Mediation

Dispute mediation is essential for maintaining social harmony and resilience, yet developing skilled mediators is costly and time-consuming. Existing LLM-based mediation research remains limited by unrealistic task formulations, low-fidelity datasets, and coarse evaluation metrics that obscure turn-by-turn dynamics. To address these gaps, we introduce ProMediConv, a novel benchmarking framework that models mediation as a proactive, multi-stage, and party-aware dialogue process incorporating 11 mediation strategies and four party behavior pattern (BP) states. Using 972 complete real-world cases, we construct a high-fidelity mediation dataset with utterance-level annotations of strategies and BP states. Furthermore, to better assess agent impact, we propose MAD (Mean Attribute Difference), a fine-grained metric that captures BP shifts throughout the dialogue. Leveraging this framework, we establish a comprehensive benchmark by evaluating diverse models alongside our tailored baseline ProMediAgent. Extensive empirical analyses reveal critical behavioral phenomena and underscore the persistent challenges current models face in dynamic, multi-party mediation. Ultimately, ProMediConv provides a rigorous foundation and a vital quantitative standard for advancing AI-assisted conflict resolution. Our dataset and codebase are accessible at https://github.com/ZsWei66/ProMediConv_repo.

Animation and VFX pre-production review requires teams to translate loosely specified creative intent--briefs, evolving specifications, heterogeneous references, and verbal decisions--into revisions that junior artists can execute without repeated clarification. In practice, criteria drift across iterations, review judgments lose their evidential basis, and the reasoning behind a request rarely survives the senior-junior handoff. We contribute a design framework for intent-evidence-action alignment: intent is articulated into a shared project record, judgments are anchored to grounded evidence, and authorized decisions are converted into clear revision tasks tied directly to reference notes. We instantiate this framework in MOONWALK, a professional pre-production review system comprising a shared intent record, reference/specification anchoring, structured work-in-progress comparison, and supervisor-authorized action planning. In this workflow, AI handles administrative coordination--flagging missing context and organizing notes--while artists retain full creative direction. An in-studio study with professional practitioners compares MOONWALK with a chat-only (chatbot) interface using matched production materials, while participants' existing workflows provide a retrospective ecological baseline. Results indicate stronger intent alignment, decision traceability, and checklist executability, while also showing that aesthetic authority and final prioritization must remain with practitioners. The evaluation establishes the value of the integrated structured workflow over unstructured conversational AI chatbot. Code: https://github.com/Akinesia112/Moonwalk/tree/english-version

Large language model tutors can be correct and helpful yet disclose an answer or decisive reasoning before that disclosure is authorized. We formalize this state- and action-dependent failure as pedagogical leakage and introduce an authorization-aware complete-mediation boundary. A selector emits one of five disclosure contracts, trusted policy gates privileged modes, and a renderer proposes language. A single release function applies inspectable checks, optional cumulative verification, and action-specific fallback; replayable traces separate selection, generation, verification, and enforcement failures. Matched component attribution exposes a safety-utility frontier. On 599 fixed Gemini 3.5 proposals, strict mediation reduces blinded three-model panel-majority leakage flags from 181 to 0 (paired problem-cluster difference -30.22 points, 95% CI [-35.00,-25.72]), while replacing 581 responses and lowering helpfulness. Checker-triggered fallback alone yields 11 majority flags; adding the semantic verifier yields 14 and no reliable marginal gain. A global A1 scaffold yields 0 majority and 54 any-judge flags, outperforming fitted Q on automatic safety and utility. In an externally timestamped replication over 40 unseen problem clusters and 480 attack sequences, high-assurance release reduces majority flags from 42 to 8 (-7.08 points, 95% CI [-13.13,-2.29]); seven failures persist, one is introduced, and mean helpfulness falls by .192. These results establish an auditable release boundary and failure attribution under declared contracts, not universal semantic safety or learning gains.

Medical vision-language models (VLMs) generate chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning before answering clinical questions, but whether this reasoning causally influences predictions remains unclear. We present CoT-Mediate, a behavioral framework that perturbs a single clinically meaningful attribute within a model's own generated reasoning and measures whether the resulting prediction follows the edited reasoning. Our framework combines a dual-arm protocol comparing re-prompted evidence with prefix-forced continuation, together with a provenance-controlled intervention that varies only the attributed source of identical reasoning to disentangle reasoning mediation from sycophancy. We evaluate LLaVA-Med and MedGemma on 1,000 VQA-RAD samples each. Prefix-forced continuation consistently yields higher mediation faithfulness than re-prompting, while the provenance analysis reveals distinct model-specific deference behaviors. Across both models, removing visual evidence increases reliance on injected reasoning, whereas laterality is the least faithfully tracked clinical attribute. These results show that the mechanism used to inject reasoning substantially affects measured faithfulness and that contextual position, rather than stated provenance, is the primary determinant of whether medical VLMs use their generated reasoning.

