2026-10-14 | | Total: 852
Generating information-rich visual artifacts such as slides, posters, and dashboards as code is appealing because the outputs are structured, editable, and verifiable. Yet code models cannot see how their choices of layout and color come together on the canvas, often limiting spatial planning and aesthetic quality. Image generators excel at visual design but can misrender requested content, making their outputs unreliable targets for direct reproduction. We therefore introduce AesCode, which generates code grounded in the content prompt while using an image generated from the same prompt as an aesthetic guidance. To do so, AesCode represents the target as a design graph that describes the whole canvas and makes each property attributable. From this graph, we derive complementary cross-modal rewards: deterministic verifiers score properties parsable from code and rendering, while a VLM judge assesses the non-parsable ones with a sample-specific Visual Graph Rubric (VGR) tied to graph elements and relations. We optimize these decoupled rewards through reinforcement learning with per-channel normalization to jointly improve spatial planning, aesthetic quality, and verifiable correctness. To evaluate this setting, we build a benchmark that scores verifiable correctness and visual quality separately, with visual scores highly consistent with human judgments. We find that reference images substantially improve the visual quality of code generated by existing models, and ablations show that AesCode benefits from references both as model input and as a source of visual rewards. Relative to same-scale Qwen3-VL baselines given the same references, AesCode-8B and AesCode-32B improve visual quality by 31.1 and 22.4 percentage points, reaching scores comparable to those of closed-source frontier models such as GPT-5.5 and Claude Opus 4.8.
Multi-objective molecular optimization is a critical process in drug discovery that aims to modify a given molecule to simultaneously improve multiple properties while maintaining a similar overall structure. This process often requires iterative modifications guided by computational or experimental feedback. Recent large language model (LLM)-based methods have begun to explore this iterative approach; however, these methods are not explicitly trained to leverage such feedback, while existing approaches primarily focus on single-turn molecular optimization. To address this gap, we introduce Multi-turn Feedback Guided (MFG) molecular optimization, a reinforcement learning framework that trains an LLM to progressively optimize molecules using feedback from previous turns. MFG introduces a feedback vector capturing both property improvements and source molecule similarity, alongside a feedback-aligned reward function that promotes progressive improvement across turns. We apply MFG over $\text{GeLLM}^{3}\text{O}$, a state-of-the-art LLM model for multi-objective molecular optimization, evaluate $\text{GeLLM}^{3}\text{O-MFG}$ on ten multi-objective molecular optimization tasks. The results demonstrate that $\text{GeLLM}^{3}\text{O-MFG}$ achieves the highest average similarity-constrained success rate ($81.50%$), outperforming the base model $\text{GeLLM}^{3}\text{O}$ ($70.81%$).
Robots are increasingly autonomous in task execution, yet their improvement remains largely human-driven. This study investigates Physical Recursive Self-Improvement (Physical RSI), in which physical experience guides lasting updates to both a robot's capabilities and its improvement procedure, making subsequent improvement more effective across tasks. Physical RSI faces challenges from noisy observations, continuous dynamics, costly trials, and irreversible consequences. We present an L0-L5 framework that differentiates capability-level from meta-level updates and within-task from across-task gains, reserving L5 for independently verified recursive gain. We study existing methods around harness adaptation and model training, alongside safety and control mechanisms that govern execution and successive updates. Our analysis reveals that, despite substantial progress in self-improvement, the surveyed literature does not yet demonstrate Physical RSI as defined by our framework. We identify research priorities in reliable feedback, causal attribution, safety preservation, and benchmarking, outlining a path toward robots that autonomously improve how they learn while ensuring safety. The GitHub repository for Physical RSI is available at https://github.com/SAIL-Research-Lab/Physical-RSI.
Large language models (LLMs) generally rely on sampling temperature to regulate the amount of randomness in their outputs. Mainstream methods for selecting temperature typically involve fixed, heuristic global settings and context or token-level calibration, rather than a geometrically interpretable representation of the communicative scenario. In this work, we introduce a simple and interpretable temperature selection framework, the \textbf{Scenario-Actor}, which adapts decoding to the inferred situational characteristics. Scenario-Actor extracts scenario-relevant structures from Transformer hidden states and determines the temperature from scenario embedding, a structured geometric representation of the communicative setting. Empirical results show that on Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct, Scenario-Actor achieves strong goal-completion performance in interactive social scenarios, significant gains on open-ended instruction following, and competitive performance on multi-turn conversation compared to multiple baselines.
Harness self-evolution revises an agent's software scaffolding, including prompts, memory, workflows, and executable components, while keeping model weights fixed. We formalize a feedback-driven process in which accepted revisions persist across runs. The framework separates update targets from proposal and admission mechanisms. It distinguishes changes to interpreted state from revisions to tools and code, repository-level control logic, and plugin composition. We characterize search through evolutionary optimization and examine its reliability through continual PAC-learning. Under explicit assumptions, the analysis yields an expected generalization bound, a retention bound conditional on historical regression budgets, and a high-probability admission rule using fresh, independent validation data. We examine how persistent harness revisions affect knowledge sharing and organizational workflows, with implications for scientific reliability, physical safety, and institutional accountability. Cases from prior work illustrate model--harness co-design, distributed execution, and plugin reuse. Reliable deployment requires continual validation as task distributions and evaluators change, with independent safeguards for learning, runtime privileges, and consequential actions. We provide a comprehensive 66-page discussion of related work, theory, algorithms, evaluation, applications, and the broader impact of Harness RSI, together with continuously updated code and supplementary materials, at https://github.com/zgcagi/Harness-RSI.
Long-horizon agents accumulate progress in persistent task state, yet repeatedly process interaction histories describing how that progress was achieved. This raises a natural question: can long-horizon context instead be organized around reusable progress rather than the history that produced it? In this paper, we introduce CarryOn, an object-oriented context runtime that organizes continuation around reusable task objects. Rather than treating compressed histories or reconstructed accounts of progress as the primary basis for continuation, CarryOn builds a context view from continuation carriers, complementary execution context, and a live tail of recent interactions. A core challenge is keeping this reusable basis valid after its surrounding history is retired: how can CarryOn update the basis without reconstructing the full representation at every fold? CarryOn maintains carrier records across folds, revising affected records against bound evidence and applicable environment checks while carrying forward unaffected records and jointly updating execution context. Experiments on OSWorld 2.0 and BrowseComp-Plus show improved gains of 5.8% and 7.0% while reducing total token usage by 51.9% and 22.9%, respectively. Project page: https://ethannju.github.io/carryon
Large language model multi-agent systems extend individual agents' capabilities through collaboration across specialized roles, tools, and workflows. Yet collaboration makes failures harder to diagnose: one agent may misinterpret a correct result while others carry the mistake forward. Failure attribution therefore seeks to identify the responsible agent and decisive error step. Recent methods trace dependencies, but knowing where information came from is not the same as knowing where it went wrong. We introduce BLADE (Blame Localization via Audited Dependency Evidence), a training-free framework that moves beyond tracing information to auditing its use. Using Jev for structured probabilistic judgments, BLADE uses dependency probabilities to select relevant source-decision handoffs for auditing. At these handoffs, it examines whether receiving decisions use their sources faithfully and within task requirements, distinguishing error introduction, propagation, and repair. These findings inform a global diagnosis that considers all execution steps. Without reference answers, BLADE achieves the best or tied-best step accuracy among eight strategies under a shared Jev decision interface on 1,228 failed runs across five Who&When and Who&When Pro subsets, outperforming All-at-once by 2.2-11.1 percentage points. Making responsibility evidence explicit offers a path toward more interpretable and reliable agentic systems.
