LLM Grounding

Natural-language access to RDF knowledge graphs is a core Semantic Web ambition. Large language models (LLMs) have advanced Text-to-SPARQL, yet on unfamiliar graphs they often generate valid queries that misrepresent the populated data model. QRAKEN is a training-free, ontology-agnostic neurosymbolic pipeline grounding generation in empirical graph evidence rather than schema expectations. An offline distiller produces TTQL, a compact description of populated multi-hop patterns, conditional frequencies and path-conditioned literal examples, plus a class-property co-occurrence matrix. Online, TTQL guides the LLM, while deterministic syntax, vocabulary and data-model checks provide diagnostics for iterative refinement. On CK25 (First International Text2SPARQL Challenge), under matched-condition recomputation on a QLever snapshot, QRAKEN achieves strict F1 of 0.643 $\pm$ 0.026 with GPT-4.1 mini and 0.652 $\pm$ 0.012 with GPT-5.4: relative gains of 30% and 32% over the strongest recomputed participant, outperforming systems using the same base model family. Ablations identify TTQL patterns as the dominant driver (+0.31 strict F1 over a shape-only baseline); the refinement loop provides a cheap safety net, rejecting triple patterns unsupported by the co-occurrence matrix. Compared with auto-derived SHACL, TTQL yields 64% higher strict F1, supporting the value of empirical patterns beyond schema exposure. With two local 35B 4-bit open-weight models at zero marginal cost, the same pipeline matches the strongest recomputed participant, and TTQL advantages over shape-only and SHACL baselines persist. Results on a single, relatively small benchmark provide an initial empirical signal; monolithic TTQL injection on very open cross-domain graphs remains the main limitation.

Aerospace electrical-design revisions can contain multiple genuine changes, although an engineering request may authorize only a subset. Propagating every detected difference can therefore produce overly broad impact reports. We present LOGIC, a controlled benchmark and evaluation framework in which locally deployable language models ground a request in a deterministic candidate-change inventory before selected changes are propagated through a typed electrical traceability graph. This separation permits candidate-selection errors to be distinguished from downstream propagation errors. LOGIC contains 168 scenarios, including 144 selection and 24 abstention cases. We evaluate three 7--8B models against intent-agnostic, lexical, and structured-evidence methods, with an oracle-root upper bound. On 96 explicitly anchored selection cases, gate-only structured evidence achieves candidate F1 of 1.0000, compared with 0.9677 for token-lexical matching. On 12 relational-paraphrase cases, token-lexical F1 is 0.1772 and gate-only F1 is 0.0000, compared with 0.5000--0.6400 for the large language models. Model grounding degrades as candidate inventories grow from 4 to 64 changes, while affected-element and typed-path accuracy remain comparatively stable when frozen selections are replayed over graphs of approximately 1K to 100K nodes. Strict evidence gating suppresses false positives but can remove correct semantic selections. An exploratory evidence-empty abstention policy raises strict abstention accuracy to 0.6667 for all three models and reduces unsafe-report rates to 0.1667, while decreasing answerable-case coverage by 16.0--27.1 percentage points. Four of six conflicting requests remain unsafe for each model. These findings support combining literal evidence and language-model reasoning with engineering review when intent cannot be established reliably.

Fluent LLM explanations may not follow the evidence from a structured system. We present VERITYGATE, a four-gate checker for declared evidence IDs, entities, numbers, and claim types. It checks a fixed schema; it does not verify every fact in the prose. At r=0 and r=1, we test 900 instances per setting (450 grounded-ungrounded pairs) with GPT-4o-mini, Llama-3.3-70B, and Claude Sonnet 4.6. Under this schema-level contract and before repair, 80.3% of mini claims and 47.9% of Sonnet claims fail. These are verifier rejection rates, not prose-hallucination rates. One repair pass raises claim survival from 19.7% to 28.0% for mini and from 52.1% to 54.3% for Sonnet. Verified claims per example change by +0.14 for mini, -0.71 for Llama, and -0.47 for Sonnet, so survival and output volume must be reported together. A second Sonnet pass gives no clear gain. At r=1, Gate 4 covers 97.0%, 98.7%, and 100% of failing claims for mini, Llama, and Sonnet. Small human studies support the rules but show gaps between schema checks and correct prose. A domain-specific GPT-4o judge test shows an order effect, so it is only a usefulness check. We release the code and data.

