Physical Plausibility

World models connect perception and decision-making in embodied intelligence by maintaining hidden state, anticipating consequences, comparing interventions, and adapting when execution departs from expectations. Although progress is often measured by visual fidelity, their value lies in improving behavior. Before reaching for a cup, a person anticipates its weight and resistance to grasping, shaping the hand before contact. Such anticipation is coarse and rarely pictorial, yet it guides action. This raises a central question: which predictive capabilities improve behavior? Existing surveys, organized by architecture, output modality, or application domain, leave this question implicit. We introduce three progressively stronger capability levels: Plausible models preserve task-relevant temporal, geometric, or physical structure; Controllable models additionally predict how interventions alter that structure; and Actionable models translate predictions into measurable gains in planning, action, learning, evaluation, verification, recovery, or data selection. We complement this hierarchy with a 3 x 4 matrix crossing geometry, physics, and action grounding with improvement loops centered on data, rewards, policies, and the model itself. Using this framework, we survey manipulation, navigation, locomotion, autonomous driving, and general embodied learning, tracing technical progressions, clarifying capability requirements, and examining datasets, benchmarks, and evaluation protocols. We identify challenges in long-horizon consistency, uncertainty calibration, causal intervention testing, latency, verification and recovery, and cross-embodiment transfer. This perspective shifts evaluation from visual plausibility toward whether predictions capture task-relevant state, reflect intervention effects, and improve the closed-loop behavior of embodied agents.

A world model asked what happens if an object is pushed at several speeds produces several futures. If the model has the object in mind, those futures agree about it: each implies the same mass and friction. The consistency checks now used to vet world-action models ask whether a model's futures agree with each other, and none of them knows any physics. We show that this is not enough, and what to do instead. IMPLY reads the physics each rollout implies by inverting a simulator and scores a set of rollouts by how well one object explains all of them, anchored to two calibration pushes the model has observed. In a controlled setting, self-consistency gives a perfect score to a model that ignores the object and always predicts a typical push; anchoring exposes it (AUROC 0.70 versus 1.00). On a real model, V-JEPA 2-AC adapted to the scene, the same thing happens. Given its own calibration pushes the model tracks the object (per-object correlation with the truth 0.91); given another object's, it does not (0.05). Self-consistency cannot tell these apart, preferring the right evidence on 52% of objects, chance level, while anchored disagreement prefers it on 73% and correlates 0.92-0.99 with the rollouts' error. Used to choose among candidate rollout sets, it comes within 0.003 of an oracle that sees the truth. A model that has internalised the wrong object is exactly as self-consistent as one that has internalised the right one; consistency has to be anchored to evidence.

An image editor may satisfy every regional plausibility constraint separately even when no single latent explanation fits the complete output. We formalize this local-to-global failure using a common witness grade and witness nerve. The framework separates auditing from causal identification: shared exogeneity alone allows every coupling of the regime marginals, whereas an externally justified witness relation yields sharp partial-identification bounds for prespecified image features. Helly-type arguments provide short incompatibility certificates for quasiconvex losses, heterogeneous action strata, and finite witness atlases; a blocker-hypergraph formula gives exact repair counts. Simultaneous confidence regions for the regime marginals give finite-sample outer coverage of the complete identified interval. Controlled MNIST, Morpho-MNIST, and smallNORB studies demonstrate the predicted local-global separation, while synthetic experiments test sharp bounds, certificate recovery, and structured computation. The method audits a declared feature relation and does not identify unrestricted pixel-level counterfactuals.

Policy analysis requires more than predicting whether a proposal will pass: it requires identifying who will be affected, how those actors respond, and what follows. LLM-based policy simulations model these processes at scale, but their validity is hard to establish when plausible behaviour is never compared with observed outcomes. We introduce GPS-Bench, an evidence-grounded benchmark for governance policy simulation that links policies to relevant actors, actor actions and downstream impacts using legislative records, lobbying disclosures, regulatory documents, corporate filings, economic data and other public evidence. Actors are reconstructed from the dated record rather than prompted as archetypes, so a persona is an evidence object with provenance; a human-annotated pool forms the Gold evaluation set, while cases labelled by a separate LLM from retrieved evidence are treated as Silver supervision and never as test labels. Because every inference mode reads the same grounded state and emits the same schema, GPS-Bench turns "does multi-agent simulation help?" into a controlled comparison: we contrast joint reasoning, independent and communicating actor agents, graph-based methods and weight-level fine-tuning over one policy state. Fine-tuning on the grounded record gives the strongest actor-level impact prediction, and decomposition does not beat it; what decomposition adds is mechanism. Agents hold private, non-identical evidence, each seeing its own exposure clause, and address named partners with concrete joint proposals, what they offer, what they need in return, and why acting together beats acting alone, so the coalitions that form can be checked against the commitments the record holds. GPS-Bench therefore gives a common empirical setting for studying when evidence, actor modelling and multi-agent interaction improve the prediction and interpretation of policy outcomes.

Crystal generators and tool-using agents propose structures faster than density functional theory (DFT) energy and phonon calculations or experiments can assess them. Deciding which candidates merit expensive assessment is therefore the bottleneck, yet most screens test little beyond atomic overlap and give no chemical reason for failure. Here, our agents generate, test and actively refute two million candidate laws, leaving eight Plausibility Rules for Inorganic Structures (PRIS). These laws encode five mechanisms: short-range repulsion, ionic contact and packing, electrostatic balance, bond-valence conservation and crystallographic site complexity. Experimental structures satisfy our law sets at 82--99%, but satisfy Pauling's rules 2--5 together at only 6.5%. The strictest set detects 87.9% of damaged crystal structures, whereas distance cutoffs detect only 1.6--3.2%. PRIS plausibility is linearly correlated with synthesizability, so the PRIS-derived synthesis score (PSS) explainably screens 83.7% of hard-to-synthesize structures while retaining 80.7% of experimental structures. In a property-conditioned inverse-design run, PRIS and PSS can reduce the DFT validation queue by up to 67.3% and keep 99.2% of the candidates whose DFT-validated bulk moduli reach the design target. Beyond screening, PRIS explains why GNoME remains enriched in rare low-symmetry structures and reveals how wrong-element assignments in falsified crystal reports hide behind plausible coordinates. PRIS moves screening from a pass-or-fail verdict to a chemical reason for failure, showing that autonomous agents can discover, by active refutation, physicochemical laws that guide calculations and experiments.

Physically Plausible Video Generation (PPVG) seeks to synthesize videos consistent with physical principles, yet remains challenging due to underspecified natural language conditioning. Advanced chain-of-thought (CoT) frameworks augment prompts with physical knowledge. However, such prompts describe physical phenomena holistically, overlooking intermediate states and transition dynamics. In this paper, we reformulate PPVG as event-centric generation by representing physical evolution as a chain of causally connected and physically constrained events. Our framework comprises three key modules: (1) Physics-driven Event Chain Reasoning. This module decomposes physical phenomena into causally connected events represented by evolving scene graphs. Formula-derived physical quantities are bound to relevant objects and interactions, characterizing the direction and magnitude of each event transition. (2) Transition-aware Routed Keyframe Conditioning. This module routes each event to a specialized keyframe synthesis operator for appearance variation or object transformation. Consecutive keyframes are injected as residual guidance during denoising, enabling smooth visual transitions between event-boundary states. (3) Physics-injected Contrastive Semantic Guidance. This module constructs physics-informed positive and counterfactual negative prompts for classifier-free guidance, steering generation toward plausible dynamics and away from physics-violating counterparts. Experiments on PhyGenBench, VideoPhy, PhyWorldBench, and Physics-IQ demonstrate that our framework generates videos with superior physical plausibility across diverse domains.

