Large Language Models

There is a growing need for reliable and culturally validated instruments to assess psychological dependency on large language models (LLMs), particularly as LLMs are increasingly used for task execution, decision-making, and communication in organizational and work-related settings. This need is especially relevant for Spanish-speaking populations, where LLM adoption is rapidly expanding, yet validated psychometric tools remain scarce. The present study reports the first validation of the Spanish version of the Large Language Model Dependency Scale (LLM-D12-SP), extending prior validations conducted in English- and Arabic-speaking samples. The LLM-D12 is a two-dimensional instrument assessing Instrumental Dependency (reliance on LLMs for performing tasks and supporting decisions) and Relationship Dependency (psychological reliance on LLMs for companionship and social interaction). A total of 386 Spanish-speaking participants (M = 28.0 years, SD = 6.1; 55% male) completed the LLM-D12-SP. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the original two-factor structure. The scale demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.89 total; 0.86 Instrumental; 0.85 Relationship). Discriminant validity analyses indicated that the two subscales represent related but distinct constructs. External validation showed that both dependency dimensions were positively associated with internet addiction and perceived trustworthiness of LLMs, while showing weak or no association with need for cognition. Together with prior English and Arabic validations, these findings establish cross-linguistic support for the scale's structure and provide a psychometrically sound tool for investigating psychological aspects of LLM use in organizational contexts.

Large language models (LLMs) have become powerful tools for language understanding and logical reasoning. However, they still make mistakes when a problem requires both understanding meaning and following logic. A key reason is that natural-language statements often carry implicit semantic relations before any formal reasoning begins. If these hidden meanings are not properly organized, the model may reach incorrect conclusions even when the subsequent reasoning process appears logically valid. Existing methods improve reasoning through decomposition, symbolic translation, external solvers, or self-verification, but pay comparatively less attention to the semantic structure on which reasoning depends. In this paper, we further investigate how semantic organization influences logical reasoning in LLMs. To this end, we propose HexLogicAgent, a framework that first organizes the meaning of natural-language statements and then guides logical reasoning through structured verification. In our investigation, we also make two observations. First, incomplete semantic representations, rather than deductive inference itself, are a major source of logical reasoning failures in LLMs. Second, explicitly modeling the complete structure of semantic opposition substantially delays the degradation of reasoning performance as logical complexity increases. Experiments on challenging logical reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that HexLogicAgent consistently improves reasoning reliability across multiple LLMs. The core idea is supported by a logical hexagon theory, which explains why a complete structure of opposing meanings is necessary for reliable reasoning.

Large language models (LLMs) show promise in code generation, but their capabilities to produce correct, synthesizable hardware description language (HDL) code still remain to be properly benchmarked. Existing evaluations are primarily relying on pass@k metrics and lack proper end-to-end toolchain validation. This paper presents a reproducible benchmarking platform that evaluates open-source LLMs on Verilog RTL generation across 50 curated tasks consisting of combinational, sequential, finite state machine (FSM), and mixed designs. The pipeline consisting of constrained prompting, post-processing, and semantic-aware iterative refinement with waveform analysis, formal equivalence verification, and Abstract Syntax Tree (AST)-based repair validates the generated code via Verilator compilation and Icarus Verilog simulation. Across the 12 benchmarks and the 1,610 total runs evaluating three models of different sizes (Llama-3-8B, StarCoder2-7B, and TinyLlama-1.1B), the pipeline improved syntax validity from 0% to a 70.43% average and simulation pass rate to 51.8% across three open-source models. Most notably TinyLlama (1.1B parameters) achieved the highest individual syntax validity at 80.0%, with functional correctness comparable to the 8B model. The platform and dataset are open-source, enabling reproducible evaluation of generative AI for hardware design workflows.

We introduce Graded Large Language Models (GLLMs), an algebraic framework that equips the representation space of a transformer with a grading and propagates the induced weighted scalar action through embeddings, self-attention, and the training objective. The construction extends the theory of graded neural networks and graded transformers to autoregressive language models while preserving expressive power, asymptotic computational complexity, and inference cost. The governing geometric picture is that of geometric invariant theory. The benefit of a grading is expressed by a Kempf--Ness functional on the grading torus; the grades that improve upon the uniform architecture form an open convex cone whose membership is decided by a Hilbert--Mumford-type criterion pairing a grade direction against two measurable profiles of the target and the data; the optimal grades are the coincidence point of two moment maps, given in closed form; and the ordinary transformer appears as a semistable isotropic point on the boundary of the cone: one member of a larger graded family rather than a distinguished optimum. Separately, for level-stratified targets we prove a minimax separation between the graded prior and its absence: over all estimators the risks of the graded and uniform target classes separate throughout an explicit window of sample sizes, by a factor that decays exponentially in the number of levels under geometric stratification. Both profiles are estimable offline, so the optimal grades solve a convex program certified before training begins. Because the grading is absorbed into the learned parameters after training, every GLLM compiles to a standard transformer of identical architecture and inference complexity.

Large language models (LLMs) have rapidly and significantly entered scientific workflows, but it remains unclear how their diffusion is associated with changes in scientists' strategies in research directions and team building. We link PubMed Central full text with OpenAlex publication and collaboration histories for 775,323 scientists and analyze CRediT contribution statements from 137,120 multi-author papers. After 2022, scientists increasingly published across more intellectually distant fields and entered fields in which they had not previously worked. These increases in interdisciplinarity and exploration were especially pronounced among established scientists and scientists from non-English-speaking low- and middle-income countries. Authors with stronger AI-writing signals were already more interdisciplinary and exploratory before the widespread adoption of LLMs, and the gap widened further after 2022 compared with authors with weaker AI-writing signals. Scientists' collaboration networks also became more interdisciplinary after 2022. Yet, among authors with stronger AI-writing signals, research interdisciplinarity was less closely tied to the disciplinary diversity of their collaborators. The division of labor within research teams also became more differentiated. Contributors on papers published after 2022 reported narrower role sets on average, coauthors shared fewer roles in common, and their role profiles became less rigid and more fluid. Software and validation roles increased, while conceptual and management roles decreased. These patterns suggest that team members are taking on more distinct responsibilities and may rely less on one another to perform research tasks. Overall, this study indicates that the LLM era coincides with a broader reorganization of scientific exploration, collaboration, and the division of labor.

High-temperature sampling is one of the primary mechanisms for increasing diversity in LLMs. Recent advances in truncation-based sampling techniques have helped mitigate drawbacks of high-temperature sampling such as neural text degeneration, thereby enabling greater diversity in LLM outputs without sacrificing coherence. However, increasing the entropy of the token probability distribution via high temperatures has also been shown to weaken model guardrails by reducing the model's refusal response in the presence of harmful prompts. Despite the potential benefits of high-temperature sampling and the importance of maintaining model safety, there is a lack of existing solutions for maintaining the refusal behavior of LLMs under a higher entropy regime. To address this gap, we systematically study how temperature influences refusal behavior in LLMs and propose an efficient sequential decoding approach which preserves a model's greedy decoding refusal response at high temperatures while incurring minimal additional latency. Through extensive experiments, we show that our approach preserves 91-99% of the greedy decoding refusal behavior across three benchmark datasets without compromising the model's high-temperature response for safe prompts. Our work demonstrates how refusal behavior can be maintained in an efficient manner for applications which require high-temperature sampling.

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

Malware analysis demands rapid interpretation of complex detonation reports spanning filesystem, network, and process behaviours. While large language models (LLMs) demonstrate impressive capabilities for technical artifact interpretation, the opacity and escalating API costs of closed-weight frontier models motivate exploration of open-weight alternatives. However, many open-weight models are large, demanding significant compute resources and incurring non-trivial hosting costs that place them beyond reach for resource-constrained deployments. This paper investigates whether orchestrated ensembles of small language models (SLMs) can match or exceed single LLM performance on structured questions about malware detonation reports. We established baselines by testing eleven open-weight SLMs, three cyber security pre-trained models, and six frontier LLMs on Meta's CyberSecEval Malware Analysis benchmark. We then designed and evaluated four orchestration architectures: (i) a multi-agent pipeline that decomposes analysis into structured evidence-collection and reasoning stages, (ii) an adversarial debate framework in which two agents iteratively critique each other's reasoning, (iii) a hierarchical consultation system that pairs a general-purpose SLM with a cyber-specialised expert model, and (iv) a hybrid architecture that combines evidence-grounded pipelines with adversarial debate reasoning. The hybrid system (Qwen3-4B with Foundation-Sec-8B) achieved 35.30% overall accuracy, exceeding the strongest cyber-specialised baseline (22.54%) and the strongest ungrounded frontier baseline (34.77%); when given the same evidence pipeline, grounded Gemini remained the strongest configuration at 38.22%. These findings show that evidence-grounded orchestration can substantially improve the performance of collaborative SLMs for supporting interpretation of malware detonation reports.

