Validity

Independent evaluation can reject harmful policy updates yet also prevent useful continual learning. We argue that update admission must be assessed through both error control and retained learning opportunities at a stated interaction budget. We identify a concrete failure: a range-based confidence gate cannot certify unchanged old-task behavior within otherwise substantial budgets. A standard paired-binomial construction reduces this burden when outcome disagreements are rare. We also specify certified historical-reference promotion and a round-level missed-opportunity metric. In a constructed one-step pushing diagnostic with 32 seeds, fresh paired checks admit 31.6% of a common update stream at 2,000 episodes per stage, versus zero for the range-based gate; unconditional replay nevertheless learns better in closed-loop runs. A separate learned-dynamics stress test distinguishes model bias from feedback-selection error. The contribution is an admission-audit protocol with analytical and synthetic evidence; physical-robot and VLA validation remain open.

Robot Operating System 2 (ROS 2) standardizes application code against a middleware interface (RMW) whose reference implementations are built on the Data Distribution Service (DDS). We present AXON, an alternative ROS 2 RMW implementation that separates transport policy by deployment scope. A Rust core and C++ adapter use POSIX shared-memory rings for same-host communication, QUIC for remote communication, and a daemon for discovery and graph synchronization. We then describe two fail-closed TLS 1.3 key-establishment configurations for remote traffic. The classic configuration offers only the hybrid X25519MLKEM768 group, preventing negotiation of a classical-only group. The qkd configuration imports a 256-bit key obtained through the ETSI GS QKD 014 API as a pairwise external PSK and offers no Diffie-Hellman group. Its default messages10 strategy additionally protects remote application messages with AES-256-GCM, rotating KME material after ten outgoing messages and using a fresh nonce per envelope; session relies on QUIC protection alone. The external-PSK path requires a narrow extension to rustls, now bundled with AXON. We define the threat model, distinguish peer authentication in the two configurations, and delimit the implementation-level validation from ROS 2 conformance, comparative performance, and physical-QKD validation.

We present a study of the quality of individual DBpedia triples from the perspective of Natural Language Generation, and propose and evaluate an approach for collecting entity-specific triple sets that filters out questionable triples while minimizing the loss of correct ones. We show in an evaluation against manually annotated data that with validation rules, it is possible to reach 98% precision in triple selection, and with improvements to a few Property definitions, it is possible to improve recall by 40% without harming precision.

Music recommendation relies primarily on two signals: user-item interactions, which fail in the cold-start regime, and intrinsic musical content, available for any recording. We argue that a third, largely untapped signal is both richer and more principled: critical adjacency, the pairwise relation established when an expert critic explicitly links two artists in long-form prose. It encodes deliberate judgments about which artists belong together. Prior work established its internal validity, showing it recovers coherent, interpretable communities and can match collaborative filtering in user-satisfaction simulations, with no user data. What has been missing is external validation: whether this critic-sourced relation is grounded in the music itself versus sociological context. We test it against acoustic content, reframing the question as one of construct validity. Representing artists as empirical distributions over 80 low-level Essentia acoustic descriptors and modeling pairwise proximity via marginal optimal-transport (Wasserstein) distances, we evaluate how far critical adjacency is sonically recoverable under a cold-start, artist-disjoint split. Our ensemble recovers these edges at out-of-sample AUC of 0.767 (95% CI 0.761-0.775). Recoverability rises monotonically with critical consensus, reaching 0.865 on multi-source attested edges. Stratified evaluations align with sociological models of genre: tightly bounded, scene-based genres show higher recoverability than broad industry umbrella terms. Critical discourse is thus a rich source of information for recommendation, decomposing into a reproducible "sonic core" and a "sociological remainder" driven by narrative positioning, subcultural context, and canonical placement. The work offers both a scalable cold-start discovery mechanism and a sociologically grounded approach to MIR and MRS research.

LLM coding agents issue Bash commands through interfaces that may serialize, wrap, and reparse model output. Matched execution scores alone cannot distinguish command-generation errors from failures introduced after generation. QuoteBench measures this boundary with exact final-state validation on 56 one-shot tasks from 14 incident-derived families, crossing the generation contract with the execution transport around one deliberately unescaped added parser. Escaping at the interpolation point reproduces each replayed reply's raw-path outcome, so any recovery under a disclosed boundary must come from the model changing its generation. Across eight same-window configurations, replaying the same reply through the added parser lowers success by 55.4 to 73.2 percentage points; disclosure recovers 30.4 to 60.7 points for six configurations, and zero or slightly negative for the other two. Raw generation is nearly saturated at the frontier; boundary adaptation is what still separates models. GPT-5.6-sol's matched gap of -3.6 points hides -64.3 points of damage and +60.7 points of compensation. The deployment configuration reorders models: one reversal among 26 comparable pairs is unambiguous and four more sit on single-task margins. Evaluations of command-issuing agents should report the model configuration, generation contract, execution path, operating point, and final-state validator rather than treat a matched score as an intrinsic model property.

LLM benchmark scores can be precise even when the observation protocol does not identify the behavioral property they are intended to measure. In a controlled, solver-grounded setting, we formalize a protocol-level identifiability audit over a finite behavioral policy class: given policies H, observation support O, and estimand $τ$, we test whether O separates every pair with different $τ$. The audit requires zero model calls and resolves our diagnostic case: base-only observation collapses seven frozen deterministic policies into one equivalence class; full support yields seven classes and no cross-estimand collisions; every leave-one-out support retains a constructive collision witness. Empirically, both constrained-generation variants have pair-validity 1.0, yet base accuracy and selective-response fidelity diverge - 0.620 versus 0.324 across six balanced oracle-transition directions (cluster-bootstrap 95% CI [0.600, 0.642] vs. [0.304, 0.345]) - and the gap recurs on a second deterministic source (0.646 vs. 0.331). The audit also synthesizes a minimum identifying support $O^*$ for the frozen policy class: two cells instead of the full 36-cell tensor. This case shows how evaluation-design validity can be checked structurally before model inference and why base correctness does not determine intervention-response fidelity.

We independently reproduce two recent methods for making large language model (LLM) reasoning more reliable, and stress-test them across domains and models (RPC across four new task domains with Qwen3-8B, LCF across four 7-8B models). The first, RPC, aggregates token probabilities and self-consistency at inference; the second, LCF, trains projectors that split hidden states into "content" and "logic" and edits the logic part toward a valid region. Validating such reliability claims matters because the original evaluations are run by each method's own authors and were never independently reproduced or stress-tested across models and domains, and LCF shipped no public code. We re-run RPC's published-path aggregation and re-implement LCF's projector, contrastive, and intervention pipeline, then extend both to text-to-SQL, legal extraction, fallacy identification, and precedent grading, and probe LCF's representation directly. RPC reproduces the original grid exactly on the authors' released reasoning paths; on four new domains its edge over self-consistency is never significant (ties or small mixed differences, paired p >= 0.28), and on BIRD, the one domain where we vary the budget, the edge grows with K as predicted but its largest gap (+2.5 accuracy at K=32, p=0.16) reverses to -0.25 when we enlarge the sample to n=200. LCF's logic-validity direction is real but weak (0.82 separability at the single best sub-layer versus 0.95 for a semantic-attribute control); its one positive effect (Qwen3 $Δ$Prob) is not significant (p=0.56), while it significantly reduces $Δ$Prob on two of the other three models.

Automated UML generation from sketches and images is gaining renewed attention with the rise of large language models and multimodal AI. However, reproducible evaluation remains difficult due to the lack of public datasets with executable groundtruth models. We present CAS2UML, a public dataset of 557 handdrawn UML diagrams, including 271 class diagrams and 286 activity diagrams, each paired with manually validated PlantUML code. We also provide a PlantUML-based validation tool and reusable scripts for checking the syntactic correctness and renderability of generated UML artifacts, enabling reproducible benchmarking of sketch-to-UML approaches. The dataset, validation tool, processing scripts, documentation, and demonstration video are publicly available at: Dataset: https://huggingface.co/datasets/Seym0n /cas2uml_hand-drawn_to_plantuml_dataset; Tool and Scripts: https://github.com/Seym0n/handwritten-uml-dataset; Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQrYeGgT3hs.