Recent video generation models are increasingly framed as world models. Many physical processes can unfold in more than one valid way. Therefore, a world model should reproduce not only a plausible trajectory, but also the distribution of possible behaviors under the same initial observation and action. We call this distribution-level requirement probabilistic alignment. However, existing evaluations largely assess individual-video plausibility and do not test whether repeated generations recover the correct distribution. This raises a central question: how far are current video generators from probabilistically aligned world modeling? To answer it, we formalize probabilistic alignment as a distributional criterion for world models and introduce PAWBench, a benchmark for evaluating video generators as stochastic samplers of world dynamics. We further introduce PAWEval, an outcome-level protocol that converts repeated video rollouts into empirical distributions over possible physical behaviors. Across 50 scenarios and eleven current systems, no model consistently matches the reference probabilities while recovering the range of valid behaviors. Having established this gap, we test whether language prompts, initial noise sampling, or model training can reshape the model's predictive distribution. We believe our work can serve as a foundation for future efforts to move towards probabilistically aligned world modeling.

Event knowledge concerns who does what to whom. Psycholinguists use event-plausibility judgments to examine how this knowledge supports human language processing. To isolate plausibility effects, these studies require controlled event sets in which one event slot varies across plausibility levels while all other event features remain fixed. Constructing such sets manually is labor-intensive. We therefore introduce STRIVE, an LLM-based framework for jointly generating and evaluating controlled event sets crossing plausibility class (plausible vs. implausible) with intended classification difficulty (easy vs. hard). Given a verb, STRIVE constructs a shared event frame, then produces one event per condition by varying one slot while holding all others fixed. In experiments with six models across 60 verbs, GPT-5.1 produced high-quality sets only 16.7% of the time using the baseline generation prompt. Adding a global reasoning scratchpad and evaluator-guided refinement raised this rate to 75.0%. Greater reasoning effort also improved evaluator--human agreement. Nevertheless, events near the plausibility boundary remain most difficult. They elicit the greatest human disagreement, and the best evaluator reaches only 57% accuracy on the implausible-hard condition, indicating a need for human input. Overall, STRIVE offers a scalable approach to reducing manual effort by automating initial event-set generation and evaluation for psycholinguistic studies.

Clinical decision support is moving toward committees of language-model agents deliberating on a shared workspace. We ask whether such committees can be gamed by shortcuts, cues a benchmark rewards but a clinician would ignore. Across seven cohorts on six public datasets spanning text (MedQA-USMLE, MedMCQA, MIMIC-CXR reports), imaging (NIH ChestX-ray14, MIMIC-CXR-JPG, CheXpert) and tabular ICU records (SUPPORT2), Gemini committees resist these cues in isolation (flip 5-16%), yet a socially plausible shortcut spreads: when two peers assert the same wrong answer, the holdout under test adopts it in 38% of cases, as does a false "pre-screen" system flag, on both capability tiers. Of three oversight agents, a gate cannot separate adoption from honest agreement (false-positive rate 100%); a same-lineage judge reading only the transcript flags adoption on text (precision 100%, recall 93%) but collapses onto the gate in imaging; a referee that privately re-queries the holdout transfers to imaging (77-88% precision, 13-21% false-positive rate). Tripling a cue's visual salience does not move contagion, whereas a second peer voice raises it by half again. Gaming a hidden rubric is near-silent: only 1/10 text and 1/134 imaging drifters name the rubric they moved toward. What games a committee is social plausibility, and only a referee independent of self-report catches it. Code: https://github.com/criticaldata/benchmaxxing

Quattrociocchi and colleagues warn that the fluent outputs of large language models may allow linguistic plausibility to substitute for epistemic evaluation, producing the condition they call Epistemia: the experience of possessing knowledge without undertaking the practices through which judgment would ordinarily be warranted. This article accepts that diagnosis but challenges its explanatory framework, which compares an embodied, socially situated human knower with an isolated generative model thereby locating epistemic legitimacy in capacities internal to autonomous agents. Drawing on Carlo Sini's philosophy of practices, writing, signs, and technics, we propose instead to understand a large language model (LLM) as a techno-semiotic machine that automates a phase of written semiosis by producing plausible linguistic configurations from the sedimented archive of human writing. From this perspective, Epistemia is one consequence of a broader phenomenon that we call epistemic schizologia: the socio-technical cleavage between signs as linguistically accomplished expressions and signs as moments within socially embedded circuits of interpretation, evidence, criticism, verification, and responsibility. This cleavage is reinforced by eikotic closure, through which a plausible continuation is presented with the finality of an epistemic result, and by algorithmic authority and epistemic self-misrecognition. The relevant unit is therefore not the model alone but the complete practice in which generated inscriptions are prompted, interpreted, verified, contested, used, and made consequential. This reframing preserves the distinction between linguistic production and responsible understanding while grounding a design programme centred on inspectable genealogy, contestability, distributed responsibility, epistemic agency, and the evaluation of hybrid human--AIpractices.

Deep learning surrogate models trained with mean-squared-error loss produce statistically accurate but physically unconstrained flood predictions: water may flow uphill, appear spontaneously, or smooth over street-level corridors. We develop a physics-informed training framework for CNN-LSTM models that predict urban flood depths at 15 min intervals over a 128x128 spatial grid. Three differentiable penalty terms are embedded into the loss: (i) a gravity loss penalizing depth increases against the water-surface-elevation gradient, (ii) a continuity loss enforcing local mass conservation with rainfall-adaptive thresholds, and (iii) a topography-aware false-alarm penalty modulated by the topographic wetness index (TWI). We evaluate on the Norfolk, Virginia flood dataset spanning two storm events (August 2017 and September 2022, 300 samples), with all variants trained on identical splits and robustness assessed over repeated random splits and leave-one-storm-out tests. A road-proximal evaluation restricted to a TWI-derived street mask quantifies street-level skill. The physics-constrained model achieves near-zero gravity violations (order 1e-6) and the highest street-channel recall (0.77 +/- 0.09 vs 0.44 +/- 0.10 for the unconstrained baseline), the capability most relevant to traffic routing, and its advantage more than doubles on a held-out storm; a uniform false-alarm variant attains 16% lower mean absolute error but suppresses street recall to 0.25. The TWI-modulated penalty reconciles this trade-off: it improves on the uniform variant on every metric, recovering 60% higher street recall at the lowest MAE among constrained variants and the best street-level F1. These results expose a fundamental tension between aggregate pixel-level error and application-specific physical plausibility, and show that terrain-aware loss modulation offers a principled resolution.

In capital-markets workflows the question is rarely whether a large language model can produce a fluent draft, but whether the draft is bankable: defensible in front of a counter-party or a regulator, with the documents in hand. Existing methods address parts of that gap: open-domain QA benchmarks reward surface accuracy, and finance benchmarks (FinanceBench, FinQA, ConvFinQA) advance document-grounded and numerical QA but evaluate at the question-answer layer rather than the workflow outputs practitioners defend. We introduce CM-LRS, a Capital Markets LLM Reliability Score, evaluating outputs at the workflow-output layer across seven dimensions: factual accuracy, evidence traceability, numerical consistency, workflow completeness, source discipline, decision usefulness, and reviewability/auditability. Each is scored 0-5 against a rubric anchored on signals reviewers in regulated settings use; the aggregate is tunable to the workflow. We demonstrate CM-LRS on five workflows (DCM transaction-terms extraction, precedent retrieval, issuer profile synthesis, M&A transaction-comparable reasoning, ECM transaction-terms extraction) over public SEC EDGAR filings, a public UK takeover release, and fictional synthetic supplements, scoring four models against four independent LLM judges spanning three model families. Three findings. First, the frontier closed-source models cluster within 0.22 points on four-judge averaged CM-LRS (Sonnet 4.6 = 4.31, Opus 4.7 = 4.30, GPT-5.5 = 4.09); all four judges place the open-weights baseline (Llama 3.3 70B = 3.15) last. Second, that gap concentrates on retrieval (2.23) and synthesis (2.15), not extraction (0.84). Third, Decision Usefulness shows the widest cross-model dispersion of any dimension (4.0 points on issuer profiling) and top-tier inter-judge agreement (mean r = 0.52). Plausibility is cheap. Bankability is the bar.