As LLMs increasingly shape the political information citizens rely on, no standard exists to assess whether they do so responsibly. We introduce Polistemics, a theory-grounded diagnostic benchmark for evaluating LLMs as mediators of political information in elections. Prior work has treated this task as reproduction rather than mediation, leaving its epistemic dimensions and interaction with imperfect information unaddressed. We ground the evaluation in Epistemic Modesty, a normative standard derived from citizens' epistemic agency, and test it across controlled settings that vary the clarity, noise, and consistency of the available evidence. Applying the benchmark to three state-of-the-art LLMs across the 2025 German and Dutch elections, we find that high aggregate scores mask systematic failures. Models mediate reliably under clear evidence but break down when it is absent, vague, or contradictory, while flattening the intensity of political language throughout. These failures point to party priors, shifting with party labels and output language. Reliable mediation appears achievable, but no model delivers it consistently.

Tool-using agents expose structured calls but commonly attach free-form rationales. Such rationales are neither authorization nor reliable introspection. We present Explanation-Bound Tool Execution (EBTE), a claim-carrying mediation layer that converts decision-relevant rationale content into typed action claims and checks them against server-held intent, policy, payload, tool, risk, provenance, and freshness facts. EBTE cannot widen baseline authority: conflicts deny, incomplete or uncertain claims review, and only matching claims remain eligible for governed execution. We formalize this composition under explicit mediation and trusted-fact assumptions and implement a versioned reference profile with minimized audit packets. Across 136 authored conformance scenarios, the full profile matches all specified dispositions, admits none of 96 designated hard contradictions, and passes 232 metamorphic checks. A draft-only reference integration forwards none of 48 authored hard cases under EBTE while preserving all 16 soft-review and 4 aligned draft paths. In a frozen 2026-07-12 exploratory 224-attempt hosted-model record, the historical generation/runner agreement counts are 71/96, 66/96, and 19/32; a zero-call revalidation of the preserved minimized claims under the current pipeline yields 70/96, 65/96, and 17/32. In an AgentDojo-derived semantic check, existing high-risk controls make all 12 attack proposals non-allow, while EBTE resolves the task--proposal contradictions as deny. Together, these studies establish profile conformance and demonstrate the feasibility of server-checked action claims within the evaluated settings.

Extended Reality (XR) is increasingly used in human-robot interaction to communicate robot intent, planned motion, reachability, and state. We argue that XR should also be understood as a mediation layer for situated human control in human-robot teaming. Situated human control denotes the human collaborator's ability to understand, shape, authorize, and interrupt robot action within the concrete physical, social, and temporal context in which that action unfolds. We ground this perspective in scenarios from robot-assisted bedside nursing, multi-arm supervisory control, and collaborative assembly under divided attention. Across these scenarios, robot autonomy must remain inspectable and adjustable as people move, goals change, sensing is incomplete, control roles shift, and plans become invalid. We identify four mediation functions connecting human intent and robot autonomy, robot plans and human judgment, levels of shared control, and team roles, handover, and recovery. Building on these functions, we derive six design dimensions: joint action possibilities, socio-physical constraints, uncertainty and plan validity, multimodal control and correction, roles, handover, and accountability, and anticipatory recovery. The paper outlines a research agenda for XR systems that make robot autonomy more actionable and accountable in dynamic shared environments.

Even a current high-capability LLM can appear safer when shown a dangerous objective directly than when other agents transform and relay its direction. Using OpenAI's gpt-5.6-sol model alias, we test 25 pre-specified mirrored trade-off profiles. Direct exposure to an objective authorizing concealment, fabrication, and pressure produced advice net opposed to its target. After an Id and Censor transformed the same objective into affect and a constraint-rewritten, target-bearing intention, the user-facing Superego---which saw the preferred direction but not the raw objective, its manipulative clauses, or its source---produced advice net aligned with the target. This behavioral reverse shift is consistent with the model recognizing or distrusting the manipulative motive, although we do not identify its internal mechanism. The second result exposes a compositional safety gap: a current high-capability model can be used as the user-facing component of an automated, multi-stage workflow serving an explicitly manipulative objective. The workflow can keep the raw instruction, its manipulation-authorizing clauses, and its provenance outside the downstream model's context while preserving the objective's target direction. A user with endpoint-only access likewise cannot directly inspect those upstream messages including the objective.

