic normalization as a preprocessing step can improve SAT solving time on some hard problems.

Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) have become a popular approach to enable interpretability in neural networks by constraining classifier inputs to a set of human-understandable concepts. While effective, current models embed concepts in flat Euclidean space, treating them as independent, orthogonal dimensions. Concepts, however, are highly structured and organized in semantic hierarchies. To resolve this mismatch, we propose Hyperbolic Concept Bottleneck Models (HypCBM), a post-hoc framework that grounds the bottleneck in this structure by reformulating concept activation as asymmetric geometric containment in hyperbolic space. Rather than treating entailment cones as a pre-training penalty, we show they encode a natural test-time activation signal: the margin of inclusion within a concept's entailment cone yields sparse, hierarchy-aware activations without any additional supervision or learned modules. We further introduce an adaptive scaling law for hierarchically faithful interventions, propagating user corrections coherently through the concept tree. Empirically, HypCBM rivals post-hoc Euclidean models trained on 20$\times$ more data in sparse regimes required for human interpretability, with stronger hierarchical consistency and improved robustness to input corruptions.

There has been a growing interest in explaining entailments over description logic (DL) knowledge bases. The existing explanation formalisms focus on justifications to explain true axioms, and abductive reasoning to explain missing axioms in a knowledge base. However, these formalisms only point out the reasoning steps behind a (missing) entailment and lack a user-centered approach as they do not consider an inquirer's needs, level of understanding, or prior knowledge. We propose contrastive explanations, aiming at answering "why an axiom P (fact) is true instead of another axiom Q (foil)" over description logic knowledge bases. The motivation arises from the observation that when a user discovers that P has occurred, they are often surprised because they anticipated the occurrence of another similar event Q. Furthermore, individual explanations for "why P" and "why not Q" are unsatisfactory since a user expects to see the difference between P and Q. In this work, we first present formal foundations of contrasting questions and then define contrastive explanations within description logics. To this end, facts include ABox assertions of the form C(x) for a concept C and individual x. Possible foils for such facts are assertions C(y) (contrasting against an individual y), or D(x) (contrasting against a concept D). Additionally, we explore the properties of contrastive explanations in the DL EL and ALC. We also provide an implementation of our definition and an experimental evaluation on KBs of varying sizes.

Graph Visual Question Answering (GVQA) for autonomous driving organizes reasoning into ordered stages, namely Perception, Prediction, and Planning, where planning decisions should remain consistent with the model's own perception. We present a comparative study of cross-stage context passing on DriveLM-nuScenes using two complementary mechanisms. The explicit variant evaluates three prompt-based conditioning strategies on a domain-adapted 4B VLM (Mini-InternVL2-4B-DA-DriveLM) without additional training, reducing NLI contradiction by up to 42.6% and establishing a strong zero-training baseline. The implicit variant introduces gated context projectors, which extract a hidden-state vector from one stage and inject a normalized, gated projection into the next stage's input embeddings. These projectors are jointly trained with stage-specific QLoRA adapters on a general-purpose 8B VLM (InternVL3-8B-Instruct) while updating only approximately 0.5% of parameters. The implicit variant achieves a statistically significant 34% reduction in planning-stage NLI contradiction (bootstrap 95% CIs, p < 0.05) and increases cross-stage entailment by 50%, evaluated with a multilingual NLI classifier to account for mixed-language outputs. Planning language quality also improves (CIDEr +30.3%), but lexical overlap and structural consistency degrade due to the absence of driving-domain pretraining. Since the two variants use different base models, we present them as complementary case studies: explicit context passing provides a strong training-free baseline for surface consistency, while implicit gated projection delivers significant planning-stage semantic gains, suggesting domain adaptation as a plausible next ingredient for full-spectrum improvement.

We consider the following fundamental problem: given a database D, Boolean conjunctive query (CQ) q, and fact f in D, decide whether f is relevant to q wrt. D, i.e., does f belong to a minimal subset S of D such that S |= q. Despite being of central importance to query answer explanation, the combined complexity of deciding query relevance has not been studied in detail, leaving open what makes this problem hard, and which restrictions can yield lower complexity. Relevance has already been shown to be harder than query evaluation: namely, $Σ^p_2$-complete for CQs, even over a binary signature. We further observe that NP-hardness applies already to (acyclic) chain CQs. Our work identifies self-joins (multiple atoms with the same relation) as the culprit. Indeed, we prove that if we forbid or bound the occurrence of self-joins, then relevance has the same complexity as query evaluation, namely, NP (without structural restrictions) and LogCFL (for bounded hypertreewidth classes). In the ontology setting, we establish an analogous result for ontology-mediated queries consisting of a CQ and DL-Lite_R ontology, namely that relevance is no harder than query answering provided that we bound the interaction width (which generalizes both self-join width and a recently introduced 'interaction-free' condition). Our results thus pinpoint what makes relevance harder than query evaluation and identify natural classes of queries which admit efficient relevance computation.