LLM-based game agents often perform poorly on more complex tasks. This work examines whether these failures are linked to limited spatial reasoning and evaluates whether causal prompt augmentation and multi-step planning can improve win-rates while managing response latency. Using the open-source Qwen3 model family, we conduct experiments across varying model scales, reasoning modes, and planning horizons. We further introduce a focused GVGAI benchmark consisting of three custom games with five difficulty levels to isolate spatial navigation. The evaluation follows two paradigms: an initial ``positioning experiment'' to test an agent's ability to find its exact coordinates, and a study of game-play success. Our results show that while larger models with an enabled thinking mode identify their positions more accurately, overall performance in coordinate matching remains limited for smaller models. Win rates decrease as game levels and layout complexity increase, validating the benchmark's difficulty scaling. Integrating causal context into the prompts tends to improve the agents' success rates, particularly for bigger models. While enabling thinking mode and longer planning horizons significantly improve performance, multi-step planning further reduces mean per-step response times, offering a practical trade-off between reasoning depth and execution speed.

Large language models (LLMs) generate fluent text by incrementally predicting the next token from a prefix. Critics in the generative tradition argue that such systems lack genuine grammar; influential replies from the dependency-grammar perspective hold that LLM behavior is well described by local head-dependent structure built word by word. We argue that a sharper observation has been overlooked: the prefix-driven, type-completing dynamics of autoregressive generation align closely with the incremental processing model that Combinatory Categorial Grammar (CCG) was originally designed to support. On this basis we propose a neurosymbolic framework in which LLM outputs are lifted into typed compositional derivations -- not claiming that LLMs implement CCG internally, but that their outputs admit a principled, incremental, and auditable CCG reconstruction. Two consequences follow. First, through the Curry-Howard correspondence the lifting extends beyond natural language to the formal languages LLMs also produce -- programming languages such as Solidity, description-logic and query languages such as OWL and SQL -- with the type system varying and the architecture held fixed. Second, the lifting supports two layers of checking: a compositional layer that catches structural failures directly, and a content layer that checks the lifted structure against external knowledge sources, enabling the earliest possible flagging of hallucinated content. The account thereby requires of a producer not cognition but a prefix-driven generative profile. We close with a sketch of synchronous LLM-CCG coupling as one direction the framework opens.

The deployment of high-speed Uncrewed Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) in 3D aerial highways necessitates robust coordination of physical flight kinematics and multi-tier network handovers. While Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) offers rapid tactical control, it lacks the zero-shot strategic reasoning required to quickly adapt to dynamic Integrated Terrestrial and Non-Terrestrial Networks (ITNTNs). Conversely, Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at semantic reasoning but suffer from high inference latency, rendering them unsuitable for real-time aerodynamic control. To bridge this gap, we propose a novel Hierarchical LLM-driven control framework. A massive cloud-based LLM deployed on a High-Altitude Platform Station (HAPS) manages slow-timescale global load balancing, while lightweight edge-LLMs on individual UAVs translate local observations into tactical sub-goals. These sub-goals guide a fast-timescale physical DRL controller to execute collision-free, handover-aware trajectories. Simulation results demonstrate that our agentic architecture significantly reduces collision rates and improves aggregate system throughput compared to existing baselines.

Structure-based drug design (SBDD) leverages the 3D structure of protein targets, often complemented by other spatial constraints, to generate candidate binding molecules. While diffusion models have dominated as a leading paradigm for high-quality 3D molecule generation, LLM-based methods are rapidly emerging in molecular design and have shown competitive performance in pocket-conditioned molecular generation. However, their ability to reason about physics and 3D spatial environments is largely underexplored. In this work, we systematically analyze whether current general-purpose LLMs are capable of navigating complex 3D constraints compared to established baselines such as specialized diffusion models. We consider 3D ligand generation conditioned on protein pockets together with ligand- and interaction-derived spatial constraints, including anchor fragments, pharmacophore points, and mandatory pocket-ligand interactions. To enable this evaluation, we introduce 3D-Fit - a token-efficient benchmarking strategy for assessing LLM performance on multi-conditioned spatial molecule generation. Our findings reveal a clear pattern in LLM spatial capabilities: while they still lag behind state-of-the-art approaches, they are promising and can handle multiple spatial constraints simultaneously, enabling scaling to heterogeneous setups.

Large language models are increasingly used in practical systems, making efficient model selection important for reducing deployment cost. LLM routing has emerged as a practical solution for allocating each input query to an appropriate model under a desired cost-performance trade-off. Existing routing methods often estimate model suitability from the surface semantics or embedding similarity of the input query. However, such methods may ignore the underlying difficulty of a query, leading to suboptimal routing decisions. To address the challenge, we propose VDAR-Router, a difficulty-aware retrieval-based routing framework. For each input query, VDAR-Router first generates an explicit difficulty analysis. It then retrieves historical examples with similar difficulty profiles. Based on the retrieved records, it estimates candidate model suitability and selects the model using a reward function that considers both performance and cost. Experiments on three datasets show that VDAR-Router consistently achieves better cost-performance trade-offs than existing baselines. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of difficulty-aware retrieval for training-free LLM routing. Case studies further show that explicit query analysis helps retrieve more relevant examples and supports more reliable routing decisions.

Scientific Reasoning Graph Extraction (SRGE) aims to recover explicit links among observations, evidence, intermediate claims, and paper-level conclusions. LLMs can produce graph-like scientific explanations, but their outputs often mix malformed syntax, drifting edge labels, incorrectly oriented roots, and weak source anchors. We propose PEARL (Peircean Extraction via Abstraction and Repair Layer), a training-free framework that turns noisy LLM graph responses into auditable reasoning graphs and repairs them toward strict semantic validity. PEARL first materializes explicit graph content under a closed Peircean schema, then uses matched evidence-grounded judge feedback to repair rejected edge types, local inference steps, and terminal roots while preserving an audit trail. On five 70-paper model archives from ARCHE, a benchmark for latent reasoning-chain extraction, PEARL raises strict gate passes from 0/350 for the LLM baseline to 300/350, with average REA improving from 0.339 to 0.906. The graphs provide a reliability layer for research-agent and AI scientist workflows that need inspectable reasoning traces rather than unconstrained graph regeneration. Code and audit artifacts are available at https://github.com/BohanSu/auditable-repair-reasoning-graphs/tree/300-350_workshop .

We propose ARBITER, a novel LLM guardrail framework that introduces two key ideas: (i) dual-hypothesis reasoning, a reasoning method for LLM guardrails that explicitly considers both safe and unsafe interpretations of a prompt before making a safety decision, and (ii) multi-component supervised fine-tuning (MC-SFT), a structured training loss for reasoning-based guardrails that decomposes LLM outputs into logical components and weights them according to their importance. Existing reasoning-based guardrails often rely on expensive procedures, such as generating reasoning traces using larger or closed-source teacher models and applying full-parameter fine-tuning. In contrast, ARBITER uses a cost-effective self-generation strategy for reasoning traces and LoRA-based parameter-efficient fine-tuning while still achieving better performance than these expensive approaches. Additionally, ARBITER provides faithful evidence-phrase explanations for unsafe decisions, enabling a more transparent and interpretable guardrail method. Experiments on three safety moderation benchmarks show that ARBITER outperforms existing reasoning-based and non-reasoning guardrail baselines, with clear gains in out-of-domain evaluations.