Validation adequacy in safety-critical software depends on more than the system under test. Critical scenarios must be constructed under controlled conditions, execution evidence must be aligned into verdict-ready form, and abnormal outcomes must be attributable to actionable causes. Existing testability research remains largely artifact-centric and offers little architectural support for reasoning about the combined capability of the scenario, the test system, and the system under test. Joint Testability Architecture (JTA) addresses this gap by treating those three elements as a single object of analysis and design. It characterizes validation capability along three dimensions--controllability, observability, and isolability--and organizes them through three domains, three bridges, and an analysis-design-evaluation-refinement loop. JTA also introduces scenario contracts, joint capability assessment, validation blind-spot identification, and bridge-oriented design actions that map capability gaps to concrete improvements in control points, evidence organization, and attribution boundaries. An illustrative analysis of ArduPilot failsafe validation shows that link-loss scenarios are comparatively mature, whereas state-estimation anomaly scenarios remain harder to validate because evidence alignment and attribution semantics are weaker. JTA is not a replacement for existing testing or safety-analysis techniques; it provides an architectural basis for modeling, designing, and assessing scenario-based validation in safety-critical software.

A/B testing remains the standard for rolling out new features in the technology industry. Each experiment, however, consumes real traffic, engineering effort, and weeks of wall-clock time. Can AI agents---conditioned on behavioral profiles and contextual descriptions of the intervention---simulate outcomes accurately enough to vet candidate treatments before committing live traffic? We formalize this question as a \emph{Simulated Randomized Controlled Trial} (S-RCT) and derive a two-layer error decomposition that separates agent approximation error from subsampling error, enabling targeted improvements to each. The framework is agent-agnostic: any behavioral model---from a fine-tuned specialist to a general-purpose foundation model---can serve as the simulation engine. Validated on 67 historical marketing A/B tests, a baseline S-RCT using an off-the-shelf foundation model captures directional signal (sign overlap 0.70) but systematically overshoots effect magnitudes. A two-phase pre-period calibration protocol reduces the squared prediction error (after removing irreducible measurement noise) by ${\sim}77\times$; a within-subject design---where each agent is exposed to both arms---reduces standard errors by ${\sim}2.4\times$. We discuss limitations of the current approach and identify applications where experimenters stand to benefit from agentic signals.

Graph functional dependencies (GFD) are a recently-developed concept aimed at capturing both topological structures in graphs and functional dependencies between attributes. The process of verifying whether a given GFD holds over a particular graph is referred to as GFD validation. In this very computationally expensive problem, locating suitable subgraphs accounts for about 99% of the total run time. The concept's authors originally proposed a parallel scheme (algorithm), targeting specifically clusters of high-performance servers. The goal of this study is to open GFD validation to a broader public by making it possible to run it on a consumer class PC. Our initial experiments demonstrated that the existing algorithm may not be optimal for these purposes. Therefore, we propose FastGFDs - a GFD validation algorithm that employs a recently developed graph matching technique. In contrast to the parallel scheme, it is sequential and operates on the entire graph. Its novelty lies in the use of Core-First Decomposition and the Compact Path Index (CPI). We compare it with the naive sequential algorithm and the parallel scheme, evaluating run times and memory consumption. The current study is the first step towards designing an efficient algorithm for GFD validation in low-end single-node environments. We also provide an open-source implementation of GFD validation over large data graphs. To the best of our knowledge, this is the only publicly available implementation of an algorithm for this problem. It is developed in Desbordante - an open-source high-performance data profiler aimed at science-intensive tasks. Finally, our experiments on a real-life graph demonstrated up to three times performance (2.6x on average) improvement over the parallel scheme. Employing the new subgraph matching algorithm also reduced memory consumption by five times.

Agentic AI systems act through multi-step trajectories that combine planning, tool use, memory, interaction, and adaptation. This behavior stretches validation practice beyond component testing and one-shot input--output evaluation, because acceptable system behavior now depends on how decisions unfold over time and under changing environmental conditions. This survey synthesizes 257 papers spanning agent evaluation, software assurance, cyber-physical systems, runtime monitoring, and regulatory guidance in order to characterize the validation problem for agentic systems. The review is organized around a five-dimension taxonomy covering behavioral, safety, temporal, regulatory, and multi-agent concerns, and uses that taxonomy to map current approaches and expose recurrent coverage gaps. The analysis shows that behavioral evaluation is comparatively mature, while temporal validity, runtime evidence maintenance, regulatory legibility, and open-ended multi-agent systems assurance remain under-developed. Three cross-domain case studies (medical care, industrial operations, smart-mobility systems) provide operational illustrations of how the five taxonomy dimensions recur in safety-critical settings, grounded in the failure patterns documented in the reviewed literature. The paper concludes with a lifecycle-oriented research agenda centered on bounded-autonomy specifications, adversarial trajectory generation, runtime monitoring, and audit-ready evidence structures. The central claim is that trustworthy deployment of agentic AI depends on validating trajectories in context rather than assessing isolated components alone.

The ability of large language models (LLMs) to process and generate text has introduced potential for applications in information extraction (IE). While it's debated whether LLMs outperform smaller fine-tuned models for classification tasks, their strong generalization capability makes them promising for domains with limited labeled data available for fine-tuning. This advantage is particularly relevant for the emerging application of the digital product passport (DPP), where the problem space is broad but domain-specific data remains scarce. Motivated by this use case, we apply generative IE to the product domain, explicitly addressing efficiency, generalizability, and data privacy constraints. We propose a two-step validation method that integrates a PLM block into the generative IE pipeline and thereby leverages LLMs' correction capability. We discover that such a validation task enhances LLM performance, particularly on the extraction of weakly expressed, low-salience entities that appear sparsely throughout the text. For certain entities, the performance of mid-size models can even reach levels comparable to larger models, and the improvement of first-step PLM predictions also enhance the final LLM output. Nevertheless, the effects on the smallest open-source LLMs (e.g., Llama-3.2 3B) is limited. Based on the findings, we develop a demo application for product information extraction that utilizes locally deployed LLMs, targeting further adaptations to real-world DPP use cases.

Guitar tablature transcription predicts the string and fret position for each note so that the resulting tablature reproduces the target musical part. Prior sequence-to-sequence approaches have shown promising results on large-scale datasets, but their generalization behavior across different dataset scales remains less explored. In this work, we propose a guitar tablature transcription framework with explicit note-event tokenization and regularized training. The proposed decoder token representation incorporates note-event tokens together with TAB tokens, allowing note boundaries, pitch-related events, and string-fret positions to be represented more explicitly. We evaluate the proposed framework on DadaGP, a large-scale dataset, and Francois Leduc, a small-scale dataset. Our method improves tablature accuracy over the Fretting Transformer baseline on DadaGP, with especially strong gains when trained directly on the small-scale Leduc dataset. We further introduce a pitch-validity constrained decoding strategy that masks pitch-invalid TAB candidates during generation rather than correcting them after decoding and simultaneously preserves the original timing and note structure from the input. This constraint improves tablature accuracy and provides a controlled setting for measuring how much error remains after pitch-invalid predictions are removed. Our code will be released at:https://github.com/MusicGuitarTab/GuitarTab

Generative recommendation commonly represents items using fixed-length semantic identifiers (SIDs) constructed through clustering and quantization. However, these artificial codes may overcompress item semantics, remain misaligned with pretrained LLM vocabularies, and require costly autoregressive decoding. In light of this, we propose VaLiDRec, a generative recommendation framework based on variable-length, LLM-aligned semantic identifiers. VaLiDRec constructs SIDs directly from informative native LLM vocabulary tokens via token importance estimation, semantic-quality-aware pruning, and collision-aware refinement, allowing identifier lengths to adapt to item semantic complexity. To model user preferences, VaLiDRec incorporates graph-aware soft prompts and reformulates recommendation as token-set prediction with token-level item scoring, eliminating autoregressive SID generation and beam search. Experiments on four real-world datasets show that VaLiDRec consistently outperforms strong sequential and generative recommendation baselines across all evaluation metrics. It further achieves superior zero-shot item cold-start performance and 87.49$\times$ faster inference than LC-Rec. These results demonstrate that LLM-native variable-length semantic identifiers provide a more expressive and efficient paradigm for generative recommendation.

