LLM Grounding

A small language model can receive the governing statutory provision and still answer incorrectly. We test whether fine-tuning on examples containing relevant law improves later use of retrieved law. We curate 2{,}165 bilingual QA records from six Bangladeshi acts and three schedules, then fine-tune Qwen3.5 at 0.8B, 2B, and 4B. Evaluation uses the 2022 and 2023 Bangladesh Bar Council exams in Bangla and machine-translated English, with no retrieval, BM25, or FAISS, scored by strict consistency over three seeded runs. At 0.8B, fine-tuning raises the 2022 English FAISS score from 2 to 34 of 100. Gains at 0.8B and 2B survive paired testing, but the 4B model has no detectable net gain: Bangla improves while several English conditions regress. Fine-tuning also reduces answers that drift from Bangla into mostly English from 44.0--53.2% to 0.2--0.7%, with adjusted $p<.001$ at every scale. Retrieval quality is therefore not the only bottleneck. Small bilingual legal models also differ in how they use supplied law and whether they answer in the requested language. The dataset is publicly available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/momahadi/bangladesh-legal-qa-dataset.

Computational nutrition needs precise ingredient data, but current databases are incomplete, inconsistent, and built for human reference rather than automated reasoning. LLMs could help fill these gaps, but single-pass outputs are unreliable and can introduce silent errors into downstream computation. We present a quality-controlled LLM pipeline for ingredient data acquisition that combines robust statistical estimation, domain-specific invariant checks, and a web-fetch fallback. An illustrative Heap's Law fit to 233 recipes suggests that unique-ingredient growth is sub-linear and front-loaded: the projected ratio of unique ingredients to recipes falls from 1.74 at 100 recipes to 0.19 at 5,000. For each ingredient attribute, repeated LLM queries are treated as samples from a model-induced answer distribution, and we apply robust point estimators and normalised confidence scores across numerical, Boolean, multiple-choice, open categorical, and optional integer types. An invariant guard layer enforces nutritional and logical self-consistency within each ingredient record. Minor numeric inconsistencies are reconciled via a linear program that minimises worst-case percentage deviation while preserving semantic zeros, and major violations are escalated to web-evidence-grounded repair, then human review only if that fails. On a curated 30-ingredient reference set, the pipeline achieves 98.4% exact match on nutrient flags and cuts median absolute percentage error on nutrient ratios from 31.9% for the median-aggregated baseline to 10.1%, a reduction of 21.8 percentage points, at an API cost of about $1 per ingredient. This frames LLM-assisted database construction as a controlled data-engineering workflow that makes uncertainty operational rather than discarding it.

Search-augmented language agents should retrieve external information only when necessary and ground their answers in retrieved evidence. Existing external rewards provide either sparse outcome supervision or richer feedback from process annotations and LLM judges. Outcome rewards scale readily but cannot distinguish grounded retrieval from redundant search, whereas richer signals require costly annotation or inference during training. Internal rewards based on policy-side signals such as entropy, likelihood, or information gain are graded and inexpensive to evaluate, yet mainly reflect model confidence rather than evidence grounding. We propose Search-G1, a representation-based intrinsic reward framework that measures the operational grounding of an agent's answers through two intervention-calibrated readouts. A prompt-state readout predicts closed-book sufficiency, whose complement defines policy-relative retrieval necessity; an answer-commit readout estimates evidence reliance from answer-stage sensitivity to evidence deletion. Together, they provide additional credit to correct searched trajectories when retrieval is estimated necessary and the answer is evidence-sensitive, favor correct direct answers when closed-book knowledge suffices, and penalize repeated search. After calibration, reward scoring requires neither process annotations nor LLM-as-judge inference during policy optimization. Because reinforcement learning changes policy representations, Search-G1 periodically refits both readouts on trajectories from the latest checkpoint, allowing the reward to co-evolve with the policy. Experiments across multiple search-based question-answering benchmarks and two model scales show that Search-G1 improves the grounding--search-cost trade-off, producing shorter response-side trajectories at competitive task accuracy. Code is available at https://github.com/Rosy0912/Search-G1.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate long-form conversational content such as podcasts from textual sources. While these systems produce fluent and engaging narratives, they often introduce ungrounded information. In this work, we present the first systematic study of faithfulness in document-grounded podcast generation, where grounding must be maintained across conversational turns in long-form, multi-speaker transcripts. We construct a dataset of over 1500 documents spanning five domains and generate podcast transcripts using multiple LLMs. We introduce a turn-level LLM-as-a-judge framework for evaluating whether conversational turns are supported by the source document, and validate its reliability through human studies. Our analysis shows that even state-of-the-art models, including GPT-4o, frequently generate ungrounded content. To mitigate this issue, we propose catch-n-repair, a model-agnostic framework that detects and rewrites unfaithful conversational turns while preserving conversational flow. Experiments demonstrate consistent improvements in faithfulness across both in-domain and out-of-domain settings.

Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly leverage long-form reasoning to solve complex tasks, yet their reasoning processes can deviate from the provided context when evidence is incomplete, noisy, or conflicts with parametric knowledge. Existing grounding approaches either append citations after generation or encourage LLMs to retrieve evidence during reasoning, but they often fail to ensure that cited information is sufficient to support intermediate inferences and final answers. To address this limitation, we propose REFACT, an adaptive fact-restatement citation framework that enables LLMs to determine when contextual grounding is needed and selectively restate source facts at appropriate levels of detail for reliable reasoning. To facilitate adaptive citation during reasoning, REFACT first leverages a teacher LLM to construct high-quality citation-aware reasoning trajectories under diverse context conditions with varying evidence lengths, and then optimizes the student LLM through a two-stage SFT-to-RL framework. Experiments on LongBench, LV-Eval, and ConFiQA demonstrate that REFACT improves long-context question answering and counterfactual faithfulness while substantially reducing the number of reasoning tokens. Further analysis reveals that REFACT achieves higher evidence density by preserving more answer-relevant facts with fewer restatements, producing reasoning traces that are more concise yet better grounded. All code and data will be released via https://github.com/NEUIR/REFACT.

Large language models that generate step-by-step reasoning traces have achieved strong performance on complex tasks, and extending them to long-context settings has emerged as an important frontier. However, we identify a critical failure mode in this regime: \emph{repetitive copying}, where models extensively copy text from the input into their reasoning traces rather than productively solving the problem. We show that this behavior is pervasive across frontier long-context LLMs and intensifies with context length. By separating each prompt into task-relevant key evidence and irrelevant distractor context, we further show that the root cause is insufficient grounding: models copy from the prompt indiscriminately, and those that fail to focus on key evidence are far more likely to answer incorrectly. Motivated by this diagnosis, we propose GEAR (Grounding Evidence-Aware Reward), a reward shaping method that augments the accuracy signal with a grounding reward for overlap with key evidence and a distractor penalty for overlap with irrelevant context. To enable GEAR on natural-language data, we develop an automated pipeline that constructs evidence-annotated training data from arbitrary documents. We validate GEAR across multiple model scales and benchmarks, showing consistent improvements of up to +4.6 average points over standard RL with accuracy-based rewards, with larger gains at longer contexts, while also reducing repetitive copying and thinking length. Our findings suggest that, even as long-context evaluation shifts from simple retrieval toward complex reasoning, accurate grounding in relevant evidence remains an indispensable capability with substantial room for improvement.

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.

Evaluating machine learning in scientific domains requires separating correct predictions from correct reasons under realistic distribution shifts. We introduce PertReason, a knowledge-grounded benchmark and framework suite for cell-state--conditioned reasoning about perturbation effects. At its core, PertReasonQA is a benchmark that tests whether models can generate mechanistically faithful explanations while remaining robust to complex shifts, such as new cells and unseen perturbations. PertReasonQA combines single-cell genetic and chemical perturbation data across multiple cellular contexts with knowledge graphs, and dynamically conditions pathways on cell-specific basal states to avoid generic memorization. Evaluations on state-of-the-art models reveal systematic gaps between predictive accuracy and mechanistic reasoning. Specifically, these models exhibit failure modes largely invisible to standard benchmarks, such as deriving correct answers through flawed logic, ignoring cellular context, and generating directionally inconsistent mechanisms. As a reference probe of the benchmark, we present PertReasonLM, a large language model trained to align outcome predictions with context-specific mechanistic reasoning. Our model targets the identified failure modes by grounding rationales in context-specific pathways and tightening agreement between outcomes and mechanisms. Together, we provide a diagnostic framework for exposing and mitigating failures in faithful reasoning in data-rich scientific systems.