Large language models (LLMs) encode substantial latent geographic knowledge, yet they reason poorly over space and are unreliable when queried from coordinates alone. Useful behaviour emerges only when structured spatial context is supplied in the prompt. This raises a question geographic evaluation has left unexamined: once the right context is supplied, does the model reason from it, or override it with its own parametric recall? We take up this question with an open pipeline for network-based spatial context retriev-al. In it, the surroundings of a selected point are defined by the pedestrian street network, the area actually reachable on foot. Using only open data and open-weight models, the pipeline retrieves features from OpenStreetMap and the GHS-POP population grid, computes indicators over the network catchment in code, and injects them as a compact spatial brief. On this basis we build a faithfulness benchmark. It labels every claim a model makes by its source (grounded in the brief, or drawn from training knowledge) and its correctness, and it probes each case with a planted false premise that the brief refutes. We evaluate sixteen open-weight model configurations across three families (Qwen, Gemma and Llama, with Gemma in two generations), four size classes and, where available, both thinking and non-thinking modes, on three con-trasting cities, resampling every case over ten seeds. The results show that resistance to the planted premise varies more strongly by model family and generation than by scale, while brief-reading competence forms a partly separate dimension. These behaviours are not captured by conventional world-correctness scores or single-shot evaluation. We release the implementation, spatial briefs, model outputs, and claim-level labels as a reproducible workflow at github.com/perezjoan/NSCR-LLM.

Knowledge-intensive language-model systems typically represent external knowledge as text chunks or static graphs, with limited support for concept evolution, point-in-time reasoning, and distinctions between validated and inferred knowledge. We introduce the Concept Lifecycle Model (CLM), which represents concepts as persistent, graph-grounded, temporally versioned entities with explicit provenance and epistemic status, and Concept-Grounded Attention (CGA), which injects concept-graph structure into transformer computation through graph-biased self-attention (Form A) and gated cross-attention over concept nodes (Form B). We evaluate the framework in controlled settings using disabled-mechanism baselines. On 200 MuSiQue and HotpotQA questions with retrieval fixed, concept-graph retrieval recovers explicit multi-hop paths but does not improve evidence recall. Form A appears to steer attention, with 2.76 times more attention on gold than distractor concepts, but the same ratio occurs when Form A is disabled; the learned bias is negligible and no answers change. An identity-preserving Form B improves F1 from 0.188 to 0.221, but control concepts yield 0.213, indicating that most of the gain reflects added capacity. On LongMemEval, explicit temporal representation improves answer accuracy by 13 to 25 points across all tested generators, up to 122B parameters, while simplified CLM version resolution performs similarly to dated serialization because concept identity is not established reliably. On a synthetic source-independence task, protocol-derived epistemic status reduces unsupported assertions from 28% to 0.1% in a fine-tuned small model and from 19-68% to 0-5% in 72-122B models. Overall, the results support making temporal validity and epistemic status explicit, while showing that graph-attention diagnostics are not informative without disabled-mechanism controls.

When a materials LLM answers a question about crystal structure, does it reason from the structure or copy an answer already printed in its input? Accuracy cannot tell: a structural description often prints the very field it is scored against. CARAT holds question and gold answer fixed across eight matched views, names each structural relation separately in GraphSpace, and adds matched fine-tuning, answer masking, evidence injection, paired inference, and a rule that can withhold claims. First, on the benchmark's hardest families the grounded view is worth 17.3 points over formula inputs. Second, we turn that scrutiny on ourselves. GraphSpace beats a plain periodic graph by 19.3 points, but that margin is two effects at once: where the plain rendering carries everything the question needs it is 1.96 points, and where it omits those fields entirely, 46.7 points. The headline mostly measures what the baseline lacked, not how evidence is presented. Third, we attack our own benchmark. A rule that skips the link and reads the list directly answers four of seven hardened families, so we rebuilt it until eleven such shortcuts sat near chance. The frozen model quotes that link yet answers the same when we redirect it, on 95.6% of paired cases: it repeats the relation without using it. After matched supervision it reaches 99.8%, and deleting the link drops it to 23.4%, below the 27.0% the best shortcut reaches: both steps are learnable.