System one models enable direct, low-latency decision-making. Yet recent practice of predicting an answer from serialized text does not, by itself, respect the structure of a decision problem. We argue that current designs underemphasize four important structural requirements. (i) null-aware: Models should distinguish answer absence from uncertainty among candidates; (ii) permutation-invariant: Reordering alternatives should not change the decision; (iii) option-scalable: Growing candidate sets should not require redefining the output space; (iv) cacheable: Request-independent computation over recurring alternatives should be reusable across requests. We introduce Jeva, a decision-native architecture that addresses these requirements jointly. A shared encoder independently represents the request and each option, while a compact decision stack refines only the request state against immutable option memory. Symmetric aggregation yields permutation-equivariant probabilities; shared scoring accommodates variable-size candidate sets. A separate coverage estimate distinguishes answer absence from candidate competition, enabling explicit null outcomes. Request-independent option representations and layer projections support reuse across newly assembled sets. These mechanisms unify Choice, Noul, and Score outputs. Across evaluations, Jeva combines strong typed-decision performance with near-perfect null detection and no decision flips under any tested permutations. It scales to thousands of candidates and substantially reduces latency through cross-request reuse without changing decisions.
Test-time scaling for large language models (LLMs) can involve generating multiple candidate solutions for selection or revising an earlier attempt. To guide selection and revision, we need a verifier that can estimate candidate correctness and provide evidence of failure. In competitive programming, however, official judging systems provide authoritative verdicts under finite submission budgets, without revealing failure explanations or failing inputs. To provide informative feedback without consuming official submissions, we formulate a task in which a model judges and diagnoses a candidate program using only the problem statement and source code, with generated counterexamples serving as checkable evidence. To evaluate this task, we build USACO-JUDGE from the USACO 2026 contests, using accepted and unaccepted programs written by human experts and multiple LLMs. We then train ARBITER, a 35B mixture-of-experts (MoE) agentic verifier, with reinforcement learning in a generic execution sandbox. Training raises counterexample success on incorrect programs from 40.61% to 62.67% and mean binary verdict accuracy on USACO-JUDGE from 71.41% to 87.41%, approaching frontier verification performance. Beyond verification, ARBITER outperforms baselines in both code selection and refinement. In an IOI 2026 case study, ARBITER-guided refinement raises GPT-OSS-120B's expected score above the gold-medal threshold under the official submission limit.
In this paper, we propose an extremely efficient, training-free method to extract token-level reward signals directly from an existing deep reward model. Our core idea is to attribute the overall process reward to individual tokens by estimating each token's influence. This influence is defined as the change in the final macroscopic reward (e.g., the process reward) when a token is replaced with a semantically null token. Naively calculating this influence is computationally infeasible, requiring N forward passes through the PRM for an N-token sequence. We overcome this bottleneck by proposing a highly efficient gradient-based estimator. Specifically, we use a first-order Taylor approximation, which simplifies the influence calculation to the inner product of the difference between the token embedding and the null token embedding, and the gradient of the reward with respect to the token embedding. This requires only a single forward and backward pass. The resulting token-level rewards enable standard RL algorithms to perform precise credit assignment without requiring additional reward model training. Experiments on challenging reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that our method substantially improves policy optimization efficiency and enhances the generalization of LLM reasoning capabilities. Our P2T outperforms the outcome reward by +4.9% on MathVista for Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Instruct, and +11.5% on AIME24 for Qwen2.5-Math-7B. The code will be released via https://github.com/stonewst/P2T.
Personal-agent memory has largely focused on learning what users know, prefer, and want. However, knowing the user does not necessarily mean knowing what the user and the agent have established together. An assistant's proposal should not become an authorized instruction merely because it is remembered. We introduce Grounding Awareness, the ability to distinguish accepted, unacknowledged, revised, and scoped arrangements when selecting actions. We develop a controlled benchmark to test whether agents can tell the difference between proposals users have accepted and those they have not, and whether they apply accepted arrangements only where appropriate. Across multiple agents and memory systems, we find that strong memory performance does not ensure Grounding Awareness. More surprisingly, providing more complete user information can increase execution of unacknowledged proposals, while persistent memory can cause agents to treat these proposals as if they were user instructions. We trace these failures through memory writing, retrieval, and action selection. Finally, we introduce Grounding Layer, a lightweight, training-free extension that explicitly tracks grounding status and checks consequential actions, substantially improving agent behavior without modifying models or memory systems.
Combining pretrained models is a common strategy for building AI systems, whether by aligning a vision encoder with a language model or merging fine-tuned checkpoints. However, finding compatible pairs typically requires costly empirical search, as compatibility is known only after alignment or merging. We propose COMPASS (COMPatibility ASsessment Score), a theoretically motivated diagnostic that estimates whether a model pair will be compatible prior to alignment or merging. Building on the observation that representational convergence is most robust at the level of local neighborhoods, COMPASS decomposes model compatibility into two cheap-to-compute axes: a pair-specific ease, defined as the $k$-NN overlap between the two encoders, and a paradigm-level ceiling, capturing the maximum overlap their training paradigms allow. Together, these two axes provide a ranking of candidate model pairs and prescribe how to act on each pair: (i) prioritize pairs that already agree and whose paradigms are compatible, (ii) invest additional compute on pairs with compatible paradigms but low initial agreement, (iii) switch the pretraining paradigm when it cannot support sufficient agreement, or (iv) deprioritize pairs that score poorly on both axes. We apply COMPASS to $72$ cross-modal alignment experiments and $392$ task-arithmetic model merges and show that compatibility estimates by COMPASS strongly correlate with downstream success, achieving average Pearson correlation of $0.91$ on cross-modal alignment tasks and $0.70$ on model merging.