Automated fact-checking remains a challenge for Large Language Models (LLMs) due to "query brittleness" in traditional retrieval systems. We propose DeLIVeR (Decomposed Learning for Information-grounded Veracity Recognition), a framework that treats evidence retrieval as a reinforced strategic exploration task. DeLIVeR utilizes a Planner LLM to decompose complex claims into targeted question sets, which are used to traverse structured Knowledge Graphs (KGs) for high-precision evidence. We optimize the Planner's policy using Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) with a reward system prioritizing structural diversity and verdict accuracy. Our evaluation on LIAR, FEVER, and PolitiFact shows that DeLIVeR significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines. Using Qwen2.5-7B, our framework achieved peak F1-scores of 83.73, 84.57, and 79.70 respectively, representing a 10-15% improvement over HippoRAG2. By shifting to a reinforced question-planning strategy, DeLIVeR effectively bridges multi-hop reasoning gaps and provides an auditable, transparent path for verifiable misinformation detection.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly considered for environmental enforcement, but their ability to produce traceable enforcement decisions remains unclear. We introduce WuYu-EnvLE-Bench, a benchmark built from real enforcement cases, regulatory standards, and expert review. It contains 2,521 benchmark instances, 14 tasks, and 12 pollution-medium subdomains across pre-enforcement, in-enforcement, and post-enforcement workflows. Using Absolute Environmental Enforcement Score (AES) and Intelligent Enforcement Index (IEI), we evaluate open-source and closed-source LLMs across capability, response quality, and resource efficiency. Results show that LLMs perform well on rule-bounded tasks but remain unreliable in evidence-chain construction, contradiction detection, multi-source integration, and procedural judgment. Model scaling also shows diminishing returns: medium-sized models approach leading models in structured tasks, while larger models do not reliably overcome evidence-reasoning bottlenecks. WuYu-EnvLE-Bench highlights the need for evidence-grounded, rule-aware, and task-adaptive enforcement reasoning.

Large language model (LLM) agents offer a generative approach to simulating human behavior under conditions that may have few or no direct historical analogues, a common challenge in disaster and infrastructure-disruption planning. However, this generative capacity creates a validity problem: individually plausible agent reasoning may fail to reproduce empirical population behavior. We evaluate whether empirical grounding improves the statistical realism of LLM-agent simulations during disruptions. Specifically, we develop an empirically grounded LLM-agent framework that embeds demographic profiles from the American Community Survey, baseline routines from the American Time Use Survey, and urban spatial context into agent initialization, memory, decision prompts, and activity execution. An independent household survey conducted during the July 2024 Philadelphia heatwave is reserved as an external validation benchmark. Compared with an ungrounded LLM-agent baseline, the grounded model improved reconstruction of normal daily routines, increasing mean correlation with empirical activity profiles from 0.528 to 0.912 and reducing mean squared error from 0.066 to 0.008. Under heatwave conditions, the grounded model better reproduced survey-derived activity profiles, increasing mean correlation from 0.349 to 0.836 and reducing mean squared error from 0.098 to 0.012. The grounded model captured 46.4% of observed heatwave response amplitude, compared with 20.6% for the ungrounded baseline. These findings show that empirical grounding can make LLM agents more statistically credible simulators of population behavior while revealing remaining gaps in modeling human adaptation during disruptions.

Large language models confabulate chemical objects (molecular formulas, space groups, formation energies) in fluent reasoning traces, concentrated on long-tail entities where confidence is least trustworthy. Deterministic, database-grounded verification can catch and repair such errors without the coverage cost of blanket retrieval; the binding constraint, we find, is detection, not repair. Our tiered verifier extracts each checkable claim, checks it against authoritative databases and physics, and feeds the reference into a gated correction loop. Across four models and 528 condition-pinned prompts, gated correction cuts committed-formula error from 22% to 4% at $3.2\times$ fewer retrievals than blanket augmentation, beating a conversational oracle. Repair succeeds wherever a flag fires (80--97%); the bottleneck is in-loop detection recall. Grounding improves the final answer only when the verifier's scope reaches the deliverable (83% to 90%), and the lift appears only where extractable long-tail error exists: absent on near-ceiling physical constants, large on isotope half-lives (11% to 0%).

Large language models encode world models implicitly in neural weights, which exposes four structural risks in high-precision domains such as medicine and finance: hallucination, frozen knowledge, poor explainability, and poor modifiability. This paper proposes data-first ontology: LLMs are treated as reasoning and language engines, while deterministic knowledge is moved into an explicit multimodal database, DaoQL. We formalize an explicit world model and show that, under rule independence, deterministic evaluation, and fixed conflict resolution, explicit models provide a sufficient condition for composable counterfactual decomposability; implicit models lack atomic read/delta semantics and therefore provide no comparable architectural guarantee. The implemented system focuses on DaoQL's verified storage layer and explicit Eval path, integrating graph, column, vector, and full-text engines within one process. KVCache graph nodes, expert hot updates, and the DaoQL-Agent runtime remain future work. On an embedded same-machine setup, DaoQL reports graph BFS at 1.20 ms, HNSW at 83.1 us, and a Fluent hybrid query at 105.8 us; these results indicate engineering potential but must be interpreted with deployment-shape differences from client-server systems. Exploratory measurements on LDBC SNB SF1 and ANN-Benchmarks further show 34/34 query coverage with interactive-class queries mostly in the sub-millisecond to millisecond range, but only 1.8 QPS overall due to long-tail BI/IC queries; ANN-Benchmarks reaches Recall@10 >= 99% at thousand-level QPS after a bridge-edge protection fix. In a five-domain counterfactual experiment (n = 1250), DaoQL+GPT-4o achieves 94% composable counterfactual decomposability, 49 percentage points above GPT-4o alone. The paper explicitly separates provable structure, preliminary empirical evidence, and architectural roadmap claims.