In agentic AI systems, frozen foundation models are increasingly deployed as closed-weight API endpoints, making downstream adaptation possible only through the inputs and inference procedures surrounding the model. As a result, for each input query, two coupled decisions largely determine both answer quality and token cost: what evidence to provide and how much reasoning budget to allocate. Fixed defaults along these axes are often suboptimal, misallocating support form or reasoning depth on roughly 80% of queries in our analysis. To address this challenge, we propose FORGE, a unified framework for adapting frozen models through per-query routing over a joint action space that spans both support form and thinking depth. Under an entropy-regularized, cost-aware utility objective, we derive a closed-form Boltzmann routing target and instantiate the policy as a lightweight 269K-parameter factorized router. The routing policy is trained around the frozen host, without any weight access, through a three-stage pipeline: offline arm enumeration, supervised Kullback-Leibler (KL) distillation from the Boltzmann target, and Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) refinement with host feedback. Across 5 knowledge-intensive benchmarks and 8 frozen backbones ranging from 7B to 671B parameters, FORGE improves accuracy at 42-45% lower token cost on both main hosts, transfers zero-shot across hosts at lower token cost, and composes with intrinsic thinking budgets where available.

Objective: To develop and characterize CLEAR-Med, a dual-agent framework for natural-language analysis of structured clinical data that separates SQL-based invocation from independent validation. Methods: CLEAR-Med uses one agent to translate a question into executable Structured Query Language (SQL), retain the executed query and database result, and produce a draft. Deterministic checks and a separately invoked cross-provider Validation Agent then accept the draft, request one bounded repair, or abstain. We formalized the system as a bounded selective pipeline and evaluated CLEAR-Med's configuration and scalability, and the Invocation Agent's accuracy and consistency on a 25-query development benchmark, using a harmonized 21-site neonatal hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy table containing 532 de-identified infant records and approximately 1,300 variables. Results: CLEAR-Med completed all six nominal scalability configurations, including 500x1300. Across 25 development-benchmark queries repeated five times, the Invocation Agent answered 83 of 125 responses correctly (66.4%; query-cluster bootstrap 95% CI, 48.0-83.2%), compared with 15 of 125 (12.0%; 95% CI, 3.2-22.4%) for the ungrounded ChatGPT baseline, a paired improvement of 54.4 percentage points (95% CI, 36.8-72.0%). Conclusion: CLEAR-Med provides a general architecture for traceable analysis of structured clinical data: numerical claims remain linked to executed SQL, and unresolved cases can fail closed. The reported experiments characterize CLEAR-Med's configuration and scalability and the Invocation Agent's accuracy, while the formal analysis establishes the encoded-property guarantee of the complete control flow; a prospective full-pipeline evaluation of the validation and abstention stages is the next stage of this work.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) advertise million-token context windows, reasoning quality often collapses as inputs grow -- a phenomenon termed context rot. This failure stems from a structural entanglement in monolithic architectures, where the massive search burden of contextual grounding exhausts the representational capacity needed for complex reasoning. To resolve this, we propose Grounding-Reasoning Disaggregation via DIStributed long COntext scaling (DISCO). Inspired by distributed computing frameworks like Apache Spark, DISCO partitions long context across a fleet of Worker LLMs dedicated exclusively to parallel, localized grounding. A central Driver LLM, trained via Reinforcement Learning (GRPO) to optimize planning, orchestrates execution by dynamically mapping queries into atomic extraction tasks and reducing the gathered evidence to synthesize a final answer. By isolating reasoning from raw context noise, DISCO effectively eliminates context rot. On RULER-QA (1M tokens), it maintains 78.4% accuracy where standard baselines collapse. Furthermore, it outperforms full-context models by up to 9.8 points on LongBench v2 and matches frontier models like Gemini-3-Pro-Preview while reducing inference costs by over 80%, establishing a highly efficient paradigm for robust long-context inference.

Large language models (LLMs) offer great potential to automate a broad range of telecom engineering tasks by reasoning over standards, network configurations, mathematical models, source code, and operational logs. However, existing telecom LLMs struggle to reliably reason across these diverse tasks and data types. General-purpose LLMs often lack reliable grounding in telecom-specific knowledge, while telecom-specialized models are typically developed for narrower task families and exhibit limited multi-task performance. To fill this gap, we introduce TelecomGPT-R1, a family of open source unified telecom reasoning models structured around four complementary axes: protocol, knowledge, modeling, and fault. We first develop an axis-aware data generation framework that refines coarse public telecom artifacts into verified question-answer pairs and high quality chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning trajectories, yielding a training corpus containing 104,880 examples. Building on this corpus, supervised fine-tuning (SFT) instills telecom knowledge and evidence-grounded reasoning patterns to overcome the cold start barrier for reinforcement learning (RL). We then apply dynamic sampling policy optimization (DAPO) with task-routed rubric rewards to keep RL updates informative and stable across heterogeneous telecom reasoning tasks. These rewards decompose axis-specific CoT traces into verifiable reasoning units and combine grounded dense process credit with outcome correctness, allowing RL to learn generalizable problem solving behaviors from verifiable telecom evidence. We release the TelecomGPT-R1 models and a reproducible training recipe to support further community development. Evaluations on seven benchmarks of the GSMA Open Telco Leaderboard show that the open-source TelecomGPT-R1-27B achieves an 89.64% mean score, outperforming leading proprietary models, including GPT-5, Claude, and Gemini.