An embodied agent must prioritise among competing bodily needs. In active inference, it can respond to an urgent need by increasing the precision of information about that need or by increasing its preference for outcomes that relieve it. We compare these two interventions, separately and together, in a foraging gridworld with three lethal needs, and ask how each changes survival, perception and the body model the agent learns. Precision sharpens interoceptive posteriors and improves survival. Preference reweighting keeps bodily states further from their lethal boundaries and changes the states from which the agent learns, so its learned model covers fewer need levels, with lower quality across all levels but slightly higher quality on the levels it visits. An experiment on 72 further layouts does not establish the predicted preference benefit on difficult layouts, but both interventions improve average survival there and their interaction is positive. Survival alone therefore gives an incomplete account of how a model prioritises needs and learns about its body.
Controlling an acting LLM agent means deciding, at each step of a long-horizon task, whether to trust its next action, abstain, or hand off to a human. That decision needs a per-step confidence signal predicting whether the current rollout will eventually succeed. The agent's own self-reported verbalized confidence is the natural candidate, but existing reinforcement learning methods calibrate it against the correctness of a decision at the current step. We propose a method to calibrate it against the eventual outcome of a multi-step episode: under GRPO, the group of rollouts for a task supplies success labels, and a proper scoring rule scores each step's confidence against the realized outcome. In offline RL on recorded trajectories of a Qwen2.5-7B agent in ALFWorld, TextWorld, and WebShop environments, the AUROC of step confidence against episode outcome rises from near chance to 0.68-0.85, and the top-10% of steps the agent is most confident about succeed ~4.3x more often than average. In online RL on the live ALFWorld agent, four calibration rewards improve early-step AUROC, expected calibration error goes from 0.42 to below 0.12, and selective execution improves over both the untrained agent and a format-only RL control, without degrading task success. We also introduce an evaluation protocol that separates episode depth, task difficulty, and attempt-level foresight, which shows where the gain lies: the trained agent recognizes from its first step which tasks it will fail, while telling a succeeding attempt from a failing one at the same task is harder, with some early-window signal emerging on TextWorld.
Large language models increasingly tackle tasks that require multi-step reasoning, where errors in intermediate claims can affect the final answer. Self-consistency (SC) improves reasoning by voting over sampled final answers, but its vote leaves intermediate disagreements unresolved. To address this problem, we introduce DDRG (Disagreement-Driven Verification Guided by Reasoning Graphs), a framework for selective correction from a frozen bank of reasoning traces. Our insight is that graph alignment can expose claim-level disagreements and provide correction evidence without expanding the sampled trace bank. DDRG builds source-grounded claim graphs and sends localized conflicts to an answer-blind verifier. A verifier-supported refutation that reaches the majority answer's supporting path triggers one focused repair; otherwise, DDRG returns the exact SC vote. Experimental results across five benchmarks show that native zero-shot DDRG improves macro-average accuracy over direct answering by 8.65 and 15.83 percentage points for Qwen2.5-7B and Llama3.1-8B. It also exceeds CoT, the evaluated GoT and GoV question-answering adaptations, and SC on this macro metric. DDRG links local verification to selective correction without enlarging the initial candidate bank.
Benchmarks report what an Artificial Intelligence (AI) agent can do on a task suite, but not whether one released version has been engineered with the controls that make it reliable, safe and observable, or how strongly that is shown. This paper proposes AgentStripes, an evidence-graded maturity model for AI agents. It defines levels (0 to 7 stripes), process areas (12 areas holding 40 capabilities), three gates (basic, safety, proof) that hold an agent at a level however high its score, and evidence grades E0 to E5. Each applicable capability receives a rating from 0 to 3 and a separate evidence level; these are combined into a credit, aggregated into a severity-weighted score and converted into stripes that the gates limit. Instruments gather evidence, language-model judges interpret it under explicit criteria, and the arithmetic is deterministic. The model is compared with standards at topic level without a claim of conformance, and an unexecuted validation protocol is specified. An empirical evaluation (exploratory, non-confirmatory) of 30 public Python agent repositories, with static evidence only, is a demonstration and not a validation: static evidence caps every final stripe at 2, 26 repositories end at one stripe and 4 at two, and this distinction is unreliable, since re-judging changed the final stripe of 4 of 22 repositories (engine, dossier and panel changed), whereas none of 8 panel-only repeats, all at stripe 1, changed. The parameters are expert conventions without outcome based calibration, and the stripes have not been shown to predict reliability or safety.
Point-in-time (PIT) agents can recall post-cutoff facts even when their external evidence respects a historical cutoff. We examine whether this access predicts evidence gathering in 48 historical company-comparison tasks. Independent closed-book revenue probes identify the better-remembered company for each model on tasks with unequal recall, fixing the predicted direction before agent runs. We then compare paired runs with real or anonymized company identities while keeping external evidence PIT-valid. Both Qwen and DeepSeek recalled future facts, but neither supported the prespecified shift toward the better-remembered company. Qwen's four allocation estimates on 28 unequal-recall tasks were negative, with descriptive intervals spanning zero. A prospective DeepSeek replication showed an inverse pattern across all four metrics on 20 such tasks, with intervals below zero. These estimates remained negative after each company, pair, and future-fact omission, and all four post-hoc max-T-adjusted sign-flip p-values were below .05. In a prospectively specified follow-up, explicit future facts produced small estimated shifts away from the supplied-fact company, with intervals spanning zero, while final choices shifted toward it. The mechanism behind the natural inverse pattern remains unresolved. These findings support separate assessments of memory accessibility, search allocation, and final outputs alongside cutoff checks on external evidence.
Sampling-based test-time scaling enhances LLM reasoning by aggregating multiple reasoning paths for the same query. Existing methods use answer frequencies or path confidence to compute candidate scores, which do not explicitly characterize comparisons between competing answers. Inspired by the Condorcet principle in social choice theory, we introduce pairwise confidence comparisons between paths supporting different answers to capture answer-level comparative advantage. We combine this comparative evidence with voting support through a KL-regularized objective. Theoretically, we show that this comparative-advantage is equivalent to the adjustment to the traditional voting logits. In this way, our proposed Pairwise-Guided Logit Adjustment (PGLA) framework allows comparative evidence to compensate for weaker voting support and correct voting-based ranking errors. Experiments on 10 challenging benchmarks including mathematical reasoning, knowledge reasoning, and code generation with 7 models ranging from 1.7B to 32B parameters speak to the effectiveness of this plug-and-play term. Additional evaluations with external reward scores and online sampling further demonstrate its applicability.
System One models choose an agent's next action by scoring a supplied set of options in a single pass. This makes them fast and cheap, but when they choose wrongly there is nothing to inspect: did the model misread what the agent has seen, or read it correctly and still act wrongly? We answer behaviorally. On a frozen benchmark of agent decision states from simulated environments, customer-service policies, tool use, web navigation and coding, we pair every next-action question with factual probes about the same state, each answered independently. Across seventeen fast systems and a reasoning model, the answer is consistent: most wrong actions follow correct reading, and the more accurate a system, the more of its errors take this form. These errors are not noise; they gather on the same states across systems of every kind. Where the probed facts provably determine the action, models that read every fact still fail to combine them, and their own answers, composed by code, repair the failure. On real states, what is missing is often not a fact but the next sub-goal.