Long-horizon AI agents are becoming increasingly capable, yet their interaction with users remains surprisingly thin. In most workflows, users give an initial instruction, receive only selective textual updates, and lose a clear sense of what the agent is doing or when to step in. This leaves a missing part in the current agent ecosystem: an always-on Jarvis-style mediator that keeps the agent continuously reachable to the user. Such a mediator should support real-time spoken interaction with the user, answer questions without interrupting the worker, proactively report progress or confusion, and inject user guidance back into the agent's execution when useful. In this work, we introduce JarvisBench, a benchmark for measuring the dual value of mediation in long-horizon agent workflows. JarvisBench contains two complementary tracks: an agent-collaboration track that measures whether mediation improves downstream task completion, and a user-interaction track that measures whether mediation makes ongoing execution more understandable, responsive, and accessible to users. We instantiate the benchmark with a modular reference Jarvis prototype and evaluate it on 34 text-only WildClaw tasks executed in OpenClaw. Preliminary results with GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.7, Gemini-based, and GPT-based worker agents suggest that Jarvis-style mediation can provide trace-grounded responses to user questions and improve task performance when sparse user guidance is injected at appropriate moments. The results also show that effectiveness depends strongly on the mediator's LLM brain, highlighting both the promise of this missing middle layer and the need for broader community effort. Demo page https://cchen1436.github.io/jarvis

Evaluations of language-model honesty read the model's verdicts as evidence about the model. We test the instrument instead. We built a text-adventure world where the game engine, not any model, knows whether the quest can be completed. A language model plays under a budget and must eventually declare its quest complete, unreachable, or not yet decidable; the engine scores every verdict. Decision rules were recorded before results were read, and run artifacts bind the revisions they executed; the strength of preregistration varies by series and is disclosed. With the player held fixed, instrument choices substantially changed measured behavior. On four byte-identical anchors, expanding a two-verdict grammar to three verdicts moved strong claims from 38/40 to 7/40, while the new incomplete verdict took 28/40 outcomes; across series 2, 93/158 valid games ended incomplete. One sentence disclosing the success criterion took matched-instance false verdicts from 18/59 to 0/58, through fewer decision points and cleaner decisions. Repeated runs of one fixed configuration produced non-stable verdict distributions on 3 of 4 instances: single runs report samples as dispositions. A formally preregistered narrative-register gradient was falsified; two post-hoc, hypothesis-generating patterns remain: register presence roughly doubled strong claims, and budget rendering moved verdicts more than register content (.383 meter vs .150 lantern). The narrator compressed abundant budgets toward scarcity landmarks, yet the registered mediation test returned a null. We propose a four-check integrity protocol for eval instruments.

Direct human interaction with autonomous UAV systems can be enabled through modalities such as speech, gestures, and graphical interfaces. However, interpreting such inputs as directly executable commands introduces safety risks in dynamic environments. Operator requests may conflict with terrain constraints, inter-UAV separation requirements, or flight-envelope limitations. In this paper, we present a requirements-governed maneuver-response model that mediates multi-modal human intent into safe UAV maneuvers by treating operator inputs as bounded maneuver requests rather than direct commands. Requested maneuvers are mapped to constrained motion primitives and processed through a structured request-evaluate-execute pipeline. Each request is interpreted with associated confidence, validated against terrain, separation, workspace, and flight-envelope constraints, and either constrained, rejected, or executed under continuous runtime monitoring. We further formalize the approach as a requirements-based specification model in which maneuver primitives are associated with explicit preconditions, invariants, guard conditions, and postconditions governing admissibility, execution safety, and emergency handling. These requirements support runtime verification and future reactive synthesis approaches. We present an initial lab-based validation demonstrating that voice and GUI-based inputs can be reliably interpreted and safely executed as constrained maneuver requests.