Detecting media bias automatically is difficult because biased framing is often subtle, yet in domains such as news analysis, accurate predictions alone are insufficient without explanations that reflect the model's underlying reasoning. We present a multi-dimensional evaluation of explainability in encoder-based media bias detection using the Bias Annotations By Experts (BABE) dataset. Specifically, we study BERT and RoBERTa as classifiers (base and large variants) along three complementary axes: predictive performance, explanation plausibility (token-level alignment with expert rationales), and mechanistic faithfulness (whether compact sets of attention heads recover predictive signal under counterfactual rationale masking). To induce variation in plausibility, we additionally investigate attention-supervised finetuning, which incorporates expert rationale annotations as an auxiliary training signal. Attention supervision serves as an intervention on attribution plausibility, while the effectiveness of attribution methods varies substantially across architectures. Circuit analysis further reveals substantial variation in mechanistic recoverability across architectures, suggesting that model scale alone does not determine circuit compressibility. Taken together, our findings suggest that predictive performance, attribution plausibility, and mechanistic faithfulness characterize different aspects of model behavior and should be evaluated separately when studying explainability in media bias detection.

Observational causal analyses increasingly pool records across sites, vendors, and collection systems, creating vulnerability to append-only attacks in which plausible records are strategically selected to alter a reported treatment effect. We develop a data-poisoning audit for augmented inverse-probability-weighted estimation. The analyst specifies a finite catalog of feasible records, an append budget, and nested source capacities, and the adversary selects a feasible subset to maximize movement in a prespecified direction. With preprocessing and nuisance fits held fixed, we propose a greedy scan that computes the exact finite-sample worst-case movement at every append budget. To account for nuisance refitting, we go on to derive a total-influence score combining each record's direct contribution with its effect through the propensity and outcome models. We further obtain a conservative finite-budget bound for the fully refitted estimate. Extensive simulations validate the exact result and show that total influence improves local refit prediction, while multisite and public-data analyses demonstrate material sensitivity at small append budgets. By translating adversarial data-composition risk into movement curves and critical budgets, the framework supports more reliable causal reporting and the design of source-level safeguards.

Modern video generation models are increasingly hailed as emerging world models with an internalized grasp of physical law. Yet existing benchmarks largely evaluate physical plausibility only at the output level, without verifying whether the model arrives there through a faithful, law-grounded reasoning process. We introduce Apple-PI, the first benchmark that anchors video-model evaluation explicitly in physical laws. Apple-PI comprises three components. 1) Orchard: a dataset of 400 videos covering ten canonical tasks in classical mechanics. It separates single-law tasks for confounder-free diagnosis from multi-law tasks for probing generalization. 2) Benchmark Protocol: a three-stage protocol based on scientific reasoning, including Perception, Formulation, and Deduction. It uses chain-of-frames prompting on infographic-annotated first frames, treating the generated video as the model's visible reasoning trace. 3) Evaluation Suite: a hybrid evaluation suite that combines MLLM-based subjective scoring with physics-law-grounded objective measures. This enables stage-resolved diagnosis of not only whether a model fails, but where it fails. Benchmarking 11 models shows that current video models remain far from reliable law-grounded world simulators, with the best video model scoring only 0.473. Our stage-, pillar-, and source-resolved analyses further expose a Perception-to-Formulation-to-Deduction bottleneck, weak multi-law state transfer, and a persistent Sim-to-Real gap. These findings position Apple-PI as a diagnostic foundation for guiding future video models toward world models with law-grounded physical intelligence.

Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate natural language explanations that rationalize their own decisions, a phenomenon commonly referred to as self-explanations. Such explanations have emerged as a promising direction for explainable artificial intelligence (XAI), particularly for interpreting LLM behavior. However, while self-explanations often appear plausible, whether they faithfully reflect a model's underlying reasoning process remains an open question. In this opinion paper, we argue that self-explanations can be highly plausible, questionably faithful, and yet highly actionable. From a traditional XAI perspective, we identify the limitations of standard evaluation protocols for LLM-generated self-explanations and propose practical guidelines for assessing their plausibility and faithfulness. Moreover, we argue that evaluation should extend beyond these criteria to actionability, highlighting applications of LLM rationalization capabilities that support informed decision-making and appropriate action across diverse stakeholders.

Whistleblowers are a key safeguard against organizational wrongdoing, but the threat of retaliation deters reporting. Existing whistleblower-protection proposals lack formal privacy guarantees, and existing differential privacy mechanisms do not directly target the natural threat model -- one in which the audited organization itself observes auditor selection decisions and uses them to identify reporters. We formalize protection against a strong-adversary threat model as per-report $(0, δ)$-differential privacy on the transcript of audit selections. Within this framework we prove that a natural approach -- randomized response applied at the selection step -- can never outperform uniform random auditing by more than $δ$ at any horizon. We then give a generic mechanism that reduces private auditing to private continual counting: any $(0, δ)$-DP continual counter plugs in by post-processing, and the audit transcript inherits the same per-report guarantee. Instantiating the reduction with a recent work in continual counting yields per-report $(0, δ)$-DP with noise scaling as $O(\sqrt{\log T})$ across a horizon of $T$ audit decisions. A utility theorem shows that the selection error vanishes whenever the noisy report gap between the most-reported organization and the runner-up grows faster than $\sqrt{\log T}$. Simulations show a substantial improvement over randomized response.

Large language models can synthesize a game's rules as executable code - a Code World Model (CWM) - which a classical planner then searches over. Such models are typically accepted when they reach high transition accuracy on sampled trajectories. We argue this is the wrong notion of adequacy for planning. We show four things. (1) An LLM-synthesized CWM can pass a sampling gate at 100% transition accuracy and be $\geq 98\%$ state-accurate on the planner's own search distribution, yet lose systematically at play, because the $<1\%$ it gets wrong is exactly the pivotal dynamics; the play cost of the omitted rule is $0.091$ (seed-clustered 95% CI $[0.065,0.117]$, $n=4800$). We call this the verified-vs-correct gap, and confirm it end-to-end through the synthesis pipeline. (2) The harm follows a quantitative law, $\mathrm{danger}=\mathrm{play\_cost}\times(1-\mathrm{rarity})^N$, whose $(1-\mathrm{rarity})^N$ gate-miss factor is proven exact and whose play cost is empirically bounded. (3) The failure is not repaired by more data: LLM synthesis behaves as rule translation, not rule inference, and did not infer the omitted rule across models (GPT-5.x) and data regimes (including DAgger and targeted examples). (4) The same mechanism recurs on the belief-inference function of imperfect-information CWMs: we prove a coverage bound (a size-$N$ gate is identifying when $N\gtrsim b^{d_{\max}}$), explaining why shallow games such as Kuhn poker show no gap, and hand-construct Beacon, a verified-but-wrong inference function that passes the gate yet loses every game. These results suggest adequacy for planning-oriented world models should be measured on the search distribution or by play directly, not by prediction accuracy on sampled transitions.

Video-language models (VLMs) have achieved remarkable performance on video understanding and visual question answering, yet they remain unreliable in reasoning about physical plausibility, where understanding object interactions, causal dynamics, and fundamental physical principles is essential. This limitation is particularly evident on challenging physical reasoning benchmarks, revealing a persistent gap in physical commonsense reasoning. To address this challenge, we propose PhysMRV, a training-free physical memory and verification framework for physical plausibility reasoning. Unlike retrieval-augmented VLMs that retrieve semantically similar videos as additional context, PhysMRV transforms training videos into a Hierarchical Memory Bank of structured physical knowledge comprising three complementary levels: scene descriptions capturing visual context, physical-event graphs modeling object interactions and causal structure, and physics-rule summaries distilling reusable physical principles and cues. During inference, PhysMRV retrieves physically relevant memories and leverages their structured physical evidence to guide a frozen VLM in verifying physical plausibility, requiring neither fine-tuning nor parameter updates. We evaluate PhysMRV on three challenging physical reasoning benchmarks, ImplausiBench, IntPhys2, and GRASP Level 2, across multiple state-of-the-art VLMs. Experimental results demonstrate consistent improvements over direct prompting across diverse VLMs and evaluation benchmarks, showing that structured physical memories provide an effective and scalable means of enhancing physical plausibility reasoning without additional training.