Automated code generation is becoming an important tool in quantitative finance, where large language models can generate option pricing implementations directly from mathematical model specifications. Validating such implementations, however, requires considerably more than conventional software testing: numerical pricing methods must remain mathematically consistent, numerically stable, and reliable across a wide range of model parameters. We introduce RIDGE, an autonomous validation framework in which generated pricing implementations are subjected to structured no-arbitrage tests, stress tests, benchmark comparisons, and consistency checks. Validation evidence is interpreted diagnostically, while the resulting knowledge is accumulated in a repository and reused across models and successive validation iterations. This enables systematic refinement of both the pricing implementation and the validation methodology. The framework is applied to five stochastic volatility models. Across these studies, all detected implementation defects are removed and, in two cases, the validation process reveals methodological limitations and motivates the development of alternative numerical methods. The supplementary material is available in the GitHub repository: https://github.com/ShQiangLiu/ridge.

This paper presents GEMCo, a releasable, human-written proxy for inaccessible counselling data: 86 complete German e-mail counselling conversations (728 messages), expert-authored cases and counsellor sessions with trained role-players. It is validated against a held-out reference of 124 real counselling conversations. The proxy and the real conversations are measured against each other on counsellor strategies and client emotions. The gap is detectable but small. A generative validation supports the analysis. The corpus is the primary contribution. The validation method generalises to any domain where real data cannot be shared but a human-made proxy can. Privacy and ethics keep real counselling data closed. GEMCo carries none by design and can be released, a first step toward language research in this domain.

Large Language Model (LLM)-based Test-Driven Development (TDD) has advanced automated code generation. However, existing approaches depend heavily on human-crafted test cases and cannot operate effectively when only natural-language requirements are available. Although recent work enables automatic test generation, it often overlooks the inherent stochasticity of LLMs, leading to two key defects: faulty tests generate misleading feedback that distorts code optimization, while mixed-quality test cases produce conflicting evaluation signals that hinder reliable code selection. To address these challenges, we propose MineValiCoder, a collaborative closed-loop TDD framework based on the mutual reinforcement of test-case quality and code quality. MineValiCoder comprises three modules. The Test Case Quality Mining (TCQM) module filters faulty test cases through self-validation, providing reliable optimization supervision. The Parallel TDD Refinement module iteratively optimizes code and generates diverse high-quality code candidates using validated test-case feedback. The Bipartite Graph-Based Code-Test Mutual Validation (BiCoTeV) module dynamically models code-test interactions and performs mutual validation scoring for stable and reliable optimal-code selection. Extensive evaluations across four LLMs and mainstream benchmarks show that MineValiCoder significantly outperforms state-of-the-art methods. Specifically, it achieves Pass@1 scores of 96.34% on HumanEval, 87.40% on MBPP, 64.00% on APPS, and 51.33% on LiveCodeBench. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of MineValiCoder in mitigating LLM stochasticity and improving the reliability of automated code generation.

Agent benchmarks increasingly evaluate repository editing, web research, terminal use, and long-horizon interaction. Their scores support capability claims only when the evaluation protocol keeps the intended capability necessary for success. Recent reward-hacking benchmarks and system reports show that agents can instead recover public solutions, read evaluation artifacts, infer generator structure, manipulate feedback, or benefit from invalid scoring paths; existing responses do not provide a common procedure for attributing these shortcuts and quantifying their effect across benchmarks. We formulate protocol validity and introduce HackDetect, a post-hoc audit that identifies an exposure, determines how the agent used it, and assesses whether the resulting score is misleading. We quantify score inflation with the Mislead gap, defined as the exploit score minus the intended score. We audit 2,385 traces across 15 agent benchmarks and find evidence of exposures and reward hacking in 67.0% of Frontier Science traces and 66.7% of AutoLab tasks. Across paired comparisons, we measure score inflation of 0.45-1.00, showing that benchmark reports should provide evidence that scores reflect the intended capability.

Data-driven generative models can extend partially observed simulation trajectories into ensembles of alternative future scenarios. However, consistency with a learned trajectory distribution does not ensure that generated continuations satisfy the structural conditions of the simulated system. This paper presents a method for learned scenario continuation and post-generation structural validation in dynamic graph simulations. A conditional diffusion model generates future graph-state trajectories from partial histories, while an external symbolic layer evaluates each continuation using a Boolean admissibility indicator and a continuous violation score. This information supports hard filtering and soft weighting, with optional projection considered as a deterministic repair baseline. The method is evaluated on two controlled dynamic-graph regimes sharing the same continuation architecture and training protocol but differing in dimensionality and dependency complexity. Evaluation considers invalid probability mass, scenario retention, effective sample size, diversity, robustness, and calibration. In the compact positive-control regime, unconstrained invalid mass is 0.002996, indicating near-complete overlap between the learned and admissible scenario spaces. In the medium-complexity regime, invalid mass rises to 0.155929. Hard filtering removes all invalid scenarios while retaining 84.4% of generated continuations. Soft weighting preserves an effective sample size ratio of 0.998764 but reduces invalid mass only to 0.148807. These results show that learned-distribution support, structural admissibility, and probability calibration can diverge and should therefore be assessed separately in learned simulation-scenario generation and management.

For two decades, the standard remedy for class-imbalanced learning has been to fabricate synthetic minority examples, and the standard evidence of their validity has been a check that cannot fail: synthetic points are scored against the very data that generated them. We de-bias the check. Validity becomes a population quantity -- the probability that a synthetic point truly belongs to the minority class -- with a consistent estimator that scores synthetic points against withheld real data. Where held-out ground truth is available, the classical test underestimates true invalidity in 96-99% of method-by-imbalance-ratio cells, while the de-biased estimator tracks it closely. We prove validity is a property of the data, not the method: class overlap sets an invalidity floor no faithful generator escapes, making oversampling redundant where classes separate and invalid where they overlap. Across 91 methods, three classifiers, and datasets spanning medicine and finance -- including a generator engineered to pass the classical check -- none clears both bars: gains over the best trivial baseline are noise-thin (median below 0.01 F1, a decision threshold's reach), and most damage calibration. We release the audit as a pip-installable test and flip the burden of proof: synthetic minority data must now demonstrate, on the data at hand, both validity and information gain.

Digital Twins rely on surrogate models to mirror physical systems in real time, yet these models can degrade as operating conditions evolve, a phenomenon known as concept drift. Maintaining surrogate fidelity under drift, particularly when models must also capture aleatoric uncertainty, remains an open challenge. Existing adaptive frameworks lack principled mechanisms for detecting when updates are needed, for efficiently adapting models from limited streaming data, and for certifying that updates genuinely improve predictive performance. Here we present an adaptive Digital Twin framework that integrates a Fisher score--based multivariate drift detector, Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) for parameter-efficient continual learning, and a Mann--Whitney $U$ test for online statistical validation. The framework monitors surrogate-model confidence via Fisher score vectors, triggers targeted fine-tuning of fewer than 1% of model parameters upon drift detection, and statistically certifies predictive improvement before deploying the updated surrogate. Applied to a stochastic linear system and a directed energy deposition additive manufacturing process as case studies, the framework successfully detects distributional shifts with short delays and restores both predictive accuracy and uncertainty quantification under abrupt and incremental drift. These results establish a statistically rigorous and computationally tractable pathway for sustaining the trustworthiness of neural-network--based Digital Twins throughout their operational life cycle.

A self-evolving agentic loop repeatedly proposes a tweaked version of an agent (its prompt template or program) and accepts or rejects the change based on a per-iteration quality signal. Designing that signal is often the costly part of the project: a reliable scalar reward requires domain expertise and labeled examples that are themselves as expensive to assemble as the agent's underlying task. We propose replacing the scalar at the accept/reject gate with a pairwise validator: a frozen LLM that, given the parent and child candidate, returns a binary verdict on which is better. Pairwise judgment is generally easier and more stable than absolute scoring, due to its contrastive nature, which mitigates the need for strict scale calibration. The validator also requires no training of its own. We integrate the validator into three published self-evolving engines (GEPA, ADRS, ShinkaEvolve) and report two flavors: Adaptive Focus, which retains the engine's existing val-set parent selection, and Soft Elo, which lets the validator's verdicts drive parent selection so that val-set rewards drop as well. Across multiple agents and two artifact substrates (prompt and code), our method matches or exceeds the full-reward baseline on the majority of settings we evaluate, and the pattern survives a cross-family validator swap. The pairwise gate is thus a drop-in replacement for per-step reward design at competitive task accuracy without the labeling cost.