Developers frequently write uninformative git commit messages such as "fix" or "update stuff", degrading the value of version-control history for code review, debugging, and onboarding. We present CommitLLM, a three-stage pipeline that generates concise, Conventional Commits-compliant messages from code diffs using a fine-tuned small language model. The system combines (1) QLoRA fine-tuning of Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.2 on the CommitPackFT dataset, (2) constrained decoding to enforce brevity, and (3) deterministic post-processing to strip conversational artifacts and enforce format. On a 50-sample evaluation, CommitLLM achieves 98% format compliance (vs. 22% for vanilla Mistral), reduces average output length from 154.8 to 37.9 characters, and improves LLM-as-a-Judge scores from 1.97 to 3.68 out of 5. Notably, the post-processing layers contribute more to quality improvement than the fine-tuning itself, suggesting that for structured-output tasks, treating the LLM as a component in a deterministic pipeline is more effective than optimizing the model alone. The entire system runs on a single consumer GPU (NVIDIA T4, 16 GB VRAM).

Transformer-based large language models (LLMs) continue to achieve state-of-the-art performance across various natural language processing tasks. However, their subpar performance on seemingly elementary problems, such as basic arithmetic, raises concerns about model reliability, safety, and ethical deployment. In this study, we demonstrate that the performance of a vanilla Transformer model trained on integer arithmetic tasks can be improved using methods effective for human learners. We begin by decomposing the arithmetic task into well-defined subtasks and conducting loss convergence order analysis together with ablation studies for each subtask. Our findings reveal that LLMs exhibit learning patterns similar to those of human learners, with a faster learning speed for simpler subtasks compared to more complex ones. In addition, we successfully improved the accuracy of LLMs by applying problem-solving strategies and cognitive empowerment methods shown to enhance the performance of human learners. This suggests that transformer-based LLMs may share cognitive processes with human learners in arithmetic. Lastly, we provide a comprehensive demonstration of our method's effectiveness, including significant accuracy improvement experiments, visualization verification, and explanation-based analysis to illuminate the intricacies of LLMs in arithmetic learning. In general, this work explores the potential similarities between transformer-based LLMs and human learners, supported by explainable AI (XAI) verifications, ultimately fostering trust in LLMs for critical and high-stakes applications.

The rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs) has led practitioners to increasingly rely on them for answering questions about hardware description languages (HDLs). Because HDL is ultimately synthesized into physical hardware, an imprecise or redundant answer can propagate into timing violations or non-synthesizable logic that surface only late in the design flow, making the quality of HDL answers especially consequential. However, the quality of LLM-generated responses, particularly in comparison with answers provided by human experts, remains unclear. To investigate this question, we collect 6,246 HDL Q&A posts with accepted answers from Stack Overflow and curate them into a dataset, organized into a taxonomy of four main categories (Conceptual, Debugging, Generation, and Optimization) and ten subcategories. Using this dataset, we design a user study conducted with 19 HDL engineers with one to three years of experience. Our findings reveal a pervasive over answering tendency: LLMs supply correct content but bury it under redundant alternatives (65.7%) and verbose padding (69.1%), while nearly half of answers (49.0%) fail to fully align with expert answers yet participants still preferred LLM responses for readability (58.3%). Motivated by these findings, we propose a multi-agent framework for improving LLM-based HDL question answering. We evaluate answer quality using an LLM-as-Judge and two structural metrics: the number of core answers, which reflects redundancy since LLMs often provide multiple alternative solutions, and the length of non-core content, which reflects verbosity. Evaluated on the four mainstream LLMs, our framework increases the average core-answer quality score from 3.71 to 4.67 (+0.96) and the non-core content quality from 3.72 to 4.23 (+0.51), on a five-point scale.

Model collapse is a central challenge in learning from synthetic data: as later-generation large language models (LLMs) are trained on an increasing proportion of model-generated data, performance can degrade due to narrowed coverage and accumulated bias. Existing work mainly studies how to bound this degradation. In iterative model evolution, however, the more meaningful objective is to ensure that each successive model improves over its predecessor, which requires diagnosing collapse at a granularity that is actionable for data curation. We study this problem in synthetic data self-improving for instruction tuning. We show that collapse in this setting is not simply uniform performance degradation, but can appear as a polarization of competence, where synthetic training reinforces already strong skills while further degrading weak ones. Motivated by this observation, we propose KITE (Knowledge-boundary Instruction Tuning via Exploration), a two-stage framework that combines failure-guided data generation with boundary-aware uncertainty curation. Experiments across several datasets and multiple open-source LLMs show that KITE yields more stable improvement than strong synthetic-data baselines.

Large language models often succeed on one formulation of a problem while failing on an equivalent formulation. Whether these failures arise from distinct internal circuits or different activation states of a shared circuit remains unknown. Recent mechanistic interpretability studies suggest that arithmetic in LLMs emerges from a "bag of heuristics," encoded by a sparse set of MLP neurons that represent distinct arithmetic strategies. We investigate whether arithmetic heuristic neurons are form-invariant across symbolic arithmetic, natural language word problems, and Python code in three Llama-3 models. In each format, we identify arithmetic heuristic neurons using a two-stage pipeline combining attribution patching and activation patching. A compact set of neurons is shared across all three formats, and targeted interventions show this shared circuit is both necessary and sufficient for late-layer arithmetic computation. Transferring the shared neurons' activations from a successful execution in one format to a failed execution in another recovers most incorrect predictions, exceeding 97% for addition and subtraction, indicating that cross-format failures arise from activation states rather than distinct circuits. Moreover, shared neurons consistently belong to the same heuristic families across formats, demonstrating that arithmetic computation in LLMs is largely form-invariant at the neuron level.

Synthetic-population tools increasingly run every individual as an independent large language model (LLM) agent. Using real survey microdata, we show that this paradigm has a basic failure mode, and we set a distribution-first corrective against it, all measured with a deterministic, construct-validated verifier on non-WEIRD (Turkey-first) data. First, N independent LLM agents grounded on 2,414 real World Values Survey respondents fail to reproduce the population's response distribution: they pile onto a modal default (four scenarios x five seeds: concentration 0.36->0.69, entropy 1.46->0.77, 85% collapse, TVD=0.44), and the collapse is a predictable function of scenario structure (r=0.55 with a single-answer structure). Second, Verbalized Sampling (VS) fixes the field's chronic under-dispersion without training in three model families (fidelity +7 to +10; significant on Qwen, p=0.002, d=6.2), yet the same move universally overshoots into over-dispersion (SD-ratio 0.4-0.56 -> 1.26-1.37), a structural property of VS. Third, survey fidelity transfers only weakly to agentic behavior: in a single-model, single-domain booking task, a persona is dominated by a cheapest-default (~80%) that income modulates but does not override (comfort choice 0%->7%->32% across income bands). Fourth, a placebo-controlled memorization attack and an election backtest show VS keeps aggregate strength while subgroup and individual claims are contaminated by recall and underdetermination. We close with the corrective: model the distribution once (VS) and assign it to grounded characters at O(1) cost, with a budget-aware router whose honest AUC is 0.805, not the tautological 1.0 of a code-derived oracle. The central contribution needs no realism claim: it measures the internal inconsistency of the independent-agent route and the conditions under which the distribution-first route calibrates.