Autoregressive multimodal large language models (MLLMs) suffer from error snowballing: a single incorrect inference early in a chainof-thought (CoT) trace corrupts all downstream reasoning. We find that in state-of-the-art open-source MLLMs, once the first error occurs, the reasoning cascades into failure across all remaining steps in 65% of such cases (a metric we term the snowball rate). Existing mitigations-sampling multiple chains, post-hoc self-verification, or full program synthesis-either lack symbolic grounding, catch errors too late, or sacrifice the flexibility of natural language reasoning. We propose Constraint-Anchored Reasoning Traces (CART), a neuro-symbolic framework that trains MLLMs to interleave natural language reasoning steps with symbolic constraint assertions: lightweight, machine-checkable statements about visual content (e.g., count(red_objects) = 3). A dual-pronged Constraint Propagation Module-combining a learned neural grounding head with Boolean Constraint Propagation-continuously verifies these anchors against extracted visual features and checks their mutual logical consistency. When a contradiction is detected, a backtrack controller halts generation and reverts to the last consistent checkpoint, preventing error propagation. A variable-frequency emission mechanism allows the model to adaptively control anchor density, avoiding trace bloat. We construct 218K training instances by augmenting GQA, CLEVR-CoGenT, and VCR with ground-truth constraint annotations derived from scene graphs, and fine-tune open-source MLLMs (LLaVA-NeXT, Qwen2-VL) via LoRA. On five benchmarks, CART reduces the snowball rate from 0.65 to 0.14, improves GQA accuracy by +4.6 percentage points over trainingonly baselines, and achieves 89.1 F1 on POPE-all with at most 18% inference overhead.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to automate data-processing workflows, yet coding agents typically produce scripts that are not automatically materialized as persistent, editable platform artifacts. We call this disconnect the \textit{NL2Pipeline gap}. To bridge it, we introduce \textsc{DataFlow-Harness}, a platform that guides an LLM agent to construct platform-native directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) through typed, incremental mutations rather than free-form scripts. The platform combines \textsc{DataFlow-Skills} for procedural guidance, a Model Context Protocol (MCP) layer that exposes the live operator registry and current pipeline state, and \textsc{DataFlow-WebUI}, which synchronizes conversational authoring with a visual DAG editor. On a 12-task data-engineering benchmark, \textsc{DataFlow-Harness} achieves a 93.3% observed end-to-end pass rate. Relative to Vanilla Claude Code, it reduces measured monetary cost by 72.5% and generation latency by 49.9%; its observed pass rate is within 0.9 percentage points of the Context-Aware Claude Code baseline while its cost is 42.8% lower. Per-task analysis indicates that Skills are most useful when construction depends on implicit procedural knowledge. These results show that live platform grounding can produce persistent, editable workflow artifacts with an observed reliability close to script-generation baselines and with lower measured construction cost and latency.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong reasoning performance, but their tendency to hallucinate limits their reliability in knowledge-intensive tasks requiring up-to-date and grounded information. Combining knowledge graphs (KGs) with LLMs facilitates the use of explicit symbolic knowledge that can be continuously updated without costly fine-tuning, while benefiting from rapidly advancing LLM reasoning. We propose MARS, a scalable knowledge graph question answering (KGQA) approach that requires no model fine-tuning. Rather than relying on open-ended agentic exploration, MARS performs a structured retrieval procedure that links question entities to the KG and iteratively retrieves relevant next-hop information. At each step, MARS decides whether to continue graph traversal or to generate the final SPARQL query, allowing the model to adapt the retrieval depth to the question while keeping the overall pipeline more predictable than fully agentic approaches. We evaluate MARS on three established KGQA benchmarks across several LLMs and settings, including multilingual evaluation, and provide insights through ablation studies and error analysis. Our approach achieves competitive performance relative to state-of-the-art methods while remaining efficient and scalable. The evaluation results, code and resources are publicly available: https://github.com/dice-group/mars-kgqa.