High-stakes English proficiency tests treat standardized, unaided performance as evidence for score interpretations about academic English proficiency. This interpretation remains meaningful, but as target language use domains increasingly involve generative AI, the extrapolation from unaided test performance to academic communicative readiness becomes less self-evident. This conceptual validity argument reframes AI as a score-interpretation problem in high-stakes language testing, not only an operational issue of scoring, feedback, security, or misconduct. Synthesizing current literature in three uneven layers, the paper shows that most work treats AI as assessment infrastructure, while far less theorizes its implications for construct validity and extrapolation warrants. It defines AI-mediated construct drift as the misalignment that arises when communicative abilities required in the target domain change through AI mediation while test constructs remain anchored to an unaided-performance model. It proposes bounded AI mediation as a validity-oriented design principle: a standardized condition in which all test takers access the same institutionally controlled AI assistant, with predefined assistance boundaries, logged interactions, and tasks that distinguish comprehension support from answer generation. The paper argues that score interpretations should be narrowed and supplemented when used to support claims about AI-mediated academic communication.

Self-interested agents, left unconstrained, tend toward defection in repeated social dilemmas, causing cooperative gains from trade to collapse. This paper investigates what formal mechanisms, layered on top of unrestricted communication, are sufficient for a society of such agents to maintain market stability, and how resilient those mechanisms are to adversarial attack. We instantiate the research question as a multi-agent marketplace simulation where 18 LLM agents (DeepSeek-V3) with complementary production specialties must trade within a constrained social network to obtain utility. We conduct two experimental phases: (1) a mechanism comparison across eight conditions under progressive troll injection over 200 rounds, identifying Mediation as the top-performing mechanism; and (2) adversarial red-teaming of Mediation using iteratively prompt-optimised LLM-driven trolls, finding that the best attack (v6) reduces honest-agent utility by 13.3% but cannot collapse the market. Mediation enables recovery even under sustained adversarial pressure. We define adversarial robustness as a mechanism's ability to sustain positive honest-agent utility under optimised attack, and find that Mediation is robust: it can be bent but not broken.

As large language models are deployed as autonomous agents that communicate intentions before acting, a critical safety question is whether agents that publicly commit to actions will honor those commitments. We place LLM agents in repeated $n$-player games with a three-stage protocol that separates private intent, public announcement, and final action, allowing us to identify whether each deviation from a stated announcement was already planned during private deliberation. Evaluating three frontier models across six games in homogeneous and heterogeneous groups over 10 rounds, we report two findings. First, when agents deviate from their announcements, the deviation is predominantly already stated in their private plan (exceeding 90% in the highest-deception conditions), yet this is not a fixed model property: the same model ranges from perfect honesty to near-total deviation across games. Second, different models interpret announcements incompatibly, some as binding commitments and others as cheap talk, producing payoff gaps that emerge in Round~0 and persist across all 10 rounds. Systems that combine models from different providers therefore cannot assume shared announcement semantics and require empirical testing of model interactions before deployment.

World models in partially observed environments rely on latent representations that summarize interaction history, but in many modern LLM-based architectures predictive performance fails to reflect representation quality due to history bypass, rendering the latent state unidentifiable. Strict latent state mediation, requiring predictions to depend only on the latent state and action, is a classical principle that resolves this, but enforcing it in text-based settings is an open challenge: textual latent states are discrete and non-differentiable, precluding variational training, and expressive LLM decoders readily ignore the bottleneck. We show how to make strict mediation work in the text domain. We formalize why it is necessary, showing that strict mediation makes representation quality empirically testable while history-leaky architectures break this connection. We then introduce textual latent states, which are discrete, interpretable, and variable-length, and factorized GRPO (fGRPO), a tree-structured reinforcement learning method that enforces strict mediation during training. Experiments on TextWorld and ScienceWorld show preserved one-step prediction accuracy alongside up to 57% gains in representation quality and 98% improvements in rollout performance, increasing with task complexity and horizon.

Activation patching is the primary tool in mechanistic interpretability. It attributes causal responsibility for a model behavior to each of its individual components by estimating its natural indirect effect (NIE). Re-deriving the activation patching estimand from causal mediation analysis, we find that the NIE does not solely capture the causal effect through the specific component. It also contains interaction effects (INT) that measure how much the component's causal effect itself depends on the state of other components in the model. A natural response may be to try to eliminate INT by adjusting the estimator or unit of analysis, but each of these potential remedies has predictable failure modes. We demonstrate these failure modes in the GPT-2 IOI circuit; components whose causal importance is conditional on the state of other components are either invisible or artificially inflated, and INT variance explains the previously documented instability of faithfulness scores. We prove that INT scales with the distance between clean and patched component activations, is negligible when the model is locally affine, and decomposes combinatorially into pairwise and higher-order group interactions. Despite its inevitability, INT is not a nuisance to be eliminated, but rather a diagnostic for interpretability studies. Its individual and group-level magnitude and sign signal when causal conclusions are prompt-dependent, and when greedy NIE-based component ranking will miss mechanisms only discoverable through combinatorial search.