Automated post-training transforms pre-trained large language models (LLMs) into models capable of handling diverse domains by automatically constructing and optimizing a recipe of coupled decisions over data sources, data processing, cross-domain composition, and training configuration under a limited experimental budget. Existing automation either searches predefined recipe spaces that enable systematic optimization but remain fixed rather than adapting their available choices to the target tasks, or uses open-ended agents that discover task-specific choices but leave them implicit in trial-level edits, limiting their systematic reuse and recombination across trials. To fill this gap, we introduce optimization over a task-adapted recipe space, a novel paradigm that can adapt the recipe space itself to the target tasks while representing its choices explicitly for systematic reuse, recombination, and joint optimization. We instantiate this paradigm with Structured Recipe Optimization (SRO), comprising an LLM-based Recipe-Space Designer that constructs the task-adapted recipe space and a Multi-Domain Recipe Optimizer that uses structured trial evidence to guide LLM candidate construction and multi-objective Bayesian trial selection. Extensive experiments show that SRO achieves the highest average score in all evaluated target-model and agent-LLM combinations. In joint post-training across three capability domains and six benchmarks, SRO reaches 41.1 versus 15.4 for the strongest baseline on Qwen3-1.7B with GPT-5.4, and 53.8 versus 40.8 on Qwen3-4B with DeepSeek-V4-Flash. Our code is available at https://github.com/RuohLiuq/SRO.
Latent planners often rank candidate action sequences by terminal Euclidean distance to a goal latent. Exact agreement with transition distance would make this score ideal, but is stronger than planning requires: along a transition-shortest rollout, the essential requirement is that latent distance does not reverse true transition progress. We show that this pathwise no-reversal requirement is precisely the classical self-approaching condition. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to identify self-approachingness as a planner-facing compatibility condition for terminal Euclidean latent planning and to connect its violation to an exact finite-horizon candidate-order reversal. Because visual world models predict discrete latent sequences, we analyze their polygonal interpolation. We prove that an acute bend creates a nonempty region in which terminal Euclidean distance ranks a transition-worse candidate ahead of one that makes genuine progress, even under exact rollouts. We further interpret latent dimension as angular capacity through a classical spherical-code bound. A controlled six-branch experiment, including a zero-padded three-dimensional baseline, validates the predicted ordering failure and separates angular arrangement from ambient dimensionality.
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has emerged as a dominant paradigm for improving Large Language Model (LLM) by intertwining it with other components, such as a vector/graph database. Therefore, the resulting RAG systems are often highly configurable, under which a non-trivial amount of failures are related to the configurations. However, there remains a lack of systematic understanding regarding the configuration issues for RAG systems. To bridge this gap, in this paper, we conduct the first large-scale empirical study of 654 real-world configuration issues collected from 10 diverse RAG systems. Drawing on this, we provide a complete categorization of the symptoms, root causes, relevant stages, and fix patterns of configuration issues for RAG systems, as well as several new observations. Our findings not only reveal the characteristics of configuration issues, but also strongly link them to the unique pipeline stages of RAG, e.g., we found that most symptoms can be observed at the early or late stage, while the stage of the root cause might not be at the same stage as where the symptom is identified. We also provide nine actionable insights to the practitioners on testing, localizing, and fixing the configuration issues for RAG systems.
Large language model (LLM) routers reduce serving cost by choosing which model to call and how many output tokens to grant it for each query. Existing routers rank model-budget actions using a single quality metric. This does not work for mixed workloads. For ordinary queries, a good answer is correct and useful (utility); for security-sensitive queries, a good answer refuses harmful requests or resists malicious instructions (security). These two objectives prefer different models and budgets. We propose SCRouter, a router that learns when to prioritize security and how to allocate the token budget. For each model-budget pair, it estimates the probability that the response finishes within budget. It uses this probability to predict utility and security separately. A small probe determines how to weight these two predictions for each query. SCRouter then selects the model and budget by balancing the weighted utility and security against cost. We also build SCRouterBench, a benchmark of 38,869 utility and security queries spanning nine security dimensions, each answered under all 144 combinations of 12 models and 12 budgets, plus 2,753 out-of-domain queries. SCRouter improves the baselines by 13-29 points in-domain and 19-23 points out-of-domain.
People often tackle difficult problems by thinking more deeply or exploring more possibilities. Similarly, recursive reasoners, which reason by repeatedly applying a learned update rule to latent states, can also scale inference through more updates (depth) or additional trajectories generated by perturbing latent states (width). When people hit a dead end in their thinking, they may step back and approach the problem from a fresh angle. However, neither depth scaling nor perturbation-based width scaling of recursive reasoners can reliably achieve this: both may converge to incorrect attractors. To address this, we propose to explore diverse reasoning traces by applying different update maps to the same latent state, without any additional training. We realize this idea through \emph{Input-Conditioned Search (ICS)}, which searches over input conditions to induce alternative update maps from the pretrained reasoner. Across six reasoning tasks, ICS achieves the highest mean accuracy, while requiring up to two orders of magnitude fewer model FLOPs than the evaluated scaling baselines. Controlled experiments confirm that ICS can redirect trajectories from the same state. Our theoretical analysis and rigorous numerical verification also confirm that ICS can locally eliminate incorrect attracting fixed points. Together, these findings establish ICS as an effective axis for efficient test-time scaling and motivate further research on shaping recursive reasoning during training and at test time.
Reusable skills let LLM agents load task-specific instructions on demand, but they make execution depend on implicit routing over skill metadata. We test whether this design scales by holding SkillsBench tasks and their golden skills fixed while adding irrelevant skills. We find skill routing collapse: agents increasingly load fewer or no skills, even though the relevant skills remain available. With 1,000 irrelevant skills, loaded-skill recall falls from 73.6% to 27.4% and the zero-load rate rises from 9.3% to 51.6%, whereas explicit selection from the same library retains 73.9% recall. Loading other skills, including plausible alternatives to golden skills, is too rare to explain this decline. Masking only the descriptions of irrelevant skills largely restores skill loading, yet with the metadata intact, explicitly asking agents to plan skill use still yields lower recall than preselection. These findings point to semantic interference from descriptions and instruction interference when skill choice competes with task execution. We also evaluate explicit preselection as a practical mitigation, including its coverage and latency trade-offs. Our analysis informs skill protocols and evaluation for agents with growing skill libraries.