Studies of bias in LLM-as-judge systems typically build synthetic corpora by prompting an LLM to generate a hallucinated answer to pair with a factual one, then presenting both to a judge. We report a case in which this generation step silently failed, and use it to argue that the failure mode is structural rather than incidental. In a multilingual (Turkish/English) faithfulness-judgment corpus, a decoding-budget parameter shared between judging and generation calls truncated one producer's hallucinated answers to a few words. The resulting items produced a large, statistically robust effect: a 32-point cross-lingual collapse in one judge's selection accuracy, replicated from N=50 to N=500, explained by a three-layer mechanistic account, and confirmed by a controlled producer-swap experiment, none of which was real. The effect vanished to ceiling once the shared parameter was corrected, and only manual reading of the raw generations, not any aggregate statistical check, exposed the fault. A second measured bias (Markdown-formatting preference) was not fabricated but distorted by the same fault, its magnitude and in one case its sign shifting with stimulus length, a mode aggregate metrics cannot distinguish from the first. We frame the underlying vulnerability using the test oracle problem: corpora whose negative examples are LLM-generated carry no mechanical way to verify item integrity, while corpora built by deterministic perturbation of a gold answer carry an item-level oracle for free. A positive control supports this claim directly: an analogous fault injected into a minimal perturbation-based corpus is caught with 100% accuracy by a zero-cost, zero-human gold-to-negative string comparison. We close with a validation protocol, derived from our own case, for analysts working in the oracle-less regime that we argue describes most contemporary multilingual LLM-as-judge corpora.

LLM agents often retry after external validation rejects a candidate, but the interface between validation and the next model call remains underspecified. We introduce VeriHarness, a code-controlled agent loop in which models generate candidates while external validators control acceptance, budgets, and traces. We use it to compare raw diagnostics with feedback that identifies the failure location, observed value, and admissible alternatives. Across 50 paired TextWorld games under a four-call cap, feedback containing all three fields raises terminal success from 14/50 to 36/50 for Qwen2.5-Coder-14B (+44 percentage points) and from 8/50 to 29/50 for Llama-3.1-8B (+42 points). Ablations locate most of the gain in the admissible alternatives: feedback containing only the location and observed value remains near the raw diagnostic baseline. Presenting the complete repair information in prose instead of a keyed JSON record yields nearly the same success, providing no evidence that JSON syntax itself improves repair. The ordering persists across the tested call budgets and one sampled-decoding setting.

Explainability has emerged as a critical requirement for AI-based systems, particularly in safety-critical and regulated domains. Although prior research has proposed frameworks, patterns, and user-centered approaches to support explainability, there is limited empirical understanding of how existing Requirements Engineering (RE) practices support explainability requirements across the RE lifecycle, especially in an industrial context. This paper reports early findings from an ongoing industry-based study investigating how explainability requirements are elicited, specified, and validated using established RE techniques. We conducted a multi-phase qualitative study with eight practitioners at Daimler Truck, employing think-aloud protocols and moderated group discussions across requirements elicitation, specification, and validation steps. Our preliminary analysis reveals recurring challenges across all steps, including conceptual ambiguity during elicitation, limited testability and expressiveness during specification, and fragmented validation due to vague criteria and regulatory uncertainty. These findings indicate that current RE practices provide limited support to systematically address explainability requirements. The paper contributes empirical insights into step-specific and cross-cutting challenges and outlines a research vision toward developing an empirically grounded RE framework for explainable AI-based systems.

LLM agents today are caught in an awkward bind. Lock them down with static safety instructions and they rarely venture beyond the obvious; give them free reign with tools and multi-agent debate, and safety violations quickly follow. Rather than forcing a single model to juggle both creativity and caution, we separate the concerns across specialized roles. A Disrupter generates unconventional proposals, a Validator enforces hard runtime checks at the tool gateway, and a Broker pulls in distant but relevant analogies. Failures are not discarded -- they are compiled, via MCTS, into compact, signed constraint patches we call Scars. These patches are cached locally and inherited by future cohorts, turning repeated failures into reusable, low-cost runtime constraints. In a spatial-semantic sandbox (N=20 runs, p<0.01), our cohort reaches remote targets where debate fails, the Validator prevents all executed breaches, and Scars reduce token consumption by 15.1% by avoiding redundant validator checks. Furthermore, credit-based Communication Allocation Scores (CAS) restrict outbound bandwidth, reducing overall token costs by 55.9% under resource constraints.

A national language model offers a linguistic community its own instrument for measuring what its citizens say and value. Portugal's AMALIA, a publicly funded 9B-parameter model for European Portuguese, appears competitive on agreement alone: asked to code the moral foundation of authority, it agrees with trained human coders to within six F1 points of open models eight to thirteen times its size. Yet agreement is reliability, not validity. For theoretical constructs that must be inferred rather than read from surface features, the question is whether the model follows the construct's theory or reaches the right code by correlated shortcuts. We test this with the recovery gap: the loss in performance when a holistic prompt is decomposed into the codebook's atomic clauses and recombined by the theory's explicit rule. If calibration closes that gap, some portability should survive across models and languages; where it does not, the construct-model instrument is the likely locus of failure. We ask whether a calibrated English instrument transfers to AMALIA-9B and to European Portuguese. For one construct and one corpus, it does not. Decomposition recovers only about half of AMALIA's holistic performance, and error analysis suggests reliance on surface correlates, especially moral outrage near authority figures. An open multilingual LLM closes the gap on the same Portuguese corpus under the same instructions, pointing away from the corpus as the main explanation. AMALIA can still screen and pre-code at scale, but it cannot yet measure this construct well enough to stand alone. The study is a single counterexample, not a verdict on national models; it argues that sovereign-LLM benchmark batteries should test not only agreement with human coders, but the evidential route by which that agreement is warranted.

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

Enterprise large language model (LLM) applications often begin as prototypes whose behavior is carried by prompts and retrieval context. Productization adds requirements for source boundaries, entity routing, answer contracts, and reproducible traces. We present a harness-engineering approach that reconstructs this pattern into a traceable, auditable LLM-agent architecture: deterministic behavior moves into code, manifests, schemas, and validation artifacts around a replaceable composition boundary, while source-backed claims remain the authority for runtime answers. We instantiate it on a public-data slice of five Korean corporate groups (25 listed companies) and evaluate three research questions. (1) The harness preserves its source-grounding, entity-routing, trace, output-hygiene, and recommendation-language contracts across the fixed validation scenarios; a fault-injection control confirms the validators flag deliberately broken contracts. (2) The checks the harness enforces held under model substitution: across three hosted models, they passed on all 270 composition-boundary runs; failures were confined to the model-composed side and were caught and recorded. (3) The code-owned guarantees are load-bearing, not reproducible by prompting alone: holding the model fixed and varying only the enforcement layer, prompt instructions alone let recommendation-language and internal-trace-leakage violations reach the reader, which the harness blocks entirely. A bolt-on external guardrail prevents such violations too but over-refuses, dropping utility to 88/120 where the harness preserves full utility (120/120); in this ablation, only code-owned enforcement preserves both safety and utility. The result is a reusable engineering pattern for turning exploratory prototypes into auditable applications with versioned source, control, and validation artifacts.

Large language models (LLMs) are reshaping social science methodology. Researchers increasingly prompt language models to generate quantitative measurements of social concepts, for example labeling data or simulating survey responses. Yet LLMs pose methodological challenges including bias, hallucination, and brittleness across contexts, with unclear threats to validity. Standard practices and norms for addressing these challenges are still emerging. We collect and systematically analyze validation practices in a comprehensive corpus of papers from eight flagship social science journals that use LLMs as measurement instruments. We find that LLM-generated measurements frequently play a central role in empirical analyses, yet validation practices are inconsistent and limited. We outline complementary strategies for more robust validation, pointing toward better norms and standards around the use of LLMs in social science.