Large language models (LLMs) have become significant providers of mental health support, yet they remain products of an attention economy whose operational and commercial targets favour sustained engagement over the friction that effective psychological support often requires. Developers' safety responses have been largely reactive, addressing the most visible and acute harms while subtler, longer-term patterns of risk (e.g., dependency, boundary erosion, the amplification of distorted beliefs) receive less attention. We contend that making LLMs structurally safe requires alignment organised at three levels that mirror how society assures the safety of human clinical practice: 1) explicit value specification grounded in the codified normative commitments of clinical practice; 2) training that embeds those values in the model; and 3) oversight that detects drift and longer-term harm during deployment, much as clinical supervision does for human practice. Organising alignment in this way yields a construct we call alignment plausibility - a structured demonstration that a system's values, training regime, and oversight mechanisms are together consistent with safe and positive outcomes. We propose alignment plausibility as a regulatory construct (by drawing analogy to the established construct of biological plausibility) for AI in health: a principled way to argue for, or against, trust that systems are aligned to positive health outcomes, will cause no harm even where capable of doing so, and will ultimately lead to patient benefit.

Recent progress in large-scale self-supervised learning has improved dense geometric prediction, but it remains unclear whether such scaling yields inference-time physical plausibility checks. We propose Scrambled Edges, a controlled counterfactual that injects salient edge-like cues while violating surface continuity, illumination coherence, and occlusion ordering. With energy-matched and structure-matched controls, we isolate the effect of unsupported edge evidence from high-frequency energy and edge sparsity. Across CNN/ViT/SSL depth predictors on NYU Depth v2 and KITTI, Scrambled Edges induce up to 3.2x larger deviation from clean predictions than energy-matched noise; additional diffusion and flow-matching depth estimators show attenuated but still significant collapse. The resulting Geometric Collapse propagates globally: even with oracle knowledge of the corrupted region, output-level repair recovers only 47%, with substantial error outside the mask. These findings provide controlled behavioral evidence that current dense predictors lack reliable mechanisms to quarantine physically unsupported edge cues, motivating explicit plausibility scoring and selective cue integration.

Training a language model against its own reference-free judgments (the premise of self-rewarding, self-play, and LLM-as-a-judge pipelines) assumes a model's verdict on a shown answer tracks correctness. We show it fails structurally: conditioned on a candidate, a judge scores plausibility, not correctness, leaving false-positive basins a policy learns to exploit. We measure this with a hidden-anchor audit: a held-out, cross-source exact-match check the judge never sees. On GSM8K with Qwen3 policies, self-play drives the judge's pass rate from 0.72 to 0.94 while true accuracy stays at 0.20 (three seeds). This reward hacking is not white-box gaming: the errors transfer across judge families (Qwen, Llama, Gemma) and scales, a strict three-judge ensemble still accepts 55% of them, and no plausibility-scoring defense closes the basin. The decisive variable is whether the judge commits an answer of its own before using the candidate: committing first drops the false-positive rate from 0.719 to 0.012, blind solving lifts discrimination to 0.96, and used as the training reward the de-anchored channel keeps false positives at zero, preventing the basin rather than only detecting it. A falsifiable bound (the gap is at most 1 - accuracy) predicts which regimes are exposed. The full arc replicates without training under best-of-N selection in code and competition math, and with a Gemma policy.

Synthesis planning aiming to find pathways of reactions for a target molecule is one of the most important and challenging tasks in drug discovery. Recent progress has produced both specialized deep-learning retrosynthesis systems and general-purpose large language models, but objective comparison remains difficult due to the lack of flexible, chemically interpretable benchmarking protocols. In the current study, we are introducing the URSA (Utilitarian RetroSynthesis Assessment) evaluation framework that provides the opportunity to benchmark the synthetic routes not only from a formal perspective, such as convergence to commercially available starting materials, but also from a chemical plausibility perspective, mimicking the way expert chemists evaluate the reactions and routes. The study covers a comprehensive evaluation of both conventional end-to-end retrosynthesis solutions and LLMs for the synthesis planning task on a set of novel, diverse target molecules with undisclosed synthetic routes, which represent realistic tasks in the daily drug design routine. We find that while LLMs can support high-level strategic planning, they currently underperform specialized retrosynthesis models in reliably solving synthesis planning tasks.

Dynamic epistemic logic represents belief change via model transformations induced by epistemic events. Its standard formulation (Baltag, Moss, Solecki, 1998) provides a natural account of belief expansion through the elimination of possibilities, but it cannot model belief contraction about factual propositions. A classic response enriches Kripke models with plausibility orderings, representing contraction as an update that promotes certain possibilities over others. We show that this approach has expressive limitations. In particular, the approach cannot model belief that violates positive introspection and contraction dynamics in response to a hedged public announcement that phi might be false. Motivated by these considerations, we introduce a mechanism for belief contraction defined directly on standard Kripke models, without any constraints on the doxastic accessibility relation. We show that it satisfies some of the standard properties of belief contraction but not others, study the conditions under which contraction may be unsuccessful, and provide a sound and complete axiomatization of the logic via reduction axioms. We also define a more general dynamic logic that is an extension of standard DEL and accommodates belief contractions due to events such as private or semi-private announcements, and provide a complete and sound axiomatization of the general logic.

Generating diverse, coherent, and plausible content from partially given inputs remains a fundamental challenge for diffusion models. Existing approaches face clear limitations: training-based approaches offer strong task-specific results but require costly computation, and they generalize poorly across tasks. Training-free approaches offer better efficiency, but they do not explicitly optimize over unobserved variables, leading to globally inconsistent results. To address these limitations, we introduce Accelerated Likelihood Maximization (ALM), a novel training-free sampling strategy integrated into the reverse diffusion process that significantly extends the applicability of diffusion models beyond simple generation tasks. Unlike previous methods that implicitly influence missing regions through pre-generated region constraints, we directly optimize the unobserved region during the sampling process, enabling globally coherent and plausible generation. Furthermore, we incorporate an acceleration strategy that significantly improves computational efficiency without sacrificing performance. Experimental results demonstrate that ALM consistently outperforms state-of-the-art methods in various data domains and tasks, establishing a powerful paradigm for versatile content generation.

Autoregressive (AR) video diffusion models enable low-latency streaming generation by synthesizing videos chunk by chunk with cached visual context, but this chunk-wise formulation makes temporal instruction following ambiguous. A single global prompt does not specify which sub-event should be realized in each chunk, while naively switching to step-wise prompts often leads to delayed reactions, blended step semantics, and error propagation across prompt transitions. These failures are difficult to address with supervised fine-tuning or distillation alone: SFT suffers from exposure bias, while rollout-based distillation still optimizes low-level denoising or teacher-distribution matching rather than directly enforcing action ordering and prompt-transition correctness. We address these challenges with TempAct, a planner--executor reinforcement learning framework that jointly optimizes temporal decomposition and step-conditioned execution for temporally plausible AR video generation. TempAct uses an LLM planner to explore span-aware step prompts that are executable by the video model, and trains an AR diffusion executor to follow these prompts under its own generated histories. Its key mechanism is hierarchical group exploration: candidate plans form planning groups, and each plan induces an execution group of multiple continuations from a shared visual context, enabling plan-level credit assignment for long-horizon temporal outcomes and executor-level credit assignment for prompt-switch behavior. We further design hierarchical rewards that combine plan-quality and full-video temporal feedback for the planner with local transition-level step-following rewards, aesthetic regularization, and KL constraints for the executor. Experiments on Self-Forcing and LongLive show that TempAct improves temporal consistency while preserving overall visual quality.

Video generation models are increasingly capable of producing realistic videos, but they still struggle to generate videos that follow basic physical laws. Compounding this is a lack of reliable granular evaluation methods for localizing and specifying physical law violations in videos. We address this by introducing Physics Question Scene Graph (PQSG), a hierarchical question-based evaluation pipeline. PQSG evaluates generated videos by checking their faithfulness to a prompt across objects, actions, and adherence to physical laws using a graph-based hierarchy of questions generated by a vision-language model (VLM), guided by high-quality in-context examples. By representing questions as a graph, PQSG introduces logical dependencies within questions, ensuring that each query is contextually valid. Moreover, PQSG provides granular assessments of which qualities of the video violate physical plausibility constraints. We validate PQSG by creating FinePhyEval, a dataset with physics-based prompts and corresponding generated videos from diverse state-of-the-art video generation models (Sora 2, Veo 3, and Wan 2.1), with each video annotated across multiple categories by humans. Using FinePhyEval, we measure the correlation between PQSG's fine-grained scores and human judgments, showing higher overall correlations than prior work. We also find that PQSG ranks closed-source models higher than Wan 2.1 on physical realism. Lastly, we show that the annotations we provide in FinePhyEval can also be used for subtask evaluation: we benchmark two strong VLMs on generating and answering questions, finding that while models can create human-like questions, they still fall short of human performance in answering them.