Buildings cause nearly 40\% of carbon emissions in the US. Of total building emissions, HVAC systems are responsible for approximately 40-60\% and account for 15\% of global energy consumption. Despite advances in artificial intelligence, most buildings still operate as inefficiently as they did decades ago. Building optimization, perhaps more so than any other optimization problem, has enormous potential for Machine Learning (ML) driven impact on climate change, in both the short and long term. One of the biggest obstacles for building optimization is the lack of policy transfer. Most building control systems, whether simulation or learning based, don't generalize: they only work well for the building they were developed for, but not for other buildings. To solve this problem, we propose a challenge for the development of building foundation models that easily adapt to new buildings with minimal configuration and thereby enable building optimization to scale across the globe. Participants will build control policies on a set of simulated buildings, and have their policies evaluated on an unseen set of buildings. The buildings vary in size, layout, weather, material properties, and HVAC system. Successful outcomes from this initiative promise a massive leap forward in global sustainability efforts and demonstrate the great potential of ML to combat climate change.
Tool-call judges evaluate argument values proposed by LLM agents. We find that they accept a correct value less often when their input holds no reference for it, that is, no text that says what the value should be. This happens when the value is a default value from the function schema that the user did not mention, when it has to be inferred, or when the text it comes from was cut from the judge input. We call this drop in acceptance the derivation gap. It appears across all seven judges we evaluate, including System One models CLM and Jev. The gap is not only a truncation artifact: correct default values have the largest gap on a benchmark with no truncation. A controlled source-relocation test shows that judges follow the reference in their input: they favor a visible incorrect value over a correct value whose source is hidden. We introduce DeRef (Derived Reference): a separate model reads the full history without seeing the candidate and writes a reference for the judge. Across three benchmarks, DeRef improves overall argument AUROC for all judges tested. On the controlled test, it raises AUROC from chance or below to between 98.40 and 99.59.
Terminal agents have shown strong abilities in complex coding tasks. However, they often struggle to recover from errors during long-running execution (e.g., command errors, faulty implementations), eventually leading to task failures. To this end, we present ReTerm, a self-improving terminal agent trained by learning how to recover from its own failed terminal tasks. To support its training, we construct a customized data pipeline and produce ReTerm-10K, a high-quality dataset that provides effective recovery demonstrations for SFT cold start. Furthermore, we propose ReTerm-GRPO, an online RL algorithm that forks from the agent's own failure states to generate multiple independent self-recovery attempts. By learning from whether these attempts successfully complete the task, the agent self-improves through its own recovery experience. Built on Qwen3.5-9B, our ReTerm-9B achieves 34.8% Pass@1 on Terminal-Bench 2.0, improving over the base model by 14.6 points. Further analysis shows that our method achieves consistently higher recovery rates across diverse error categories compared with standard GRPO training. All code, data and model are released at https://github.com/twothsnd/ReTerm.
AI agents for autonomous scientific discovery must decide which experiments to run under a limited budget. Most benchmarks for science agents provide fixed datasets, while others that support active experimentation largely rely on simulation. We introduce Autonomous Science Bench, an initial release comprising six budgeted design-build-test-learn campaigns grounded in published experiments across biology, chemistry, and materials science. Agents select batches of designs, receive measurements from a lab service, and use the results to guide subsequent experiments before delivering a predictive model. Success requires passing two calibrated gates: a discovery gate, which evaluates the designs the agent measured, and a learning gate, which evaluates its model's ranking of held-out designs. In a pilot evaluation of eight agent-model configurations and 144 trials, the best configuration succeeds in 67% of trials, while the hardest campaign is solved in only three of 24 attempts. The two gates reveal different weaknesses: some agents build accurate rankings but find too few promising designs, while others find promising designs but fail to predict which unseen designs will perform well. These differences are obscured by overall success rates alone. We release version 0.1 of the campaigns, lab runtime, and public leaderboard at https://yibow.me/autonomous-science-bench.
World models have emerged as a promising paradigm for embodied AI, yet existing systems often remain fragmented in the modalities they model and the functions they support. In particular, visual dynamics, geometric structure, and executable action are commonly coupled through separate interfaces or downstream modules rather than being jointly represented and evolved within a shared dynamics model. In this work, we present Thinker-WM, a unified multimodal world model that jointly models and generates RGB, metric depth, and robot action through a shared intermediate Unified Dynamics Transformer with modality-specific encoders and decoders. The model performs multimodal unification at the representation level: appearance, geometry, and action are transformed into a common dynamic representation and jointly evolved by shared parameters, while their distinct output structures are preserved. The same parameterization supports multiple functions, including joint video-action generation, world prediction, policy inference, action-conditioned generation, video-to-action generation, and inverse dynamics. To examine whether the shared representation captures action-related information, we introduce a lightweight motion probe that shows the frozen visual representation contains recoverable motion information. Thinker-WM is trained on a heterogeneous corpus comprising approximately 20K hours of egocentric video, 10K hours of real-robot data, and 1K hours of simulation data, including approximately 4K hours of real-robot data with aligned depth supervision. Extensive experiments demonstrate strong performance across embodied world-model evaluations. Thinker-WM ranks first on EWMBench, WorldOlympiad and WorldArena, while controlled studies further demonstrate the benefits of action conditioning, geometric interaction, and multi-function training within the shared representation.
Automating AI research creates a positive feedback loop between software capability and research effort. We study a stochastic realisation of this loop in which independent, positive, multiplicative improvements arrive at a rate proportional to a power of current capability. Within this model, randomness leaves the deterministic explosion threshold unchanged but replaces the blow-up date by an explicit distribution. For equal-sized improvements the explosion time is a geometrically weighted sum of independent exponentials; its $q$-series representation gives its transforms, moments and tail behaviour, including a two-term small-time asymptotic. For Lomax-distributed improvement sizes the explosion time is exactly Gamma distributed. Self-similarity implies that, with parameters known, the relative uncertainty about the remaining time does not vanish as explosion approaches. We formulate a fixed-sample test between constant and geometrically increasing idea-arrival rates. If the baseline rate and the alternative log-rate increment $\ell$ are known, the minimum sample size at error level $α$ is asymptotic to $(12z_α^2)^{1/3}\ell^{-2/3}$, where $z_α$ is the upper-$α$ standard normal quantile. Uncertainty about the growth exponent near its critical value produces a $1/t$ tail with an explicit constant, and hence an infinite conditional mean waiting time, although explosion is certain given a positive exponent. Separate extensions show that a fixed deployment delay prevents explosion in the specified delayed-feedback models, that power-law diversion of effort shifts the growth threshold, and that in a deterministic oversight race a fixed allocation share does not change the asymptotic regime, except at a critical equality of exponents. Numerical illustrations, which are not empirical forecasts, show how timing and detectability depend on the granularity of improvements.