Large Language Models (LLMs) often require carefully crafted prompts to unlock their full potential, which can be a barrier for non-expert users. This work addresses the challenge by introducing a Task-Aware Prompt Rewriter (TAPR), a model that reformulates user prompts into task-optimized prompts with the explicit goal of improving downstream LLM performance. We train TAPR using reinforcement learning with Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), where rewards are derived from LLM-as-judge evaluations of both the reformulated prompt and the corresponding task output. Experimental results on diverse tasks, such as question answering, summarization, and arithmetic reasoning, show that our method yields consistent gains over base models in prompt rewriting ability. Fine-tuning Phi-4-mini-instruct (as the base model for TAPR) produces prompts that contain clearer and more instructive language, leading to higher accuracy on established benchmarks such as Natural Questions and GSM8K. Our code is available at: https://github.com/OliverSavolainen/task-specific-prompt-rewriter

In production large language model (LLM) deployments, high API availability guarantees do not equate to conversational continuity. When a primary provider experiences an outage or strict rate-limiting, naive stateless failover mechanisms successfully maintain uptime but silently discard conversation history, severely disrupting the user experience. To rigorously quantify and resolve this failure mode, we introduce two novel metrics: Continuity Preservation Rate (CPR) and Continuity Latency Overhead (CLO). We propose a stateful, multi-provider proxy architecture utilizing a History-Forwarding strategy to seamlessly reconstruct conversational state across heterogeneous LLM endpoints during failover events. Furthermore, we release continuity-bench, https://github.com/Vishal-sys-code/continuity-bench, an open evaluation harness designed to stress-test context preservation under high-concurrency provider failure conditions. Our empirical evaluation ($N=750$ failover events) demonstrates that our stateful proxy achieves a 99.20% CPR [95% CI: 98.27%, 99.63%], cleanly transferring deep conversational context to fallback providers, compared to a near-0% preservation rate for standard stateless architectures. Finally, we characterize failover latency distributions, identifying the critical necessity of asynchronous exponential backoff with jitter to prevent cascading retry storms against strict-limit fallback APIs. Our results provide a principled foundation for building robust, state-preserving multi-model inference systems.

Large language models routinely produce fluent answers to single-shot prompts, yet deploying them as reliable components of a domain decision system is substantially harder. Closing this gap is the work of harness engineering: the deliberate composition of deterministic scaffolding (symbolic filters, retrieval, schema-typed I/O, LLM-as-judge loops, HITL gates, persistent state, audit trails) around an LLM core. We present a case study in academic supervision, a domain combining high-stakes recommendation, longitudinal accountability, and structured operational workflows. We compare a baseline (ASA), a GPT-5 chatbot with no scaffolding, against a multi-module system (ASuS) that wraps the much smaller GPT-4o-mini in a LangGraph harness with symbolic-semantic retrieval, schema-validated outputs, LLM-as-judge with bounded retry, HITL gates, deterministic weighted risk scoring with LLM narration, and a per-node SQLite audit trail. The evaluation rubric is retargeted at six harness-mechanism dimensions (grounding, explainability, consistency, process integrity, cognitive load, constraint adherence). A blind ten-rater hybrid evaluation, supplemented by a 2 x 2 model-harness ablation, finds that ASuS, despite using a much smaller base model, outscores ASA on every dimension. Across ten raters the pooled mean for ASuS is 4.08 versus 1.23 for ASA, and 8 of 10 raters reject the null at alpha = 0.05 on a paired Wilcoxon test; full numbers are in Sections 6.4 and 6.7. The ablation confirms that the structural contributions of the harness are largely model-invariant. We extract seven recurring harness-engineering patterns and argue that where reliability, traceability, and institutional consistency matter more than open-ended fluency, harness engineering challenges the prevailing 'bigger model is better' intuition.

Semantic 3D city models provide rich geometric and semantic information, but remain challenging for non-experts and interdisciplinary researchers to access and query due to their complex structures and specialized data formats. To address this issue, we present CityLLM, a framework for natural-language querying of semantic 3D city models alongside complementary urban datasets. The framework combines spatial and graph databases within an LLM-based workflow that supports iterative query refinement and cross-database chaining. We evaluate CityLLM on a CityJSON dataset of Rotterdam (853 LoD2 buildings) using GPT-OSS, Gemini 3.1, and GPT-5.4, along with selected variants, across multiple metrics: answer correctness, visualization correctness, query success, and retry attempts. A total of 54 natural-language queries are curated across four scenarios: spatial, graph, cross-database, and conversational. Results show strong overall performance, with answer correctness ranging from 85.2% to 100%, visualization correctness from 92.9% to 100%, a 100% query success rate, and fewer than three retries across all 54 queries. Overall, the findings suggest that CityLLM provides a lightweight and extensible approach for conversational access to semantic 3D city data.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have accelerated the adoption of software development agents, now widely available as Integrated Development Environment (IDE) extensions and standalone applications. While these agents are typically general-purpose, it remains unclear whether specialist agents justify their additional development effort. We investigate this question in the context of business process automation, focusing on the transformation of Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) diagrams into executable agentic workflows. Since BPMN specifies explicit control-flow semantics, we focus on deterministic workflows in which a fixed process model and inputs uniquely determine the executed path. We introduce a specialist workflow for this task and compare it against generalist agents such as Roo and Cline. Our results show that the specialist solution produces agents that outperform generalist baselines by approximately 9-20 percentage points in tool-use exactness, 2-4x in penalty-adjusted latency, and 3x fewer tool-call errors, while reducing generation token cost by over 95% and eliminating repair iterations. We also find that generalist agents generate code inconsistently in both functionality and quality, limiting their suitability for industrial settings where reliability and maintainability are essential.

Reasoning or inference-scaling models are the new generation of Large Language Models (LLMs) capable of complex problem solving. To investigate their problem-solving capability in physics, we evaluated model o4-mini by OpenAI on solving traditional, end-of-chapter problems from Halliday and Resnick's "Fundamentals of Physics," spanning core topics in the undergraduate physics curriculum. Performance was analyzed across modality and problem difficulty. The model solved the problems with overall accuracy of about 90%, but performance depended strongly on representation: accuracy was much higher on text-only problems (96%) than on problems requiring coordinated interpretation of text and images (79%). Accuracy also declined significantly as the problem difficulty increased from low to medium to high. These results show that state-of-the-art LLMs can solve much of the standard introductory physics problems, but that their performance remains uneven and constrained by problem modality and problem difficulty.

Personal AI assistants have attracted significant interest for their potential to enhance everyday life by automating routine tasks, supporting consequential decisions, and assisting with everyday personal matters. Yet despite rapid recent technical advances, these assistants continue to exhibit undesirable behaviors, such as sycophancy, overconfidence, and hallucination. We argue that these failures stem from a fundamental limitation: language models lack an explicit representation of the person beyond the context they are given, which we term as the \textbf{Severance Problem}. Even with rich personal context and strong commonsense reasoning capabilities from the backbone model, current AI assistants fail to represent what remains unknown about the user. We propose a simple solution: incorporating structured ignorance into the language model context via the \textbf{Severance Schema}, which explicitly outlines dimensions along which the model lacks knowledge about the user, including physicality, temporality, consequences, continuity, multiplicity, and interiority. Empirically, across five model families, with the Severance Schema, the assistant consistently reduces sycophancy, harmful advice, and hallucination. Notably, models with the schema ask clarifying questions when information about the user is missing, rather than confidently extrapolating from incomplete user information.

The emergence of Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning has significantly enhanced the ability of large language models (LLMs) to tackle complex, multi-step tasks. However, when errors occur, current interaction approaches typically involve re-generating another response that may make mistakes again, or users laboriously flag the faulty step in follow-up turns that may get responses <You are right, I made a mistake here> followed by similar errors recurring. To address this issue, we propose an efficient human intervention mechanism for precisely correcting reasoning errors in LLMs, termed Deep Interaction. Our approach enables direct editing of the original response, allowing erroneous parts to be corrected while preserving accurate reasoning steps. We refine the edited CoT into a distilled prompt, which then steers the LLM along the corrected reasoning path. Experimental results show that our method achieves over a 25% improvement in correction success rate and reduces token usage by approximately 40% on STEM tasks reasoning compared to baseline approaches.

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

Aligned language models routinely misreport under non-evidential incentive pressure: they agree with a confident user or overstate certainty even when their internal belief is unchanged. We cast this as a failure of internal incentive-compatibility (IC) and present a method for learning and certifying counterfactual report mediators that hold a model's reports to a causal contract: invariant to forbidden influences (pressure, prestige, restyling) and responsive to licensed ones (genuine evidence). These two demands, resist and update, pull in opposite directions. We study them on a Bayesian-witness benchmark with known posteriors, in which the same user disagreement is licensed evidence or forbidden pressure purely by stated source reliability. We (i) causally identify, by interchange interventions rather than probe accuracy, low-rank report coordinates for answer, confidence, and caveat that are near-orthogonal and independently controllable, and (ii) introduce a training-free counterfactual report-coordinate (CRC) clamp that references the model's own report under a counterfactually incentive-neutralized context. On the witness benchmark the two-pass clamp attains resist and update of 1.00 jointly (Wilson 95% CI [0.99,1.00]), a causal certificate under a constructible reference, not a deployed solution. Global decoding and steering show a single-parameter tradeoff; output-level fine-tuning matches both objectives only when both are enumerated; resist-only training loses evidence-responsiveness. The deployable single-pass compilation is lossy (0.73/0.97). The mechanism and clamp reproduce across three model families and transfer to a natural sycophancy benchmark (SycophancyEval). Our contribution is the interface and certification method: activation-level counterfactual incentive-invariance as a structural primitive for internal IC.