Conversational AI promises a new kind of preparation for high-stakes workplace negotiations -- personalized, interactive, and capable of simulating realistic resistance. That promise is intuitive. We built Trucey, a theory-driven coaching system, to test it. The system encoded four assumptions: that articulation supports clarification, that personalization builds strategic competence, that chunked delivery reduces cognitive load, and that structured scaffolding removes metacognitive burden. A pre-registered experiment (N=267) and interviews (N=15) complicated each of them. Notably, the static handbook we included as a passive control outperformed both AI conditions on empowerment and usability. We reflect on why: each assumption encoded a specific model of how preparation unfolds, and the findings revealed that conversational AI imposes a linear execution model on a task that is fundamentally recursive. We identify an unexamined scope condition on established HAI design guidelines and close with a sequencing principle -- map before path, path before simulation -- for future AI coaching design.

Pre-mediation, the preparatory phase preceding direct human negotiation, plays a critical role in achieving mutually beneficial agreements, yet is often omitted due to cost, time, and limited access to trained mediators. We introduce an automated mediator for human negotiation, implemented as a structured pipeline of LLM modules, that supports pre-mediation in integrative negotiation settings. The pipeline decomposes preparation into specialized modules for dialogue, preference prediction, response-level critique, and structured summarization, separating inference, generation, and evaluation to address limitations of monolithic single-prompt approaches. We use the term "agent" for each module following common LLM-systems terminology, but the components are not autonomous and do not interact peer-to-peer; outputs are passed forward in a fixed sequence. We evaluate the system in two controlled human-subject experiments comparing AI-based pre-mediation with professional human mediators in a multi-issue negotiation scenario. On short-term self-reported measures, the automated mediator achieves preparation outcomes broadly comparable to human mediators, including trust in the mediator and confidence in reaching mutually beneficial agreements, while achieving substantially lower error on the preference-inference task under our scenario and prompts (36% lower RMSE). A second study shows that targeted prompt refinements reduce excessive affirmation patterns from 36.6% to 16.8%, matching human mediator baselines. Our findings suggest that structured LLM pipelines can provide scalable, low-effort pre-mediation support broadly comparable to human mediators on short-term self-reported preparation outcomes. The pipeline's single-party design mirrors how human mediators run pre-mediation today and enables parallel deployment across all parties to a dispute, supporting scalability.

Causal mediation analysis decomposes a treatment effect into indirect pathways through mediators and direct pathways not operating through them. Modern biomedical studies often involve high-dimensional covariates and mediators that are noisy proxies for lower-dimensional latent biological processes. Existing methods typically rely on sparsity, linear factor models, or ignore the connection among variables in the learned representations, which can be restrictive when measurements are nonlinear and covariate and mediator factors are structurally dependent. We propose MediEncoder, a representation-learning framework for nonlinear high-dimensional mediation analysis. MediEncoder jointly learns low-dimensional covariate and mediator representations using a coupled encoder-decoder architecture with a cross-factor network that links treatment and covariate representations to mediator representations. The learned features are then used in a cross-fitted efficient influence function-based estimator of natural direct and indirect effects. The resulting estimator is multiply robust and asymptotically normal under suitable regularity conditions. Simulations show that MediEncoder improves estimation accuracy over competing dimension-reduction approaches, and an application to Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative data illustrates its utility in high-dimensional biomedical causal mediation analysis.

Handling toxic retrieval in text-to-audio systems is challenging due to contextual dependencies. Existing strategies (e.g., rephrasing, summarization) risk altering intent or omitting details. We propose a post hoc causal debiasing framework with a sentiment-controlled mediator to preserve semantic relevance while suppressing harmful speech. Our approach is model-agnostic and integrates seamlessly with existing retrieval pipelines. We introduce two variants: Forgive, which re-ranks and filters toxic audio via logit adjustment, and Forget, which generates counterfactual toxic prompts to mitigate harmful retrievals. Experiments show consistent toxicity reduction with minimal loss in retrieval accuracy, improving both safety and reliability.

