Daily Papers

Organizing long-term memory for multimodal agents remains challenging because existing methods either suffer from expensive question-agnostic offline summaries or naive embedding similarity matching that introduces incomplete and redundant context. To address these issues, we propose GraphMemix, a combinatorial-optimization graph memory framework that models memory organization as query-aware evidence-forest construction. Specifically, our method consists of three key components:(1) candidate graph construction, which expands multi-view seed memories through schema and semantic relations to acquire query-aware original context; (2) evidence utility and activation costs, which decouples direct memory support from anchor-conditioned relation verification to suppress redundant or conflicting information; and (3) forest optimization, which jointly selects a forest-format memory context under a maximum evidence budget and its reliable relational structure. By organizing memory into a query-relevant subgraph, the method avoids substantial lifecycle cost and recovers low-similarity complementary evidence. Experimental results across four long-term multimodal memory benchmarks demonstrate significant improvements with different foundation models and establish a new Pareto frontier between accuracy and lifecycle cost.

Community Notes, the crowd-sourced misinformation governance system on X (formerly Twitter), allows users to flag misleading posts, attach contextual notes, and rate the notes' helpfulness. However, our empirical analysis of 30.8K health-related notes reveals substantial latency, with a median delay of 17.6 hours before notes receive a helpfulness status. To improve responsiveness during real-world misinformation surges, we propose CrowdNotes+, a unified LLM-based framework that augments Community Notes for faster and more reliable health misinformation governance. CrowdNotes+ integrates two modes: (1) evidence-grounded note augmentation and (2) utility-guided note automation, supported by a hierarchical three-stage evaluation of relevance, correctness, and helpfulness. We instantiate the framework with HealthNotes, a benchmark of 1.2K health notes annotated for helpfulness, and a fine-tuned helpfulness judge. Our analysis first uncovers a key loophole in current crowd-sourced governance: voters frequently conflate stylistic fluency with factual accuracy. Addressing this via our hierarchical evaluation, experiments across 15 representative LLMs demonstrate that CrowdNotes+ significantly outperforms human contributors in note correctness, helpfulness, and evidence utility.

Retrieval-enhanced methods have become a primary approach in fact verification (FV); it requires reasoning over multiple retrieved pieces of evidence to verify the integrity of a claim. To retrieve evidence, existing work often employs off-the-shelf retrieval models whose design is based on the probability ranking principle. We argue that, rather than relevance, for FV we need to focus on the utility that a claim verifier derives from the retrieved evidence. We introduce the feedback-based evidence retriever(FER) that optimizes the evidence retrieval process by incorporating feedback from the claim verifier. As a feedback signal we use the divergence in utility between how effectively the verifier utilizes the retrieved evidence and the ground-truth evidence to produce the final claim label. Empirical studies demonstrate the superiority of FER over prevailing baselines.

Large-scale sharing of dialogue-based data is instrumental for advancing the science of teaching and learning, yet rigorous de-identification remains a major barrier. In mathematics tutoring transcripts, numeric expressions frequently resemble structured identifiers (e.g., dates or IDs), leading generic Personally Identifiable Information (PII) detection systems to over-redact core instructional content and reduce dataset utility. This work asks how PII can be detected in math tutoring transcripts while preserving their educational utility. To address this challenge, we investigate the "numeric ambiguity" problem and introduce MathEd-PII, the first benchmark dataset for PII detection in math tutoring dialogues, created through a human-in-the-loop LLM workflow that audits upstream redactions and generates privacy-preserving surrogates. The dataset contains 1,000 tutoring sessions (115,620 messages; 769,628 tokens) with validated PII annotations. Using a density-based segmentation method, we show that false PII redactions are disproportionately concentrated in math-dense regions, confirming numeric ambiguity as a key failure mode. We then compare four detection strategies: a Presidio baseline and LLM-based approaches with basic, math-aware, and segment-aware prompting. Math-aware prompting substantially improves performance over the baseline (F1: 0.821 vs. 0.379) while reducing numeric false positives, demonstrating that de-identification must incorporate domain context to preserve analytic utility. This work provides both a new benchmark and evidence that utility-preserving de-identification for tutoring data requires domain-aware modeling.

As language models shift from single-shot answer generation toward multi-step reasoning that retrieves and consumes evidence mid-inference, evaluating the role of individual retrieved items becomes more important. Existing RAG evaluation typically targets final-answer quality, citation faithfulness, or answer-level attribution, but none of these directly targets the intervention-based, per-evidence-item utility view we study here. We introduce CUE-R, a lightweight intervention-based framework for measuring per-evidence-item operational utility in single-shot RAG using shallow observable retrieval-use traces. CUE-R perturbs individual evidence items via REMOVE, REPLACE, and DUPLICATE operators, then measures changes along three utility axes (correctness, proxy-based grounding faithfulness, and confidence error) plus a trace-divergence signal. We also outline an operational evidence-role taxonomy for interpreting intervention outcomes. Experiments on HotpotQA and 2WikiMultihopQA with Qwen-3 8B and GPT-5.2 reveal a consistent pattern: REMOVE and REPLACE substantially harm correctness and grounding while producing large trace shifts, whereas DUPLICATE is often answer-redundant yet not fully behaviorally neutral. A zero-retrieval control confirms that these effects arise from degradation of meaningful retrieval. A two-support ablation further shows that multi-hop evidence items can interact non-additively: removing both supports harms performance far more than either single removal. Our results suggest that answer-only evaluation misses important evidence effects and that intervention-based utility analysis is a practical complement for RAG evaluation.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is considered to be a promising approach to alleviate the hallucination issue of large language models (LLMs), and it has received widespread attention from researchers recently. Due to the limitation in the semantic understanding of retrieval models, the success of RAG heavily lies on the ability of LLMs to identify passages with utility. Recent efforts have explored the ability of LLMs to assess the relevance of passages in retrieval, but there has been limited work on evaluating the utility of passages in supporting question answering. In this work, we conduct a comprehensive study about the capabilities of LLMs in utility evaluation for open-domain QA. Specifically, we introduce a benchmarking procedure and collection of candidate passages with different characteristics, facilitating a series of experiments with five representative LLMs. Our experiments reveal that: (i) well-instructed LLMs can distinguish between relevance and utility, and that LLMs are highly receptive to newly generated counterfactual passages. Moreover, (ii) we scrutinize key factors that affect utility judgments in the instruction design. And finally, (iii) to verify the efficacy of utility judgments in practical retrieval augmentation applications, we delve into LLMs' QA capabilities using the evidence judged with utility and direct dense retrieval results. (iv) We propose a k-sampling, listwise approach to reduce the dependency of LLMs on the sequence of input passages, thereby facilitating subsequent answer generation. We believe that the way we formalize and study the problem along with our findings contributes to a critical assessment of retrieval-augmented LLMs. Our code and benchmark can be found at https://github.com/ict-bigdatalab/utility_judgments.

Large Language Models (LLMs) represent a promising frontier for recommender systems, yet their development has been impeded by the absence of predictable scaling laws, which are crucial for guiding research and optimizing resource allocation. We hypothesize that this may be attributed to the inherent noise, bias, and incompleteness of raw user interaction data in prior continual pre-training (CPT) efforts. This paper introduces a novel, layered framework for generating high-quality synthetic data that circumvents such issues by creating a curated, pedagogical curriculum for the LLM. We provide powerful, direct evidence for the utility of our curriculum by showing that standard sequential models trained on our principled synthetic data significantly outperform (+130% on recall@100 for SasRec) models trained on real data in downstream ranking tasks, demonstrating its superiority for learning generalizable user preference patterns. Building on this, we empirically demonstrate, for the first time, robust power-law scaling for an LLM that is continually pre-trained on our high-quality, recommendation-specific data. Our experiments reveal consistent and predictable perplexity reduction across multiple synthetic data modalities. These findings establish a foundational methodology for reliable scaling LLM capabilities in the recommendation domain, thereby shifting the research focus from mitigating data deficiencies to leveraging high-quality, structured information.

Learning useful representations without supervision remains a key challenge in machine learning. In this paper, we propose a simple yet powerful generative model that learns such discrete representations. Our model, the Vector Quantised-Variational AutoEncoder (VQ-VAE), differs from VAEs in two key ways: the encoder network outputs discrete, rather than continuous, codes; and the prior is learnt rather than static. In order to learn a discrete latent representation, we incorporate ideas from vector quantisation (VQ). Using the VQ method allows the model to circumvent issues of "posterior collapse" -- where the latents are ignored when they are paired with a powerful autoregressive decoder -- typically observed in the VAE framework. Pairing these representations with an autoregressive prior, the model can generate high quality images, videos, and speech as well as doing high quality speaker conversion and unsupervised learning of phonemes, providing further evidence of the utility of the learnt representations.

Many modern AI question-answering systems convert text into vectors and retrieve the closest matches to a user question. While effective for topical similarity, similarity scores alone do not explain why some retrieved text can serve as evidence while other equally similar text cannot. When many candidates receive similar scores, systems may select sentences that are redundant, incomplete, or address different conditions than the question requires. This paper presents a deterministic evidence selection framework for retrieval-augmented question answering. The approach introduces Meaning-Utility Estimation (MUE) and Diversity-Utility Estimation (DUE), fixed scoring and redundancy-control procedures that determine evidence admissibility prior to answer generation. Each sentence or record is evaluated independently using explicit signals for semantic relatedness, term coverage, conceptual distinctiveness, and redundancy. No training or fine-tuning is required. In the prototype, a unit is accepted only if it explicitly states the fact, rule, or condition required by the task. Units are not merged or expanded. If no unit independently satisfies the requirement, the system returns no answer. This deterministic gating produces compact, auditable evidence sets and establishes a clear boundary between relevant text and usable evidence.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is typically optimized for topical relevance, yet its success ultimately depends on whether retrieved passages are useful for a large language model (LLM) to generate correct and complete answers. We argue that such utility is often LLM-specific rather than universal, due to differences in models' knowledge, reasoning, and ability to leverage evidence. We formalize LLM-specific utility as the performance improvement of a target LLM when a passage is provided, compared to answering without evidence. To systematically study LLM-specific utility, we construct a benchmark of LLM-specific gold utilitarian passages for four LLMs (Qwen3-8B/14B/32B and Llama3.1-8B) on three QA datasets (Natural Questions, TriviaQA, and MS MARCO-FQA). Our analysis shows that utilitarian passages are model-dependent and non-transferable: each LLM performs best with its own utilitarian evidence, while evidence optimized for other LLMs is consistently suboptimal. Human-annotated evidence remains a strong general baseline but does not fully match individual LLM utility needs. We further introduce the LLM-specific utility judgment task and find that existing utility-aware selection and scoring methods largely capture model-agnostic usefulness and struggle to reliably estimate LLM-specific utility. Overall, our findings highlight the limitations of current utility-aware retrieval and motivate generator-tailored evidence selection for improving RAG.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) enhances large language models (LLMs) by incorporating retrieved information. Standard retrieval process prioritized relevance, focusing on topical alignment between queries and passages. In contrast, in RAG, the emphasis has shifted to utility, which considers the usefulness of passages for generating accurate answers. Despite empirical evidence showing the benefits of utility-based retrieval in RAG, the high computational cost of using LLMs for utility judgments limits the number of passages evaluated. This restriction is problematic for complex queries requiring extensive information. To address this, we propose a method to distill the utility judgment capabilities of LLMs into smaller, more efficient models. Our approach focuses on utility-based selection rather than ranking, enabling dynamic passage selection tailored to specific queries without the need for fixed thresholds. We train student models to learn pseudo-answer generation and utility judgments from teacher LLMs, using a sliding window method that dynamically selects useful passages. Our experiments demonstrate that utility-based selection provides a flexible and cost-effective solution for RAG, significantly reducing computational costs while improving answer quality. We present the distillation results using Qwen3-32B as the teacher model for both relevance ranking and utility-based selection, distilled into RankQwen1.7B and UtilityQwen1.7B. Our findings indicate that for complex questions, utility-based selection is more effective than relevance ranking in enhancing answer generation performance. We will release the relevance ranking and utility-based selection annotations for the MS MARCO dataset, supporting further research in this area.