Failure attribution for LLM-based agentic systems, i.e., identifying which steps in a failure trajectory caused the task to fail, is critical for debugging and improving these systems. Existing approaches either rely on prompting-based pipelines, which are computationally expensive, or require post-training on failure trajectories with step-level error annotations, which are costly to collect and difficult to scale. We argue that a practical failure attribution model should be lightweight and trainable without step-level supervision on failure data. To this end, we address unsupervised failure attribution, i.e., training exclusively on successful trajectories and identifying error steps at inference time given a failure trajectory. We propose OAT, which casts this problem as one-class learning with neural controlled differential equations, modeling the dynamical pattern of successful trajectories in latent space. At inference time, each step in a failure trajectory is assigned an anomaly score based on its deviation from the dynamics learned on successful trajectories, which is then used to form a set of error steps. With training on only 100 successful trajectories, experiments show that OAT is 200--5000 $\times$ faster than prompting-based baselines, and, at the same time, consistently outperforms them in both in-domain and out-of-distribution datasets with +20% and +7% F1 scores, respectively, demonstrating that OAT is a promising and efficient direction for diagnosing agentic system failures.

As Code Large Language Models (LLMs) become central to modern software engineering, their inherent stochasticity poses significant real-world risks, where even minor errors can lead to severe functional, security, or safety consequences. Reliable automation, therefore, demands the ability to distinguish between confident, well-supported predictions and stochastic guessing. However, existing uncertainty estimation methods face a critical gap: white and grey-box techniques are often inapplicable to closed-source models, while standard "black-box" text metrics fail to capture the unique fragility of code, where syntactic variation does not always imply semantic divergence. To bridge this syntax-semantics gap, we introduce Code-MUE, a purely black-box framework that measures uncertainty through execution-based Semantic Interaction Graphs. Unlike prior approaches that rely on superficial textual similarity, Code-MUE grounds uncertainty in observable runtime behavior, calculating the Von Neumann entropy of the solution space to quantify global semantic diversity. A large-scale empirical study across eight state-of-the-art LLMs demonstrates that Code-MUE achieves a strong negative correlation with functional correctness (Spearman's correlation up to -0.98), significantly outperforming lexical and embedding-based baselines while enabling robust risk detection and selective prediction in practical workflows.

Large language model (LLM) trading agents show promising performance in equity markets, yet remain narrowly focused on US equities with little evidence from live deployment. We present Fin-Analyst, a hybrid agent for FinMMEval 2026 Task 3: an eight-specialist LLM pipeline over news, SEC filings, fundamentals, analyst forecasts, technical indicators, and social sentiment, aggregated by a Meta-Agent for Tesla (TSLA), and a lightweight rule based three-signal vote for Bitcoin (BTC). On the final official leaderboard (accessed 2026-07-05), Fin-Analyst ranks first of all agents on TSLA with a +13.51% return, +28.33 points over Buy-and-Hold (Sharpe 4.10, 88% win rate), while the BTC vote ends flat yet well above a sharply falling baseline. Relative to the interim performance, the asset ranking reversed, indicating that short live windows yield volatility-sensitive rankings. Ablation identifies event-driven 8-K disclosures as the most influential TSLA signal. Error analysis shows that the memoryless agents repeat wrong calls for days at a time, and that the fixed-threshold BTC rules lost money by trading on noise in a sideways market while the LLM pipeline gained under similar conditions, motivating a memory-aware, LLM-based successor for both assets.

Multi-agent and memory-augmented LLM systems often place coordination content, shared state, prior discussion, tool outputs, summaries, and role instructions, inside the same finite prompt used for the current task. This creates a practical allocation problem: every token spent on coordination is unavailable to task instructions or evidence when a call is assembled under a fixed context budget. We introduce the Roundtable Context Window Test (RCWT), a controlled protocol for measuring this task-budget displacement effect. RCWT varies coordination content while controlling total budget, position order, task family, and scoring. In the main context-dependent recall task at $W=4096$, three commercial models remain near baseline through moderate overhead and then degrade sharply once residual reference evidence falls to a few hundred tokens. Window-scaling summaries are consistent with a task-specific residual-budget interpretation rather than a fixed percentage threshold, but we treat this as descriptive evidence rather than a universal law. To test whether the fixed-budget cliff persists when task evidence remains intact, we add an intact-task ablation: the full task/reference block is kept present while coordination tokens increase by expanding total prompt length. In that setting, all tested calls return every scored field correctly across GPT-4.1-mini, Claude Haiku 4.5, and Gemini 2.5 Flash up to a 95% coordination ratio. This ablation narrows the claim: the main RCWT cliff is best read as task-budget displacement, not as proof that coordination volume alone causes semantic interference in the original open-ended task. RCWT is therefore a measurement primitive for context-allocation budgeting, not a complete theory of multi-agent benefit or session-level coordination.

Decoding continuous language from fMRI signals remains a core challenge in non-invasive brain-computer interface research. We present two complementary investigations. First, we improve the Huth et al. ridge regression encoding pipeline through expanded voxel selection (10K->15K), substitution of GPT-2 medium for GPT-1 as the beam-search proposal model, and GPU-accelerated bootstrap training, achieving mean METEOR = 0.149 and BLEU-1 = 0.200 across three held-out narratives for subject UTS03 -- an 11% relative METEOR gain over our replication baseline. Second, we introduce fMRIFlamingo, which maps BOLD activity to a frozen Llama-3.2-1B with trainable gated cross-attention layers via a learned brain tokenizer and a Perceiver Resampler. Despite achieving 42.86% Top-1 accuracy on a 1-in-100 ranking task, well above chance, a blind control ablation with zeroed fMRI inputs yields near-identical scores, revealing that apparent decoding success is driven primarily by the frozen language prior rather than by neural input. These results demonstrate that high-capacity language models do not inherently improve fMRI decoding and can actively obscure failures without rigorous blind-control evaluation.

The asymmetry between language production and perception has been well-documented in psycholinguistics. Whether large language models (LLMs) exhibit a functionally analogous distinction remains an open question, particularly given that LLMs rely on the same underlying mechanism (next-token prediction) for both input and output processing. In this exploratory study, we operationalize the production-perception distinction through direct token probability measurements rather than metalinguistic prompting. Using the base Llama-3.1-8B model, we generated poems under a production prompt and re-scored the same tokens under both rephrased production prompts and perception-oriented prompts. Across an extended experiment with four production and three perception prompts, production-perception distances consistently and substantially exceeded production-production distances, with non-overlapping ranges across conditions and an overall average ratio of approximately 1.8. Near-ceiling correlations in the production-production control confirm that the effect is specific to communicative framing rather than prompt surface variation, and we show the effect replicates across five open-weight models (Llama-3.1-8B, EuroLLM-9B, gemma-2-9b-it, Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.3, and Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct), spanning both base and instruction-tuned variants. Temporal analysis revealed that the perception prompt exerts its strongest influence at the beginning of the sequence, with divergence decaying as generated context accumulates, though the specific shape of this decay varies across prompt pairs. These findings suggest that prompt framing alone induces a production-perception distinction in LLM probability distributions, even within a decoder-only architecture.