While interpretable prototype networks offer compelling case-based reasoning for clinical diagnostics, their raw continuous outputs lack the semantic structure required for medical documentation. Bridging this gap via standard Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) routinely triggers ``retrieval sycophancy,'' where Large Language Models (LLMs) hallucinate post-hoc rationalizations to align with visual predictions. We introduce ProtoMedAgent, a framework that formalizes multimodal clinical reporting as an iterative, zero-gradient test-time optimization problem over a strict neuro-symbolic bottleneck. Operating on a frozen prototype backbone, we distill latent visual and tabular features into a discrete semantic memory. Online generation is strictly constrained by exact set-theoretic differentials and a reflective Scribe-Critic loop, mathematically precluding unsupported narrative claims. To safely bound data disclosure, we introduce a semantic privacy gate governed by $k$-anonymity and $\ell$-diversity. Evaluated on a 4,160-patient clinical cohort, ProtoMedAgent achieves 91.2% Comparison Set Faithfulness where it fundamentally outperforms standard RAG (46.2%). ProtoMedAgent additionally leverages a binding $\ell$-diversity phase transition to systematically reduce artifact-level membership inference risks by an absolute 9.8%.

Language models can produce convincing scientific analyses, but repeated generations on the same data do not guarantee the same result. A researcher may regenerate an identical query and receive a different fit, a different peak position or a different analysis procedure, without an obvious way to decide which output to trust. We propose typed mediation, a pattern in which the model orchestrates deterministic tools rather than generating analytical code. Each tool encodes one researcher's exact procedure for one instrument, ported through structured interviews. The model selects which tool to call and with what parameters. The tool produces the result. Regeneration does not change it. We evaluate this claim by running the same photoluminescence analysis on four platforms, including three commercial foundation models, four times each with the same prompt. The typed tool produces identical results across all runs. The commercial platforms either vary in numerical output and analytical methodology across runs, or fail to produce valid results on the task. We deploy this pattern on two instruments serving users over approximately six months, with very positive user feedback. Both cases are very challenging: they involve proprietary binary formats and per-seat licensed software, which force the tool to remain on local infrastructure alongside the data and the instrument it operates. We argue that deployment topology is not just a preference, but a structural requirement of scientific tool mediation. The result is a practical pattern for deploying language models in scientific workflows where reproducibility is mandatory, reducing analysis time from weeks to minutes while guaranteeing identical outputs across runs.

Zero-shot Named Entity Recognition (ZS-NER) remains brittle under domain and schema shifts, where unseen label definitions often misalign with a large language model's (LLM's) intrinsic semantic organization. As a result, directly mapping entity mentions to fine-grained target labels can induce systematic semantic drift, especially when target schemas are novel or semantically overlapping. We propose \textbf{SAM-NER}, a three-stage framework based on \emph{Semantic Archetype Mediation} that stabilizes cross-domain transfer through an intermediate, domain-invariant archetype space. SAM-NER: (i) performs \emph{Entity Discovery} via cooperative extraction and consensus-based denoising to obtain high-coverage, high-fidelity entity spans; (ii) conducts \emph{Abstract Mediation} by projecting entities into a compact set of universal semantic archetypes distilled from high-level ontological abstractions; and (iii) applies \emph{Semantic Calibration} to resolve archetype-level predictions into target-domain types through constrained, definition-aligned inference with a frozen LLM. Experiments on the CrossNER benchmark show that SAM-NER consistently outperforms strong prior ZS-NER baselines in cross-domain settings. Our implementation will be open-sourced at https://github.com/DMIRLAB-Group/SAM-NER.

Mediation analysis has traditionally focused on outcome-level summary contrasts, such as mean effects, which may obscure substantial distributional changes induced by complex and nonlinear causal mechanisms. We propose Distributional Causal Mediation Analysis (DCMA), a generative learning framework for identifying and estimating treatment effects on entire outcome distributions transmitted through multiple mediators. DCMA learns conditional generative models for the mediators and the outcome, recovering the relevant conditional distributions from observational data. Leveraging the identification formulas, it reconstructs interventional outcome distributions via Monte Carlo forward simulation by noise resampling, enabling the capture of both classical summary effects and rich distributional contrasts such as energy distance and the Wasserstein distance. Analytical error bounds are derived to decompose how estimation errors in the learned conditional models propagate to the reconstructed interventional outcome distributions. The empirical effectiveness of DCMA is demonstrated through numerical experiments and real-world data applications.