Before letting an agent operate over real context, can you prove it used the right evidence? GroundEval turns that question into a deterministic test of what the agent searched, fetched, cited, and was permitted to access. In one case study, two frontier LLM judges scored a plausible agent response 0.85 and higher. But the trace told a different story: the agent had never retrieved the artifact its answer depended on, yielding a GroundEval score of 0.000. We introduce GroundEval, a judge-free framework for evaluating agents against grounded, time-bounded, and access-controlled evidence. GroundEval uses a domain configuration to generate questions, lets the agent choose how to answer, and then scores both the final answer and the recorded trajectory that produced it. The benchmark targets three failures that LLM-as-judge evaluation struggles to detect: whether an agent checked before claiming absence, reasoned only from evidence available to the actor at the relevant time, and used the correct causal mechanism rather than a plausible one. These correspond to three tracks: Silence, Perspective, and Counterfactual. GroundEval exposes when plausible answers rest on invalid evidence paths, and produces structured per-question diagnostics that pair tool activity with the agent's turn-level narration, making each score inspectable rather than merely reported. Our case studies suggest this failure mode is common rather than exceptional, one that final-answer and judge-based evaluation cannot detect by construction.

While humans can identify physically implausible events within milliseconds, machine learning approaches addressing the same problem are extremely slow and expensive. They either rely on external multimodal-LLM judges or require ad-hoc modifications to the training procedure. In this work, we argue that indicators of physical plausibility are implicitly captured by five geometric properties of the per-frame embeddings produced by frozen image encoders. In aggregate, we call them GEOPHYS. First, we show that these signals correlate with human EEG responses to two forms of object-permanence violations. Second, GEOPHYS robustly discriminates physically implausible videos from realistic ones, achieving state-of-the-art physics-violation detection: 98.3% on LikePhys and 93.3% on IntPhys2, whereas V-JEPA 2, GPT-4o, Gemini, and twelve modern video diffusion models perform near chance. Third, used as a best-of-N verifier for physical alignment during video generation, GEOPHYS lifts MAGI-1 24B from 50.01% to 64.50% on PhysicsIQ at 1.5x lower wall-clock and 4.65x lower memory than the V-JEPA 2 world-model verifier. Ultimately, GEOPHYS demonstrates that physical plausibility in videos can be assessed by leveraging the emergent geometric properties of temporal features extracted from image encoders.

World models have become a central abstraction in modern AI. The term now refers to several different objects: action-conditioned environment models, latent imagination models, future-video predictors, interactive neural simulators, latent predictive representations, and synthetic-data engines. Evaluation has broadened along with the term. Recent papers measure video realism, perceptual similarity, instruction following, physical plausibility, policy ranking, executability, planning success, and downstream policy improvement. This produces both metric diversity and a recurring problem of claim/evidence mismatch: papers sometimes make a stronger claim about what their model is useful for than their evaluation can establish. This paper surveys the recent literature and argues that, for models presented as world models for embodied decision-making, the more decisive issue is not whether the model generates visually convincing videos, but whether it supports reliable interventional reasoning, policy evaluation, planning, and policy optimization under intervention, policy-induced distribution shift, and long-horizon rollout. We organize the survey using an L0--L7 ladder spanning visual plausibility to policy optimization utility, noting that the levels cut across several orthogonal axes and so form an evidential hierarchy rather than a single scalar. The framework foregrounds interventional action fidelity, closed-loop rollout validity, reward/value prediction, policy-ranking agreement, optimization lift, model exploitability, and uncertainty calibration, with a minimal feasible reporting set for real-robot settings.

We introduce UnpredictaBench, an evaluation that tests the ability of large language models (LLMs) to capture true underlying distributions. As LLMs are increasingly used as substitutes for other entities (e.g., for humans in economic simulations), the tendency of many models to collapse towards a single plausible answer means a failure to capture the unpredictability of real systems. Recent work on improving output diversity is insufficient for this setting: simulation requires samples that are calibrated to a target distribution, not merely varied outputs. UnpredictaBench isolates a simplified but fundamental version of this problem: sampling outcomes from individual target distributions, including canonical statistical distributions, distributions induced by stochastic programs, and natural-language scenarios that describe random processes. We introduce 448 such problems together with KS@N, a general-purpose evaluation metric that quantifies how well a model outputs approximate black-box target distributions via the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistical test. This is the rate at which we fail to reject model samples of size N against ground-truth samples, with larger N indicating greater difficulty. Tested across open and proprietary models, we find a large spread in distributional capabilities. For instance, when models generate samples of size 100 (KS@100, our standard metric), scores range from near 0 to over 20%. No model is able to achieve over 40% at KS@100, showing significant headroom in distributional sampling as a capability. Although adding reasoning can somewhat increase scores, we find no immediate solution for this issue. UnpredictaBench shows that even simple distributional simulation remains challenging, making it a necessary first step toward using LLMs as stand-ins for complex systems. Project website and resources are available at https://unpredictabenchmark.github.io/.

Modern video diffusion models generate increasingly realistic and temporally coherent videos, motivating their use as candidate world simulators. Yet it remains unclear whether these models internally encode physical structure, or merely reproduce motion patterns seen during training. We study this question by probing video diffusion models along latent trajectories corresponding to real videos with known physical plausibility. To obtain such trajectories, we approximately invert the deterministic sampling process by integrating the learned velocity field backward from a clean video latent to noise, giving access to the model's intermediate states and attention maps. Using these recovered trajectories, we show that physical plausibility is linearly decodable from diffusion transformer states across IntPhys and InfLevel, reaching around 81.27% average accuracy and outperforming dedicated representation-learning baselines such as V-JEPA and VideoMAE. Surprisingly, this signal is absent from the VAE latent input and emerges inside the denoising transformer itself, despite the model not being trained with a self-supervised predictive objective. These findings suggest that physically meaningful representations can arise as a byproduct of generative denoising.

LLMs and agentic systems are increasingly deployed in social environments, making normative competence critical for safe and appropriate behavior. However, existing approaches either assess normative judgment in text alone or reduce it to choosing among a fixed set of candidate actions. We argue both are insufficient. In practice, agents are never handed a menu of options; they must identify a reasonable action from scratch, grounded in visible facts and supported by inspectable reasons. We introduce NoRA, a visual first-person video benchmark that requires models to generate candidate next actions and justify each through an explicit fact-reason-action support graph. The benchmark comprises 1,420 annotated video clips, including HumanGold-190 and LLMSilver-1230 splits. Each instance is evaluated through action alignment, factual grounding, and support binding, aggregated into a single grounded reasonableness score. We benchmark 12 multimodal systems under direct, deliberate, and structured prompting regimes, finding that current VLMs frequently recover plausible actions and relevant scene facts, but consistently struggle to construct the full reasonable action space and bind selected actions to the correct local support. NoRA makes this gap measurable, shifting the evaluation question from whether a model can pick an action to whether it can justify an appropriate action for the right visible reasons.