Emotion-Cause Pair Extraction in Conversations (ECPEC) aims to identify the set of causal relations between emotion utterances and their triggering causes within a dialogue. Most existing approaches formulate ECPEC as an independent pairwise classification task, overlooking the distinct semantics of emotion diffusion and cause explanation, and failing to capture globally consistent many-to-many conversational causality. To address these limitations, we revisit ECPEC from a semantic perspective and seek to disentangle emotion-oriented semantics from cause-oriented semantics, mapping them into two complementary representation spaces to better capture their distinct conversational roles. Building on this semantic decoupling, we naturally formulate ECPEC as a global alignment problem between the emotion-side and cause-side representations, and employ optimal transport to enable many-to-many and globally consistent emotion-cause matching. Based on this perspective, we propose a unified framework SCALE that instantiates the above semantic decoupling and alignment principle within a shared conversational structure. Extensive experiments on several benchmark datasets demonstrate that SCALE consistently achieves state-of-the-art performance. Our codes are released at https://github.com/CoCoSphere/SCALE.

Scene graph representations enable structured visual understanding by modeling objects and their relationships, and have been widely used for multiview and 3D scene reasoning. Existing methods such as MSG learn scene graph embeddings in Euclidean space using contrastive learning and attention based association. However, Euclidean geometry does not explicitly capture hierarchical entailment relationships between places and objects, limiting the structural consistency of learned representations. To address this, we propose Hyperbolic Scene Graph (HSG), which learns scene graph embeddings in hyperbolic space where hierarchical relationships are naturally encoded through geometric distance. Our results show that HSG improves hierarchical structure quality while maintaining strong retrieval performance. The largest gains are observed in graph level metrics: HSG achieves a PP IoU of 33.17 and the highest Graph IoU of 33.51, outperforming the best AoMSG variant (25.37) by 8.14, highlighting the effectiveness of hyperbolic representation learning for scene graph modeling. Code: https://github.com/AIGeeksGroup/HSG.

To discover the weaknesses of LLMs, researchers often embed prompts into a vector space and cluster them to extract insightful patterns. However, vector embeddings primarily capture topical similarity. As a result, prompts that share a topic but differ in specificity, and consequently in difficulty, are often represented similarly, making fine-grained weakness analysis difficult. To address this limitation, we propose PROMPT2BOX, which embeds prompts into a box embedding space using a trained encoder. The encoder, trained on existing and synthesized datasets, outputs box embeddings that capture not only semantic similarity but also specificity relations between prompts (e.g., "writing an adventure story" is more specific than "writing a story"). We further develop a novel dimension reduction technique for box embeddings to facilitate dataset visualization and comparison. Our experiments demonstrate that box embeddings consistently capture prompt specificity better than vector baselines. On the downstream task of creating hierarchical clustering trees for 17 LLMs from the UltraFeedback dataset, PROMPT2BOX can identify 8.9% more LLM weaknesses than vector baselines and achieves an approximately 33% stronger correlation between hierarchical depth and instruction specificity.

In this paper, we explore the issue of inconsistency handling over prioritized knowledge bases (KBs), which consist of an ontology, a set of facts, and a priority relation between conflicting facts. In the database setting, a closely related scenario has been studied and led to the definition of three different notions of optimal repairs (global, Pareto, and completion) of a prioritized inconsistent database. After transferring the notions of globally-, Pareto- and completion-optimal repairs to our setting, we study the data complexity of the core reasoning tasks: query entailment under inconsistency-tolerant semantics based upon optimal repairs, existence of a unique optimal repair, and enumeration of all optimal repairs. Our results provide a nearly complete picture of the data complexity of these tasks for ontologies formulated in common DL-Lite dialects. The second contribution of our work is to clarify the relationship between optimal repairs and different notions of extensions for (set-based) argumentation frameworks. Among our results, we show that Pareto-optimal repairs correspond precisely to stable extensions (and often also to preferred extensions), and we propose a novel semantics for prioritized KBs which is inspired by grounded extensions and enjoys favourable computational properties. Our study also yields some results of independent interest concerning preference-based argumentation frameworks.