Complex knowledge base question answering (KBQA) is commonly approached through either information retrieval over a question-specific subgraph or semantic parsing into an executable logical form. We study the latter paradigm. Recent large language model agents make semantic parsing interactive: they alternate between reasoning, querying the knowledge base, and extending a partial SPARQL query. This interleaving reduces reliance on one-shot generation, but makes the quality of \emph{KB grounding} depend on what the interaction tools expose. Existing agents retrieve or prune candidate properties mainly through lexical relevance and instance-level observations, without systematically conditioning on entity types, property domains and ranges, or the expected answer type. We call this failure mode \emph{type-blind grounding}. It enlarges the grounding search space and often produces plausible-looking but semantically incompatible triple patterns that execute to empty results. We propose SAGA (\underline{S}chema-\underline{A}ware \underline{G}rounding for \underline{A}gentic Text-to-SPARQL Generation), a training-free framework that turns property exploration into a schema-constrained grounding operation. SAGA maintains a persistent bidirectional type state, filters known-incompatible property candidates at construction time, presents the remaining graph patterns in a compact schema-annotated format, and handles missing schema information permissively through empirical and trace-local evidence. Across nine benchmark settings over Wikidata and Freebase, SAGA achieves the highest F1 on all nine settings and the highest exact-match accuracy on eight, while reducing empty-result queries across all reported Wikidata settings.

Large language models are increasingly deployed in agricultural decision-support settings, yet high-stakes crop protection in smallholder agriculture requires more than output-quality benchmarks. Over a two-year design and evaluation programme, we formalise policy-constrained large language model assessment as an adaptive compute allocation problem that jointly captures safety compliance, helpfulness, operational latency, and expert supervision workload. We introduce P-EVAL (Policy-grounded Expert-calibrated VALidation protocol), a unified evaluation framework for policy-grounded decision support, evaluating the architecture on a simulated field query database consisting of 1,240 cases. The protocol is instantiated on the Pezego advisory architecture (Pezego-HITL) and evaluated in Ghana. Following offline judge calibration against gold-standard human expert decisions ($κ= 0.77$), we evaluate the architectural performance under simulated query workloads. Under P-EVAL, our memory-routed architecture improves the Policy Alignment Rate (PAR) to 0.94 and the Agronomic Utility Rate (AUR) to 0.95, while reducing P95 latency by 55% (from 28.6s to 12.9s) through a 59.6% cache reuse ratio. We also demonstrate generalisability using the open-source \texttt{Qwen3.5-9B-DeepSeek-V4-Flash} model, achieving a PAR of 0.86 and a 54.5% latency reduction (to 10.2s). To evaluate practical utility and socio-technical integration, we administer detailed questionnaires to Ghanaian Extension Services Officers ($N=30$) and smallholder farmers ($N=36$). Taken together, this work demonstrates how policy-grounded structured retrieval-augmented generation with validated-memory routing makes safety-utility-latency trade-offs explicit, offering a scalable template for trustworthy AI-driven extension in smallholder farming systems.

Language models encode substantial factual knowledge in their parameters, which can lead to unreliable behavior when this knowledge is outdated, incomplete, or misaligned with the provided context. In this work, we study whether modifying the pretraining signal can systematically shift models away from parametric recall and toward evidence-grounded reasoning. We introduce Knowledge--''Less'' Language Models (KLLMs), a fundamentally different epistemic training paradigm for LLMs, which are pretrained on corpora in which named entities are anonymized, thereby removing a primary channel for entity-linked factual supervision. This intervention substantially reduces closed-book factual recall, while often improving performance on tasks where relevant information is provided as context. Across multiple model scales, KLLMs consistently outperform matched baselines on contextual question answering, fact verification, and hallucination detection benchmarks. Crucially, in retrieval-grounded settings with imperfect evidence, KLLMs show improved robustness and achieve up to 20--25% relative gains over standard language models. They further exhibit better calibration, with improved ECE, Brier score, and AUROC, as well as more reliable abstention behavior. Our results demonstrate that suppressing entity-linked supervision during pretraining induces a shift in epistemic behavior: KLLMs rely less on parametric knowledge and more on external evidence, leading to improved reliability under realistic conditions. This suggests that pretraining-time control over knowledge acquisition can complement retrieval-augmented and tool-based systems by providing a more evidence-sensitive base model.