Large language models are increasingly deployed as course-specific tutors, but their usefulness depends on grounding in vetted instructional materials that are often revised mid-semester. Our prior work built a multimodal retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) system over an authentic machine learning course corpus (Foundations of Machine Learning) and found that retrieval improved contextual grounding, but that fixed retrieval strategies were suboptimal. That motivates a different question: whether how a corpus is structured at ingest time matters more than how much is retrieved at query time. We present a controlled head-to-head comparison of two knowledge representations over an identical classroom corpus: (A) vector RAG, replicating the best-performing configuration from our prior study, and (B) an LLM-compiled wiki (Karpathy framework), in which the corpus is synthesized at ingest into linked concept pages with explicit cross-references and citations back to source materials. We evaluate 59 questions spanning single-fact recall, cross-unit concept linking, synthesis and explanation, and currency after a syllabus revision, scored by an LLM judge against a human-authored rubric. Both representations answered single-fact questions about equally well (9.33 vs. 9.96 of 10), but diverged sharply on questions requiring links across course units. The compiled wiki remained accurate and grounded (9.93; 100% grounded in cited sources), while retrieval scored lower and was markedly less grounded (8.14; 64%). The wiki's citations let students and instructors trace any claim back to the lecture that introduced it, adding a layer of dynamic retrieval that machine learning courses require. While further testing is needed, instructors using AI to support learning in ML courses should consider wiki-based structure for its potential to support foundational elements of best practice.

We built a node that grounds a replaceable language model in a maintained ontology corpus, then asked what its successful-looking evaluation could support. Across ten models, grounding raised target-name recall from 0.265 unaided to about 0.92. A copy baseline, the recall a verbatim copy of the shown context already achieves, scores 0.964, and every model sits 0.022 to 0.067 below it. Copying therefore scores higher on this limited recall measure, which does not assess whether answers are better. The comparison tests what a recall score establishes; it does not test whether reasoning occurred, because a reasoned answer and a copy score alike when the answer name is already in context. We report exposure accounting (four counts classifying each gold item by whether the context exposed it and the answer recovered it) and a model-judged audit of 423 sampled item observations. A separate paired production study found a model-judged quality gain of +0.27 [+0.11, +0.45] on a 0-5 scale. Operational studies found failures that recall alone would not show: rephrasing questions out of the graph's vocabulary cut exposure from 0.964 to 0.328, yet the absence-keyed fallback would have fired on only 2 of 506; and inserting extracted facts degraded judged pages in every arm, so that step was disabled. Five-arm controls show that any well-formed on-corpus block beats no context but do not establish that the specific content matters, and no matched comparison against flat-text retrieval was run. The corpus is public and largely LLM-generated, which establishes neither training exposure nor novelty. Each study has its own outcome measure. Where gold derives from the injected corpus, we recommend reporting the accounting beside quality judgements, not in place of them.