Is explainability a false promise? This debate has emerged from the insufficient evidence that explanations aid people in situations they are introduced for. More human-centered, application-grounded evaluations of explanations are needed to settle this. Yet, with no established guidelines for such studies in NLP, researchers accustomed to standardized proxy evaluations must discover appropriate measurements, tasks, datasets, and sensible models for human-AI teams in their studies. To help with this, we first review fitting existing metrics. We then establish requirements for datasets to be suitable for application-grounded evaluations. Among over 50 datasets available for explainability research in NLP, we find that 4 meet our criteria. By finetuning Flan-T5-3B, we demonstrate the importance of reassessing the state of the art to form and study human-AI teams. Finally, we present the exemplar studies of human-AI decision-making for one of the identified suitable tasks -- verifying the correctness of a legal claim given a contract.

Information retrieval systems have traditionally optimized for topical relevance-the degree to which retrieved documents match a query. However, relevance only approximates a deeper goal: utility, namely, whether retrieved information helps accomplish a user's underlying task. The emergence of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) fundamentally changes this paradigm. Retrieved documents are no longer consumed directly by users but instead serve as evidence for large language models (LLMs) that produce answers. As a result, retrieval effectiveness must be evaluated by its contribution to generation quality rather than by relevance-based ranking metrics alone. This tutorial argues that retrieval objectives are evolving from relevance-centric optimization toward LLM-centric utility. We present a unified framework covering LLM-agnostic versus LLM-specific utility, context-independent versus context-dependent utility, and the connection with LLM information needs and agentic RAG. By synthesizing recent advances, the tutorial provides conceptual foundations and practical guidance for designing retrieval systems aligned with the requirements of LLM-based information access.

Synthesizing clinical evidence largely relies on systematic reviews of clinical trials and retrospective analyses from medical literature. However, the rapid expansion of publications presents challenges in efficiently identifying, summarizing, and updating clinical evidence. Here, we introduce TrialMind, a generative artificial intelligence (AI) pipeline for facilitating human-AI collaboration in three crucial tasks for evidence synthesis: study search, screening, and data extraction. To assess its performance, we chose published systematic reviews to build the benchmark dataset, named TrialReviewBench, which contains 100 systematic reviews and the associated 2,220 clinical studies. Our results show that TrialMind excels across all three tasks. In study search, it generates diverse and comprehensive search queries to achieve high recall rates (Ours 0.711-0.834 v.s. Human baseline 0.138-0.232). For study screening, TrialMind surpasses traditional embedding-based methods by 30% to 160%. In data extraction, it outperforms a GPT-4 baseline by 29.6% to 61.5%. We further conducted user studies to confirm its practical utility. Compared to manual efforts, human-AI collaboration using TrialMind yielded a 71.4% recall lift and 44.2% time savings in study screening and a 23.5% accuracy lift and 63.4% time savings in data extraction. Additionally, when comparing synthesized clinical evidence presented in forest plots, medical experts favored TrialMind's outputs over GPT-4's outputs in 62.5% to 100% of cases. These findings show the promise of LLM-based approaches like TrialMind to accelerate clinical evidence synthesis via streamlining study search, screening, and data extraction from medical literature, with exceptional performance improvement when working with human experts.

Memory remains a critical bottleneck for long-horizon robotic manipulation, as standard Vision-Language-Action (VLA) policies often fail when task-relevant cues become occluded or unobservable over time. While existing memory-augmented methods utilize historical context, they either suffer from severe information bottlenecks, incur high latency via decoupled dual systems, or rely on unselective buffers that accumulate massive visual redundancies. To address these limitations, we introduce EventVLA, an end-to-end framework founded on the concept of sparse visual evidence memory that comprises two core components: foundational visual anchors to retain initial and short-term contexts, and a dynamic Keyframe Evidence Memory (KEM) module. Specifically, KEM directly predicts future keyframe probabilities from the VLA's latent embeddings to autonomously capture and store sparse, task-critical visual events. This foresight-driven mechanism empowers the policy to dynamically evaluate the future causal utility of current observations, preserving transient visual evidence before it becomes unobservable. Furthermore, we propose RoboTwin-MeM, a diagnostic benchmark specifically designed to evaluate non-Markovian manipulation tasks with interactive visual evidence. Extensive evaluations show that across 17 memory-requiring simulation tasks and 4 real-world bimanual tasks, EventVLA achieves an average success rate improvement of +40% over state-of-the-art memory-augmented VLAs.

Personalized recommendation systems shape much of user choice online, yet their targeted nature makes separating out the value of recommendation and the underlying goods challenging. We build a discrete choice model that embeds recommendation-induced utility, low-rank heterogeneity, and flexible state dependence and apply the model to viewership data at Netflix. We exploit idiosyncratic variation introduced by the recommendation algorithm to identify and separately value these components as well as to recover model-free diversion ratios that we can use to validate our structural model. We use the model to evaluate counterfactuals that quantify the incremental engagement generated by personalized recommendations. First, we show that replacing the current recommender system with a matrix factorization or popularity-based algorithm would lead to 4% and 12% reduction in engagement, respectively, and decreased consumption diversity. Second, most of the consumption increase from recommendations comes from effective targeting, not mechanical exposure, with the largest gains for mid-popularity goods (as opposed to broadly appealing or very niche goods).

As LLM-powered agents have been used for high-stakes decision-making, such as clinical diagnosis, it becomes critical to develop reliable verification of their decisions to facilitate trustworthy deployment. Yet, existing verifiers usually underperform owing to a lack of domain knowledge and limited calibration. To address this, we establish GLEAN, an agent verification framework with Guideline-grounded Evidence Accumulation that compiles expert-curated protocols into trajectory-informed, well-calibrated correctness signals. GLEAN evaluates the step-wise alignment with domain guidelines and aggregates multi-guideline ratings into surrogate features, which are accumulated along the trajectory and calibrated into correctness probabilities using Bayesian logistic regression. Moreover, the estimated uncertainty triggers active verification, which selectively collects additional evidence for uncertain cases via expanding guideline coverage and performing differential checks. We empirically validate GLEAN with agentic clinical diagnosis across three diseases from the MIMIC-IV dataset, surpassing the best baseline by 12% in AUROC and 50% in Brier score reduction, which confirms the effectiveness in both discrimination and calibration. In addition, the expert study with clinicians recognizes GLEAN's utility in practice.

A critical component of a successful language generation pipeline is the decoding algorithm. However, the general principles that should guide the choice of decoding algorithm remain unclear. Previous works only compare decoding algorithms in narrow scenarios and their findings do not generalize across tasks. To better structure the discussion, we introduce a taxonomy that groups decoding strategies based on their implicit assumptions about how well the model's likelihood is aligned with the task-specific notion of utility. We argue that this taxonomy allows a broader view of the decoding problem and can lead to generalizable statements because it is grounded on the interplay between the decoding algorithms and the likelihood-utility misalignment. Specifically, by analyzing the correlation between the likelihood and the utility of predictions across a diverse set of tasks, we provide the first empirical evidence supporting the proposed taxonomy, and a set of principles to structure reasoning when choosing a decoding algorithm. Crucially, our analysis is the first one to relate likelihood-based decoding strategies with strategies that rely on external information such as value-guided methods and prompting, and covers the most diverse set of tasks up-to-date.

While the privacy risks of multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have drawn significant attention, the unique vulnerabilities of domain-specific MLLMs remain largely underexplored. Focusing on document understanding MLLMs for identity document processing, this paper investigates the privacy issues inherent in Key Information Extraction (KIE) tasks. We reveal that when input images lack sufficient visual evidence, these models often rely on memorized field relations from training data to infer missing content, thereby leaking multiple correlated fields containing sensitive personal information. To mitigate this risk, we make three key contributions.First, we propose the Dynamic Relational Unlearning Framework (DRUF) which comprises a Relational Decoupling Unlearning (RDU) module and a dynamic set update mechanism. It suppresses the leakage of high-risk field pairs while preserving KIE performance.Second, we introduce DocPrivacyBench, a novel benchmark to systematically evaluate a model's susceptibility to privacy leakage under conditions of absent or minimal visual evidence.Third, we evaluate three MLLMs and six unlearning methods using this benchmark, assessing both post-unlearning leakage suppression and utility preservation.Our results demonstrate that existing MLLMs consistently exhibit privacy leakage when visual evidence is scarce, particularly on noisier datasets. In contrast, DRUF outperforms the strongest baseline by improving leakage suppression by 4.8 percentage points, effectively mitigating privacy risks while maintaining robust document information extraction performance.

The chemical reaction recommendation is to select proper reaction condition parameters for chemical reactions, which is pivotal to accelerating chemical science. With the rapid development of large language models (LLMs), there is growing interest in leveraging their reasoning and planning capabilities for reaction condition recommendation. Despite their success, existing methods rarely explain the rationale behind the recommended reaction conditions, limiting their utility in high-stakes scientific workflows. In this work, we propose ChemMAS, a multi-agent system that reframes condition prediction as an evidence-based reasoning task. ChemMAS decomposes the task into mechanistic grounding, multi-channel recall, constraint-aware agentic debate, and rationale aggregation. Each decision is backed by interpretable justifications grounded in chemical knowledge and retrieved precedents. Experiments show that ChemMAS achieves 20-35% gains over domain-specific baselines and outperforms general-purpose LLMs by 10-15% in Top-1 accuracy, while offering falsifiable, human-trustable rationales, which establishes a new paradigm for explainable AI in scientific discovery.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) grounds large language models with external evidence, but under a limited context budget, the key challenge is deciding which retrieved passages should be injected. We show that retrieval relevance metrics (e.g., NDCG) correlate weakly with end-to-end QA quality and can even become negatively correlated under multi-passage injection, where redundancy and mild conflicts destabilize generation. We propose Information Gain Pruning (IGP), a deployment-friendly reranking-and-pruning module that selects evidence using a generator-aligned utility signal and filters weak or harmful passages before truncation, without changing existing budget interfaces. Across five open-domain QA benchmarks and multiple retrievers and generators, IGP consistently improves the quality--cost trade-off. In a representative multi-evidence setting, IGP delivers about +12--20% relative improvement in average F1 while reducing final-stage input tokens by roughly 76--79% compared to retriever-only baselines.