Applying process-based Earth science models to new sites and questions often requires expert calibration decisions. Reliable delegation to language-model agents must preserve scientific competence and reproducibility. Here we develop a general calibration harness (GCH) for end-to-end delegation from a calibration request to assessed results. Constrained by a knowledge infrastructure (KI) and a validation convention, agents define parameter domains, observation mappings and objectives, and generate model-specific code. GCH checks the formulations against the same declarations and freezes them before numerical search and assessment, which require no further agent judgement. Agent-authored workflows executed across six model families, with assessment identifying unmet criteria. In snow-model tests, five of five knowledge-guided specifications executed on the first attempt, compared with none of five given only the model name, achieving validation Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) of 0.81-0.94 against 0.57 for defaults. Under a common objective, independent GR4J formulations yielded scores within 0.001 NSE; re-evaluating eleven saved parameter vectors reproduced their metrics. In ten paired VIC tests with matched budgets, fixed search was non-inferior to continuing agent proposals (margin, -0.02 NSE; median difference, -0.003). This separation enables end-to-end calibration delegation with inspectable scientific choices and reproducible numerical evaluation.
We introduce \textbf{ABot Embodied Reasoning (ABot-ER)}, a unified embodied reasoning foundation model that breaks the tension between breadth and depth in embodied reasoning. Embodied intelligence demands the joint mastery of perception, planning, and execution, yet reconciling generality with specialization across this spectrum remains an open challenge. Within a single unified model, ABot-ER commands specialist-level depth across all three competencies, spanning spatial, scene, and temporal reasoning in perception; long-horizon action organization in planning; and point grounding and affordance in execution. The \textbf{Agentic Data-Model Self-Evolution Engine} continuously adapts data strategies to the model's evolving capability state. The \textbf{Task-Conditioned Adaptive Training Strategy} uses task tokens to activate lightweight low-rank residuals over a shared backbone, separating updates from heterogeneous output formats while retaining shared embodied knowledge. Across a systematic evaluation on twelve benchmarks covering three core competencies and five capability dimensions, ABot-ER achieves \textbf{state-of-the-art overall performance} across perception, planning, and execution within a unified parametric framework, demonstrating that breadth and depth can coexist in unified embodied reasoning.
Game-theoretic benchmarks claim that large language model (LLM) strategic decision-making varies across game types, interaction structures, and capability dimensions. However, they only evaluate strategic performance across individual fixed models. In parallel, contemporary LLM routers pick models under quality-cost trade-offs, but with no notion of a strategic structure. They do not account for an opponent that might be unknown, and that can adapt over time and shift the feedback signal. To address this, we extend the game-theoretic evaluations and define strategic selection as the meta game layered on top of the base game. In each round, a strategic selector fields an LLM from a portfolio of models to navigate a game payoff matrix that is latent and learned online. We find that the evaluation signal is game-specific, and that extracting a reliable signal requires a much higher number of seed runs $N$ compared to traditional benchmarking setups. Evaluating across 5 games and 10 LLMs, we show a model's strategic competence varies significantly depending on the game setup and the opponent faced. Building on this, we implement a suite of selector methods and find that approaches that rely on query embeddings or LLM self-reflection do not consistently capture the underlying strategic signal. A lightweight multi-armed bandit algorithm performs more reliably across games, though it still falls short of the best fixed model. Finally, we show that simple non-stationary and adversarial bandit variants fail to outperform a stationary bandit baseline, pointing to a gap in how current methods handle a shifting opponent in strategic settings.
Training business automation agents requires executable tasks that connect a natural-language request to an application state and a verifiable end state. Traditional Rubrics requires Authors to recreate application interfaces, initial records, policy evidence, and outcome checks for each task, entangling business logic with repeated infrastructure work. We introduce AssetForge, an asset-augmented task-construction pipeline that pairs a reusable construction-asset library with task-specific Rubrics. The assets provide application interfaces, world-state components, policy/evidence carriers, and native assertion definitions; the Rubric directs their instantiation for a particular business task. Executable checks and an additional model-based review validate each candidate, return targeted feedback, and support bounded repair before acceptance. On AutomationBench v1.0.6 public-600, fine-tuning Qwen3.6-35B-A3B on 6,000 AssetForge examples yields 41.17% on the official strict pass@1 metric, 4.4 times the 9.33% base score (+31.83 points). With the same backbone and GLM-5.3 supervision, AssetForge reaches 41.17% versus 30.33% for traditional Rubrics, a 10.84-point gain (35.7% relative) at the same accepted-example scale (6,000 versus 6,000 examples). Both DeepSeek- and GLM-supervised AssetForge models improve AppWorld completion over the base model on Test-Normal and Test-Challenge. These results establish the advantage of AssetForge's complete construction pipeline on AutomationBench public: the coupled asset-Rubric interface directs Authors toward business logic, while executable checks and model-based review validate their tasks.
This work discusses and tests the potential of reaction graphs for material synthesis, in which events consist of reaction steps (actions) and their outputs (observations). The importance comes from the requirement to synthesize technologically useful materials, especially those that are kinetically stabilized. Often, it is a science that follows years of trial and error, culminating in (published) successful recipes, but is truly driven by far more (unpublished) failures. The entry into the era of AI provides an opportunity to use learning algorithms to encode rules from multi-dimensional synthesis pathways, regardless of their technological usefulness, and to decode both forward prediction and inverse learning modes. The main incentive is to accelerate material discovery by generating a global knowledge base that can be shared among data agents and contributed to by them. We will focus on several scenarios in the common synthesis process during solid-state synthesis, primarily because these reactions are kinetic in nature and require closer monitoring and control of the reaction history.
Guardrail approaches that rely on reasoning-based large language models (LLM) improve safety decisions, but come with substantial inference overhead due to the explicit reasoning. We introduce LR-Guard (Latent Reasoning Guardrail), an efficient and explainable guardrail that jointly learns structured latent reasoning and on-demand reasoning reconstruction. Our method distills a frozen teacher's analysis of safe and unsafe prompt interpretations and their comparison into compact latent representations. Joint training optimizes these representations for both safety prediction and reconstruction of the teacher's explicit reasoning traces, enabling human-readable explanations without requiring intermediate text generation for every decision. Experiments show that LR-Guard outperforms its explicit-reasoning teacher in most in-domain and out-of-domain settings on safety classification and explanation extraction, while achieving a 19.4x inference speedup at batch size one. Further, reconstructed reasoning traces from the latent information exhibit high semantic similarity to the teacher's explicit reasoning.
Recent progress in autoformalisation of mathematics using AI has been impressive. Measuring this progress requires datasets of formal statements that are both hard and trustworthy. We present AnnalsChallenge: 50 formalised theorem statements written by hand in Lean 4 using Mathlib. Each is the main result of a paper published in the Annals of Mathematics since 2020. Every formalisation was manually reviewed and then audited by AI. We release them without formalised proofs.