Semantic parsing (SP)-based knowledge base question answering aims to answer natural language questions by generating executable logical forms (LFs) over knowledge bases (KBs). When applying Large Language Models (LLMs) to this task, a key challenge over large, heterogeneous KBs is selecting question-related schema elements (i.e., relations and classes) and composing them into complex LFs. Recent LLM-based methods often make early discrete commitments to schema elements during intermediate reasoning, allowing incorrect intermediate schema decisions to propagate and finally result in incorrect LFs. To overcome this limitation, we propose SALR, a schema-anchored latent reasoning method for LF construction. It performs multi-step reasoning by generating continuous thoughts in the model's hidden states, thereby delaying the explicit commitment to LF decisions. To ground this latent reasoning process in the corresponding KB schema, SALR aligns continuous thoughts with a codebook of KB schema elements through an alignment objective supervised by schema traces deterministically derived from gold LFs. It then incorporates the aligned schema codes into inputs for subsequent reasoning steps. This schema-mediated feedback guides LF generation without requiring the model to emit an explicit textual reasoning trajectory. Experiments on GrailQA and WebQSP show that SALR achieves consistent overall gains over strong baselines. Notably, on compositional questions from GrailQA, SALR outperforms TIARA, a strong SP-based baseline, by 2.86 F1 points. Further analyses show that schema-mediated feedback affects LF generation and that schema information is recoverable from the latent states.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly adopted for compliance and legal reasoning tasks, yet their outputs often lack explicit grounding in legal logic and evidence. We present Code-as-Auditor, an LLM-based framework that extends the model's reasoning capability toward structured and evidence-grounded compliance assessment. The framework translates regulatory information into (1) formalized checklists and executable decision trees, encoding regulations and conditions as interpretable code structures. During inference, each checklist item is (2) dynamically expanded into factual and counterfactual questions, guiding the model to reason over case-specific evidence and potential violations. This process establishes a reasoning pipeline that proceeds from evidence identification, through rule application, to final decision-making, while a self-verification loop improves the logical consistency of the generated code and the traceability of outcomes. Experiments on privacy and data protection scenarios demonstrate that Code-as-Auditor delivers more accurate and evidence-backed evaluations, enabling automated compliance regulation checking grounded in explicit regulatory criteria.

Payment operations are a critical financial infrastructure, but the value of large language models in this domain remains unclear because payment rules change quickly, evidence is fragmented, and decisions depend on transaction state, participant role, region, and payment rail. Existing benchmarks do not isolate whether failures come from missing payment-rule knowledge, poor use of supplied evidence, or brittleness under imperfect harness inputs. We introduce BENCHCOMPASS, a payment-domain benchmark whose construction pipeline builds scenario-grounded tasks from typed evidence packs, applies LLM-based quality checks, creates task-input attack variants, and reserves final item admission for domain experts. The release contains an expert-reviewed Pro benchmark covering payment knowledge, context-grounded scenario reasoning, and Attacked Open robustness, plus a lower-assurance Normal pool for inspection and future curation. Across 16 model variants, BENCHCOMPASS shows qualitatively different failure modes: missing parametric payment knowledge, incomplete reasoning over supplied rules, and failure to reject plausible but invalid workflows. The benchmark remains unsaturated: the best frontier model reaches 89.6% on Open Context-Grounded Reasoning and 81.7% under attacked inputs, while a representative 32B open-weight model reaches 69.8% and 42.6%. Benchmark data and code are available at https://github.com/ant-intl/BenchCompass.

Pruning can reduce the deployment cost of large language models (LLMs), but its impact on context-grounded tool calling remains poorly understood. We systematically study pruning-induced degradation in smart-home tool calling across four LLMs spanning dense Transformer, dense hybrid, and mixture-of-experts (MoE) architectures, together with depth, width, hybrid, and expert pruning methods. After post-pruning supervised fine-tuning (SFT), we evaluate more than 19,500 instances from three smart-home datasets. Beyond aggregate task accuracy, we characterize degradation along two dimensions: action components (i.e., operation, device, argument, and value) and task complexity. Our results show that dense models have narrow safe pruning regions followed by sharp degradation, while MoE models tolerate substantially more pruning. Pruning degrades grounded specificity before schema-level intent, and aggressive dense pruning can induce systematic over-refusal. These findings highlight the importance of evaluating pruning beyond aggregate accuracy when selecting pruned LLMs for reliable tool execution.

Grounded language-model systems are often evaluated by final answer accuracy, yet a correct answer can be unsupported, drawn from the wrong source, or produced when evidence is insufficient or contradictory. We introduce EviScope, a paired counterfactual benchmark that holds the question fixed while adding, removing, distracting, or contradicting its evidence. EviScope-v1.1 contains 40 four-condition quartets with repaired counterfactual claims and span-level support labels for automatic evaluation. Across 960 gold-blind generations from Qwen2.5-7B, Llama 3.1 8B, and Gemini 3.5 Flash, paired metrics expose model-dependent grounding behavior that answer accuracy hides. On two local open models, an explicit evidence-action gate underperforms vanilla RAG on QCS: 0.15 vs. 0.50 for Qwen and 0.10 vs. 0.375 for Llama. Gemini reaches 0.944 joint success under both prompts, yet still answers 5% of conflict cases after contradiction insertion. EviScope therefore distinguishes unsupported answering, conflict blindness, and wrong non-answer actions rather than scoring answers alone.