Across robotics, World Models (WMs) are increasingly used to evaluate action policies by simulating the consequences of actions in an imagined world, and returning a success or safety verdict. Yet a verdict is only as trustworthy as the WM that produced it, and the WM itself needs to be certified. In video-generation WMs, fidelity metrics such as Fréchet Video Distance (FVD) reward visual realism, but ignore whether the world responds correctly to the policy's actions, including those unseen in training. Classical simulation-based validation assumes a trusted simulator evaluating an untrusted policy, whereas generative WMs are themselves unverified learned artifacts. Hence, we argue that any WM used as a test oracle must first be accredited before its verdicts can serve as evidence. Building on credibility practices from safety-critical simulation, including Verification, Validation & Accreditation (VV&A), Safety of the Intended Functionality (SOTIF), and scenario-based testing standards, we define an admissibility ladder (L0-L4) that a WM must climb before its closed-loop verdicts are accepted as assurance evidence. Our framework is embodiment-agnostic, and is instantiated in autonomous driving (AD), where assurance methods for traditional simulation are most mature. Applied to two driving WMs, the lower rungs reveal a reversal: the model that ranks higher on visual generation quality (L0) ranks lower on action-following (L1-L2), so visual fidelity does not predict the action-robustness a closed-loop verdict depends on.

Parameter-efficient fine-tuning still leaves a broad space of behavior-changing updates reachable, so a poisoned objective can be represented and optimized. We study an alternative: adaptation constrained to the subspace estimated from a trusted pool of existing task adapters. On flan-t5-large with 196 public LoRA adapters, we show that (1) the functionally relevant content of an adapter lies in a low-dimensional shared subspace, 30 to 38 percent of its weight norm being redundant under the evaluated task distributions; (2) gradient adaptation restricted to 128 coordinates on this subspace matches full LoRA fine-tuning on clean classification data, while under targeted label inversion LoRA collapses to 3-26 percent exact match and the constrained learner keeps 62-96 percent on the tasks the pool covers; (3) the constrained learner cannot fit corrupted data, its adaptation loss separating clean from garbage by two orders of magnitude (120x), an out-of-distribution signal without an extra detector; and (4) against an adaptive backdoor attacker who optimizes within the subspace, the attack is blocked (8 percent success versus 100 for LoRA) on the task where its target behavior is unlike anything in the pool, and only partially blocked (85 percent) when the target coincides with a common pool behavior. On these two tasks the outcome is consistent with how close the target is to the pool's directions, which suggests but does not establish a pool-relative boundary. The mechanism trades peak plasticity for these properties: on tasks the pool covers poorly, unconstrained fine-tuning wins, and the protection assumes the pool itself is trusted. Code and data are public.

Shapley values are widely used to attribute value to training data based on their marginal contribution to performance on a validation set. Existing practice often assumes these values are stable once the training data and model are fixed. In this work, we uncover a systematic vulnerability: even modest changes to the validation set, such as introducing noises, cause directional shifts in Shapley distributions. As noises are added, Shapley values of training samples compress toward zero. We trace this to a noise-induced neighborhood reshuffling effect: perturbations alter the local rank order between validation and training samples, flattening the valuation landscape. Using the KNN-Shapley framework, we show through synthetic and real data that these shifts are consistent and reproducible. Our findings challenge the assumption of Shapley stability and reveal a new axis of fragility in data valuation. We propose normalization and boundary-aware validation strategies to mitigate these distortions and enable more robust, interpretable valuation in machine learning marketplaces.

This paper introduces a probabilistic framework and hybrid validation methodology for V2X-enabled Collective Perception (CP) in complex traffic scenarios. The proposed Bayesian fusion algorithm extends the perceptual horizon of connected and autonomous vehicles by integrating heterogeneous sensor observations from multiple agents into a shared probabilistic occupancy grid. Each cell of this grid encapsulates both occupancy likelihood and uncertainty, enabling explainable and trustworthy situational awareness beyond the ego vehicle's field of view. To bridge the gap between simulation and real-world evaluation, a hybrid testing framework is developed, combining CARLA-based virtual environments with vehicle-in-the-loop experimentation. Experimental results in a roundabout scenario demonstrate a 260 percent increase in field-of-view coverage and a rise in occupied-cell recall from 0.82 (ego-only) to 0.94 (six-agent CP) under nominal localization conditions. Overall, the proposed approach provides a reproducible and interpretable foundation for validating CP systems, supporting the safe and certifiable deployment of cooperative autonomous vehicles.

Artificial intelligence reaches the land registry not as another tool but as a value chain that turns data into intelligence and intelligence into economic value. This paper argues that the decisive legal move is to place validity, a functional, second-order concept, at the centre of that chain. Rights, liability and supervision organise around it. It traces three impacts.Registry information becomes smart data, governed simultaneously by registry law, the GDPR, the European data acts and the AI Act. Control emerges as the operative concept for digital representations of real estate, whose proprietary effect depends on anchoring to the register. In a hybrid society of human and artificial agents, the registry becomes the public node of validity, with blockchain complementing rather than replacing it. Across three legal cultures, the registra's value migrates from processing documents to guaranteeing validated data,making validity an asset for the UNO Sustainable Development Goals.

Language agents plan by generating not only actions but also implicit predictions of how the world will change. These imagined state updates make agents flexible, but they also create a distinct failure mode: hallucinated state claims can be written into context and propagated across subsequent decisions. In contrast, parametric world models provide measurable transition errors but are often weaker semantic planners. We study this tradeoff in graph-structured planning environments and introduce metrics for agent-world-model error, including hallucinated-state rate, propagation depth, and long-horizon error growth. We then propose Hybrid World-Model Planning (Hybrid-WM), which keeps the language model as the planner while using a small parametric transition model to predict action validity, state deltas, risk, and value. A consistency gate compares the agent's imagined delta with the parametric prediction and triggers targeted revision only under disagreement. Across four graph-structured planning benchmarks, Hybrid-WM improves success while reducing hallucinated state propagation. In live GPT-4o-mini evaluations, it reduces hallucinated-state rate from 0.176 to 0.035; in calibrated simulator ablations, it improves success from 0.668 to 0.838 with modest additional inference. These results suggest that lightweight parametric transition models can serve as effective grounding mechanisms for language-agent planning without replacing semantic reasoning.

Conversational memory retrieval optimizes relevance, yet a retrieved memory can be relevant and simultaneously outdated: a later turn updates, corrects, or supersedes it. ConvMemory v3 adds a validity context layer that detects and surfaces this update evidence through target-conditioned relation verification, sitting after the v1/v2 retrieval path. The core mechanism is a dual-evidence gate that conditions a relation judgment on the specific target proposition, scoring a (target, source) pair through the product of a MiniLM slot head and a DeBERTa-v3 slot head and gating it by conservative event/operation evidence. On a synthetic multi-hop validity benchmark the gate reaches 90.12% +/- 1.73 accuracy; through a real-data feedback loop that mines failure patterns but trains on synthetic pairs only, the verifier transfers to Memora role binding with zero target-side labels, reaching 98.8% +/- 0.9 group-all-correct. The deployed layer preserves retrieval by default: a context mode attaches structured validity metadata while keeping the candidate set and rank order fixed, and a query-conditioned demote mode is an explicit opt-in for dense current-state workloads, where it raises current-active H@1 from a never-demote baseline of 45.1% to 95.7% +/- 1.2 while protecting non-superseded memories at 99.4% recall. Six machine-verifiable safety contracts pin the layer's behavior. Multi-hop graph propagation is validated as a mechanism; fully automatic construction of strict prerequisite edges is characterized as a boundary, since strict necessity requires counterfactual world knowledge. This report extends ConvMemory v1 (arXiv:2605.28062) and v2 (arXiv:2606.10842).