Evaluating the multi-hop reasoning capabilities of large language models remains a significant challenge. Although current models achieve strong results on existing multi-hop question answering datasets, such performance often masks two critical vulnerabilities: (1) reliance on internal parametric knowledge rather than adherence to the provided context, and (2) exploitation of dataset shortcuts, such as single-document cues or type-matching, that diminish the need for genuine evidence aggregation across multiple documents. We introduce CRiT-QA (Counterfactual Reasoning with Traps), a dataset explicitly designed to address both limitations. To neutralize reliance on memorized knowledge and enforce strict context dependency, CRiT-QA transforms factual reasoning chains with counterfactual entities. Furthermore, it injects multi-anchor distractor chains, plausible but incorrect reasoning paths that diverge at different hops. These traps require models to follow the entire reasoning process rather than exploiting shallow heuristics. Our experiments show that LLMs exhibit substantial performance degradation on CRiT-QA compared to standard datasets, exposing their vulnerability to counterfactual conditions and distractor traps. CRiT-QA thus serves as a rigorous diagnostic tool for evaluating genuine multi-hop reasoning and provides a foundation for developing more reliable, evidence-grounded LLMs.

Regulated financial institutions operating under data-residency rules need tenant-owned language models that can run inside the institution's perimeter. This paper combines two related FAOS studies into one mechanism-and-control article. First, it reports a reduced-power proof-of-mechanism study of ontology-amplified distillation: a Qwen3.6-27B student is adapted to the Foundation AgenticOS ontology through supervised fine-tuning on frontier-teacher trajectories and ontology-grounded direct preference optimization (DPO), trained locally on a single Apple M5 Max from 47 synthetic, English-language, cross-domain preference pairs. On 40 held-out Vietnamese financial-domain tasks, the distilled student grounds 36 of 40 tasks (grounded rate 0.90; mean ontology term-coverage r_onto = 0.95 on a metric floored at 0.50), equal to the GPT-5 frontier baseline, which also grounds 36 of 40. The outcome is underpowered to establish equivalence: the paired-difference 95% confidence interval spans +/-4 tasks, and the run does not test or show the pre-registered amplification prediction that the student should exceed the frontier. Second, the paper consolidates a contextuality-audit method for enterprise-agent routing. In a separate negative-results pilot, the corrected canonical Contextuality-by-Default degree is zero for all Phase 1.3 groups in both the local-Qwen run and an explicitly labeled Gemma replication check; the useful signal is direct influence and construct coupling, not surviving residual contextuality. Together, the studies pair an ontology-grounded model-building mechanism with a governance diagnostic for deciding when apparent disagreement should trigger prompt standardization, multi-agent synthesis, or human review. The evidence supports neither deployability, safety, superiority, statistical equivalence, nor a contextuality-positive routing rule.

Large language models produce chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning that appears logically sound yet may not genuinely depend on its stated premises. We introduce interventional grounding audits, a black-box, step-level test of premise dependency: we intervene on a single premise by substituting its target predicate with a fresh symbol, re-run the model, and check whether each reasoning step's normalized conclusion (canonical predicate form) changes. We evaluate on ProntoQA, a synthetic multi-hop deductive reasoning benchmark with gold proof trees, where step-level premise dependencies are known. Applied to 50 ProntoQA problems with GPT-4o, our method achieves F1 = 0.806 on detecting proof-tree dependencies (F1 = 0.885 on predicate-determining dependencies; Recall = 100%), significantly outperforming a self-consistency baseline (F1 = 0.343; 95% bootstrap CIs non-overlapping). We further identify that 66% of correctly-solved problems contain at least one aligned step insensitive to a direct proof-tree dependency under consistent substitution -- all involving entity-introduction premises, a documented blind spot of the consistent-substitution evaluator -- a "right answer, wrong reasoning" signal invisible to passive methods. All audit certificates, raw outputs, and reproduction scripts are available in a public GitHub repository, and we discuss scope limits beyond formal, parsable benchmarks.

Form 8-K filings are the primary channel through which U.S. public companies disclose material events, but the SEC item codes attached to them are coarse: a single item spans routine administrative changes and chief executive departures, and many of the most market-moving disclosures fall into a catch-all item. Large language models make fine-grained labelling feasible at corpus scale, but only if the labels can be traced to the source text and shown to be reliable. We present a two-stage system that tags 8-K disclosures against a three-tier taxonomy of 119 event types. The first stage constrains output to valid taxonomy entries and anchors every tag to a verbatim quote via fuzzy n-gram validation; the second re-grades each cited quote against the category definition to produce a quality score. Applying the system to 292,984 filings from 2022 to 2026 yields 601,088 grounded event tags, which we release. Over 5,125 stratified tags, an LLM judge finds precision rises monotonically with the quality score, from 12% to 96%, while unsupported tags fall from 8% to near zero. Ablation shows the score is calibrated only when assigned in a dedicated second pass. An event study on unsigned abnormal returns confirms, without any language model, that the taxonomy separates economically distinct events sharing an item code.