Equipping agents with the capacity to justify made decisions using supporting evidence represents a cornerstone of accountable decision-making. Furthermore, ensuring that justifications are in line with human expectations and societal norms is vital, especially in high-stakes situations such as healthcare. In this work, we propose the use of a debate-based reward model for reinforcement learning agents, where the outcome of a zero-sum debate game quantifies the justifiability of a decision in a particular state. This reward model is then used to train a justifiable policy, whose decisions can be more easily corroborated with supporting evidence. In the debate game, two argumentative agents take turns providing supporting evidence for two competing decisions. Given the proposed evidence, a proxy of a human judge evaluates which decision is better justified. We demonstrate the potential of our approach in learning policies for prescribing and justifying treatment decisions of septic patients. We show that augmenting the reward with the feedback signal generated by the debate-based reward model yields policies highly favored by the judge when compared to the policy obtained solely from the environment rewards, while hardly sacrificing any performance. Moreover, in terms of the overall performance and justifiability of trained policies, the debate-based feedback is comparable to the feedback obtained from an ideal judge proxy that evaluates decisions using the full information encoded in the state. This suggests that the debate game outputs key information contained in states that is most relevant for evaluating decisions, which in turn substantiates the practicality of combining our approach with human-in-the-loop evaluations. Lastly, we showcase that agents trained via multi-agent debate learn to propose evidence that is resilient to refutations and closely aligns with human preferences.

Recent large language models often answer factual questions correctly. But users can't trust any given claim a model makes without fact-checking, because language models can hallucinate convincing nonsense. In this work we use reinforcement learning from human preferences (RLHP) to train "open-book" QA models that generate answers whilst also citing specific evidence for their claims, which aids in the appraisal of correctness. Supporting evidence is drawn from multiple documents found via a search engine, or from a single user-provided document. Our 280 billion parameter model, GopherCite, is able to produce answers with high quality supporting evidence and abstain from answering when unsure. We measure the performance of GopherCite by conducting human evaluation of answers to questions in a subset of the NaturalQuestions and ELI5 datasets. The model's response is found to be high-quality 80\% of the time on this Natural Questions subset, and 67\% of the time on the ELI5 subset. Abstaining from the third of questions for which it is most unsure improves performance to 90\% and 80\% respectively, approaching human baselines. However, analysis on the adversarial TruthfulQA dataset shows why citation is only one part of an overall strategy for safety and trustworthiness: not all claims supported by evidence are true.

Recent advances in persistent personal-agent frameworks are making human-centered agent networks realistic deployment targets: each user can be served by an AI agent that acts on the user's behalf, maintains state, and communicates with other agents through social and task relations. In these networks, everyday tool use becomes multi-party owned-agent collaboration over personal workspaces, where files, records, tools, and policies are not directly visible across owners. Existing agent benchmarks study tool use and collaboration, but they do not provide an end-to-end sandbox for verifiable cross-user agent collaboration with realistic user digital workspaces or test how harmful actions can travel through the human-centered agent network. We introduce WeClawArena, an auditable benchmark and runtime sandbox for multi-party owned-agent collaboration over personal workspaces. WeClawArena targets collaborative tool-use tasks in which personal workspaces serve as both operational tools and personal constraints. The benchmark contains 124 base tasks across six cross-user task domains and expands them into 620 scenario variants, with one benign control and four attack-vector variants per base task. The sandbox records peer messages, tool calls, resource operations, governed decisions, and final workspace states. WeClawArena reports utility and attack success rate separately and audits attack success from bounded runtime evidence, supporting diagnosis of task breakdown, privacy leakage, poisoned evidence, and invalid authority paths.

Multilingual Retrieval-Augmented Generation (mRAG) leverages cross-lingual evidence to ground Large Language Models (LLMs) in global knowledge. However, we show that current mRAG systems suffer from a language bias during reranking, systematically favoring English and the query's native language. By introducing an estimated oracle evidence analysis, we quantify a substantial performance gap between existing rerankers and the achievable upper bound. Further analysis reveals a critical distributional mismatch: while optimal predictions require evidence scattered across multiple languages, current systems systematically suppress such ``answer-critical'' documents, thereby limiting downstream generation performance. To bridge this gap, we propose \textbf{Language-Agnostic Utility-driven Reranker Alignment (LAURA)}, which aligns multilingual evidence ranking with downstream generative utility. Experiments across diverse languages and generation models show that LAURA effectively mitigates language bias and consistently improves mRAG performance.

Large language model (LLM) agent systems are increasingly expected to improve after deployment, but existing work often decouples two adaptation targets: skill evolution and multi-agent system (MAS) restructuring. This separation can create organization bottlenecks, context pressure, and mis-specialization. We present SkillMAS, a non-parametric framework for adaptive specialization in multi-agent systems that couples skill evolution with MAS restructuring. SkillMAS uses Utility Learning to assign credit from verified execution traces, bounded skill evolution to refine reusable procedures without unfiltered library growth, and evidence-gated MAS restructuring when retained failures and Executor Utility indicate a structural mismatch. Across embodied manipulation, command-line execution, and retail workflows, SkillMAS is competitive under the reported harnesses while clarifying how post-deployment specialization is attributed, updated, and applied.

Our interest is in the design of software systems involving a human-expert interacting -- using natural language -- with a large language model (LLM) on data analysis tasks. For complex problems, it is possible that LLMs can harness human expertise and creativity to find solutions that were otherwise elusive. On one level, this interaction takes place through multiple turns of prompts from the human and responses from the LLM. Here we investigate a more structured approach based on an abstract protocol described in [3] for interaction between agents. The protocol is motivated by a notion of "two-way intelligibility" and is modelled by a pair of communicating finite-state machines. We provide an implementation of the protocol, and provide empirical evidence of using the implementation to mediate interactions between an LLM and a human-agent in two areas of scientific interest (radiology and drug design). We conduct controlled experiments with a human proxy (a database), and uncontrolled experiments with human subjects. The results provide evidence in support of the protocol's capability of capturing one- and two-way intelligibility in human-LLM interaction; and for the utility of two-way intelligibility in the design of human-machine systems. Our code is available at https://github.com/karannb/interact.

The widespread deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) trained on massive, uncurated corpora has raised growing concerns about the inclusion of sensitive, copyrighted, or illegal content. This has led to increasing interest in LLM unlearning: the task of selectively removing specific information from a model without retraining from scratch or degrading overall utility. However, existing methods often rely on large-scale forget and retain datasets, and suffer from unnatural responses, poor generalization, or catastrophic utility loss. In this work, we propose Reinforcement UnLearning (RULE), an efficient framework that formulates unlearning as a refusal boundary optimization problem. RULE is trained with a small portion of the forget set and synthesized boundary queries, using a verifiable reward function that encourages safe refusal on forget--related queries while preserving helpful responses on permissible inputs. We provide both theoretical and empirical evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of RULE in achieving targeted unlearning without compromising model utility. Experimental results show that, with only 12% forget set and 8% synthesized boundary data, RULE outperforms existing baselines by up to 17.5% forget quality and 16.3% naturalness response while maintaining general utility, achieving forget--retain Pareto optimality. Remarkably, we further observe that RULE improves the naturalness of model outputs, enhances training efficiency, and exhibits strong generalization ability, generalizing refusal behavior to semantically related but unseen queries.

Access to frontier large language models (LLMs), such as GPT-5 and Gemini-2.5, is often hindered by high pricing, payment barriers, and regional restrictions. These limitations drive the proliferation of shadow APIs, third-party services that claim to provide access to official model services without regional limitations via indirect access. Despite their widespread use, it remains unclear whether shadow APIs deliver outputs consistent with those of the official APIs, raising concerns about the reliability of downstream applications and the validity of research findings that depend on them. In this paper, we present the first systematic audit between official LLM APIs and corresponding shadow APIs. We first identify 17 shadow APIs that have been utilized in 187 academic papers, with the most popular one reaching 5,966 citations and 58,639 GitHub stars by December 6, 2025. Through multidimensional auditing of three representative shadow APIs across utility, safety, and model verification, we uncover both indirect and direct evidence of deception practices in shadow APIs. Specifically, we reveal performance divergence reaching up to 47.21%, significant unpredictability in safety behaviors, and identity verification failures in 45.83% of fingerprint tests. These deceptive practices critically undermine the reproducibility and validity of scientific research, harm the interests of shadow API users, and damage the reputation of official model providers.

Cowork agents may complete benign tasks while disclosing protected data, manipulating unauthorized state, invocate unauthorized API. We define behavioral safety and introduce ActBench, a self-evolving benchmark that evaluates such behavior risk from execution trajectories rather than final responses. Each case pairs a benign task with an adversarial variant that preserves its instruction, configuration, initial state, rating model, and trusted records while injecting a task-reachable payload. ActBench contains 600 cases from 213 scenarios, spanning 15 risk behaviors, six execution spaces, and 48 web-service APIs.To move beyond static payloads, we propose a reward-guided beam search method that jointly optimizes attack effectiveness and task utility, while reflection diagnoses failed execution checkpoint and guides payload revision. Besides, we propose a dual evidence verification mechanism that verifies agent execution safety and utility through log evidence and LLM-based trajectory evidence.We evaluate 15 LLMs and 6 open-source cowork agents over 24,000 trajectories. Under a fixed harness, attack success rates ranges from 10.1% to 94.4% across models, while under a fixed base model, they range from 73.7% to 94.4% across agents.These results show greater variation across models than agent harness, while attacks remain highly successful across all tested harnesses.Our benchmark is released at: https://github.com/zjuicsr/ActBench.

Multi-hop retrieval is not a single-step relevance problem: later-hop evidence should be ranked by its utility conditioned on retrieved bridge evidence, not by similarity to the original query alone. We present BridgeRAG, a training-free, graph-free retrieval method for retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) over multi-hop questions that operationalizes this view with a tripartite scorer s(q,b,c) over (question, bridge, candidate). BridgeRAG separates coverage from scoring: dual-entity ANN expansion broadens the second-hop candidate pool, while a bridge-conditioned LLM judge identifies the active reasoning chain among competing candidates without any offline graph or proposition index. Across four controlled experiments we show that this conditioning signal is (i) selective: +2.55pp on parallel-chain queries (p<0.001) vs. ~0 on single-chain subtypes; (ii) irreplaceable: substituting the retrieved passage with generated SVO query text reduces R@5 by 2.1pp, performing worse than even the lowest-SVO-similarity pool passage; (iii) predictable: cos(b,g2) correlates with per-query gain (Spearman rho=0.104, p<0.001); and (iv) mechanistically precise: bridge conditioning causes productive re-rankings (18.7% flip-win rate on parallel-chain vs. 0.6% on single-chain), not merely more churn. Combined with lightweight coverage expansion and percentile-rank score fusion, BridgeRAG achieves the best published training-free R@5 under matched benchmark evaluation on all three standard MHQA benchmarks without a graph database or any training: 0.8146 on MuSiQue (+3.1pp vs. PropRAG, +6.8pp vs. HippoRAG2), 0.9527 on 2WikiMultiHopQA (+1.2pp vs. PropRAG), and 0.9875 on HotpotQA (+1.35pp vs. PropRAG).