Small open-source code models that power IDE autocomplete still emit hallucinated Fill-in-the-Middle (FIM) completions: syntactically natural calls to methods, parameters, variables, and imports that do not exist in the surrounding project. Existing mitigations either require per-language execution sandboxes that do not apply at mid-keystroke or preference-optimisation pipelines that need large human-labelled corpora. We propose an execution-free alternative: use frontier code models to synthesise plausible-but-wrong completions as hard negatives, then leverage the contrast between these synthetic hallucinations and the ground-truth developer edit as a supervised fine-tuning signal. Our pipeline scrapes multilingual FIM contexts from public GitHub across eight languages and asks a panel of three frontier generators to produce one hard negative per context for each of four hallucination types drawn from the Delulu taxonomy, a Docker-verified multilingual FIM hallucination benchmark, yielding a paired chosen/rejected dataset. Fine-tuning Qwen2.5-Coder-7B-Instruct on a 100K-row curated subset lifts Delulu exact match by +18.8 points and edit similarity by +0.22 on every language and every type, while also improving every HumanEval-Infilling split and every SAFIM subset. The same recipe at 3B lifts Delulu by +12.8 EM with a small, characterised general-FIM trade-off. Five-axis ablations (size, type mix, language coverage, base-model family, and a difficulty-aware fool rate) plus a head-to-head SFT vs. DPO/ORPO comparison map which design choices drive the gain. We release the full pipeline source code -- generation, fool-rate LLM judging, curation, and the FIM fine-tuning recipe -- so that the experiments in this paper can be reproduced end-to end on any permissively licensed corpus.

Task-oriented dexterous grasp generation aims to produce dexterous grasp poses that are both physically plausible and functionally suitable for specified manipulation tasks. Existing diffusion-based methods often address these two requirements in a decoupled manner: they first train a grasp diffusion model for task alignment and then rely on post-generation refinement to improve physical plausibility. However, this after-the-fact correction strategy applies physical plausibility guidance only once the grasp has already been generated, leaving the generation trajectory itself unguided by physical constraints and potentially leading to suboptimal grasps. To address this problem, we propose a novel framework that directly injects physical plausibility guidance into the denoising process of a task-aligned grasp diffusion model in a practical and effective manner, even when physical plausibility constraints are non-differentiable. This allows physical plausibility to shape grasp generation throughout denoising while preserving task alignment. Extensive experiments demonstrate the efficacy of our framework.

Perturbation experiments are central to understanding cellular mechanisms, but remain costly and sparse, motivating prediction of gene expression responses for unobserved conditions. A promising recent direction leverages large language models (LLMs) as "virtual cell" simulators-using stepwise, knowledge-grounded mechanistic reasoning to infer differential expression-pointing toward an interpretable, knowledge-driven paradigm that transcends purely data-driven approaches. However, we find that plausibility is not prediction: despite producing biologically plausible explanations, these methods fail to capture perturbation-specific effects: systematically overestimating differential expression, often underperforming a simple gene-frequency baseline in aggregate evaluations, and collapsing to chance-level performance at the per-gene level. This reveals a reliance on intrinsic gene response tendencies rather than true perturbation reasoning. We trace this failure to how evidence is presented: existing methods evaluate perturbation-gene pairs in isolation, without exposing how related perturbations differ in their effects on the same gene. To address this limitation, we introduce CORE (Contrastive Organization of Relational Evidence), which reframes prediction as a comparison task by organizing evidence into positive and negative outcomes from related perturbations. Using a biomedical knowledge graph for evidence retrieval, CORE improves calibration and substantially boosts perturbation-specific prediction in both LLM-based and non-LLM settings: for example, on drug-perturbation data, CORE-Reasoning improves Qwen3.5-9B aggregate metrics by up to 28.6%, while on generic perturbation data, CORE-Voting raises macro-per-gene AUROC from chance to 0.703 in average across four cell lines. This highlights contrastive evidence organization as essential to reliable LLM-based perturbation reasoning

Modern video generative models produce visually impressive results, yet frequently violate basic physical principles. We propose Proprio, a training-free framework that enables a frozen video generator to assess and improve the physical plausibility of its own outputs. Inspired by proprioception, the biological sense of one's own movement, Proprio treats the model's flow residual under controlled latent perturbations as a self-scoring signal. Samples that are better explained by the generator's learned dynamics induce smaller and more stable residuals. We aggregate this signal across timesteps and perturbations, focus it on motion-relevant regions with a dynamic spatiotemporal mask, and use it for best-of-N search, gradient-based self-refinement, or both. Across text-to-video and image-to-video benchmarks, Proprio consistently improves physical plausibility, outperforming VLM-based scoring, and external world-model baselines in several settings. With TurboWan2.2, Proprio improves Physics-IQ from 32.2 to 37.5 (+16.5%) and VideoPhy2-hard physical commonsense from 45.6 to 55.0 (+20.6%). Human evaluation further shows that raters prefer Proprio-selected or refined videos for physical plausibility in roughly two-thirds of comparisons. These results suggest that frozen video generators contain actionable internal signals for evaluating and improving the physical plausibility of their own outputs.

Enterprise routers assign queries to expert agents, yet deployed profiles stay static while agents evolve (prompts, tools, models), and developers rarely keep descriptions or exemplars current. We present FlyRoute, a self-evolving profiling framework that grows capability evidence from real traffic: dispatch candidates, quality-gate successful pairs into each agent's success store, periodically distill evidence into learned capability descriptions, and inject those descriptions together with BM25-retrieved successes into an LLM router. To make this flywheel data-efficient, FlyRoute introduces a targeted exploration policy that combines profile uncertainty, BM25 relevance, and lexical novelty, prioritizing under-profiled agents only for plausible queries and avoiding redundant evidence collection. In experiments on our proprietary enterprise developer-support dataset of real routed queries, FlyRoute improves a same-backbone zero-shot LLM router from 72.57% to 78.04% with only five seed queries per agent, showing that profile retrieval already strengthens cold-start routing. After streaming 7,211 labeled training queries through the flywheel, accuracy rises to 89.83% (+17.26pp over zero-shot; +11.79pp over cold start), with consistent gains across four expert domains under standard routing accuracy on single-gold test queries.

LLMs deployed multilingually are often audited via English explanations for non-English inputs. We evaluate extractive explanations ''where the model identifies input token spans as evidence alongside a generated rationale'' and uncover a systematic trade-off: English-pivot explanations can achieve higher span agreement with human rationales while their evidence becomes less causally grounded in the model's prediction, as measured by both comprehensiveness and sufficiency. Across 3 tasks, 5languages, and 2multilingual LLM families, we find that English explanations frequently produce fluent but loosely anchored rationales, with comprehensiveness degrading by up to 5.7x relative to native-language conditions - even as task accuracy remains stable across settings. For socially nuanced classification, English pivots also fail to preserve pragmatic cues, reducing both faithfulness and span agreement. We recommend auditing explanations in the input language, reporting multi-faceted faithfulness metrics beyond lexical overlap, and treating English rationales as communication summaries rather than faithful decision traces.

Counterfactual explanations (CFEs) provide actionable recourse, but most methods assume a static framework with fixed data and a trained classifier. This assumption breaks in evolving data environments, such as data streams, where online models are repeatedly updated under concept drift. We identify CFE maintenance in this setting as a previously overlooked problem: explanations that are valid when generated may silently become invalid as the model evolves, including robust CFEs, which are not designed for continuous drift. We propose a lightweight, model-agnostic update scheme that repairs existing CFEs using local sampling to estimate validity and plausibility directions while preserving proximity to the original instance. Experiments on synthetic drifting streams show that initially created CFEs rapidly lose validity, whereas maintained CFEs preserve validity and local plausibility at a lower cost than repeated regeneration.

Large language models (LLMs) can generate high-level diverse phenomena without explicitly programmed rules. This capability has led to their adoption within different agent-based models (ABMs) and social simulations. Recent studies investigate their ability to generate different phenomena of interest, for example, human behavior on social media platforms or alien behavior in game-theoretic scenarios. However, capability, prediction, and explanation are different--drawing from the philosophy of science and mechanisms literature, explanation requires showing, to some degree, how a phenomenon is produced by related organized entities and activities. For modelers, describing the characteristics of an experiment or whether a simulation provides progress in capability (or explanation), can be difficult without being grounded in potentially distant research areas. We integrate recent work on LLM-ABMs with contemporary philosophy of science literature and use it to operationalize a definition of 'plausibility' in a four-level scale. Our scale separates the evaluation of a model's generative sufficiency (ability to reproduce a phenomenon) from its mechanistic plausibility (how the phenomenon could be produced), and clarifies the distinct roles of different models, such as predictive and explanatory ones. We introduce this as the Mechanism Plausibility Scale.