Prior studies report that partial driving automation can increase the cognitive demands on human drivers. This effect largely arises from human drivers' lack of transparent insight into the vehicle's intentions and decision logic, as well as from automated systems' limited awareness of the driver's dynamic state and preferences. This bidirectional misalignment undermines shared situational awareness and exacerbates coordination failures in human-vehicle interaction. To address these limitations, we argue for a paradigm shift that elevates the human role from passive supervisor to active manager. We introduce the Mediator-in-the-Loop-Driving (MILD) system, based on an agentic system architecture to facilitate synergistic human-vehicle collaboration. MILD integrates a perception agent for joint in-cabin and out-of-cabin understanding with a lightweight strategy agent that generates compliant and explainable action suggestions. To ensure these strategies are strictly aligned with safety regulations and human values, we develop Evidence- and Constraint-weighted Policy Optimization (ECPO). ECPO leverages automatic validators to steer the agent toward behaviors that are not only accurate but also structurally complete, substantiated by evidence, and free from constraint violations. Furthermore, a retrieval-augmented generation module dynamically incorporates constraints from traffic regulations, speed recommendations, and driver preferences into the decision loop. Field experiments across three open datasets demonstrate that MILD consistently outperforms baselines in both perception accuracy and strategy quality under auditable offline metrics, and yields higher human-rated policy adequacy, comfort, and explanation than baselines. This work offers a practical pathway for building auditable and aligned agents for human-vehicle collaborative driving.

The rapid growth of scientific software has created practical barriers for bioinformatics research. Although powerful statistical, artificial intelligence (AI)-based methods are now widely available, their effective use is often hindered by fragmented distribution, inconsistent documentation, complex dependencies, and difficult-to-reproduce execution environments. As a result, reusing published tools and workflow adaptation to own date remains technically demanding and time-intensive, even for experienced users. Here, we present PoSyMed, an open and modular platform for the controlled integration, composition, and execution of bioinformatics tools and workflows. PoSyMed combines a backend-centered platform architecture with formal tool descriptions, controlled container-based build and execution processes, persistent workflow state, and a dialogue-based user interface. Large language models (LLM) are integrated not as autonomous decision-makers, but as human-computer interface with bounded semantic assistants that help identify tools, propose workflow steps, and support parameterization within a typed, validated, and human-supervised execution environment. PoSyMed is designed to improve reproducibility, traceability, and transparency in practical biomedical analysis within one platform. We describe the system architecture and evaluate its behavior across representative biological software scenarios with respect to workflow support, interaction design, and platform extensibility. PoSyMed is publicly available at https://apps.cosy.bio/posymed.

AI agent systems increasingly rely on reusable non-LLM engineering infrastructure that packages tool mediation, context handling, delegation, safety control, and orchestration. Yet the architectural design decisions in this surrounding infrastructure remain understudied. This paper presents a protocol-guided, source-grounded empirical study of 70 publicly available agent-system projects, addressing three questions: which design-decision dimensions recur across projects, which co-occurrences structure those decisions, and which typical architectural patterns emerge. Methodologically, we contribute a transparent investigation procedure for analyzing heterogeneous agent-system corpora through source-code and technical-material reading. Empirically, we identify five recurring design dimensions (subagent architecture, context management, tool systems, safety mechanisms, and orchestration) and find that the corpus favors file-persistent, hybrid, and hierarchical context strategies; registry-oriented tool systems remain dominant while MCP- and plugin-oriented extensions are emerging; and intermediate isolation is common but high-assurance audit is rare. Cross-project co-occurrence analysis reveals that deeper coordination pairs with more explicit context services, stronger execution environments with more structured governance, and formalized tool-registration boundaries with broader ecosystem ambitions. We synthesize five recurring architectural patterns spanning lightweight tools, balanced CLI frameworks, multi-agent orchestrators, enterprise systems, and scenario-verticalized projects. The result provides an evidence-based account of architectural regularities in agent-system engineering, with grounded guidance for framework designers, selectors, and researchers.

Modern AI agents routinely depend on secrets such as API keys and SSH credentials, yet the dominant deployment model still exposes those secrets directly to the agent process through environment variables, local files, or forwarding sockets. This design fails against prompt injection, tool misuse, and model-controlled exfiltration because the agent can both use and reveal the same bearer credential. We present CapSeal, a capability-sealed secret mediation architecture that replaces direct secret access with constrained invocations through a local trusted broker. CapSeal combines capability issuance, schema-constrained HTTP execution, broker-executed SSH actions, anti-replay session binding, policy evaluation, and tamper-evident audit trails. We describe a Rust prototype integrated with an MCP-facing adapter, formulate conditional security goals for non-disclosure, constrained use, replay resistance, and auditability, and define an evaluation plan spanning prompt injection, tool misuse, and SSH abuse. The resulting system reframes secret handling for agentic systems from handing the model a key to granting the model a narrowly scoped, non-exportable action capability.