How should language interface with a world model's discrete symbol system? The dominant paradigm -- end-to-end injection of LLM/VLM features into robot world models (RT-2, Octo, PaLM-E) -- implicitly assumes that language gradients can directly shape physical symbol representations. We ask whether this assumption is safe, find that it is not, and characterize the minimal architectural constraint that prevents the failure. Any language gradient entering a Gumbel-softmax-based discrete symbol bottleneck forces a structural trade-off: the vanilla estimator collapses to 2.2/64 symbols (4/5 seeds), while five anti-collapse strategies maintain diversity but fail to learn semantic labels (all <= 9.2% accuracy). No tested GumbelBottleneck variant achieves both objectives simultaneously. Within this family of discrete bottlenecks, the failure is structural rather than a matter of optimization. We characterize a sufficient set of three constraints that prevent the failure: (1) cut the gradient chain (z.detach()), preventing language signals from reaching the symbol bottleneck; (2) provide a gradient-free semantic channel -- a non-parametric Memory Table (Dict[symbol -> Counter[label]], zero parameters, zero gradients) where co-occurrence counting replaces gradient-based binding; (3) handle symbol collisions via DP-Means streaming clustering for automatic sub-cluster splitting. All three layers together achieve 97.2% grounding accuracy vs. 22.2% without Layer 3. Across two experiments spanning 74 independent runs, we demonstrate zero symbol collapse in all 32 seeds, with the blackboard achieving 79-100% semantic binding across three encoder architectures (CNN, V-JEPA 300M, CLIP ViT-L), two environments, and three texture conditions. The fix trains fewer than 2M parameters and requires no LLM fine-tuning.

There is relatively little, public, and model-ready data on industrial machinery for African economies. This makes it hard to do quantitative analysis or to train language models on numeric tasks grounded in that setting. We release two things to help with part of this problem. The first is the Nigeria Machinery Usage and Failures Dataset: 89 machine-level records across 28 indicators, covering Nigeria's manufacturing and oil and gas sectors from 2006 to 2025. Every record names a public source and is decoded by a codebook. The second is a method for building chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning examples from these sparse numeric values. The result is 94 prompt, completion, and reasoning-trace rows. In every row, the prompt names the real indicator, subsector, year, and source of the record it comes from. The data adaptation work was carried out by Adaption Labs. Along the way we describe a problem that is common when language models are used to build datasets. The prompts can match the real numbers while saying nothing about the real domain. We show that fixing this raises the share of domain-grounded prompts from 1 out of 78 in an earlier release to 94 out of 94, and that every retrieval answer now matches its source value (84 out of 84). We release the data, the reasoning layer, and a per-row provenance file under CC-BY-4.0. We are clear about the limits. With 89 records and 17 indicators that have only one observation, this is a reference and seed dataset, not a large training set. Most reasoning rows are retrieval rather than multi-step computation.

Autonomous AI agents can execute complex tasks with limited human review, yet they often lack the grounded operational knowledge to make their outputs not just executable but correct, secure, and maintainable. We introduce SkillCenter, to our knowledge the largest open skill library for agents by total count: 216,938 structured skills across 24 domain bundles. A SkillGate-filtered pipeline contributes 114,565 source-grounded skills from peer-reviewed journals, ArXiv, and over 24,000 technical sources, integrated with 102,373 community skills from GitHub and the ClawHub marketplace. We present the end-to-end framework that builds the pipeline subset: multi-source acquisition, an LLM-based quality gate (SkillGate), template-driven generation, iterative source-grounding, and quality-controlled publishing. Source grounding is a traceability guarantee: each retained claim maps to an exact quotation in its source. All skills ship as offline-searchable SQLite FTS5 bundles.

Large language models frequently generate code that appears correct on typical inputs yet fails on edge cases, invalid inputs, and other specification-defined corner conditions. A popular fix has the model write its own tests and repair until they pass, but the source of the gain is unclear: does it come from the tests merely existing, or from their grounding in a specification of what the code should do? We isolate this factor. Holding the tester, test budget, and repair loop fixed, we change a single prompt line that controls whether the tester receives the spec as a checklist of rules. The baseline is strong: it is already told to probe invalid inputs and edge cases. Grounding the tests in the spec produces correct code +38 percentage points more often than this baseline across three Claude tiers (Haiku 4.5, Sonnet 4.6, Opus 4.8), and +36 points on a held-out set. Grounding, not test quantity, is the primary driver: doubling the test budget barely helps, and combining eight independent ungrounded suites plateaus far below grounding. An ablation isolates the spec's content, not its format: given the spec as a plain paragraph the tester recovers 27 of 30 bugs, but asked to plan tests without the spec it recovers only 2 of 30. The effect survives stronger baselines: a property-based generator catches 28 of 30 bugs but invents out-of-spec requirements, and an AlphaCodium-style loop only matches the baseline. It replicates across vendors (GPT-5.3-codex +28, Gemini 3.5 Flash +19), with a task-level sign test over 18 tasks significant at p=0.002. Grounding improves both sensitivity and precision: it catches more real bugs and wrongly rejects far less correct code, cutting the false-alarm rate from 33% (68% against a Python standard-library oracle) to 0%. On well-specified algorithmic problems it neither helps nor hurts.