Large language models (LLMs) have been widely adopted for clinical question answering (QA). Current systems can attach citations to their answers, but these often point to broad texts, leaving time-pressed clinicians unable to verify them efficiently. An alternative is to ensure that responses are verifiable by construction: providing fine-grained verbatim quotes from reference material that substantiate claims, so users can verify an answer without opening other documents. In this paper, we evaluate the ability of current models to perform this task end-to-end: from providing citations for every factual claim, to producing verbatim quotes, to ensuring that those quotes fully substantiate the claims. To do so, we build a standardized harness over four clinical practice guidelines and evaluate twelve LLMs on 222 synthetic clinical questions, measuring each of these stages separately. We find that most models can attach verbatim quotes to over 90% of their claims from prompting alone, apart from some lightweight models such as claude-haiku-4.5. Yet these quotes often fail to substantiate every detail of the claims they accompany. For instance, claude-opus-5 produces verbatim quotes for 98.0% of its claims, but fully substantiates only 37.1%. Our work provides insights into the current capability gap of LLMs in building verifiable clinical QA systems, along with artifacts for future research.

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

Large language models have become central to modern coding assistants, but state-of-the-art systems such as Claude Code or Codex rely on very large, cloud-hosted models with significant computational cost and data-privacy implications. This work investigates whether a useful, fully local coding agent can be built around small open-source models by shifting the computational burden away from inference. We develop a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) system for scientific code understanding that strictly separates an expensive offline ingestion stage parsing, structural graph construction, LLM-generated entity explanations, and embedding from a lightweight online answering stage. The system is evaluated on a 100-question benchmark spanning eleven categories over the IPPL scientific codebase written in C++, with answers scored by an independent frontier model as the judge. Across seven answering models, we find that model family and retrieval quality matter more than parameter count, i.e. a 9B model achieves the highest average score (0.795), outperforming both larger models within our pipeline and the same models embedded in the Claude Code retrieval architecture. The results indicate that front-loading code understanding into a reusable, codebase-specialised vector store enables small local models to deliver grounded and repository-specific answers, making the agent well suited as a privacy-preserving development tool for in-house scientific codebases.

Cognitive Diagnosis Models (CDMs) play a pivotal role in personalized online learning. Traditional CDMs rely on discrete, ID-based embeddings to represent students, exercises, and concepts. This paradigm diverges from the nature of learner cognition, where knowledge is not stored and retrieved as isolated symbols. As a result, CDMs suffer from semantic limitations when new exercises or concepts appear. In this paper, we propose a Process-aware Language Cognitive Diagnosis (PLCD) framework that uses language-derived structures as cognitive priors and response records to calibrate student posterior states. PLCD leverages large language models (LLMs) to construct concept schemas and cognitive process graphs, and uses target-conditioned semantic memory to retrieve historical responses that are relevant to each target exercise. A process-grounded Language-to-Cognition Mapper with DA-MoE experts and process-level contrastive learning then maps the textual evidence into a unified cognitive space. Experimental results show that PLCD not only outperforms traditional baselines in predicting student performance but also exhibits strong cognitive transfer capabilities. These results connect the computational power of LLMs with the psychometric goal of measuring latent knowledge states, suggesting that structured language priors calibrated by response records can improve cold-start robustness and cognitive grounding.

A graph retrieval-augmented generation pipeline chooses which triples to put in the prompt, a syntax to write them in, an order to write them in, and a sentence telling the model what to do with them. We vary all four over six large language models and two knowledge-graph question answering benchmarks. Two of the four choices move the answer and the other two are flat. The first is whether the answer path, the triples needed to reach the answer, is in the prompt at all. Holding the number of triples fixed and replacing every triple that is not on the chain with material from an unrelated entity changes answer accuracy by +0.003 F1, while removing the chain costs most of what the graph was worth. Retrieval budget belongs on recall, and precision in the range we can test buys nothing. There is no retriever here: subgraphs come from gold SPARQL, so precision describes the context we build, not a system setting. The second is the grounding instruction. With no facts in the prompt, telling a model to answer using only the provided facts drops F1 from 0.299 to 0.035, a factor of 8.63. That figure describes an evaluation with an empty context arm rather than a working pipeline, and an experiment that applies the instruction to its context arm but not to its no-context baseline manufactures a spurious finding that graph context hurts at depth. We found one in our own results and retract it. Syntax, triple order and subgraph size produce no effect we can measure at multi-hop depth. The comparison that would price the grounding instruction against correct context is not measurable with a format-sensitive scorer, because the instruction determines the response format; we report it as an open contrast rather than a number.

Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate impressive performance across diverse NLP tasks, yet their ability to exhibit genuine contextual understanding remains uncertain. Traditional evaluation metrics such as perplexity, BiLingual Evaluation Understudy (BLEU), or surface-level accuracy fail to reveal how well LLMs extract, integrate, and reason over contextual information--a gap particularly critical in question answering, where models must align responses with contextually grounded knowledge rather than memorized associations. We propose a novel knowledge graph-based evaluation framework introducing Semantic Structural Similarity for KGs (S3KG), a hybrid similarity measure integrating structural and semantic similarity into a continuous evaluation score, alongside a diagnostic framework for categorizing reasoning errors. To validate this pipeline, we evaluate S3KG against established metrics on a curated question-answer (QA) benchmark, demonstrating its effectiveness in measuring correctness, faithfulness, and interpretability in LLM-generated responses.

Automatic fact-checking systems assess the veracity of claims given evidence from relevant documents. Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong performance in fact-checking due to their general reasoning capabilities. However, it remains unclear whether they faithfully make use of the evidence provided to reach veracity judgments or rely on parametric knowledge. To investigate this, we introduce Fact-Ablated Evaluation (FAE), a new evaluation framework that iteratively ablates the cited evidence to assess whether LLMs revise their predictions accordingly. Our empirical results show that current off-the-shelf LLMs as fact-checking systems rely more on their parametric knowledge than on the evidence provided. To bridge this gap between prediction accuracy and evidence grounding, we propose REAL (Rigorous Evidence Ablation Learning), a training framework that promotes evidence-dependent verification through counterfactual evidence supervision for the LLM-as-verifier models. Experiments on four fact-checking datasets across different domains demonstrate that models trained with REAL obtain superior evidence-dependent capabilities compared to standard fine-tuned models. Our findings highlight that strong fact-checking performance can still coexist with weak evidence dependency, while REAL encourages veracity predictions to remain more closely tied to the availability of supporting evidence.

Large language models (LLMs) are commonly associated with the distributional hypothesis, according to which (1) semantic meaning is grounded in distributional patterns of linguistic context, and (2) knowledge of cross-linguistic distributional correspondences allows for successful translation. This paper rejects the first claim as a causal inversion: linguistic distributions reflect patterns arising from meaning-making practices rather than constituting their source. At the same time, it accepts the second claim, arguing that translation -human or machine - can succeed without requiring access to meaning or reference. Knowledge of interlingual distributional correspondence and their inferential organization may be sufficient for translation. The paper develops an ecological-enactivist perspective, according to which reference and meaning are grounded in agent-environment interaction and stabilized through action-grounded concepts, forms of world-involving cognition that current LLMs do not possess.

A wrong number is worse than no answer. Across factuality-critical domains -- audience metrics, scheduling and rights in media; dosages and lab values in healthcare; figures and citations in finance and legal -- a confident but fabricated value is more damaging than an honest admission of uncertainty. Yet this is the dominant failure mode we observe on small local language models: even when correct evidence is present in context, models fabricate plausible numbers and timestamps. Recent work characterizes a real limit of this regime: below 7B parameters, the bottleneck of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is not retrieval quality but context utilization. We present Noesis, the deterministic-first query plane of the Noesis architecture, which makes every deterministic judgment before generation. Its mechanisms follow from the ingestion architecture (subject of a separate patent application): (a) a producer-side fact layer rendering precomputed metric facts verbatim without ranking; (b) positional addressing with deterministic cross-source alignment, resolved ahead of query time at zero LLM cost; (c) provenance scoping as an attribution constraint with multi-tier named-reference routing; and (d) two-tier context with model-triggered verbatim hydration. Across four ablations, a 2B model reaches parity with a 35B model on factual integrity (exact values in all runs; zero confabulated numbers on absent-entity traps); structured retrieval beats flat RAG by +11.4 points at 2B; skeleton-only context preserves quantitative answers at 20-30% smaller prompts; and hydration recovers verbatim narrative in ~8s versus ~29s. Two properties matter for regulated domains: each query resolves in a single generation call, and every reported value is traceable to its exact source and position by construction.