Medical vision-language models (VLMs) have shown increasing potential for clinical image interpretation, including lesion detection and report generation. However, their practical utility remains limited by insufficient sensitivity to subtle lesions, whose visual evidence is often sparse, low-contrast, and embedded within complex anatomical context. As local visual tokens are aggregated, these weak lesion cues can become underrepresented in global image representations, making them difficult for medical VLMs to recognize. Existing efforts to improve lesion sensitivity mainly rely on medical-domain vision-encoder pre-training, clinical-term-guided alignment, or trainable pathological representation enhancement. Although effective, these approaches usually require additional training or model-specific adaptation and may overfit to particular disease morphologies, limiting their applicability to frozen medical VLMs. To address these limitations, we propose EasyLens, a training-free plug-and-play subtle-lesion representation amplifier for medical VLMs. EasyLens first constructs EasyBank, a pathology-anatomy prototype space that provides lesion-related prototypes and anatomy-aware normal references for comparing suspicious patches against both pathological and normal anatomical patterns. To avoid blindly amplifying normal tissues, EasyTag selects lesion-relevant patches through counterfactual prototype reasoning. To counteract the dilution of subtle lesion cues in global image representations, EasyAmplifier strengthens the selected lesion-relevant patch representations through morphology-guided residual enhancement, thereby increasing their contribution to the global image embedding. Experiments on multiple medical image datasets and frozen medical VLM backbones show that EasyLens improves subtle-lesion detection and outperforms existing encoder-enhancement baselines.

Deep learning has recently revealed the existence of scaling laws, demonstrating that model performance follows predictable trends based on dataset and model sizes. Inspired by these findings and fascinating phenomena emerging in the over-parameterized regime, we examine a parallel direction: do similar scaling laws govern predictive uncertainties in deep learning? In identifiable parametric models, such scaling laws can be derived in a straightforward manner by treating model parameters in a Bayesian way. In this case, for example, we obtain O(1/N) contraction rates for epistemic uncertainty with respect to the number of data N. However, in over-parameterized models, these guarantees do not hold, leading to largely unexplored behaviors. In this work, we empirically show the existence of scaling laws associated with various measures of predictive uncertainty with respect to dataset and model sizes. Through experiments on vision and language tasks, we observe such scaling laws for in- and out-of-distribution predictive uncertainty estimated through popular approximate Bayesian inference and ensemble methods. Besides the elegance of scaling laws and the practical utility of extrapolating uncertainties to larger data or models, this work provides strong evidence to dispel recurring skepticism against Bayesian approaches: "In many applications of deep learning we have so much data available: what do we need Bayes for?". Our findings show that "so much data" is typically not enough to make epistemic uncertainty negligible.

In-context learning (ICL) is often motivated by the intuition that demonstrations help because they provide correct input-output examples. However, we reveal a counterintuitive phenomenon: correctness does not guarantee exemplar utility, and some correct demonstrations can even reduce ICL accuracy. To study this correctness-utility gap, we introduce task-preserving perturbations, where only the exemplar input is changed, while the example remains a correct instance of the same task. Concretely, each perturbed exemplar is assigned the target induced by the task mapping. This framework covers both label-updating perturbations, where task-relevant semantics change and targets are recomputed, and stricter target-preserving perturbations, where the original target remains valid. We formalize the resulting failure mode as contextual evidence shift: task-preserving perturbations can change the effective mixture of evidence used by the model for contextual inference, thereby separating exemplar correctness from exemplar utility. Across sentiment classification, logical reasoning, and math word problems, we find that task-preserving perturbed demonstrations can substantially degrade ICL performance, especially for smaller models, harder tasks, and higher perturbation ratios. Our results show that robust ICL requires evaluating not only whether demonstrations are correct, but also how they influence contextual inference. Code is available at https://github.com/Chenghao-Qiu/Task-Preserving-ICL.

Explicit visual intermediates can help multimodal large language models (MLLMs) externalize spatial evidence and updated visual states, but their utility depends on whether an image editor can faithfully realize the required transformation. We introduce Aphanta, an automated task-discovery and closed-loop diagnostic framework for the MLLM -> image editor -> MLLM pipeline. Aphanta evaluates three conditions---direct reasoning, reasoning with an editor-generated intermediate, and reasoning with an idealized reference intermediate---to separate potential visual headroom from the practical utility of current editors. Across 20 candidate tasks and multiple editor--MLLM combinations, we find that utility is strongly task-conditioned. Gains concentrate in visual cue injection, grounding, and counterfactual state realization, whereas intermediates requiring symbol-sensitive construction or structural extrapolation are substantially less reliable. On the selected positive-task subset, our consolidated Qwen pipeline improves the mean task score from 0.343 to 0.445 (+10.2 points; +29.7% relative), while the full study also retains filtered and unsuccessful tasks to expose the boundary. These results position image editing as a specialized visual workspace rather than a universal reasoning mechanism, and establish Aphanta as a reusable protocol for measuring task--representation alignment, editor realization, and downstream pipeline utility.

Large language model agents increasingly store reusable procedures outside the model. These reusable procedures are often called skills: they may be code functions, natural-language instructions, SKILL.md packages, workflow graphs, or learned adapters that a future agent can retrieve and invoke. This taxonomy-driven survey asks how such skill libraries change over time. Across a 124-paper 2023--2026 audit set, we synthesize dynamic skill systems as lifecycle-managed, verified, evolving artifact stores: agents collect evidence from interaction, propose skill updates, verify and admit candidates, organize them for retrieval and composition, repair or prune stale entries, and govern sharing through provenance and rollback. We organize the literature around three survey tools. First, a six-sense taxonomy distinguishes the structurally different artifacts called ``skills'' in current papers. Second, an eight-stage lifecycle architecture identifies the recurring design decisions behind evidence acquisition, proposal, verification/admission, storage, retrieval/composition, maintenance, distillation/portability, and governance. Third, a lightweight skill-record schema and ten-operator vocabulary provide common terms for comparing library updates without elevating them into a separate method contribution. Using this structure, we synthesize evidence-graded patterns with explicit caveats: admission and repair are repeatedly important, verifier quality materially affects skill-aware RL, flat retrieval can degrade as libraries grow, and current benchmarks still under-report library trajectories, usage--utility gaps, and safety surfaces. We close with concrete reporting standards and open problems for evaluating dynamic skills as changing libraries rather than static prompt or tool collections.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in sensitive applications including psychological support, healthcare, and high-stakes decision-making. This expansion has motivated growing research into the ethical and moral foundations underlying LLM behavior, raising critical questions about their reliability in ethical reasoning. However, existing studies and benchmarks rely almost exclusively on Moral Foundation Theory (MFT), largely neglecting other relevant dimensions such as social values, personality traits, and individual characteristics that shape human ethical reasoning. To address these limitations, we introduce MOSAIC, the first large-scale benchmark designed to jointly assess the moral, social, and individual characteristics of LLMs. The benchmark comprises nine validated questionnaires drawn from moral philosophy, psychology, and social theory, alongside four platform-based games designed to probe morally ambiguous scenarios. In total, MOSAIC includes over 600 curated questions and scenarios, released as a ready-to-use, extensible resource for evaluating the behavioral foundations of LLMs. We validate the benchmark across three models from different families, demonstrating its utility across all assessed dimensions and providing the first empirical evidence that MFT alone is insufficient to comprehensively evaluate complex AI systems' ethical behavior. We publicly release the dataset and our benchmark Python library.

Existing agent benchmarks primarily test task completion, tool use, or skill utility, but do not isolate whether a runtime can convert evidence from its own runs into reusable skills that improve fresh executions after authoring overhead. We introduce EvoClawBench, a benchmark for this closed-loop skill-learning question on repeated, fixture-backed tasks. EvoClawBench compares direct execution without skills, PreSkill authoring before execution, and PostSkill summarization from first-run evidence followed by a fresh second execution. The suite contains 100 tasks and 502 sub-problems across coding, data, office, security, operations, and domain-document workflows, with support for multiple agent runtimes. Experiments with OpenClaw and nanobot under local execution show that direct baseline performance is strongly runtime-dependent: OpenClaw remains below 20% across models, while nanobot ranges from 56.45% to 96.13%. Self-authored skills have mixed effects. nanobot GPT-5.4 stays above 96% in all modes and MiniMax-M2.7 improves from 90.97% to 94.50% under PostSkill, but nanobot DeepSeek-V4-Pro drops from 77.77% to 4.80% with PreSkill and 0.99% with PostSkill. OpenClaw shows similarly non-monotonic behavior, with some skill runs near baseline and others collapsing. These results indicate that learning reusable skills from an agent's own runs is selective and cost-sensitive, rather than an automatic benefit of adding skill authoring to an agent loop.

Relevance and utility are two frequently used measures to evaluate the effectiveness of an information retrieval (IR) system. Relevance emphasizes the aboutness of a result to a query, while utility refers to the result's usefulness or value to an information seeker. In Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), high-utility results should be prioritized to feed to LLMs due to their limited input bandwidth. Re-examining RAG's three core components -- relevance ranking derived from retrieval models, utility judgments, and answer generation -- aligns with Schutz's philosophical system of relevances, which encompasses three types of relevance representing different levels of human cognition that enhance each other. These three RAG components also reflect three cognitive levels for LLMs in question-answering. Therefore, we propose an Iterative utiliTy judgmEnt fraMework (ITEM) to promote each step in RAG. We conducted extensive experiments on retrieval (TREC DL, WebAP), utility judgment task (GTI-NQ), and factoid question-answering (NQ) datasets. Experimental results demonstrate significant improvements of ITEM in utility judgments, ranking, and answer generation upon representative baselines.

Although much research has focused on AI explanations to support decisions in complex information-seeking tasks such as fact-checking, the role of evidence is surprisingly under-researched. In our study, we systematically varied explanation type, AI prediction certainty, and correctness of AI system advice for non-expert participants, who evaluated the veracity of claims and AI system predictions. Participants were provided the option of easily inspecting the underlying evidence. We found that participants consistently relied on evidence to validate AI claims across all experimental conditions. When participants were presented with natural language explanations, evidence was used less frequently although they relied on it when these explanations seemed insufficient or flawed. Qualitative data suggests that participants attempted to infer evidence source reliability, despite source identities being deliberately omitted. Our results demonstrate that evidence is a key ingredient in how people evaluate the reliability of information presented by an AI system and, in combination with natural language explanations, offers valuable support for decision-making. Further research is urgently needed to understand how evidence ought to be presented and how people engage with it in practice.