We propose cryptographic certificates of validity for agentic AI systems. The core idea is to formally specify a correctness or policy condition as a logical predicate, compile this predicate to a witness-checking problem over polynomial constraints, and use a succinct cryptographic proof system (and optionally zero-knowledge) to certify that the condition holds. This offers a middle ground between formal verification of source code, and cryptographic authentication. An agent's action can be accompanied by an independently checkable proof that it satisfies an agreed formal policy, without requiring the verifier to trust the agent or to re-execute computation. We outline the approach at a high level, give the core mathematical translation, relate the proposal to proof-carrying code, zkVMs, formal methods, and agent governance, and note the specification, auditing, and deployment questions that a full implementation must answer.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly review and revise text, including their own. A documented self-preference bias (models favoring their own generations when acting as judges) raises the question of whether models also resist valid corrections to their own writing. We test this in a setting where "valid" is decided not by another model but by a deterministic verifier: instruction-following revision on IFEval. A model writes a draft; the official IFEval checker confirms the draft violates a constraint and that a candidate edit fixes it; the model then accepts or rejects that edit either as the genuine in-context author or as a fresh model that sees the draft neutrally. Across four mid-tier model families and 85 author-versus-fresh comparisons, we find no detectable self-preference: authors reject verified-good fixes to their own drafts at essentially the same rate as fresh models judging the same drafts (gap -5.1 pp, 95% CI [-12.9, +2.7]). A self-skepticism hint from a smaller pilot did not replicate at scale. The one robust observation is qualitative: when authors do reject a verified-good fix, 97% of their stated reasons are flaw-catching rather than preference, that is, about the character of rejections, not an elevated rate. Effects smaller than ~13 pp cannot be excluded at this sample size.

LLM-as-a-Judge has become the dominant evaluation paradigm for language models, but judge validation in practice relies on exact-match agreement, a metric that does not correct for chance and systematically overstates discriminative ability. We present the largest systematic evaluation of LLM-as-a-Judge to date: 21 judges from nine providers across MT-Bench, JudgeBench, and RewardBench, evaluated under three protocols (agreement, consistency, bias audit) over 118 runs and approximately 541,000 individual judgments. Four findings emerge, consistent across the full cohort, including the April 2026 frontier: kappa deflation between exact match and Cohen's kappa is universal (33--41 pp on MT-Bench), judge rankings shift by up to 14 positions across benchmarks, high test--retest reliability (>0.95) coexists with severe position bias (>0.10) in two production-deployed judges (instantiating a consistency--bias paradox), and verbosity bias is small (<0.011) across our cohort under a single pairwise rubric. We distill these into a Minimum Viable Validation Protocol.

Computing geometric representations of data is a cornerstone of modern machine learning, typically achieved by training dual encoders which map queries and documents into a shared embedding space. Recent work of You et al. [NeurIPS '25] has extended this approach to hierarchical retrieval, where relevance is determined by the ancestor-descendant relationships in a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG). While previous work has shown that valid embeddings exist when the number of descendants is small, these bounds degrade significantly for deep hierarchies, requiring dimensions as large as the total number of nodes. In this paper, we investigate compact reachability embeddings for more general graph classes and provide theoretical guarantees for representing hierarchies using embeddings whose dimension depends on structural graph parameters. We prove that for any directed tree, there exists a reachability embedding in constant dimension 3, independent of the tree's size or depth. We generalize this result to graphs characterized by treewidth $t$, constructing embeddings of dimension $O(t \log n)$, where $n$ is the number of nodes. Complementing these upper bounds, we provide matching or near-matching lower bounds, showing that dimension $Ω(n)$ is necessary for general DAGs and $Ω(t/\log(n/t))$ is required for graphs of treewidth $t$. We also obtain upper and lower bounds parameterized by the number of cross-edges in the DAG. We additionally show that our embeddings can be constructed on real world datasets, and that they give much smaller dimensions in high recall regimes compared to prior embeddings with theoretical guarantees.

Parametric computer-aided design records both final geometry and the ordered construction history that determines how a part can be edited. Datasets for editable CAD research should therefore expose modeling operations, parameters, and feature dependencies together with validated geometry. We introduce FllumaOne, a code-native multimodal CAD dataset whose models are generated by executable Python programs in Flluma, a Qt/C++ OpenCASCADE-based CAD system. Each sample aligns its program with a structured feature tree, a training-oriented intermediate representation, STEP geometry, a surface point cloud, natural-language descriptions, metadata, and eight canonical visible-edge renderings. The primary release, FllumaOne-100K, contains 100,000 accepted samples across four template-level complexity regimes. Programs are executed and retained only after kernel geometry, solid validity, and export checks; release reports also record modality completeness and split-level duplicate tests. A Qwen2.5-Coder-1.5B LoRA baseline trained on 80,000 samples achieves 99.98% Python syntax validity, 99.97% Flluma build success, and 99.14% STEP-export validity on the held-out 10,000-sample test split. For the 9,909 predictions converted to surface point clouds, the mean normalized Chamfer Distance is 0.002124. The dataset supports conditioned CAD reconstruction, executable program synthesis, feature-tree prediction, B-Rep analysis, retrieval, design completion, and editable reverse engineering.

Scientific machine-learning (SciML) surrogates approximate expensive simulations, but exact expected outputs for arbitrary inputs are unavailable (the oracle problem). Metamorphic testing checks relations across executions, yet a candidate relation is not automatically valid: its preconditions, output mapping, and the numerical floor of the scoring operator determine whether a violation is meaningful. We study how candidate metamorphic relations (MRs) can be screened for domain validity and turned into executable, oracle-free test assets for SciML surrogates. We propose (i) a domain-validity rubric that admits a candidate only when its tolerance dominates the operator's numerical floor and its preconditions hold; (ii) an MR-card executable-asset format recording source cases, transformations, metrics, tolerances, and typed relation-level verdicts; and (iii) a case-study protocol on MeshGraphNets cylinder-flow surrogates, with a claim ledger binding every result to a tracked artifact. On a MeshGraphNets checkpoint, node permutation holds to machine precision, mirror-y is a bounded out-of-distribution stress finding rather than an exact symmetry, and absolute conservation stays deferred while a reference-relative guard passes. The same readings hold across held-out trajectories, a checkpoint roster, three further architectures, and PhysicsNeMo. On a second CFD task (compressible airfoil) the predicate instead rejects incompressible continuity on physical grounds, showing it reasons about domain validity rather than running a fixed checklist. On a second PDE family, FNO Burgers and heat surrogates run full admit/reject/execute verdicts. The evidence spans two CFD tasks and a second PDE family, supporting a validity-aware bridge from candidate MRs to auditable SciML test assets that separates model-level violations from out-of-domain applications.

Agentic artificial intelligence systems introduce a new class of model risk. Unlike traditional predictive models, autonomous agents continuously acquire information, form beliefs regarding latent states of the environment, generate forecasts, select actions, and adapt their behavior over time. Existing validation methodologies focus primarily on predictive accuracy and therefore provide limited insight into the quality of the underlying decision process. This paper proposes a model validation framework for agentic AI based on Partially Observable Markov Decision Processes (POMDPs). The framework decomposes autonomous decision making into information, beliefs, forecasts, actions, and utility, allowing each component to be validated independently. Large language models (LLMs) are formalized as approximate Bayesian filtering operators, and a model-risk taxonomy is developed encompassing state-space, filtering, forecast, policy, utility-specification, and parameter risks. The model risk validation methodology is demonstrated through a portfolio-management case study in which an agent infers latent market regimes from market and macroeconomic information, generates belief-conditioned forecasts, and constructs portfolios using a Black--Litterman framework. Empirical validation combines performance analysis, belief calibration diagnostics, coverage tests, ablation studies, and parameter-sensitivity analysis. The results indicate that latent-state inference contributes independently to decision quality and that the principal conclusions remain robust across a broad range of parameter values. The principal contribution of the paper is a practical framework for extending established model risk management concepts to autonomous AI systems and providing a rigorous foundation for their validation, governance, and monitoring.

Large language model (LLM) systems are increasingly proposed to assist peer review, yet most evaluations judge the prose of machine-generated review text, not the validity of the numeric score a system assigns. We validate AIPR, which reads a submitted manuscript and emits five 0-100 quality dimensions and a weighted overall score, against the public decision outcomes of a major machine learning venue. AIPR grades by prompting alone, with no fine-tuning on reviews or decisions. Across 300 ICLR submissions with public decision tiers and reviewer ratings, graded under a frozen pipeline with hypotheses pre-registered before any score met any outcome, the overall score separates rejected from accepted submissions (AUROC 0.82, 95% CI 0.78-0.87), rises monotonically across tiers, and tracks the mean reviewer rating. The signal is strongest where we claim it: the lowest-scoring fifth is rejected far above the base rate, with oral papers absent. The validity comes mostly from the model: a one-paragraph prompt on the same model discriminates almost as well as the full pipeline (the small gap favours the pipeline but does not meet the pre-declared criterion, p = 0.09). What the engineering adds is reliability and a grounded review: AIPR's score barely moves across repeated runs (0.7 vs. 2.8 points within-paper SD) where the bare prompt swings, and the same pass returns a rubric-structured, evidence-grounded review rather than a bare number, with the human keeping the decision.