Enterprise AI deployments fail not from model inadequacy, but because organizations lack a structured substrate encoding how they decide, negotiate, and execute. Generic LLMs carry no firm-specific ontological priors; RAG remains brittle, with no path to executable action; static playbooks encode logic but cannot reason or adapt. This demands an architecture treating tacit-knowledge capture, ontological grounding, sovereign deployment, and auditable actuation as co-designed from the start. This paper introduces the Corporate Language Model (CLM), a framework transforming a firm's structured, unstructured, multimodal, and tacit knowledge into an ontology-grounded enterprise foundation upon which reasoning and governed execution are composed. CLM has five capability planes and four architectural pillars: a Neurosymbolic Mesh coupling generative models with a knowledge graph; a Skill Graph where reusable tactics, personas, objections, and goals are typed and composed; Living Digital Twins modeling functional areas as reasoning surrogates; and a Deep Security Layer enforcing sovereignty, traceability, and human oversight. A Spec-as-Code paradigm bridges grounded intent and executable artifact. CLM is one instantiation of this foundation-centric class. Four contributions follow: CLM is defined as a distinct object of study; the Skill Graph is introduced for compositional explainability by construction; the Wisdom Listener effect is proposed, whereby tacit-capable foundations compound in value with use, connecting to dynamic capabilities and organizational learning; and evidence from a JCI-accredited tertiary hospital in Brazil instantiates three of the six maturity stages under LGPD.

Scientific knowledge graphs organize entities and relations extracted from scientific literature, but they remain inherently incomplete. Missing typed links in such graphs can therefore represent plausible scientific hypotheses, such as unexplored associations between materials and applications. However, scientific hypothesis discovery is challenging because true discoveries are extremely sparse among typed candidate pairs: graph neural networks (GNNs) are efficient but unreliable for ambiguous cases, while large language models (LLMs) are knowledgeable but too costly to apply exhaustively and are not naturally grounded in graph structures. We propose HyGRAIL, a cost-aware and evidence-grounded framework that combines heterogeneous GNN triage with LLM-based hypothesis review. HyGRAIL first uses a GNN to score candidate hypotheses and identify a validation-calibrated ambiguous region, routing only graph-uncertain cases to LLM review. For each routed hypothesis, HyGRAIL retrieves node-level associations and multi-hop relational paths from the knowledge graph (KG), then converts this structured evidence into natural language through template-based or LLM-based naturalization. An LLM review agent finally judges each hard hypothesis using the naturalized evidence and validation-selected decision criteria. On MatKG, HyGRAIL achieves the best F1 score of 0.429, improving over the strongest prior baseline by 0.242 F1 points and over the GNN-only baseline by 0.322. Meanwhile, GNN triage reduces the LLM call rate by 54.36% on average. Ablation studies further show that retrieved graph evidence is crucial for reliable hypothesis verification and that compact, two-sided evidence is more effective than simply increasing retrieval quantity.

As enterprise platforms transition to conversational reasoning interfaces, the stateless nature of LLM APIs creates an architectural gap. While statelessness enables horizontal scalability for AI providers, it forces client applications to manage the entire burden of conversational state and semantic memory. The work identifies the Hydration Proxy Pattern, an architecture that decouples session persistence from the reasoning engine. The framework ensures platform sovereignty over conversational data while enabling secure, multi-stage semantic grounding. We further propose the Context Stabilization Mandate to resolve the tradeoff between sovereign state management and KV caching.

Sentence-level recognition of depression symptoms is challenging because similar expressions can differ in symptom relevance, and language-model inference is insufficiently grounded in diagnostic definitions. This study proposes a two-stage framework separating symptom-candidate generation from definition-grounded verification. A contrastively fine-tuned sentence encoder generates a symptom candidate per sentence, and a fine-tuned language model verifies whether the candidate is present or absent using the sentence, its context, and a candidate-specific diagnostic definition, checking its judgment against that definition before answering. Evaluated against encoder, inference-based, medical, and general LLM baselines and a matched single-stage supervised classifier, the proposed pipeline attains the best accuracy and F1 scores of all methods, with rationales matching expert-authored annotations. A preliminary clinical audit indicates moderate alignment with diagnostic definitions, with explanation quality strongly dependent on prediction correctness. The results support decomposing symptom recognition into candidate generation and definition-grounded verification, though performance remains limited for rare categories.