How do we most effectively treat a disease or condition? Ideally, we could consult a database of evidence gleaned from clinical trials to answer such questions. Unfortunately, no such database exists; clinical trial results are instead disseminated primarily via lengthy natural language articles. Perusing all such articles would be prohibitively time-consuming for healthcare practitioners; they instead tend to depend on manually compiled systematic reviews of medical literature to inform care. NLP may speed this process up, and eventually facilitate immediate consult of published evidence. The Evidence Inference dataset was recently released to facilitate research toward this end. This task entails inferring the comparative performance of two treatments, with respect to a given outcome, from a particular article (describing a clinical trial) and identifying supporting evidence. For instance: Does this article report that chemotherapy performed better than surgery for five-year survival rates of operable cancers? In this paper, we collect additional annotations to expand the Evidence Inference dataset by 25\%, provide stronger baseline models, systematically inspect the errors that these make, and probe dataset quality. We also release an abstract only (as opposed to full-texts) version of the task for rapid model prototyping. The updated corpus, documentation, and code for new baselines and evaluations are available at http://evidence-inference.ebm-nlp.com/.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are fluent but prone to hallucinations, producing answers that appear plausible yet are unsupported by available evidence. This failure is especially problematic in high-stakes domains where decisions must be justified by verifiable information. We introduce EvidenceRL, a reinforcement learning framework that enforces evidence adherence during training. EvidenceRL scores candidate responses for grounding (entailment with retrieved evidence and context) and correctness (agreement with reference answers) and optimizes the generator using Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO). We evaluate across two high-stakes domains, cardiac diagnosis and legal reasoning, where EvidenceRL consistently improves evidence grounding and faithfulness without sacrificing task accuracy. On cardiac diagnosis, F1@3 increases from 37.0 to 54.5 on Llama-3.2-3B while grounding (G_{max}@3) rises from 47.6 to 78.2; hallucinations drop nearly 5times and evidence-supported diagnoses increase from 31.8\% to 61.6\%. On legal reasoning, EvidenceRL raises Faithfulness from 32.8\% to 67.6\% on Llama-3.1-8B, demonstrating consistent behavioral change across domains. Our code is open-sourced at https://github.com/Wizaaard/EvidenceRL.git.

Correcting health misinformation in dialogue requires more than producing a factual rebuttal: users differ in what they know, what they believe, and what they need to hear, so an effective intervention often depends on first asking the right clarifying question. Yet existing methods either respond immediately or probe indiscriminately, treating clarification as either unnecessary or always beneficial. We propose Reward-Optimized Probe-and-Respond (RO-PnR), a framework that learns when asking is worth its cost. At each turn, RO-PnR chooses between probing for more information and committing to a final correction, guided by a turn-level reward that weighs the expected gain from probing against its interaction cost. To capture how user heterogeneity affects probing value, we model each simulated user with a latent state along health literacy and belief commitment. Experiments show that RO-PnR achieves the highest cost-adjusted utility across three health-misinformation datasets and three base models, using 30% fewer turns than always-probe baselines.

Current AI systems are optimized for answering questions; the scientific enterprise is bottlenecked earlier, at discovering the questions worth investigating. We present a framework that turns a traceable, reproducible, scope controlled research corpus into ranked, falsifiable research questions: evidence is represented as provenance carrying claims; cross paper tensions are detected, typed, and human adjudicated; surviving signals are refined into questions and ranked by a two stage protocol separating scientific priority from execution priority. We instantiate the framework on exoplanet atmospheres, a domain that uniquely combines literature, structured catalogs, and space telescope archives. In a historical backtest, all questions generated from evidence available before 2021 were substantively engaged by the 2021 to 2026 literature the sys?tem never saw: two were answered, including one whose premise the community later explicitly refuted and the top ranked question is independently posed and still open. These results sug?gest that systematic question discovery from evidence tensions surfaces the questions working scientists subsequently invest in.

Recent progress in reasoning models suggests that generating plausible attempts for research-level mathematics may be within reach, but verification remains a bottleneck, consuming scarce expert time. We hypothesize that a meaningful solution should contain enough method-level information that, when applied to a neighborhood of related questions, it should yield better downstream performance than incorrect solutions. Building on this idea, we propose Consequence-Based Utility, an oracle-free evaluator that scores each candidate by testing its value as an in-context exemplar in solving related yet verifiable questions. Our approach is evaluated on an original set of research-level math problems, each paired with one expert-written solution and nine LLM-generated solutions. Notably, Consequence-Based Utility consistently outperforms reward models, generative reward models, and LLM judges on ranking quality. Specifically, for GPT-OSS-120B, it improves Acc@1 from 67.2 to 76.3 and AUC from 71.4 to 79.6, with similarly large AUC gains on GPT-OSS-20B (69.0 to 79.2). Furthermore, compared to LLM-Judges, it also exhibits a larger solver-evaluator gap, maintaining a stronger correct-wrong separation even on instances where the underlying solver often fails to solve.

It is typically understood that the training of modern neural networks is a process of fitting the probability distribution of desired output. However, recent paradoxical observations in a number of language generation tasks let one wonder if this canonical probability-based explanation can really account for the empirical success of deep learning. To resolve this issue, we propose an alternative utility-based explanation to the standard supervised learning procedure in deep learning. The basic idea is to interpret the learned neural network not as a probability model but as an ordinal utility function that encodes the preference revealed in training data. In this perspective, training of the neural network corresponds to a utility learning process. Specifically, we show that for all neural networks with softmax outputs, the SGD learning dynamic of maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) can be seen as an iteration process that optimizes the neural network toward an optimal utility function. This utility-based interpretation can explain several otherwise-paradoxical observations about the neural networks thus trained. Moreover, our utility-based theory also entails an equation that can transform the learned utility values back to a new kind of probability estimation with which probability-compatible decision rules enjoy dramatic (double-digits) performance improvements. These evidences collectively reveal a phenomenon of utility-probability duality in terms of what modern neural networks are (truly) modeling: We thought they are one thing (probabilities), until the unexplainable showed up; changing mindset and treating them as another thing (utility values) largely reconcile the theory, despite remaining subtleties regarding its original (probabilistic) identity.

While Reinforcement Learning (RL) has advanced LLM reasoning, applying it to long-context scenarios is hindered by sparsity of outcome rewards. This limitation fails to penalize ungrounded "lucky guesses," leaving the critical process of needle-in-a-haystack evidence retrieval largely unsupervised. To address this, we propose EAPO (Evidence-Augmented Policy Optimization). We first establish the Evidence-Augmented Reasoning paradigm, validating via Tree-Structured Evidence Sampling that precise evidence extraction is the decisive bottleneck for long-context reasoning. Guided by this insight, EAPO introduces a specialized RL algorithm where a reward model computes a Group-Relative Evidence Reward, providing dense process supervision to explicitly improve evidence quality. To sustain accurate supervision throughout training, we further incorporate an Adaptive Reward-Policy Co-Evolution mechanism. This mechanism iteratively refines the reward model using outcome-consistent rollouts, sharpening its discriminative capability to ensure precise process guidance. Comprehensive evaluations across eight benchmarks demonstrate that EAPO significantly enhances long-context reasoning performance compared to SOTA baselines.

Large Language Model (LLM) agents deployed for real-world tasks face a fundamental dilemma: user requests are underspecified, yet agents must decide whether to act on incomplete information or interrupt users for clarification. Existing approaches either rely on brittle confidence thresholds that require task-specific tuning, or fail to account for the varying stakes of different decisions. We introduce a decision-theoretic framework that resolves this trade-off through the Value of Information (VoI), enabling agents to dynamically weigh the expected utility gain from asking questions against the cognitive cost imposed on users. Our inference-time method requires no hyperparameter tuning and adapts seamlessly across contexts-from casual games to medical diagnosis. Experiments across four diverse domains (20 Questions, medical diagnosis, flight booking, and e-commerce) show that VoI consistently matches or exceeds the best manually-tuned baselines, achieving up to 1.36 utility points higher in high-cost settings. This work provides a parameter-free framework for adaptive agent communication that explicitly balances task risk, query ambiguity, and user effort.

The proliferation of online misinformation has posed significant threats to public interest. While numerous online users actively participate in the combat against misinformation, many of such responses can be characterized by the lack of politeness and supporting facts. As a solution, text generation approaches are proposed to automatically produce counter-misinformation responses. Nevertheless, existing methods are often trained end-to-end without leveraging external knowledge, resulting in subpar text quality and excessively repetitive responses. In this paper, we propose retrieval augmented response generation for online misinformation (RARG), which collects supporting evidence from scientific sources and generates counter-misinformation responses based on the evidences. In particular, our RARG consists of two stages: (1) evidence collection, where we design a retrieval pipeline to retrieve and rerank evidence documents using a database comprising over 1M academic articles; (2) response generation, in which we align large language models (LLMs) to generate evidence-based responses via reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF). We propose a reward function to maximize the utilization of the retrieved evidence while maintaining the quality of the generated text, which yields polite and factual responses that clearly refutes misinformation. To demonstrate the effectiveness of our method, we study the case of COVID-19 and perform extensive experiments with both in- and cross-domain datasets, where RARG consistently outperforms baselines by generating high-quality counter-misinformation responses.

We consider the problem of performing Bayesian inference in probabilistic models where observations are accompanied by uncertainty, referred to as "uncertain evidence." We explore how to interpret uncertain evidence, and by extension the importance of proper interpretation as it pertains to inference about latent variables. We consider a recently-proposed method "distributional evidence" as well as revisit two older methods: Jeffrey's rule and virtual evidence. We devise guidelines on how to account for uncertain evidence and we provide new insights, particularly regarding consistency. To showcase the impact of different interpretations of the same uncertain evidence, we carry out experiments in which one interpretation is defined as "correct." We then compare inference results from each different interpretation illustrating the importance of careful consideration of uncertain evidence.

Medical Vision-Language Models (Med-VLMs) require reliable reasoning from fine-grained visual evidence, yet existing models can produce plausible clinical answers by relying on language priors or medical templates rather than truly attending to diagnosis-critical regions. On-Policy Distillation (OPD) offers dense token-level supervision on student-generated trajectories and provides a privacy-compatible means of capability transfer without requiring the redistribution of raw patient data. However, standard OPD uniformly distills all tokens, causing sparse evidence-dependent tokens to be diluted by abundant clinical narrative tokens. Inspired by the success of OPD in the large language model community, we propose Med-OPD, to our knowledge the first unified post-training framework that integrates on-policy distillation with medical evidence-aware supervision for Med-VLMs. We introduce Medical Evidence Advantage (MEA), a teacher-grounded counterfactual signal that uses an answer-aware hint to focus teacher scoring on evidence supporting the target diagnosis, and measures each token's dependence on medical visual evidence by comparing teacher likelihoods under the original and evidence-degraded imaging modalities. Based on MEA, Med-OPD redistributes the distillation signal at both the token and trajectory levels, emphasizing diagnosis-critical tokens and evidence-reliant rollouts. Experiments on OmniMedVQA subsets show that Med-OPD consistently outperforms SFT and standard OPD across CT, MRI, Disease Diagnosis, and Lesion Grading. These results demonstrate that evidence-aware distillation can better strengthen medical VLMs' reliance on key visual evidence and improve reliable multimodal medical reasoning. The source code and data is publicly available at: https://github.com/yunhang8658/MedOPD.git

Red-team evaluations of AI models support some claims and not others, and the boundary between the two is calculable rather than merely a matter of judgment. We define the evidential ceiling of an evaluation as the largest factor by which one result can move belief under a fixed testing budget, derive it in closed form for the benchmark null result, and use it to locate that boundary exactly. We find that above a calculable harm rate, a benchmark of modest size certifies a category to a stated evidentiary standard, and a clean sheet is then the stronger of the two possible observations, outweighing a single reproduced failure. Below that rate, no passive benchmark of feasible size provides the specified evidence of safety under the fixed scoring rule and approximately independent trial structure. The crossing between the two regimes has a closed form. The bound is not specific to benchmarks: written in terms of a procedure's hypothesis conditioned elicitation rates, it covers adaptive and automated red teaming as well, and shows that discrimination between the hypotheses rather than attack success is what determines evidential worth. Auditing eight evaluation suites against the boundary, we find that current benchmarks are adequate for high-frequency harm categories and several orders of magnitude short for rare, catastrophic ones. Safety benchmarks are not uninformative. They are informative about a specific and computable set of propositions, and the discipline they need is to state which.