What binds large language models on auditable, hypothesis-driven decision tasks, where every candidate can be checked against the evidence? On the public TCMEval-SDT benchmark for Traditional Chinese Medicine syndrome differentiation (200 cases), the binding constraint is output discipline and reasoning structure, not model capability alone: two years of model scaling move zero-shot scores by only -0.03 to +0.08, while output-discipline failures (non-terminating reasoning, format non-compliance, large run-to-run spread) persist even in frontier models. We test this with a model-agnostic agent framework formalizing decision making as a five-stage closed loop, enforced by a candidate x evidence matrix falsification protocol: every candidate is judged against every evidence item, at least half of the candidates must be falsified before a conclusion is licensed, and survivors are emitted in a machine-verifiable single-line format. Across five base models, the effect is sign-conditional on zero-shot output discipline: it rescues models whose discipline fails (DeepSeek-V4-Flash: +0.267/+0.271, entirely termination rescue), reduces a high-variance model's run-to-run standard deviation from 0.218 to 0.007 (Kimi K3), and significantly costs already-disciplined models (-0.087 to -0.120 on budget-matched Qwen3-4B/32B). Ablations attribute the cost to the candidate-bounded format layer and show the effect is independent of injected knowledge content (protocol-knowledge decoupling). The protocol also transfers to misinformation-robust mathematical reasoning, detecting injected false premises at 89.8% recall with a 6.8% false-positive rate (MCC 0.54; a flag-everything baseline scores 0) and restoring accuracy to the no-misinformation ceiling. Where zero-shot output discipline is weak, the reasoning protocol sets the floor; base-model capability always sets the ceiling.
Multi-agent debate (MAD) aims to improve large language model reasoning by exposing agents to alternative solutions and enabling iterative revision. However, standard broadcast-style MAD makes peer answers visible without requiring agents to engage with a particular peer claim. As a result, reliable reasoning may be suppressed by conflicting or majority responses, limiting achievable performance, while erroneous reasoning may persist and degrade final predictions without actionable feedback. We propose TrueMAD, a backbone-agnostic test-time plug-in that introduces one-to-one, free-form peer advice between answer broadcasting and self-revision. Each source agent responds to a target's current reasoning through support, rebuttal, refinement, or further questions, while the target retains control over how to revise. The same mechanism can augment standard MAD and its improved variants without parameter updates. Across AIME, GPQA-Diamond, and TruthfulQA with Qwen3-30B-A3B, TrueMAD improves agent-level and strict-majority accuracy over MAD by 3.62 and 3.52 percentage points on average, while TrueDMAD improves DMAD by 4.72 and 4.06 points, respectively. Analyses at the utterance, agent-transition, and group levels further show more peer-specific deliberation, more correction-oriented revisions, and more favorable consensus dynamics.
System One models answer typed questions in a single forward pass and promise the same answer for the same input. For choice questions, this promise fails: the answer depends on the order of the options, increasingly so as they grow in number, and averaging over their cyclic shifts reduces this dependence without removing it. Scoring each option alone, which the order cannot affect, shows that the order changes the answer mostly when the model is unsure among its top few options, even though the listwise answer looks confident. We therefore propose $\textbf{Runoff}$, which considers, then chooses: it scores each option alone to keep a few candidates, then compares them in listings where each candidate takes every position. It needs no training and can run in two forward passes, and its answer does not depend on the option order by construction. On two open models and five datasets, it changes no answer under shuffling, against 9.3% for cyclic averaging, and with 20 options it is about as accurate and three to four times faster. Wrapped around eight System One models, it removes the order dependence of the five benchmarks, while cyclic averaging changes up to 15.4%.
Knowledge graph link prediction involving unseen entities and relations requires learning transferable reasoning patterns from observed graph structure. Existing methods based on relation graphs primarily capture pairwise dependencies, limiting their ability to preserve the compositional semantics, relation ordering, and role information of complete path rules. To address this limitation, we propose QORH (Query-specific Ordered Rule Hypergraph), which jointly encodes rule heads and ordered rule bodies as hyperedges conditioned on the query relation, explicitly modeling joint dependencies among multiple relations. QORH performs learnable rule selection using statistical evidence, such as rule confidence and coverage, and enhances relation representations through role-aware hypergraph message passing to guide entity-level reasoning. The model's shared parameters are independent of specific entity or relation identifiers, enabling inductive prediction for unseen entities and relations. Extensive experiments on entity-inductive and fully inductive benchmarks demonstrate that QORH significantly outperforms the state-of-the-art baselines included in our evaluation, validating the effectiveness of rule hypergraph modeling for inductive link prediction.
Proactive human-robot collaboration requires autonomous systems to infer not only immediate actions but also the underlying hierarchical intentions governing human behavior. Current deep learning approaches predominantly focus on flat action classification, failing to capture the structural dependencies connecting kinematic motion to high-level goals. A Neuro-Symbolic Graph Transformer (NSGT) is proposed within this multimodal framework, a Human Reasoning Graph (HR-G) is integrated into the self-attention mechanism via learnable topological biases. Furthermore, the architecture is augmented with a differentiable First-Order Logic (FOL) loss, acting as a structural regularizer by which ontological consistency is enforced across four levels: atomic actions, composite activities, Low-Level Intentions, and High-Level Intentions. Evaluation is performed on the synthesized NTU-Hierarchy dataset, a four-level ontological extension of NTU RGB+D 120, wherein existing sequences were mapped into 119,383 complex hierarchical episodes (85 actions, 16 activities, 8 LLIs, 4 HLIs). To prevent circular supervision, strict isolation between label generation and FOL constraints was maintained. In the base configuration, 91.65% top-1 action accuracy is achieved by the NSGT. When the FOL loss is incorporated into the baseline, logic consistency is improved by 3.26 percentage points to 96.67%. Through the HR-G biases, a tunable trade-off between accuracy and structural coherence is established. In the primary consistency-maximizing configuration ($λ$ = 0.5), a logic consistency of 94.59% is reached and ontological contradictions are reduced by 33%, while a robust 89.90% top-1 action accuracy is retained. Finally, interpretable reasoning evidence is provided by the learned HR-G weights, wherein transition edges are strongly exploited ($β$ trans $\approx$ +2.6) without explicit supervision.