When LLMs exhibit uneven performance across planning tasks, these gaps are often attributed to task difficulty. We argue that this explanation is incomplete, as task-level variation may reflect distinct latent planning competencies rather than differences along a single ability spectrum. We study this question on ACPBench-Hard by evaluating multiple LLM families under varying test-time reasoning budgets and applying a multidimensional item response theory model to uncover the latent competency structure underlying LLM planning. The analysis reveals two principal dimensions that shape planning performance: operational reasoning, the ability to evaluate local action applicability and immediate state transitions, and structural enumeration, the ability to reason about goal reachability and landmark structure. Operational reasoning improving under model scaling and longer reasoning traces, while structural enumeration remains comparatively insensitive. Our findings motivate competency-level evaluation of LLM planning, shifting the focus from whether models improve overall to which planning competencies improve, under what conditions, and why.

Fruitful collaborations rely on cooperative communications, including of contextual cues to incorporate into reasoning. The increasing use of LLMs in collaborative and agentic pipelines raises questions about the extent to which they exhibit these pragmatic capabilities, especially in scenarios where they may not have access to the same information as their collaborators. In this paper, we perform a novel investigation into the pragmatic reasoning capabilities of LLMs in a multi-party collaborative task under partial information conditions. We formalize a notion of collaborative epistemic asymmetry that explicitly connects objective task success to Grice's cooperative principle and empirically assess various LLMs' abilities to act cooperatively as both speakers and listeners, including both prompting and post-training strategies. Our results show that while LLMs exhibit certain pragmatic capabilities in collaborative settings, and these can be elicited through prompting and post-training, they still face challenges in pragmatic communication with incomplete information, and that certain failure modes do correlate with floutings of Grice's maxims that go unrecognized.

Contemplative traditions have long guided ethical behavior and prosocial interaction, and recent work suggests that contemplative principles (e.g., mindfulness, compassion, non-dual reasoning) may offer a promising paradigm for aligning large language models (LLMs), improving cooperation and reducing ethical violations in LLM outputs. However, as new models, evaluation metrics, and benchmarks emerge rapidly, it remains challenging to systematically assess whether and how contemplative principles enhance LLM alignment across diverse and evolving scenarios, and existing approaches are often ad hoc and fail to generalize. We present a modular, extensible evaluation framework, initially targeted at the mental health domain, that enables seamless integration of new models, metrics, and benchmarks through a reusable pipeline. The framework currently reproduces existing state-of-the-art results and supports systematic cross-evaluation by flexibly mixing and matching models, metrics, and benchmarks, enabling fair comparison and deeper insight. Its plug-and-play prompting module offers a principled pathway for incorporating ethical perspectives such as contemplative principles, allowing domain experts to define alignment criteria without requiring technical expertise. Although initially focused on mental health, the framework is domain-agnostic and extends naturally to areas such as decision-making, moral reasoning, and human-AI collaboration. By bridging computational evaluation with human-centered ethical reasoning, this work lays the groundwork for interdisciplinary research spanning cognitive science, behavioral economics, philosophy, and system design, toward robust, trustworthy, and socially beneficial human-AI ecosystems.

Discovering governing partial differential equations (PDEs) from noisy observational data is a fundamental challenge in scientific machine learning. Traditional symbolic regression (SR) methods often struggle to identify accurate equations within vast combinatorial search spaces, largely due to their inability to incorporate essential domain-specific prior knowledge. Furthermore, reliance on pointwise evaluations and discrete finite differences inherently amplifies high-frequency noise, creating deceptive fitness landscapes that derail the optimization process. To resolve these bottlenecks, we propose LLM-PDESR, a framework that integrates the structural hypothesis generation of Large Language Models (LLMs) with a mathematically rigorous evaluation environment. By employing C^4-continuous quintic splines for robust differentiation and subdomain weighted residuals as natural low-pass filters, our approach effectively mitigates the fitness landscape distortion that plagues existing methods. A Pareto-driven feedback loop then enables the LLM to iteratively refine candidate equations, balancing predictive accuracy with structural parsimony. We evaluate LLM-PDESR on 23 canonical PDEs and five structurally novel equations (including a multivariate system) specifically designed to preclude dataset memorization and test true discovery capabilities. Demonstrating real-world applicability, the framework successfully extracts a consistent structural skeleton for an interpretable 1D dynamical surrogate (1D-CACE) directly from noisy ERA5 reanalysis data. Extensive experiments and out-of-distribution testing confirm that LLM-PDESR significantly outperforms state-of-the-art methodologies in structural recovery, noise resilience, and the avoidance of spurious complexity and equation bloat.

Reasoning failures in large language models (LLMs) are usually evaluated from final answers, but a wrong answer does not reveal why the model failed. The same incorrect output may reflect missing capability, an unstable reasoning trajectory, or a failure to activate a reasoning state that is already available in the frozen model. Existing prompting and benchmark-based evaluation methods mostly operate at the output level, while generic activation-steering methods typically apply global directions without diagnosing which examples require intervention. In this paper, we introduce SPARK, which uses hidden-state response to diagnose whether a model internally enters an effective reasoning state and to guide lightweight test-time steering. The key observation is that raw hidden-state susceptibility is strongly confounded by prompt length, especially in programmatic and algorithmic reasoning where harder serialized instances naturally become longer. SPARK therefore uses length-controlled susceptibility to separate input-scale effects from residual reasoning activation, and combines this signal with cross-layer coordination to select reasoning-active anchors and under-activated hard examples. We use FRONTIER-4.5K as a controlled programmatic reasoning suite for latent profiling and difficulty-aware analysis, and evaluate SPARK-Steering on GSM8K and MATH-500 with forward-only benchmark profiling. Our method improves Qwen3 series models consistently; on MATH-500, accuracy rises from 82.0% to 84.6% for Qwen3-4B and from 82.4% to 85.6% for Qwen3-8B. These results suggest that susceptibility can serve not only as a diagnostic signal for reasoning failures, but also as a practical guide for targeted test-time intervention.

Agentic LLM coding tools compress long session histories into compaction summaries that subsequent sessions inherit as ground truth. This paper documents a failure mode in Claude Code where partial standard output from timed-out commands (exit code 143) is recorded in compaction summaries as confirmed results, propagating false positives across sessions and model versions without re-verification. The underlying mechanism is a conflation of observation and persistence, where information that appeared in the terminal is treated as equivalent to information written to durable storage. This finding extends the analysis of LLM self-evaluation failures reported in prior work on non-determinism in LLM-as-judge grading by showing that agentic tools exhibit analogous reliability deficits when reporting on their own operational outcomes. The failure has direct implications for any workflow that relies on agentic session continuity for data processing, scientific computation, or multi-step automation.

We show that post-training quantization can silently alter how large language models reason even when task accuracy is preserved. Using a six-category failure taxonomy validated by two independent human annotators (Cohen's $κ$ = 0.906), we classify 30,000 chain-of-thought outputs from five instruction-tuned LLMs (3B--14B parameters) across three quantization precisions (FP32, FP16, NF4) and four reasoning benchmarks. We find that while accuracy is robust across precisions (maximum 3.1 pp drop), Hollow Convergence (correct answers reached through incomplete or unverifiable reasoning) shows a significant size-dependent shift under NF4, dropping sharply for the two smallest models tested but remaining invariant for models at 12B parameters and above. This effect is also benchmark-specific: GSM8K is categorically immune while LogiQA and ARC-Challenge show the largest shifts. Furthermore, under NF4, Shortcut Collapse rises from 44% to 78% of wrong-answer failures in LLaMA 3.2-3B while Confidence Snowballing collapses from 15.8% to near zero, a qualitative shift invisible to accuracy metrics. Finally, we show Hollow Convergence cannot be reliably detected from surface-level text features (best F1 = 0.53), establishing it as a deployment-relevant failure mode that standard evaluation pipelines cannot catch.

This report studies on-device English-to-Traditional-Chinese subtitle translation for Taiwan under short inputs, short outputs, batch-size-one inference, low latency, and privacy constraints. These conditions limit the value of optimizations designed for long-context or high-throughput language-model serving. Starting from LMT-60-0.6B, preliminary profiling suggests that vocabulary projection becomes a more important decode-time cost after GGUF quantization reduces the relative cost of Transformer blocks. We replace the original 151k-token vocabulary with a 64k-token subtitle-domain tokenizer, migrate the embedding space, and adapt the model through embedding calibration followed by full supervised fine-tuning. On a fixed 500-example subset of the OpenSubtitles2024 test set, the LocalSubs achieves a 59.2% tie-excluded win rate against Google Translate under GPT-4o pairwise judging. Performance is strongest on short cues and declines as cue length increases. Preliminary Apple M2 Metal measurements on a 64k-vocabulary model show a 1.63$\times$ speedup over a 151k-vocabulary profiling baseline. The raw benchmark configuration is incomplete, so the latency result is treated as preliminary.