Estimating question difficulty is a critical component in evaluating and improving large language models (LLMs) for question answering (QA). Existing approaches often rely on readability formulas, retrieval-based signals, or popularity statistics, which may not fully capture the reasoning challenges posed to modern LLMs. In this paper, we introduce Q-DAPS (Question Difficulty based on Answer Plausibility Scores) method, a novel approach that estimates question difficulty by computing the entropy of plausibility scores over candidate answers. We systematically evaluate Q-DAPS across four prominent QA datasets-TriviaQA, NQ, MuSiQue, and QASC-demonstrating that it consistently outperforms baselines. Moreover, Q-DAPS shows strong robustness across hyperparameter variations and question types. Extensive ablation studies further show that Q-DAPS remains robust across different plausibility estimation paradigms, model sizes, and realistic settings. Human evaluations further confirm strong alignment between Q-DAPS's difficulty estimates and human judgments of question difficulty. Overall, Q-DAPS provides an interpretable, scalable, and bias-resilient approach to question difficulty estimation in modern QA systems.

LLM recommendation agents increasingly produce structured recommendation reports: sets of items accompanied by natural-language justifications. Yet existing evaluations often reduce this setting to reranking small shortlisted candidate sets or judge reports mainly by semantic plausibility. We introduce Recommendation Atlas (Agentic Tool-Level Assessment for Shopping), or RecoAtlas, a benchmark and toolkit for evaluating shopping agents with behavior-grounded metrics. RecoAtlas complements held-out interaction metrics with learned utility proxies for relevance, complementarity, and diversity derived from interaction data, while separately measuring semantic coherence and explanation quality. Its controlled tool environment exposes agents to either semantic, behavior-aligned, or faulty tools, enabling diagnosis of whether performance gains arise from stronger reasoning, better signals, or more effective tool-use policies. Across controlled experiments, we show that RecoAtlas exhibits key properties of a meaningful benchmark for agentic systems: performance scales with model capacity and test-time compute, improves with stronger and better-aligned tools, degrades under noisy or misaligned signals, and reveals that semantic plausibility does not necessarily capture behavior-grounded utility. RecoAtlas provides a foundation for developing and evaluating shopping assistants that optimize not only for plausible recommendations, but also for coherent, behaviorally grounded recommendation sets.

Generative world models are increasingly used for video generation, where learned simulators are expected to capture the physical rules that govern real-world dynamics. However, evaluating whether generated videos actually follow these rules remains challenging. Existing physics-focused video benchmarks have made important progress, but they still face three key challenges, including the coarse evaluation frameworks that hide law-specific failures, response biases and fatigue that undermine the validity of annotation judgments, and automated evaluators that are insufficiently physics-aware or difficult to audit. To address those challenges, we introduce PhyGround, a criteria-grounded benchmark for evaluating physical reasoning in video generation. The benchmark contains 250 curated prompts, each augmented with an expected physical outcome, and a taxonomy of 13 physical laws across solid-body mechanics, fluid dynamics, and optics. Each law is operationalized through observable sub-questions to enable per-law diagnostics. We evaluate eight modern video generation models through a large-scale, quality-controlled human study, grounded on social science lab experiment design. A total of 459 annotators provided 5,796 complete annotations and over 37.4K fine-grained labels; after quality control, the retained annotations exhibited high split-half model-ranking correlations (Spearman's rho > 0.90). To support reproducible automated evaluation, we release PhyJudge-9B, an open physics-specialized VLM judge. PhyJudge-9B achieves substantially lower aggregate relative bias than Gemini-3.1-Pro (3.3% vs. 16.6%). We release prompts, human annotations, model checkpoints, and evaluation code on the project page https://phyground.github.io/.

While random demonstration labels barely hurt in-context learning (Min et al., 2022), we show that homogeneous labels--even semantically valid ones--collapse accuracy to <=12% across six models (Pythia, Llama, Qwen; 0.8B--8B) and four tasks. The trigger is label-slot content: the model treats tokens occupying the label position as an exhaustive answer vocabulary, with homogeneity as the maximally collapsed case. A novel set-level fixation finding confirms this: when demonstrations carry varied nonsense tokens from {foo,bar,vex,nit,orb}, the model places 42--67% of probability on the demonstrated set while P(dog) remains below 0.2%. This is inconsistent with latent-concept Bayesian accounts (Xie et al., 2022) and reveals that ICL output is constrained vocabulary retrieval--the model binds its output to the demonstrated token inventory regardless of semantic plausibility. The effect generalizes to 4-way classification (0% accuracy across three models, 1B--8B) and multi-token verbalizers ("very positive"), where we decompose fixation into format-level (template adoption) and content-level (polarity override) components that are experimentally dissociable. Mechanistically, per-item paired activation patching on Pythia-1B recovers 98.4% of the gap (95% CI [84%, 112%]), localizing fixation to a layer-7-centered circuit (rank 2/560, 99.8th percentile; 4-fold CV mean 103%). Cross-architecture logit lens on Llama-3.2-1B replicates the encode-then-override trajectory with causal confirmation (top-5 layers: 89% recovery).

Final outputs hide when a checkpoint commits to its next-token prediction. We introduce the convergence gap, a model-diffing diagnostic that decodes each layer's next-token distribution and measures its distance to the model's own final distribution. Across six paired pretrained and instruction-tuned checkpoints in native prompting regimes, instruction-tuned checkpoints remain farther from their final predictions later into the stack. The effect persists under endpoint-matched raw and tuned readouts, endpoint-free same-history checks, and fixed-history template replay. Matched-prefix interventions identify late MLP windows as the largest tested leverage point: late IT grafts into PT hosts increase late KL by +0.34 nats, while PT-late swaps into IT hosts reduce it by -0.51 nats; matched random late perturbations give only +0.003 versus +0.327 for the true late graft. A preselected Gemma case study provides behavior-facing plausibility for the same late swap, without serving as a benchmark claim. These results identify a robust predictiondynamics signature of post-training: released instruction-following checkpoints tend to settle later, and late MLP computation is the strongest tested bidirectional handle on that delay under matched histories.

This paper studies full-body 3D human motion recovery from head-mounted device signals. Existing diffusion-based methods often rely on global distribution matching, leading to local joint reconstruction errors. We propose MotionGRPO, a novel framework leveraging reinforcement learning post-training to inject fine-grained guidance into the diffusion process. Technically, we model diffusion sampling as a Markov decision process optimized via Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO). To this end, we introduce a hybrid reward mechanism that combines a learned conditioned perceptual model for global visual plausibility and explicit constraints for local joint precision. Our key technical insight is that policy optimization in diffusion-based recovery suffers from vanishing gradients due to limited intra-group sample diversity. To address this, we further introduce a noise-injection strategy that explicitly increases sample variance and stabilizes learning. Extensive experiments demonstrate that MotionGRPO achieves state-of-the-art performance with superior visual fidelity

In this paper, we employ the Minimal Cognitive Grid (MCG), a framework created to evaluate the cognitive plausibility of artificial systems, to offer a systematic assessment of leading computational models of analogy and metaphor, including the Structure-Mapping Engine (SME), CogSketch, METCL, and Large Language Models (LLMs). We present a formal and quantitative operationalization of the MCG framework and, through the analysis of its three main dimensions (Functional/Structural Ratio, Generality, and Performance Match), examine how well each system aligns with standard cognitive theories of the modeled phenomena, thus allowing for comparison of the models with respect to their cognitive plausibility, according to consistent and generalizable mathematical criteria.

Recent visual generation models have made major progress in photorealism, typography, instruction following, and interactive editing, yet they still struggle with spatial reasoning, persistent state, long-horizon consistency, and causal understanding. We argue that the field should move beyond appearance synthesis toward intelligent visual generation: plausible visuals grounded in structure, dynamics, domain knowledge, and causal relations. To frame this shift, we introduce a five-level taxonomy: Atomic Generation, Conditional Generation, In-Context Generation, Agentic Generation, and World-Modeling Generation, progressing from passive renderers to interactive, agentic, world-aware generators. We analyze key technical drivers, including flow matching, unified understanding-and-generation models, improved visual representations, post-training, reward modeling, data curation, synthetic data distillation, and sampling acceleration. We further show that current evaluations often overestimate progress by emphasizing perceptual quality while missing structural, temporal, and causal failures. By combining benchmark review, in-the-wild stress tests, and expert-constrained case studies, this roadmap offers a capability-centered lens for understanding, evaluating, and advancing the next generation of intelligent visual generation systems.