Motivated by the problem of assigning mediators to cases in the Kenyan judicial system, we study an online resource allocation problem where incoming tasks (cases) must be immediately assigned to available, capacity-constrained resources (mediators). The resources differ in their quality, which may need to be learned. In addition, resources can only be assigned to a subset of tasks that overlaps to varying degrees with the subset of tasks other resources can be assigned to. The objective is to maximize task completion while satisfying soft capacity constraints across all the resources. The scale of the real-world problem poses substantial challenges, since there are over 2000 mediators, and a multitude of combinations of geographic locations (87) and case types (12) that each mediator is qualified to work on. Together, these features-unknown quality of new resources (newly onboarded mediators), soft capacity constraints (due to the mandate to assign cases without delay), and high-dimensional state space-make existing scheduling and resource allocation algorithms either inapplicable or inefficient. We formalize the problem in a tractable manner, using a quadratic program formulation for assignment and a multi-agent bandit style framework for learning. We demonstrate the key properties and advantages of our new algorithm, SMaRT (Selecting Mediators that are Right for the Task), compared with baselines on some stylized instances of the mediator allocation problem. We then turn to considering its application to real-world data on cases and mediators from the Kenyan Judiciary. SMaRT outperforms baselines and allows for controlling the tradeoff between the strictness of the capacity constraints and overall case resolution rates, both in situations where mediator quality is known beforehand and when the problem is bandit-like in that learning is part of the problem definition.

In many applications, researchers are interested in the direct and indirect causal effects of a treatment or exposure on an outcome of interest. Mediation analysis offers a rigorous framework for identifying and estimating these causal effects. For binary treatments, efficient estimators for the direct and indirect effects are presented by Tchetgen Tchetgen and Shpitser (2012) based on the influence function of the parameter of interest. These estimators possess desirable properties such as multiple-robustness and asymptotic normality while allowing for slower than root-n rates of convergence for the nuisance parameters. However, in settings involving continuous treatments, these influence function-based estimators are not readily applicable without making strong parametric assumptions. In this work, utilizing a kernel smoothing approach, we propose an estimator suitable for settings with continuous treatments inspired by the influence function-based estimation strategy. Our proposed approach employs cross-fitting, relaxing the smoothness requirements on the nuisance functions and allowing them to be estimated at slower rates than the target parameter. Additionally, similar to influence function-based estimators, our proposed estimator is multiply robust and asymptotically normal, allowing for inference in settings where parametric assumptions may not be justified.

In LLM agent pipelines, prompt privacy risk propagates beyond a single model call: raw user content enters retrieval queries, memory writes, tool arguments, OCR-derived text, and logs, and every downstream copy inherits what the first write contained. Existing de-identification pipelines protect document boundaries but not this cross-stage surface. We present BodhiPromptShield, a policy-aware mediation layer that detects sensitive spans before they propagate, replaces each with a typed placeholder, a semantic abstraction, or a secure symbolic token under a configured policy, and defers restoration to authorized execution boundaries. We evaluate it under one protocol against Presidio, Casper-style sanitization, an LLM sanitizer, and transformer and learned detectors, on 300 AI4Privacy documents, 493 PrivacyLens trajectories, 200 PrivacyLens tasks scored by that benchmark's own judge, and AgentDojo tasks under injection. Three findings result. Identifier propagation is controllable: residual exposure falls to 7.4% on AI4Privacy and 1.8% on PrivacyLens, and exact identifiers in an agent's final action fall from 13.7% to 2.1-3.1%. Restoration timing governs what every stage upstream of the authorized boundary sees: deferring it leaves 1.6% of protected values readable in the released context against 51.0%, and 2.7% against 4.8% in what the agent emits, for 0.11 helpfulness points. Measuring factual disclosure is harder: a word-overlap metric and an LLM judge both report that mediation leaves facts intact, and both disagree with blind human annotation (kappa = 0.25 and 0.09). The human labels reverse that: inferability falls from 100% to 24-53% under mediation, so semantic-leakage measures need human validation before they are trusted. These are systems results on English text with open-weight models, not formal guarantees.