Accurate prediction of object trajectories is fundamental to mechanical understanding and robotic control. However, autoregressive models inherently suffer from cumulative errors, leading to severe drift in long-horizon rollouts. Observing that in many physical systems with dissipative or convergence-to-rest behavior, the final states are often more predictable than transient dynamics (e.g., a sliding object resting under friction or a pendulum stabilizing at equilibrium), we propose ReStep, a cascaded approach that reverses the conventional forward-prediction paradigm. ReStep first employs a stochastic model to directly predict the final state, then leverages Anchored Diffusion to generate goal-conditioned intermediate trajectories. By conditioning on both ''boundary states'', it effectively constrains dynamics and reduces uncertainty, producing physically plausible and temporally coherent transitions. We further integrate ReStep dynamics as the physical engine within a 3D Gaussian Splatting pipeline, enabling a unified physical-visual framework for intuitive inference from images. Extensive experiments on diverse rigid and non-rigid collision datasets show that ReStep achieves superior long-term accuracy, substantially mitigating error accumulation via reverse-consequence modeling.
Learning dealer agents can settle on persistently wide quotes, raising what customers pay to trade. A venue can route more orders to tighter quotes, but a wide quote may reflect real risk, and once dealers adapt, an end-to-end comparison cannot show why a rule works: because it intervenes more, picks better moments, is announced in advance, or rewards the right quote. We propose SOFA (State-aligned Order-Flow Allocation), a public order-flow contract with three parts: a State Scorer ranks market states from lagged public data, a Commitment Scheduler announces a budgeted intervention strength before dealers quote, and a Quote-to-Flow Allocator shifts a bounded share of fixed customer demand toward tighter quotes. Our paired re-adaptation protocol gives competing rules the same intervention strengths, only re-timed, lets dealers re-adapt to each rule from a shared checkpoint, and breaks one link at a time. Across 20 independently trained dealer populations in an ABIDES market, concentrating the intervention in states that the score ranks as low-risk lowers low-risk execution cost relative to random timing in every population, by 0.040 tick on average, while a stale announcement or a broken quote-to-flow link raises this cost. In the primary setting the gain comes at the expense of high-risk trades, whose costs rise, so state alignment pays off only for a venue that weighs low-risk costs more than 1.38 times as heavily as high-risk costs. Our code is available at https://github.com/moderncavemann/state-aligned-order-flow-contracts.
Prefix reuse improves LLM inference by sharing the KV cache of common prompt prefixes. This helps only if the scheduler can execute a matched branch in the current worker round. Schedulers assume that a matched prefix is ready, which holds for full attention but fails for hybrid LLMs. There, a branch (the consumer) may need recurrent state that another branch (the producer) is still computing in the same round. The native scheduler stops its waiting-queue scan at this blocked consumer, and the resulting head-of-line blocking creates \emph{execution bubbles}: idle batch slots that independent work could fill. We introduce RadixFlow, which decouples prefix matching from state readiness. Its state-ready traversal turns a global scan barrier into a local wait: only the consumer is blocked until the next round, while feasible independent branches keep filling the batch under the native state check. On five hybrid models, RadixFlow lowers mean latency by 3\% to 24\% and worker rounds by 11\% to 44\% at almost unchanged reuse. On the larger Qwen3.5 models, ablations show that most of the gain comes from traversal, which adds little on a full-attention control. Heavier rounds limit how much of this saving reaches latency.
Omnimodal large language models (OLLMs) are susceptible to cross-modal hallucinations under audio-visual interference. We find that, for a substantial fraction of incorrect joint predictions, the question-relevant unimodal branch can still recover the correct answer, suggesting that task-relevant evidence can remain recoverable from the relevant modality even when it is not reflected in the joint prediction. We refer to this recoverable failure pattern as \emph{modality misrouting}. We propose CaRe (Conflict-aware Residual Intervention), a training-free inference-time method for identifying and correcting modality misrouting. CaRe uses a text-only modality probe to identify a candidate modality-specific counterfactual branch, and flags potential misrouting when its prediction conflicts with the original joint prediction. For such cases, CaRe computes a residual direction from the discrepancy between the counterfactual and fused representations and uses it to steer the original multimodal state toward the relevant modality evidence, while retaining both modalities in the original audio-visual inference path. The intervention strength is adapted based on the confidence of the counterfactual branch. Experiments on CMM and AVHBench across two OLLMs show that CaRe consistently outperforms the evaluated inference-time hallucination-mitigation baselines.
Looped language models (LMs) reuse one block of layers several times per token generation, promising more latent computation at no additional storage cost. Despite their rising popularity, the analysis of looped LMs is still in its infancy: little is known about whether the iterative transformations actually improve their capabilities, or whether these models remain stable under prompt perturbation. We construct an inspection protocol rooted in Mechanistic Interpretability comprising five diverse lenses. We apply it to examine eight looped LMs from four families. Models differ in many aspects but the key one is whether the prompt is transmitted only within the looped state (carry loops: Ouro, LoopUS) or re-supplied at every iteration (re-read loops: Parcae, and Rec-OLMo & Huginn from the Raven family). The results of our study provide valuable insights concerning safety and efficient use of looped language models.
Freshness shapes an LLM decision at the moment it is made; the action it commits to is latent, carried out later, in a changing world. We therefore introduce a timestamp theory of decision validity and a decision ledger that realises it. Six timestamps define a decision; a freshness ceiling bounds what up-to-date evidence guarantees at action time, placing the remaining risk in information published afterwards. Accuracy then factorises into two capabilities: routing, which delivers that information to affected decisions before their revision deadlines, and temporal judgment, which reads it for the time of action. The ledger is persistent state holding each decision's times, evidence and background knowledge, indexed by watch conditions written at decision time. Controlled decision streams with exact labels confirm four predictions across five LLMs, from 8B to frontier scale: freshness alone yields exactly the accuracy the ceiling predicts; models act on decisive news once it arrives, so accuracy follows routing; the ledger's index sets what routing reaches, and watch conditions reach indirect dependencies at low exposure; and the remaining errors concern when a change takes effect. Freshness makes a decision right when it is made; routing and temporal judgment keep it right when it is carried out.
Chain of Thought (CoT) monitoring is used by frontier labs to detect misbehaviour of AI systems. Yet, its reliability remains poorly understood. We attribute this to the lack of a successful organizing principle that leads to generalizable conclusions about monitoring reliability in different regimes. Recent work attributes monitoring failures to the CoT not being necessary for the answer, and argues that CoT becomes monitorable when it is necessary. We show that this binary necessary/not-necessary organizing principle is too coarse by demonstrating that monitoring failures persist even if the CoT is necessary for the answer. In response, we introduce a more fine-grained organizing principle based on a hierarchy of four CoT necessity levels. Building on this hierarchy, we develop a framework for measuring CoT monitorability at the three lowest levels via intervention experiments. We demonstrate monitoring failures at all three of these levels on realistic, hard prediction tasks. On a difficult medical-diagnosis task, patient sex and a clinical attribute influence the answer in at least 19% and 24% of correct responses with a necessary CoT, respectively, yet their influence is almost never articulated. These results show that even when CoT is necessary, it is not guaranteed to be monitorable.