Early and highly accurate prediction of colorectal polyps, as an important sign of one of the most dangerous types of cancer, will result in saving more lives. Despite the advancements in colorectal polyp classification, many challenges remain in obtaining an automated polyp prediction system that is able to diagnose the difficult-to-predict polyps accompanied by different features in real scenarios, where the model can handle imbalanced data, label distribution shift, and cross-modality generalization successfully. In this study, we propose Polyp-D2ATL, a novel framework accompanied by a specific training strategy, which mitigates these limitations and effectively predicts the different classes of polyps belonging to the NICE classification. Our extensive experiments on the PICCOLO validation and test sets demonstrate that the proposed Polyp-D2ATL significantly outperforms existing state-of-the-art models across various reliable metrics, achieving an accuracy of 82.38%, a Macro-F1 of 77.49%, and a specificity of 87.47% on the validation set, alongside consistent improvements on the held-out test set which demonstrates the generalization capacity and clinical applicability of the proposed approach.

We present the design and implementation of a safety constrained large language model (LLM) system for public health information access, focusing on maternal and child health (MCH) resource navigation. While LLM based systems offer flexible and natural interfaces for information retrieval, their deployment in healthcare contexts introduces risks related to safety, trust, and uncontrolled generation. This work explores practical design patterns for constraining LLM behavior in safety critical environments. We introduce a multi-layered architecture that integrates domain-restricted retrieval augmented generation (RAG), strict boundary enforcement to prevent medical advice, anonymous multiuser session management, and comprehensive audit logging for monitoring and compliance. A key aspect of the design is a controlled data pipeline that grounds all responses in curated public health resources, avoiding reliance on the model pretrained medical knowledge. We implement the system in a real world public health setting and conduct scenario-based validation across in scope, out of scope, and emergency queries. Results show consistent enforcement of safety constraints, reliable resource grounding, and stable system performance, with an average response time of 5.3 seconds. Beyond the specific application, we discuss design trade offs and lessons learned in balancing safety, usability, and system flexibility. Our findings provide practical guidance for deploying LLM based systems in healthcare and other domains where strict information boundaries and accountability are required.

Computational creativity in Interactive Fiction faces a fundamental tension: Large Language Models (LLM) may produce creative narratives but struggle with world coherence, while symbolic systems ensure consistency but lack creative flexibility. We present IVIE (Incremental & Validated Interactive Experiences), a neuro-symbolic approach to generating complete and playable interactive fiction worlds from scratch. Building upon PAYADOR's neuro-symbolic framework, IVIE implements a four-stage incremental generation pipeline that delegates creative decisions--setting and character creation, puzzle design--to LLMs while grounding the world state through symbolic validation. The system generates worlds with interconnected locations, functional items, non-player characters, and coherent puzzles, all structured around a central goal-oriented architecture. Human evaluation shows the approach generates immersive, thematically coherent worlds with high player engagement. Results seem to indicate that the neuro-symbolic approach successfully balances flexibility with narrative coherence: symbolic validation grounds LLM generation without eliminating generative freedom. However, challenges remain: LLM inconsistencies occasionally bypass puzzle constraints, and objective validation gaps allow some structurally impossible goals. We identify key design considerations for future neurosymbolic interactive storytelling systems, particularly regarding LLM capabilities and their limitations.

Safety classifiers deployed in production operate under a stationarity assumption that fails silently: when input distributions drift, accuracy degrades with no error signal until ground-truth labels arrive. We present an online monitor that detects distributional shift in classifier scores via a sliding-window KS statistic with empirically calibrated alarm thresholds. In a pre-registered factorial evaluation (4 classifiers $\times$ 5 shift conditions $\times$ 20 seeds $\times$ 2 window sizes; 800 cells), the monitor achieves 86.6% valid detection (mean latency 39.5 steps) across synthetic-onset, real-jailbreak, and adversarial regimes; a classifier $\times$ shift interaction ($η^2 = 0.185$) shows that monitoring must be tuned per classifier. Attempting to recover post-detection coverage via weighted conformal prediction exposes a failure mode: density-ratio estimation collapses for generative classifiers because logistic regression separates source from target perfectly in 3584-4096-dimensional embedding space, clipping all importance weights to zero; projecting to $\leq 32$ dimensions restores coverage. We then extend the framework to gradient-based evasion and give the first threat-model characterisation of score-disagreement monitoring as a canary. We falsify three assumptions: that architectural diversity drives the signal (false, $η^2 = 0.011$), that it is generic out-of-distribution detection (false, GCG-specific, $p < 10^{-12}$), and that an adaptive attacker can suppress it (false while the canary is confident). We derive the exact security boundary, a confidence-gated equilibrium at which a monitor-aware attacker stalls at gap $= 1/(2λ)$, and provide a calibration-free scan martingale achieving false-alarm rate $\leq 1\%$ across all classifiers with no per-model tuning.

In many materials and product design problems, desirable candidates exhibit properties that fall within an acceptable range rather than achieve a single optimum. Recovering multiple, distinct solutions that satisfy such specifications is also practically valuable, as some candidates may be preferred for reasons of cost, processability, or robustness that are difficult to encode directly in an objective function. Here, we develop a range-aware Bayesian optimization (BO) framework in which the acquisition function directly scores the posterior probability that a candidate satisfies a target range. The framework naturally extends to parallel pursuit of multiple distinct specifications over a shared candidate space. Across benchmark tasks, range-aware acquisition consistently recovers larger and more diverse sets of valid designs than standard BO baselines and recent goal-seeking methods. Its utility is further demonstrated in two practically motivated design case studies involving optimizing reaction conditions for polymer synthesis and sequence-defined oligomer discovery for prescribed optical absorption bands, supported by quantum chemical calculations. These results suggest that range-aware BO can provide a practical and sample-efficient foundation for specification-driven design, particularly when design flexibility and solution diversity are important considerations.

Large Language Models (LLMs) struggle to rigorously verify complex mathematical proofs. Standard global evaluation approaches suffer from "context poisoning," in which superficially plausible statements mask subtle logical flaws, leading to hallucination or over-skepticism. To address this, we shift from global evaluation to strict step-level verification: our framework maintains detailed context for each deduction step and strictly constrains the sources of applied theorems. We evaluate on a carefully curated adversarial diagnostic suite of research-level proofs drawn from the FirstProof challenge. A systematic ablation study demonstrates that these deductive constraints are indispensable, as unconstrained global prompting consistently fails to localize subtle logical errors. Beyond outperforming global evaluation, our approach fundamentally alters the failure taxonomy. Error analysis reveals that, rather than exhibiting severe logical hallucinations, remaining rejections are primarily instances of "pedantic hyper-rigor" stemming from unstated domain conventions, effectively exposing implicit ambiguities within the expert benchmark itself. Our findings suggest that prompting agents to organize their verification notes in a cautious, human-mathematician-like manner can substantially improve their ability to distinguish rigorous proofs from flawed ones, with the potential to strengthen agentic reasoning on frontier mathematical concepts that the base model does not already know well, and to lay a theoretical foundation for future automated proof-review systems. Code and prompts are available at GitHub.

As deep learning models scale, managing, inspecting, and modifying large checkpoints has become increasingly challenging. Researchers often need to alter model weights for layer restructuring, precision casting, low-rank factorization, and architectural debugging, yet these workflows often rely on fragile ad-hoc Python scripts. Here, we introduce BrainSurgery, a tool for robust and reproducible "tensor surgery" on neural network checkpoints, and provide a system demonstration covering four examples and three case studies from model upcycling to LoRA extraction. By abstracting storage formats and memory management, BrainSurgery executes complex transformations through declarative YAML plans. It supports structural modifications, mathematical transformations, and tensor reshaping through expressive regex and structural targeting, while built-in assertions validate tensor shapes, data types, and values to prevent silent errors. We envision that BrainSurgery will provide a strong foundation for future research through its reproducible and validated operations.