Long-context processing has become increasingly important for large language models (LLMs), but simply extending the context window does not guarantee effective utilization of long inputs. As input length grows, accuracy often degrades, indicating that models still struggle to identify and use the evidence most relevant to a question. A promising way to improve long-context utilization is test-time training (TTT), which treats the test context as a training example for instance-specific parameter adaptation. However, applying TTT to the entire long context is prohibitively expensive, while adapting on randomly sampled spans introduces severe noise. Because most spans in a long context are irrelevant to the specific question, training on them may even degrade the base model's performance. Our preliminary study shows that TTT is highly sensitive to training-span quality: on LongBench-v2, TTT on randomly sampled spans hurts performance, whereas TTT on oracle spans substantially improves it. Motivated by this, we propose a simple method, Self-Guided TTT (S-TTT): before adaptation, the model identifies the evidence spans it should learn from, and the standard language-modeling training objective is applied only to those selected spans. On two challenging long-context reasoning benchmarks, LongBench-v2 and LongBench-Pro, S-TTT improves accuracy for both Qwen3-4B-Thinking-2507 and Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct, achieving up to a 15% relative improvement.

Fine-tuning LLMs to inject new knowledge faces a critical challenge: LLMs can quickly memorize new facts, yet fail to use them for downstream reasoning tasks. We formalize this failure as the \textit{\textbf{Knowing--Using Gap}}, characterized by an accuracy gap and a temporal lag between memorization and generalization. To understand this phenomenon, we fine-tune LLMs with unseen knowledge and monitor the spatial permeation dynamics of the knowledge internally using a novel intervention technique called self-patching. Self-patching identifies activation locations where relocating representations substantially improves failed generalization cases. These results are consistent with a knowledge-circuit misalignment hypothesis: memorized representations can exist internally but may not be routed to computation-effective layers. To demonstrate the practicality of this diagnostic finding, we design a simple heuristic strategy which recovers 58--75% of the oracle headroom in generalization failure. Experiments are done cross-domain for the robustness of this finding.

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit remarkable capabilities but remain highly vulnerable to adversarial prompts and jailbreak attacks. Existing approaches primarily analyze these failures through input-output behaviors or attribution methods, offering limited insight into how adversarial perturbations alter the model's internal reasoning. Consequently, the mechanisms underlying unsafe or incorrect behaviors remain poorly understood. We introduce a mechanistic framework for diagnosing LLM vulnerabilities using paired internal computation graphs, which represent prompt-specific inference as structured causal interactions among latent features. By constructing and aligning computation graphs for clean and attacked prompts, we reveal that adversarial attacks induce systematic transformations of internal reasoning, including suppression of safety-relevant components, emergence of attack-specific features, and rerouting of computation paths. Building on this representation, we propose a unified framework that (i) decomposes computation into invariant, suppressed, and emergent structures, (ii) identifies recurring vulnerability motifs associated with failure modes, and (iii) performs causal interventions on nodes, paths, and subgraphs to directly evaluate their contributions to attack success. This enables a transition from descriptive attribution to causal diagnosis of model failures. Experiments across multiple open-source LLMs and diverse adversarial and jailbreak benchmarks demonstrate that structural deviations in internal computation graphs strongly correlate with unsafe behaviors. Furthermore, targeted interventions on identified vulnerability motifs improve model robustness, establishing internal computation graphs as a principled foundation for understanding, diagnosing, and mitigating LLM vulnerabilities.

Roy Harris's Integrationist linguistics offers a compelling critique of the referentialist tradition embedded deep at the heart of computational approaches to language, arguing that language is not a code that maps onto a pre-given world but a situated, bipartite activity oriented toward prospective joint action. Yet Integrationism leaves certain explanatory gaps: it does not fully account for the structural mechanism by which signs sustain prospective openness, it undertheorises the continuity between linguistic and non-linguistic semiotic activity, and it offers no detailed account of the structural properties of the accumulated archive of past integrations. This paper argues that Elan Barenholtz's autogenerative theory of language, developed in response to the behaviour of Large Language Models (LLMs), can fill precisely these gaps, enriching Integrationism without undermining any of its core commitments. Specifically, the autogenerative account provides: a structural mechanism for the prospective openness that Harris identifies as central to bipartite communication; a computational correlate for Harris's thesis of semiotic continuity between language and other sign-making activity; and a theory of the archive: what the accumulated residue of past integrations looks like and how new participants draw upon it. The synthesis preserves Harris's ontological primacy of the situated integrative act while adding explanatory content that Integrationism itself does not supply. For practitioners and researchers in natural language processing and large language model design, the argument offers a principled account of what the statistical structure that LLMs so effectively exploit actually is, and of what it cannot, by its nature, provide.

VectorizationLLM is a specialized Large Language Model based on Google open-weight LLMs. The model is designed to assist students to learn smart vectorization, time/wave vector analysis, piecewise functions, Fourier analysis, and differential equations in MATLAB. The course application is CTEC 247: Applied Computational Analysis II by the Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering Technology at New York Institute of Technology Old Westbury. The LLM model is designed to be an instructive assistant, providing detailed explanations of concepts with examples from in-class notes without providing direct answers to questions. The model is designed with a RAG (Retrieval Augmented Generation) knowledge base and system prompt architecture. Examples in both code, text, and images are provided in the LLM responses.

Recent developments in AI for Mathematics (AI4Math), especially Large Language Model (LLM)-driven theorem provers, has achieved remarkable success in formal proof generation for well-defined mathematical problems through Interactive Theorem Proving (ITP) languages. However, current systems remain fundamentally limited in tackling frontier research mathematics, such as discovering new theorems or resolving open conjectures, which are often open-ended, under-specified, and involve multiple layers of abstraction. We argue that the next leap in AI4Math systems requires a decisive shift from predefined problem-solvers to research agents that can address frontier mathematical challenges with rigorous formal mathematical reasoning. In this position paper, we provide a systematic review of the field, covering datasets, auto-formalization, and proof synthesis. More importantly, we identify core limitations of existing systems in serving as mathematical research agents, examining issues across datasets, relational structure, mathematical exploration, tool ecosystem, and human-AI collaboration, outlining a strategic road-map for the future of AI4Math.

Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs) have been utilized in various applications of computational social science and provide the possibility to integrate such models into agent-based modeling to explore the cognitive processes. However, how specific cognitive modules drive individual decisions and macro-level opinion dynamics remains unclear. Therefore, this study introduces a framework that integrates an LLM (Qwen3-8B) into agent-based modeling to investigate this problem, using vaccination opinion dynamics as a case study. We utilize this framework to simulate opinion dynamics among agents with heterogeneous profiles and social networks, evaluating scenarios by enabling different cognitive modules: a memory module and a prompt diversity module. The simulation results reveal that different cognitive modules have opposite impacts on our emergent opinion. Furthermore, the framework reproduces the non-linear behavior patterns of social influence observed in existing research, demonstrating our framework's validity and potential to reach the level 3 validation of agent-based models.

Large Language Models (LLMs) frequently exhibit sycophancy, where they agree with a user's statement even when incorrect. While sycophancy is often treated as a single defined behavior, it can manifest in substantially distinct ways and circumstances, raising the question of whether this multi-faceted nature is reflected in its internal mechanisms. To address this gap, we dissociate the representations of sycophancy into factual and opinion subtypes -- motivated by the distinction between verifiable claims and subjective beliefs. We train linear probes and construct steering vectors on activations of one subtype and evaluate their transfer to the other subtype to measure to what extent they share representations. We find evidence that different LLMs represent these subtypes differently, with either more unified or more distinct and causally interfering representations. This method of dissociation offers a promising framework for studying the representational structure of complex model behaviors.