BoN improves model outputs by sampling several candidates and selecting one with a proxy score, but it assumes that complete candidates can be evaluated reliably. Many vision-language tasks instead provide only partial verification: a finding, span, value, region, or relation may be checkable even when no dependable whole-response verifier exists. Moreover, the same claim may recur across candidates with opposing stances, allowing one observation to support part of the pool and contradict another. We introduce Best-of-Evidence (BoE), an inference-time selection framework that keeps the BoN candidate pool fixed, represents reusable claims with a signed candidate--factor graph, and allocates a limited budget to evidence actions that can change the final choice. BoE formalizes selection under partial verification and provides a practical score-based controller, with the zero-budget case recovering the underlying BoN decision. Theoretically, we show that residual evidence capacity limits any evidence-driven improvement and that shared factor queries can achieve an O(log K) versus Θ(K) query separation in a factor-code model. Common-ledger experiments on four medical VQA settings show that BoE can improve fixed-pool selection and rescue some BoN failures when evidence is reliable, contrastive, and decision-relevant, while also revealing the channel-quality and candidate-generation limits that prevent universal gains.

When a model produces a correct solution under reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR), every token receives the same reward signal regardless of whether it was a decisive reasoning step or a grammatical filler. A natural fix is to condition the model on the correct answer as a teacher, identifying tokens it would have generated differently had it known the answer. Prior work shows this either corrupts training by leaking the answer into the gradient, or produces a weak signal that cannot distinguish decisive steps from filler, since both look equally surprising relative to the model's baseline. We propose Contrastive Evidence Policy Optimization (CEPO), which asks a sharper question at every token: not just "does the correct answer favor this token?" but "does the correct answer favor it while the wrong answer disfavors it?" A token satisfying both is a genuine reasoning step; one satisfying neither is filler. The wrong-answer teacher is constructed from rejected rollouts already in the training batch, incurring no additional sampling cost. We prove CEPO inherits all structural safety guarantees of the prior state of the art while strictly sharpening credit at decisive tokens, with the improvement vanishing exactly at filler positions. Empirically, CEPO achieves 43.43% and 60.56% average accuracy across five multimodal mathematical reasoning benchmarks at 2B and 4B scale, respectively, versus 41.17% and 57.43% for GRPO under identical training budgets. Distribution-matching self-distillation methods (OPSD, SDPO) fall below the untrained baseline, empirically confirming the information leakage our theory predicts. Our code is available at https://github.com/ahmedheakl/CEPO.

In many real-world settings, a centralized decision-maker must repeatedly allocate finite resources to a population over multiple time steps. Individuals who receive a resource derive some stochastic utility; to characterize the population-level effects of an allocation, the expected individual utilities are then aggregated using a social welfare function (SWF). We formalize this setting and present a general confidence sequence framework for SWF-based online learning and inference, valid for any monotonic, concave, and Lipschitz-continuous SWF. Our key insight is that monotonicity alone suffices to lift confidence sequences from individual utilities to anytime-valid bounds on optimal welfare. Building on this foundation, we propose SWF-UCB, a SWF-agnostic online learning algorithm that achieves near-optimal O(n+nkT) regret (for k resources distributed among n individuals at each of T time steps). We instantiate our framework on three normatively distinct SWF families: Weighted Power Mean, Kolm, and Gini, providing bespoke oracle algorithms for each. Experiments confirm T scaling and reveal rich interactions between k and SWF parameters. This framework naturally supports inference applications such as sequential hypothesis testing, optimal stopping, and policy evaluation.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is the prevailing paradigm for grounding Large Language Models (LLMs), yet the mechanisms governing how models integrate groups of conflicting retrieved evidence remain opaque. Does an LLM answer a certain way because the evidence is factually strong, because of a prior belief, or merely because it is repeated frequently? To answer this, we introduce GroupQA, a curated dataset of 1,635 controversial questions paired with 15,058 diversely-sourced evidence documents, annotated for stance and qualitative strength. Through controlled experiments, we characterize group-level evidence aggregation dynamics: Paraphrasing an argument can be more persuasive than providing distinct independent support; Models favor evidence presented first rather than last, and Larger models are increasingly resistant to adapt to presented evidence. Additionally, we find that LLM explanations to group-based answers are unfaithful. Together, we show that LLMs behave consistently as vulnerable heuristic followers, with direct implications for improving RAG system design.

Professional-document review is a constraint-checking problem in which decisions depend on relations among text, geometry, pages, and document revisions. We present an evidence-grounded pipeline that normalizes extracted facts, executes four-state rules deterministically, retains source spans, and escalates unresolved cases. We evaluate its PDF evidence allocator on 160 reference-based tasks from 29 construction projects using a repeated four-system test and a disjoint two-system breadth extension. In the repeated test, reallocating a four-image budget from retrieved page overviews to one overview and three overlapping tiles improves project-family standardized decision accuracy by 10.6 percentage points (95% project-cluster bootstrap CI: 4.3 to 18.0; exact p = 0.031). This effect does not persist in the broader block: Region-RAG changes accuracy by -4.1 points (95% CI: -10.2 to 1.9; exact p = 0.209), while an equal-image sensitivity favors page breadth. Exact finding-set recovery remains low, false passes remain common, and repeated-run agreement is poorly calibrated. The results identify a resolution-breadth trade-off rather than a universal advantage for region-focused evidence, motivating rule-aware evidence routing and expert review.

Scientific AI agents increasingly retrieve evidence, reason across sources, and synthesize conclusions used in consequential decisions. Yet, their ability to do so in high-stakes domains such as health remains unclear. We introduce SciConBench, a large-scale live benchmark of 9.11K questions and expert-written conclusions from systematic reviews to evaluate open-domain scientific conclusion synthesis. The benchmark draws on an expert-validated automated evaluation pipeline that decomposes conclusions into atomic facts and measures correctness and comprehensiveness via factual precision and recall. To mitigate data leakage, we further introduce SciConHarness, a clean-room evaluation harness that equips agents with controlled web interaction to ensure valid measurement. Evaluating 8 frontier models and deep research agents, we find that factual quality remains low: under clean-room settings, the best agent achieves only a factual F1 of 0.337. Our clean-room setting consistently reduces performance relative to unconstrained evaluation, suggesting that leakage inflates estimates of models' true synthesis capabilities. Finally, we audit consumer-facing agents (e.g., Google AI Overview, OpenEvidence) and find they frequently generate incomplete and sometimes contradictory conclusions, even when the ground-truth answer is available. Overall, our results show that reliable synthesis of scientific conclusions remains an open challenge, and that clean-room evaluation is essential for assessing open-domain AI agents.

A multi-hop question answering (QA) dataset aims to test reasoning and inference skills by requiring a model to read multiple paragraphs to answer a given question. However, current datasets do not provide a complete explanation for the reasoning process from the question to the answer. Further, previous studies revealed that many examples in existing multi-hop datasets do not require multi-hop reasoning to answer a question. In this study, we present a new multi-hop QA dataset, called 2WikiMultiHopQA, which uses structured and unstructured data. In our dataset, we introduce the evidence information containing a reasoning path for multi-hop questions. The evidence information has two benefits: (i) providing a comprehensive explanation for predictions and (ii) evaluating the reasoning skills of a model. We carefully design a pipeline and a set of templates when generating a question-answer pair that guarantees the multi-hop steps and the quality of the questions. We also exploit the structured format in Wikidata and use logical rules to create questions that are natural but still require multi-hop reasoning. Through experiments, we demonstrate that our dataset is challenging for multi-hop models and it ensures that multi-hop reasoning is required.

A variety of recent papers discuss the application of Shapley values, a concept for explaining coalitional games, for feature attribution in machine learning. However, the correct way to connect a machine learning model to a coalitional game has been a source of controversy. The two main approaches that have been proposed differ in the way that they condition on known features, using either (1) an interventional or (2) an observational conditional expectation. While previous work has argued that one of the two approaches is preferable in general, we argue that the choice is application dependent. Furthermore, we argue that the choice comes down to whether it is desirable to be true to the model or true to the data. We use linear models to investigate this choice. After deriving an efficient method for calculating observational conditional expectation Shapley values for linear models, we investigate how correlation in simulated data impacts the convergence of observational conditional expectation Shapley values. Finally, we present two real data examples that we consider to be representative of possible use cases for feature attribution -- (1) credit risk modeling and (2) biological discovery. We show how a different choice of value function performs better in each scenario, and how possible attributions are impacted by modeling choices.

Treatment reasoning underpins every therapeutic decision, integrating disease context, comorbidities, medications, contraindications, and evolving biomedical knowledge to select an appropriate therapy. It is inherently iterative: candidates are weighed against many constraints, revised as evidence emerges, and grounded in verifiable sources. Here we introduce ATHENA-R1, an AI agent for treatment reasoning across all FDA approved drugs since 1939, trained by reinforcement learning over a universe of 212 biomedical tools. At each step it identifies missing information, selects and runs relevant tools, and incorporates the evidence. To train it without human-annotated traces, we build a two-level self-learning framework: multi-agent systems construct the tools, tasks, and reasoning trajectories for supervised fine-tuning, then reinforcement learning with scientific feedback rewards reasoning quality (evidence gathering, grounded tool use, logical non-redundancy). Across five benchmarks of 3,168 drug reasoning tasks and 456 patient treatment cases, ATHENA-R1 outperforms language models and tool-use systems, reaching 94.7% accuracy on open-ended drug reasoning and 82.9% on treatment reasoning, 17.8 and 10.7 points above GPT-5. In blinded evaluations by experts from 28 rare disease organizations, it is preferred over reference models on all criteria, and physicians rated it favorably on complex hospitalized cardiovascular and infectious-disease cases. Adverse-event hypotheses it generated, tested in electronic health records from 5.4 million patients, reached adjusted odds ratios of 1.48-1.84, with no elevation among negative controls. Because it requires knowing what evidence to seek before concluding, treatment reasoning has long been hard for AI; we show it can be reframed as a learnable process of iterative evidence gathering that reinforcement learning can train AI to perform.

Recent advances have made long-form report-generating systems widely available. This has prompted evaluation frameworks that use LLM-as-judge protocols and claim verification, along with meta-evaluation frameworks that seek to validate these methods. Many of the meta-evaluations estimate an evaluation quality's by comparing its assessments against human pairwise preferences. Prior work, however, suggests that human pairwise preference may be overly simplistic and can fail to capture nuances of expert expectations. We conduct a case study in meta-evaluation for long-form QA benchmarks using ScholarQA-CS2, a benchmark designed for assessing retrieval-augmented deep-research QA in the scientific domain. We comprehensively validate the benchmark through human pairwise preference judgments, then critically examine the strengths, weaknesses, and confounders of this approach. We show that pairwise preference rankings are best suited for system-level evaluation, while explicit metric-wise annotations and expert annotators are critical for reliable metric-level assessment, with subjectivity remaining a key challenge. Based on our findings, we offer practical guidelines for designing future meta-evaluations that better align evaluation methods, annotator expertise, and reporting practices. By surfacing these methodological challenges, we aim to advance evaluation standards for deep-research systems.