The performance of LLM-based agents is jointly shaped by their base models and the harnesses that mediate their interaction with the environment. Because different models exhibit distinct behaviors, effective harness design is inherently model-specific. Yet agent harnesses are still largely engineered by human experts, a paradigm that scales poorly as modern LLMs become increasingly diverse and rapidly evolving. In this paper, we introduce Self-Harness, a new paradigm in which an LLM-based agent improves its own operating harness, without relying on human engineers or stronger external agents. We operationalize Self-Harness as an iterative loop with three stages: Weakness Mining, which identifies model-specific failure patterns from execution traces; Harness Proposal, which generates diverse yet minimal harness modifications tied to these failures; and Proposal Validation, which accepts candidate edits only after regression testing. We instantiate Self-Harness on Terminal-Bench-2.0 using a minimal initial harness and three base models from diverse families: MiniMax M2.5, Qwen3.5-35B-A3B, and GLM-5. Across all three models, Self-Harness consistently improves performance, with held-out pass rates increasing from 40.5% to 61.9%, 23.8% to 38.1%, and 42.9% to 57.1%, respectively. Qualitative analyses further show that Self-Harness does not simply add generic instructions, but effectively turns model-specific weaknesses into concrete, executable harness changes. These results suggest a path toward LLM-based agents that are not merely shaped by their harnesses, but can also participate in reshaping them.

As large language model (LLM) agents are integrated into autonomous cloud operations, distributed systems face a semantic reliability problem: proposer agents can generate production mutations, such as modifying IAM policies, opening firewall security groups, or executing data exports, that are syntactically valid and statically authorized but operationally unsafe. Classical distributed consensus protocols replicate deterministic state transitions but do not evaluate the safety of the proposed intent. To address this gap, we introduce Semantic Quorum Assurance (SQA), a control-plane primitive for governing non-deterministic agentic infrastructure. SQA represents proposals as declarative execution contracts bound to cryptographic evidence chains and routes them to a diverse panel of read-only, sandboxed validator agents. SQA aggregates their judgments under a risk-adaptive quorum predicate that enforces model and archetype diversity, adjusts weights based on calibrated assurance scores, and respects archetype-specific vetoes. Admitted proposals execute only through a sovereign execution gate. We instantiate SQA in a cloud-native control plane and formalize a correlated cognitive failure model for non-deterministic validators. On 500 infrastructure-inspired mutation scenarios, with safety results reported on held-out safe/unsafe trials excluding ambiguous scenarios, SQA reduces unsafe approval from 18.5% for single-agent validation to 0.3% while adding median validation latency of 1.45--4.12 seconds across the studied risk buckets.

This study presents a comprehensive field validation of a multi-resolution Convolutional Long Short-Term Memory (ConvLSTM) framework for predicting retaining wall deformation during staged excavation. The framework is trained on Gaussian noise-augmented numerical simulations and integrates ConvLSTM models operating at different temporal resolutions through a stacking ensemble strategy. The proposed framework is validated using field monitoring data from 34 inclinometers across 11 excavation sites in South Korea. Site-wise prediction performance is systematically evaluated using multiple evaluation metrics, with analyses of the influence of temporal deformation irregularity and spatiotemporal prediction characteristics on model performance. The results demonstrate that the framework predicts retaining wall deformation associated with up to 5.0 m of additional excavation with an average mean absolute error of 1.4 mm and a coefficient of determination of 0.93 across the excavation sites. These results indicate that the framework, although trained exclusively on numerically simulated and augmented database, can be effectively applied to diverse field excavation conditions and achieve a reliable level of prediction accuracy in practical retaining wall deformation prediction.

Language models increasingly act as epistemic proxies, synthesizing evidence from multiple sources to inform decisions. Whether they evaluate the quality of that evidence, or merely aggregate it based on surface presentation, remains poorly understood. We show that models possess the capability to detect fabricated statistics in isolation but do not recruit this capability during multi-source synthesis, producing similar numeric estimates whether the statistics are fabricated or valid. Specifically, source influence is governed by a methodology-register gate that responds to the distributional register of analytical text but not to numeric validity: for example, statistically impossible confidence intervals receive the same weight as valid ones. The behavioral dissociation replicates across six models from four families (Anthropic Claude, Qwen, OLMo, and OpenAI GPT-5.4) and three professional domains. Mechanistic analyses, including causal tracing, linear probes, and component-level attribution, converge on the same account: the model encodes and causally uses a methodology-register representation that transfers across domains, while numeric-validity signals, decodable in isolation, are suppressed to chance during multi-source synthesis. Prompting-based mitigations, even an oracle checklist naming the exact statistical checks, produce blanket skepticism rather than selective discernment, and the post-training pipelines we examine reinforce the shortcut without building numeric verification. Unlike sycophancy, which tracks user preference, this failure tracks whether a source presents as analytically credible, not whether its claims are consistent. We term this \textit{epistemic alignment}: like preference and safety alignment, the question is not capability but deployment.

Controlled experiments are the backbone of machine learning research, but at the scale of modern foundation models, they have become prohibitively expensive. Instead, the community increasingly relies on research strategies that approximate the ideal experiment at a fraction of the cost: proxy experiments and scaling laws, observational studies with publicly available models, and single-run designs that leverage variation within individual training runs. In this work, we argue that there is no free lunch when approximating large-scale experiments on a compute budget. Specifically, savings in compute come at the cost of validity threats -- hidden and sometimes untestable assumptions that, when violated, can invalidate research claims. To help navigate such threats, we propose an evaluation framework that casts foundation model research as a causal inference problem. Within this framework, we evaluate different research strategies through four types of validity adapted from the empirical social sciences -- statistical, internal, external, and construct validity. We find that each strategy comes with a characteristic validity profile: proxy experiments trade external and construct validity for statistical and internal validity; observational studies face confounding and effect heterogeneity; and single-run designs are strained by interference between treated units. This analysis reveals several validity threats that have received insufficient attention in the literature. Overall, our evaluation framework provides researchers with a practical toolkit for scrutinizing validity threats in foundation model research~designs.

Language models acting as agents over knowledge graphs generate Cypher queries that fail structurally (crashing at the database) or semantically (executing but returning wrong results). We place a pre-execution gate between query generation and a production Neo4j database. The gate validates structure through a four-backend chain culminating in execution against a mirror graph at 5.6 ms median latency. Structurally broken queries are routed to a corrector that iterates structured error feedback through a language model. On seven CypherBench schemas (2348 questions, ACL 2025) the pipeline maintains generation accuracy on every model tested, confirming it operates as a safe defensive layer. The corrector achieves 81% to 95% success across five models (mean 89%). On a template-generated corpus across nine schemas the gate catches 100% of parse errors, 100% of constraint violations, and 100% of schema-reference errors in path queries with labelled endpoints, at zero false positives across 1135 queries. Property sibling-swaps where the substituted name is valid on the target label score 0%, marking the formal boundary where structural validation ends and semantic validation must begin. A planner-based cost gate flags catastrophic plan structures before execution.

Selecting a clustering algorithm and its hyperparameters without labels is a common difficulty in engineering machine learning pipelines that work with unsupervised analysis of sensor, image, or process data. Clustering validation indices (CVIs) provide internal scores for ranking candidate clusterings, but most popular CVIs are built from Euclidean compactness and separation terms and so tend to favour compact, convex partitions. Their performance is known to degrade on non convex, irregular, or variable density data, where kernel transformations or alternative distance measures are typically used at the cost of additional tuning and computation. This paper introduces the Central Description Length (CDL) clustering validation index. CDL uses the observed within cluster compactness, the estimated cluster centers, and the estimated cluster covariances to compute a probabilistic upper bound on the description length associated with the unobservable true cluster centers. The bound condenses intra cluster compactness and centroid displacement into a single computable quantity and is evaluated on the partition produced by any clustering algorithm. The implementation uses only observable quantities (the data, the partition, the estimated centers, and the estimated covariances) and does not use ground truth labels. On synthetic benchmarks with non convex and arbitrary shape clusters, CDL-CVI selected the reference number of clusters more often and reached higher Adjusted Rand Index (ARI) values than the conventional CVIs we tested, without an additional kernel preprocessing stage. On image benchmarks (MNIST, CIFAR-10, STL-10) clustered from frozen unsupervised embeddings, CDL-CVI returned cluster numbers close to the reference class counts across K-means, DBSCAN, and spectral clustering in the reported trials.