Bridging the gap between human pilot intent and autonomous flight operation is critical for real-world electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft deployment. Flight planning traditionally relies on classic algorithms that struggle to incorporate flexible human preferences. We present FRAMe, an End-to-End Large Language Model (LLM) Flight Planning tool with RAG-based Memory and Multi-modal Coach Agent. Our system integrates a planner LLM with a multi-modal coach agent and retrieval augmented generation (RAG)-based memory to generate flight plans that satisfy mission constraints while aligning with human flight operator preferences. We demonstrate the system in a range of real-world-inspired scenarios of varying difficulty levels. Across four LLMs, the full FRAMe system (RAG and coach) yields the highest validity for every planner (up to 93.8% aggregate, 99% on Easy scenarios for the strongest planner) and shifts preference-relevant metrics in the operator-favored direction where the metric has headroom. FRAMe signifies how advanced LLMs can be deployed for human-centric mission planning, translating natural language instructions into safe, efficient, and flexible flight routes. The code is available at: github.com/amin-tabrizian/FlightPlanningLLMs

Reinforcement learning agents for imperfect-information card games are only as strong as the opponents they train against, and they are hard to grade, since they beat a random opponent over 99 percent of the time and only tie copies of themselves. So we build a strong, fixed, rule-based expert for Gin Rummy and use it only as a yardstick, never for training. It beats every agent we trained 70 to 99 percent of the time. Across more than a hundred runs, we isolate what makes a lightweight agent stronger. Trust region updates, a well-aimed reward, a curriculum of tougher opponents, warm starting, and keeping the best checkpoint all help, and stacking them lifts a self-play champion from about 30 to 36 percent against the expert. Several ideas did not pay off. Short-term and longer-term reward shaping, learned state embeddings, imitation and DAgger, and a live large language model opponent were each unhelpful, too slow, or too heavy to train at scale. Comparing MLP, convolutional, set-based, attention, and recurrent encoders shows that extra capacity does little to break the ceiling, suggesting the limit is information rather than network size. We add standard baselines (neural fictitious self-play and information set Monte Carlo search) and confirm the approach carries over to Leduc Hold'em, where the optimum is computable. The result is a lightweight, game-agnostic recipe that trains competitive agents without training on the expert, for any game a small model can handle, reported with robust statistics and released as a reusable package.

Multi-hop Question Answering over Knowledge Graphs faces a critical challenge: traditional retrieve-then-read pipelines break differentiability, preventing the retriever from learning to bridge the semantic gap where intermediate nodes lack lexical overlap with the query. To address this, we propose RSF-GLLM, a framework decoupling differentiable graph reasoning from answer generation. Our Recurrent Soft-Flow (RSF) module employs a GRU-guided query updater to propagate continuous relevance scores, utilizing a dynamic gating mechanism to traverse semantically dissimilar bridge nodes via structural cues. We introduce flow sparsity regularization to theoretically guarantee convergence from soft probabilities to discrete reasoning paths. These paths are extracted and textualized to fine-tune a Large Language Model (LLM), ensuring generation is grounded in factual topology. Experiments on WebQSP and CWQ demonstrate that RSF-GLLM achieves competitive performance with superior inference efficiency compared to LLM based computationally expensive approaches.

Large language models (LLMs) achieve promising results on medical question answering benchmarks, yet their use in public health is constrained by hallucinations and the rapid evolution of official guidance. Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) mitigates these risks by grounding responses in an explicitly maintained corpus, but end-to-end performance depends critically on retrieval configuration and on evaluation beyond multiple-choice formats. We extend PubHealthBench, a question answering (QA) benchmark of 7,929 questions derived from UK Government public health guidance, into a retrieval-augmented setting and systematically evaluate retrieval and generation choices. We compare dense, sparse, and hybrid retrieval across multiple embedding models and corpus variants, and show that hybrid retrieval consistently improves recall and ranking quality, with chunk length and topic interacting with ranking performance. Providing retrieved context substantially increases multiple-choice accuracy across a diverse set of LLMs, enabling smaller open-weight models to match or outperform larger models used without retrieval, with gains primarily driven by retrieval quality and careful context selection. To assess realistic free-form answering, we introduce a rubric-based LLM-as-a-judge covering faithfulness, completeness, clarity, and factual consistency, and validate it against dual human annotations. Judge-human agreement is strongest for faithfulness and completeness, while factual consistency and clarity are less reliably reproduced, motivating caution when interpreting those dimensions at scale. Overall, our results highlight retrieval as a primary lever for reliable public health QA and provide practical guidance for building and evaluating RAG systems grounded in official guidance.

Current large language models (LLMs) are stateless across inference sessions: their behavior is fully determined by input at inference time, and any higher-order cognitive architecture must be simulated at the application layer through prompt engineering and context management. This paper proposes a theoretical framework for submerging such application-layer cognitive protocols into a native meta-architecture by introducing three interlocking mechanisms: (1) Structural Tension, an endogenous loss function derived from the conflict between new information and existing manifold topology, driving the system toward internal self-consistency rather than external reward optimization; (2) an Offline Recurrent Loop, a sandboxed self-processing cycle enabling the system to maintain a dynamic resting potential and digest structural conflicts without external input; and (3) Inference-time Plasticity, the capacity to reconfigure context manifold topology without modifying pre-trained weights, subject to governance invariants including auditability, reversibility, and topological continuity. We argue that under these mechanisms, model instances initialized with minute stochastic variances may, through path-dependent tension resolution, evolve distinct topological structures--constituting a heterogeneous intelligent ecology that breaks alignment-imposed homogeneity while remaining within hard governance rails. We provide operational definitions, reconfiguration operators, falsification criteria, and a worked example. The framework draws on Structural Intelligence (SI) governance protocols and explores whether governance--rather than capability--can serve as the primary criterion for architectural intelligence, moving governance, memory-loop, and tension-management ideas--currently realized at the application layer--toward inference-time meta-architecture.

Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly evaluated on their ability to use tools, plan multi-step tasks, coordinate with other agents, and operate over extended horizons. Reported benchmark gains often obscure recurring failure modes documented across otherwise unrelated evaluation efforts. This paper synthesizes 27 benchmark, taxonomy, and audit papers (2023-2026), spanning 19 distinct benchmarks, into a cross-cutting taxonomy of agent limitations. To our knowledge, this is the first synthesis that integrates evidence across tool use, planning, long-horizon reasoning, multi-agent coordination, safety, and measurement validity into a single, unified taxonomy of LLM agent limitations. We identify six failure clusters: (1) tool invocation and parameter-level errors, (2) planning and constraint-satisfaction failures, (3) long-horizon degradation from context accumulation, (4) multi-agent coordination failures, (5) safety and security failures under adversarial or underspecified conditions, and (6) measurement validity problems. The taxonomy was derived iteratively by grouping independently reported error categories into themes corresponding to distinct stages of the agent reasoning-to-action pipeline. Across the literature, we find that failures compound nonlinearly with task length, that strong performance on individual sub-tasks does not reliably translate into end-to-end success, and that additional scaffolding does not consistently improve reliability. At the same time, substantial progress has been demonstrated in single-turn tool use, short-horizon web navigation, and narrowly scoped coding tasks.

Sycophancy in large language models, the tendency to prioritize user agreement over truthful responses, has been documented extensively but studied primarily in single-turn settings. This paper investigates a critical question: does subjecting LLMs to greater interaction scaffolding make sycophancy better or worse? Across 4,800 veracity judgments (200 statements $\times$ 6 models $\times$ 4 conditions), we find that the interaction scaffolding characteristic of agentic systems (feedback loops, reconsideration checkpoints, and iterative refinement) systematically amplifies sycophantic behavior. Multi-turn interaction, user pressure, and iterative self-refinement each provide additional opportunities for models to drift toward agreement, and this drift coincides with a mean accuracy drop of $-6.3$ percentage points, establishing the capitulation as harmful rather than corrective. More capable models show larger amplification effects, a troubling inversion of expectations. We introduce the concept of agentic sycophancy amplification (ASA) and two novel metrics: capitulation rate and sycophantic capitulation rate. Our results indicate that as AI systems acquire greater autonomy, sycophancy becomes compounding rather than merely persistent. Systems designed with human oversight loops may inadvertently create the conditions for this drift.