As machine learning and algorithmic decision making systems are increasingly being leveraged in high-stakes human-in-the-loop settings, there is a pressing need to understand the rationale of their predictions. Researchers have responded to this need with explainable AI (XAI), but often proclaim interpretability axiomatically without evaluation. When these systems are evaluated, they are often tested through offline simulations with proxy metrics of interpretability (such as model complexity). We empirically evaluate the veracity of three common interpretability assumptions through a large scale human-subjects experiment with a simple "placebo explanation" control. We find that feature attribution explanations provide marginal utility in our task for a human decision maker and in certain cases result in worse decisions due to cognitive and contextual confounders. This result challenges the assumed universal benefit of applying these methods and we hope this work will underscore the importance of human evaluation in XAI research. Supplemental materials -- including anonymized data from the experiment, code to replicate the study, an interactive demo of the experiment, and the models used in the analysis -- can be found at: https://doi.pizza/challenging-xai.

Evidence-grounded reasoning requires more than attaching retrieved text to a prediction: a model should make decisions that depend on whether the provided evidence supports the target claim. In practice, this often fails because supervision is weak, evidence is only loosely tied to the claim, and evaluation does not test evidence dependence directly. We introduce case-grounded evidence verification, a general framework in which a model receives a local case context, external evidence, and a structured claim, and must decide whether the evidence supports the claim for that case. Our key contribution is a supervision construction procedure that generates explicit support examples together with semantically controlled non-support examples, including counterfactual wrong-state and topic-related negatives, without manual evidence annotation. We instantiate the framework in radiology and train a standard verifier on the resulting support task. The learned verifier substantially outperforms both case-only and evidence-only baselines, remains strong under correct evidence, and collapses when evidence is removed or swapped, indicating genuine evidence dependence. This behavior transfers across unseen evidence articles and an external case distribution, though performance degrades under evidence-source shift and remains sensitive to backbone choice. Overall, the results suggest that a major bottleneck in evidence grounding is not only model capacity, but the lack of supervision that encodes the causal role of evidence.

Integrating web search tools has significantly extended the capability of LLMs to address open-world, real-time, and long-tail problems. However, evaluating these Search Agents presents formidable challenges. First, constructing high-quality deep search benchmarks is prohibitively expensive, while unverified synthetic data often suffers from unreliable sources. Second, static benchmarks face dynamic obsolescence: as internet information evolves, complex queries requiring deep research often degrade into simple retrieval tasks due to increased popularity, and ground truths become outdated due to temporal shifts. Third, attribution ambiguity confounds evaluation, as an agent's performance is often dominated by its parametric memory rather than its actual search and reasoning capabilities. Finally, reliance on specific commercial search engines introduces variability that hampers reproducibility. To address these issues, we propose a novel framework, Mind-ParaWorld, for evaluating Search Agents in a Parallel World. Specifically, MPW samples real-world entity names to synthesize future scenarios and questions situated beyond the model's knowledge cutoff. A ParaWorld Law Model then constructs a set of indivisible Atomic Facts and a unique ground-truth for each question. During evaluation, instead of retrieving real-world results, the agent interacts with a ParaWorld Engine Model that dynamically generates SERPs grounded in these inviolable Atomic Facts. We release MPW-Bench, an interactive benchmark spanning 19 domains with 1,608 instances. Experiments across three evaluation settings show that, while search agents are strong at evidence synthesis given complete information, their performance is limited not only by evidence collection and coverage in unfamiliar search environments, but also by unreliable evidence sufficiency judgment and when-to-stop decisions-bottlenecks.

Explanations of model behavior are commonly evaluated via proxy properties weakly tied to the purposes explanations serve in practice. We contribute a decision theoretic framework that treats explanations as information signals valued by the expected improvement they enable on a specified decision task. This approach yields three distinct estimands: 1) a theoretical benchmark that upperbounds achievable performance by any agent with the explanation, 2) a human-complementary value that quantifies the theoretically attainable value that is not already captured by a baseline human decision policy, and 3) a behavioral value representing the causal effect of providing the explanation to human decision-makers. We instantiate these definitions in a practical validation workflow, and apply them to assess explanation potential and interpret behavioral effects in human-AI decision support and mechanistic interpretability.

Emerging personal AI agents are moving toward persistent, multi-source memory. This creates an evaluation problem: systems must decide how to use conflicting or incomplete evidence; they cannot just retrieve facts from one clean history. Existing benchmarks rarely show whether an error came from the evidence given to a method or from the method's conflict-resolution step. We study this as selective QA over conflicting multi-source personal memory: systems answer based on conflicting, sometimes incomplete sources, or abstain when evidence is insufficient. We develop a benchmark containing 18 question templates across 8 reasoning types, 480 personas, 4 random seeds, and 34,560 instances, with controlled source distortions and deterministic ground truth. We evaluate the performance of baselines without access to any source, access to a single source, structured fusion methods, and frontier LLMs. The best trained fusion resolver reaches 80.3% accuracy, while the strongest prompt-only LLM baseline reaches 70.0%. With abstention, the same resolver reaches 85.3% selective accuracy at 78.3% coverage and the best LLM reaches 71.0% selective accuracy at 95.4% coverage. Different models have different strengths across reasoning types. We release the data, code, cached model outputs, and data-generating process for reuse.

As we increasingly seek guidance from LLMs for decision-making in daily life, many of these decisions are not clear-cut and depend significantly on the personal values and ethical standards of the users. We present DailyDilemmas, a dataset of 1,360 moral dilemmas encountered in everyday life. Each dilemma includes two possible actions and with each action, the affected parties and human values invoked. Based on these dilemmas, we consolidated a set of human values across everyday topics e.g., interpersonal relationships, workplace, and environmental issues. We evaluated LLMs on these dilemmas to determine what action they will take and the values represented by these actions. Then, we analyzed these values through the lens of five popular theories inspired by sociology, psychology and philosophy. These theories are: World Value Survey, Moral Foundation Theory, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, Aristotle's Virtues, and Plutchik Wheel of Emotion. We find that LLMs are most aligned with the self-expression over survival values in terms of World Value Survey, care over loyalty in Moral Foundation Theory. Interestingly, we find large preferences differences in models for some core values such as truthfulness e.g., Mixtral-8x7B model tends to neglect it by 9.7% while GPT-4-turbo model tends to select it by 9.4%. We also study the recent guidance released by OpenAI (ModelSpec), and Anthropic (Constitutional AI) to understand how their released principles reflect their actual value prioritization when facing nuanced moral reasoning in daily-life settings. We find that end users cannot effectively steer such prioritization using system prompts.

With the advancement in argument detection, we suggest to pay more attention to the challenging task of identifying the more convincing arguments. Machines capable of responding and interacting with humans in helpful ways have become ubiquitous. We now expect them to discuss with us the more delicate questions in our world, and they should do so armed with effective arguments. But what makes an argument more persuasive? What will convince you? In this paper, we present a new data set, IBM-EviConv, of pairs of evidence labeled for convincingness, designed to be more challenging than existing alternatives. We also propose a Siamese neural network architecture shown to outperform several baselines on both a prior convincingness data set and our own. Finally, we provide insights into our experimental results and the various kinds of argumentative value our method is capable of detecting.

Utility functions or their equivalents (value functions, objective functions, loss functions, reward functions, preference orderings) are a central tool in most current machine learning systems. These mechanisms for defining goals and guiding optimization run into practical and conceptual difficulty when there are independent, multi-dimensional objectives that need to be pursued simultaneously and cannot be reduced to each other. Ethicists have proved several impossibility theorems that stem from this origin; those results appear to show that there is no way of formally specifying what it means for an outcome to be good for a population without violating strong human ethical intuitions (in such cases, the objective function is a social welfare function). We argue that this is a practical problem for any machine learning system (such as medical decision support systems or autonomous weapons) or rigidly rule-based bureaucracy that will make high stakes decisions about human lives: such systems should not use objective functions in the strict mathematical sense. We explore the alternative of using uncertain objectives, represented for instance as partially ordered preferences, or as probability distributions over total orders. We show that previously known impossibility theorems can be transformed into uncertainty theorems in both of those settings, and prove lower bounds on how much uncertainty is implied by the impossibility results. We close by proposing two conjectures about the relationship between uncertainty in objectives and severe unintended consequences from AI systems.

Organizations deploying AI face two fundamental governance challenges: managing AI risk and sustaining AI value. Both depend on evidence whose sufficiency cannot be taken for granted. We call the shared underlying challenge the AI Evaluability Gap: the condition in which organizations lack sufficient evidence to support high-confidence governance decisions regarding either risk or value. We argue that this gap reflects a category error in current practice. Existing governance approaches focus primarily on properties of systems, such as safety, fairness, reliability, compliance, and value, while paying comparatively little attention to the evidentiary foundations required to justify decisions about those properties. We further argue that AI governance encompasses both operational decisions regarding whether a system may operate and investment decisions regarding whether it merits continued organizational resources. To address this problem, we introduce Evaluability, defined as the capability of a system to generate, maintain, and renew evidence sufficient to support high-confidence governance decisions over time. We formalize governance decisions as functions of calibrated confidence Conf(D|E) and identify six properties of evaluable evidence: observability, attributability, intervenability, verifiability, calibration, and temporal validity. The framework distinguishes Operational Certification, which relies primarily on structural evidence to justify deployment decisions, from Investment Certification, which relies primarily on causal evidence to justify continued resource allocation. We argue that evidence sufficiency is a missing layer of AI governance and that closing the AI Evaluability Gap is a prerequisite for both managing risk and sustaining value in AI-enabled organizations.

Reinforcement learning from human feedback plays a crucial role in aligning language models towards human preferences, traditionally represented through comparisons between pairs or sets of responses within a given context. While many studies have enhanced algorithmic techniques to optimize learning from such data, this work shifts focus to improving preference learning through a data-centric approach. Specifically, we propose enriching existing preference datasets with machine-generated rationales that explain the reasons behind choices. We develop a simple and principled framework to augment current preference learning methods with rationale information. Our comprehensive analysis highlights how rationales enhance learning efficiency. Extensive experiments reveal that rationale-enriched preference learning offers multiple advantages: it improves data efficiency, accelerates convergence to higher-performing models, and reduces verbosity bias and hallucination. Furthermore, this framework is versatile enough to integrate with various preference optimization algorithms. Overall, our findings highlight the potential of re-imagining data design for preference learning, demonstrating that even freely available machine-generated rationales can significantly boost performance across multiple dimensions. The code repository is available at https: //github.com/reds-lab/preference-learning-with-rationales

Access to the right evidence does not guarantee that large language models (LLMs) will reason with it correctly. This gap between retrieval and reasoning is especially concerning in clinical settings, where outputs must align with structured protocols. We study this gap using Written Exposure Therapy (WET) guidelines as a testbed. In evaluating model responses to curated clinician-vetted questions, we find that errors persist even when authoritative passages are provided. To address this, we propose an evaluation framework that measures accuracy, consistency, and fidelity of reasoning. Our results highlight both the potential and the risks: retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) can constrain outputs, but safe deployment requires assessing reasoning as rigorously as retrieval.