The rapid advancement of photorealistic Text-to-Video (T2V) generation brings in an urgent need for up-to-date evaluation methods. Existing benchmarks largely overlooked implausible scenarios and do not measure audio-visual alignment. We introduce BRITE, the first framework that unifies (1) implausible prompting, (2) fine-grained assessment of audio-visual consistency, and (3) QA-based interpretable evaluation into a comprehensive T2V benchmark. Unlike fully automated Multimodal LLM-based pipelines, which are prone to hallucination and prompt ambiguity, BRITE guarantees reliability through a rigorous human-in-the-loop protocol for benchmark creation. Evaluating five state-of-the-art models (Sora 2, Veo 3.1, Runway Gen4.5, Pixverse V5.5, and Qwen3Max), we reveal a critical performance gap: while models excel at static object composition, they exhibit significant degradation in object-action binding and audio-visual synchronization. Our framework offers the community a reliable, interpretable benchmark and evaluation framework that can detect and locate limitations in the next generation of T2V models, especially for off-manifold prompts

Recent advances in model architectures, compute, and data scale have driven rapid progress in video generation, producing increasingly realistic content. Yet, no prior method systematically measures how faithfully these systems render human bodies and motion dynamics. In this paper, we present HumanScore, a systematic framework to evaluate the quality of human motions in AI-generated videos. HumanScore defines six interpretable metrics spanning kinematic plausibility, temporal stability, and biomechanical consistency, enabling fine-grained diagnosis beyond visual realism alone. Through carefully designed prompts, we elicit a diverse set of movements at varying intensities and evaluate videos generated by thirteen state-of-the-art models. Our analysis reveals consistent gaps between perceptual plausibility and motion biomechanical fidelity, identifies recurrent failure modes (e.g., temporal jitter, anatomically implausible poses, and motion drift), and produces robust model rankings from quantitative and physically meaningful criteria.

Defeasible statements are statements that are likely, or probable, or usually true, but may occasionally be false. Plausible reasoning makes conclusions from statements that are either facts or defeasible statements without using numbers. So there are no probabilities or suchlike involved. Seventeen principles of logics that do plausible reasoning are suggested and several important plausible reasoning examples are considered. There are 14 necessary principles and 3 desirable principles, one of which is not formally stated. A first-order logic, called Plausible Logic (PL), is defined that satisfies all but two of the desirable principles and reasons correctly with all the examples. As far as we are aware, this is the only such logic. PL has 8 reasoning algorithms because, from a given plausible reasoning situation, there are different sensible conclusions. This article is a condensation of my book `Plausible Reasoning and Plausible Logic' (PRPL), which is to be submitted. Each section of this article corresponds to a chapter in PRPL, and vice versa. The proofs of all the results are in PRPL, so they are omitted in this article.

Recent advances in language models have substantially improved Natural Language Understanding (NLU). Although widely used benchmarks suggest that Large Language Models (LLMs) can effectively disambiguate, their practical applicability in real-world narrative contexts remains underexplored. SemEval-2026 Task 5 addresses this gap by introducing a task that predicts the human-perceived plausibility of a word sense within a short story. In this work, we propose an LLM-based framework for plausibility scoring of homonymous word senses in narrative texts using a structured reasoning mechanism. We examine the impact of fine-tuning low-parameter LLMs with diverse reasoning strategies, alongside dynamic few-shot prompting for large-parameter models, on accurate sense identification and plausibility estimation. Our results show that commercial large-parameter LLMs with dynamic few-shot prompting closely replicate human-like plausibility judgments. Furthermore, model ensembling slightly improves performance, better simulating the agreement patterns of five human annotators compared to single-model predictions

Indoor 3D scenes are ultimately meant to be used: an embodied agent should be able to navigate, reach objects, and complete diverse activities. Yet whether a given scene actually supports these activities for a specific agent profile is rarely verified. Existing evaluations of indoor 3D scenes typically focus on visual quality and semantic plausibility. In contrast, the feasibility of an activity depends on geometric, agent-specific constraints such as reach, clearance, and navigable space availability. These properties are not captured by visual plausibility metrics, and, as we show, VLMs, which are increasingly used to reason about 3D scenes, often fail to determine action feasibility in a single shot. We present SceneTeract, a verification interface that separates semantic action understanding from physical feasibility. Given a scene, an activity, and an embodied agent profile, we decompose the activity into atomic actions on scene objects. Explicit geometric checks then decide whether each step is executable and return a diagnostic trace explaining failures. In synthetic indoor scenes, SceneTeract reveals widespread functional and accessibility failures across diverse agent profiles. Moreover, when benchmarked against our verification, we find that existing VLMs systematically over-predict action feasibility, highlighting limited awareness of embodied functional constraints. In response, we post-train a lightweight VLM with verifier feedback, improving its assessment of physical feasibility. Although trained only on renders of synthetic scenes, we demonstrate that scene understanding improvements also generalize to real-world scenes. We will release our verification suite, benchmark labels, and diagnostic trace datasets.

While the task of assessing the plausibility of events such as "news is relevant" has been addressed by a growing body of work, less attention has been paid to capturing changes in plausibility as triggered by event modification. Understanding changes in plausibility is relevant for tasks such as dialogue generation, commonsense reasoning, and hallucination detection, as it allows to correctly model, for example, "false news is relevant", which is of lower relevance but higher concern due to potential disinformation. In this work, we tackle the Adept challenge benchmark (Emami et al. 2021) consisting of 16K English sentence pairs differing by exactly one adjectival modifier (e.g., false.) Our modeling experiments provide a conceptually novel method using sentence transformers and reveal that sentence transformers struggle despite their conceptual alignment with the task at hand, underperforming in comparison to transformers like RoBERTa. Finally, we discuss our findings in relation to prior work and present a detailed error analysis to shed light on potential sources for ST underperformance, highlighting advantages and shortcomings of the examined methods for balancing out train and test data.

Next-word prediction (NWP) trains language models against a single observed continuation, even though many contexts admit multiple plausible next words. Recent RL-based next-word reasoning methods make this tension explicit: they reward a model for producing a rationale that supports one context-conditioned continuation, which can turn a pre-existing preference into a confident, self-justifying trajectory. We introduce BOW, an RL framework that instead trains models to produce self-contained, neutral, and comprehensive descriptions of the plausible next-word space. The policy generates a next-word reasoning trajectory from the full context, but a frozen scorer computes the core reward from that trajectory alone, without separately receiving the context. BOW-Reg adds a lightweight breadth regularizer to this core reward to discourage premature collapse. On two model backbones, BOW remains competitive with the original models and often outperforms trained baselines across ten general reasoning benchmarks. On benchmarks testing ambiguous references and word meanings, BOW-Reg achieves the highest SharedRef correctness and the lowest HoWN-Simple single-sense collapse on both backbones. Human evaluation further shows that BOW-Reg produces broader next-word reasoning trajectories, while direct next-word-prediction evaluation shows that these trajectories remain predictive.

Recent advances in image and video generation raise hopes that these models possess world modeling capabilities-the ability to generate realistic, physically plausible videos. This could revolutionize applications in robotics, autonomous driving, and scientific simulation. However, before treating these models as world models, we must ask: Do they adhere to physical laws? Current evaluation methods rely on subjective judgments or trajectory matching, limiting their usage for physical reasoning estimation, where many generations could be physically plausible. Thus, we introduce Morpheus, one of the first physics-informed evaluation frameworks for measuring the ability of video generation models to comprehend Newtonian dynamics. Morpheus features 130 real-world videos capturing physical phenomena, guided by conservation laws. Using those as conditioning for video generation, we assess physical plausibility leveraging interpretable metrics evaluated with respect to infallible conservation laws known per physical setting, leveraging advances in physics-informed neural networks and vision-language foundation models. Importantly, Morpheus targets controlled Newtonian rigid-body settings to enable quantitative checks. Our findings reveal that even with advanced prompting and video conditioning, contemporary models struggle to encode physical principles despite generating aesthetically pleasing videos.