LLMs enable the integration of external conceptual resources at inference time, creating new opportunities for detecting ideologically and historically complex phenomena such as antisemitism. We investigate how different forms of conceptual grounding affect antisemitism detection and explanation behavior across four state-of-the-art LLMs. Using two expert-annotated datasets, we compare definitional, fine-grained taxonomic, example-augmented, and large-context representations of antisemitism. We find that fine-grained taxonomic representations substantially improve recall, while simultaneously reducing precision. Surprisingly, supplying substantially larger conceptual resources yields no additional quantitative benefit. Post-Holocaust antisemitism poses the most persistent challenge across models and configurations. Analysis of explanations further reveals systematic limitations including overproduction of conceptual references, reliance on lexical cues, overconfidence, and difficulties with subtle or justificatory forms of antisemitism. Our findings highlight both the potential and the remaining limitations of conceptually grounded LLMs for antisemitism detection and reasoning.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) reduces but does not eliminate hallucination, and existing detectors return a single answer-level score that does not indicate which sentence is unsupported, or why. To close this gap, we introduce Grounding-Aware Sensitivity by Perturbation (GASP), a span-level detector that scores each answer sentence by how strongly its likelihood depends on the retrieved evidence, a quantity we term grounding sensitivity. GASP holds the answer fixed and re-scores it under the full context, under no context, and with each chunk removed, then measures the log-likelihood drops and Jensen-Shannon divergences (JSD). The likelihood of a grounded sentence collapses once its supporting passage is removed, whereas a hallucinated sentence is almost unaffected, a contrast we interpret by casting decoding as a random nonlinear iterated function system (RNIFS). We evaluate GASP on three benchmarks (RAGTruth, TofuEval, RAGBench) with three instruction-tuned scorers from two model families (Qwen2.5-0.5B, Qwen2.5-1.5B, and SmolLM2-1.7B) under a leakage-clean protocol. On RAGTruth it reaches a response-level area under the ROC curve (AUC) of about 0.73 and a span-level AUC of about 0.67, improving significantly over perplexity and by clear margins over length, whole-context natural language inference (NLI), and self-consistency baselines. The only baseline competitive at the span level is a well-configured chunk-level entailment verifier, which requires a separate model, whereas a training-free threshold on the grounding features matches the trained classifier without labeled data and serves as the default detector. Beyond RAGTruth, the signal transfers to TofuEval but not to short-answer question answering in RAGBench, showing GASP is best suited to outputs constructed from the retrieved context rather than answers recoverable from parametric knowledge.

Cross-lingual retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is often deployed in an English-evidence regime, where users query in diverse languages but retrieved passages remain English. In this setting, generation can fail despite strong base models: English evidence induces language drift (English or code-switching outputs) and models use evidence unreliably when producing non-English answers. We attribute these failures to two post-training challenges: (i) errors are prefix-dependent, so fixed-trajectory supervision suffers from prefix mismatch; and (ii) sequence-level (partly discrete / judge-based) rewards yield noisy credit assignment and high-variance updates. We propose TR-RAG, a teacher-regularized RL recipe that couples reward optimization with on-policy distillation on student-visited prefixes. A compact student samples on-policy answers, while a stronger frozen teacher is queried only on those prefixes and provides a prefix-wise student-to-teacher reverse-KL anchor. We further introduce a reward decomposition for English-evidence multilingual generation, combining language consistency, character 3-gram recall, and an LLM-judge score for evidence-grounded correctness. Across three benchmarks (BioASQ-ENKB5, Hotpot-ENKB5, and naturally multilingual MKQA) and two backbones, TR-RAG improves the composite of language adherence and evidence-grounded correctness over strong baselines. Crucially, the teacher anchor acts as a safety net: on in-domain languages it prevents the large language-consistency collapses (up to ~27 percentage points) that reward-only RL can suffer by drifting below even the base model, while on distant out-of-distribution languages, where reward-only RL stalls at the base model's ceiling, it still improves evidence grounding; and on character 3-gram recall the compact student sometimes surpasses its 70B teacher.