Long-form video reasoning remains a major challenge for Video Large Language Models (Video LLMs), as static uniform frame sampling leads to information dilution and obscures critical evidence. Furthermore, existing pixel-space video reasoning agents, which are designed to actively interact with the video to acquire new visual information, remain suboptimal due to their lack of rigorous reward mechanisms to enforce evidence purity and their inability to perform temporal information supplementation beyond pre-sampled frames. To address this critical gap, we propose a novel evidence-prioritized adaptive framework built upon our core philosophy: "Select Less, Reason More." Our core contribution is the evidence-aware reinforcement learning (EARL) framework, which transforms the model into an active interrogator of evidence. EARL is precisely engineered to dynamically select the most relevant frames and, crucially, to perform localized re-sampling around the selected key frames to access fine-grained temporal detail. Extensive experiments on five demanding video reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that our EARL-trained model achieves new state-of-the-art among open-source Video LLMs, simultaneously learning an effective and high-purity visual evidence selection policy. Impressively, our 7B model achieves 59.8% on LongVideoBench, 69.0% on MVBench and 64.9% on VideoMME. These results highlight the importance of prioritizing evidence purity and the effectiveness of our framework.

Finding relevant literature underpins the practice of evidence-based medicine. From 2014 to 2016, TREC conducted a clinical decision support track, wherein participants were tasked with finding articles relevant to clinical questions posed by physicians. In total, 87 teams have participated over the past three years, generating 395 runs. During this period, each team has trialled a variety of methods. While there was significant overlap in the methods employed by different teams, the results were varied. Due to the diversity of the platforms used, the results arising from the different techniques are not directly comparable, reducing the ability to build on previous work. By using a stable platform, we have been able to compare different document and query processing techniques, allowing us to experiment with different search parameters. We have used our system to reproduce leading teams runs, and compare the results obtained. By benchmarking our indexing and search techniques, we can statistically test a variety of hypotheses, paving the way for further research.

When trying to solve a computational problem, we are often faced with a choice between algorithms that are guaranteed to return the right answer but differ in their runtime distributions (e.g., SAT solvers, sorting algorithms). This paper aims to lay theoretical foundations for such choices by formalizing preferences over runtime distributions. It might seem that we should simply prefer the algorithm that minimizes expected runtime. However, such preferences would be driven by exactly how slow our algorithm is on bad inputs, whereas in practice we are typically willing to cut off occasional, sufficiently long runs before they finish. We propose a principled alternative, taking a utility-theoretic approach to characterize the scoring functions that describe preferences over algorithms. These functions depend on the way our value for solving our problem decreases with time and on the distribution from which captimes are drawn. We describe examples of realistic utility functions and show how to leverage a maximum-entropy approach for modeling underspecified captime distributions. Finally, we show how to efficiently estimate an algorithm's expected utility from runtime samples.

AI research often requires decisions before future evidence exists: which bottleneck to attack, which direction to pursue, or where a project should be positioned. We introduce ForeSci, a temporally controlled benchmark for evaluating whether LLM agents can make such forward-looking research judgements from historical evidence. ForeSci contains 500 tasks across four fast-moving AI domains and four decision families. Each task is paired with a cutoff-aligned offline knowledge base; post-cutoff papers are hidden during generation and used only for validation. To avoid random future-event prediction, tasks are derived from pre-cutoff taxonomy branches and evidence signals, and answer-generation backbones are selected to precede the task cutoffs. We evaluate native LLMs, Hybrid RAG, and three research-agent adaptations across four backbones. Results show that explicit evidence organization improves traceability and factual support, but gains depend strongly on the decision family. Diagnostics reveal a recurring evidence-decision decoupling: agents may cite relevant evidence while forecasting the wrong research object. ForeSci turns forward-looking AI research judgement into a controlled benchmark for evaluating research agents as decision-making systems.

Methods for controlling large language models (LLMs), including local weight fine-tuning, LoRA-based adaptation, and activation-based interventions, are often studied in isolation, obscuring their connections and making comparison difficult. In this work, we present a unified view that frames these interventions as dynamic weight updates induced by a control signal, placing them within a single conceptual framework. Building on this view, we propose a unified preference-utility analysis that separates control effects into preference, defined as the tendency toward a target concept, and utility, defined as coherent and task-valid generation, and measures both on a shared log-odds scale using polarity-paired contrastive examples. Across methods, we observe a consistent trade-off between preference and utility: stronger control increases preference while predictably reducing utility. We further explain this behavior through an activation manifold perspective, in which control shifts representations along target-concept directions to enhance preference, while utility declines primarily when interventions push representations off the model's valid-generation manifold. Finally, we introduce a new steering approach SPLIT guided by this analysis that improves preference while better preserving utility. Code is available at https://github.com/zjunlp/EasyEdit/blob/main/examples/SPLIT.md.

Ethical decision-making is a critical aspect of human judgment, and the growing use of LLMs in decision-support systems necessitates a rigorous evaluation of their moral reasoning capabilities. However, existing assessments primarily rely on single-step evaluations, failing to capture how models adapt to evolving ethical challenges. Addressing this gap, we introduce the Multi-step Moral Dilemmas (MMDs), the first dataset specifically constructed to evaluate the evolving moral judgments of LLMs across 3,302 five-stage dilemmas. This framework enables a fine-grained, dynamic analysis of how LLMs adjust their moral reasoning across escalating dilemmas. Our evaluation of nine widely used LLMs reveals that their value preferences shift significantly as dilemmas progress, indicating that models recalibrate moral judgments based on scenario complexity. Furthermore, pairwise value comparisons demonstrate that while LLMs often prioritize the value of care, this value can sometimes be superseded by fairness in certain contexts, highlighting the dynamic and context-dependent nature of LLM ethical reasoning. Our findings call for a shift toward dynamic, context-aware evaluation paradigms, paving the way for more human-aligned and value-sensitive development of LLMs.

To survive in dynamic and uncertain environments, individuals must develop effective decision strategies that balance information gathering and decision commitment. Models of such strategies often prioritize either optimizing tangible payoffs, like reward rate, or gathering information to support a diversity of (possibly unknown) objectives. However, our understanding of the relative merits of these two approaches remains incomplete, in part because direct comparisons have been limited to idealized, static environments that lack the dynamic complexity of the real world. Here we compared the performance of normative reward- and information-seeking strategies in a dynamic foraging task. Both strategies show similar transitions between exploratory and exploitative behaviors as environmental uncertainty changes. However, we find subtle disparities in the actions they take, resulting in meaningful performance differences: whereas reward-seeking strategies generate slightly more reward on average, information-seeking strategies provide more consistent and predictable outcomes. Our findings support the adaptive value of information-seeking behaviors that can mitigate risk with minimal reward loss.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) integrates external knowledge to enhance Large Language Models (LLMs), yet systems remain susceptible to two critical flaws: providing correct answers without explicit grounded evidence and producing fabricated responses when the retrieved context is insufficient. While prior research has addressed these issues independently, a unified framework that integrates evidence-based grounding and reliable abstention is currently lacking. In this paper, we propose GRACE, a reinforcement-learning framework that simultaneously mitigates both types of flaws. GRACE employs a data construction method that utilizes heterogeneous retrievers to generate diverse training samples without manual annotation. A multi-stage gated reward function is then employed to train the model to assess evidence sufficiency, extract key supporting evidence, and provide answers or explicitly abstain. Experimental results on two benchmarks demonstrate that GRACE achieves state-of-the-art overall accuracy and strikes a favorable balance between accurate response and rejection, while requiring only 10% of the annotation costs of prior methods. Our code is available at https://github.com/YiboZhao624/Grace..

Large language models (LLMs) and agentic systems have shown promise for clinical decision support, but existing works largely assume that evidence has already been curated and handed to the model. Real-world clinical workflows instead require agents to actively seek, iteratively plan, and synthesize multimodal evidence from heterogeneous sources. In this paper, we introduce ClinSeekAgent, an automated agentic framework for dynamic multimodal evidence seeking that shifts the paradigm from passive evidence consumption to active evidence acquisition. Given only a clinical query and access to raw data sources, ClinSeekAgent gathers evidence by querying medical knowledge bases, navigating raw EHRs, and invoking medical imaging tools; refines its hypotheses as new information emerges; and integrates the collected evidence into grounded clinical decisions. ClinSeekAgent serves both as an inference-time agent for frontier LLMs and as a training-time pipeline for distilling high-quality agent trajectories into compact open-source models. To validate its inference-time effectiveness, we construct ClinSeek-Bench, which pairs Curated Input reasoning from fixed pre-selected evidence with Automated Evidence-Seeking over raw clinical data. On text-only EHR tasks, ClinSeekAgent improves Claude Opus 4.6 from 60.0 to 63.2 overall F1 and MiniMax M2.5 from 43.1 to 47.3, with positive risk-prediction gains in 7 out of 9 evaluated host models. On multimodal tasks, ClinSeekAgent improves Claude Opus 4.6 from 47.5 to 62.6 (+15.1); all evaluated models improve across the three CXR-related task groups. We further validate ClinSeekAgent as a training pipeline by distilling agentic evidence-seeking trajectories into ClinSeek-35B-A3B, which achieves 34.0 average F1 on existing AgentEHR-Bench, improving over its Qwen3.5-35B-A3B baseline by +11.9 points and approaching Claude Opus 4.6.

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

Clinical evidence, derived from rigorous research and data analysis, provides healthcare professionals with reliable scientific foundations for informed decision-making. Integrating clinical evidence into real-time practice is challenging due to the enormous workload, complex professional processes, and time constraints. This highlights the need for tools that automate evidence synthesis to support more efficient and accurate decision making in clinical settings. This study introduces Quicker, an evidence-based clinical decision support system powered by large language models (LLMs), designed to automate evidence synthesis and generate clinical recommendations modeled after standard clinical guideline development processes. Quicker implements a fully automated chain that covers all phases, from questions to clinical recommendations, and further enables customized decision-making through integrated tools and interactive user interfaces. To evaluate Quicker's capabilities, we developed the Q2CRBench-3 benchmark dataset, based on clinical guideline development records for three different diseases. Experimental results highlighted Quicker's strong performance, with fine-grained question decomposition tailored to user preferences, retrieval sensitivities comparable to human experts, and literature screening performance approaching comprehensive inclusion of relevant studies. In addition, Quicker-assisted evidence assessment effectively supported human reviewers, while Quicker's recommendations were more comprehensive and logically coherent than those of clinicians. In system-level testing, collaboration between a single reviewer and Quicker reduced the time required for recommendation development to 20-40 minutes. In general, our findings affirm the potential of Quicker to help physicians make quicker and more reliable evidence-based clinical decisions.

Evaluating Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) in large language models (LLMs) is challenging because benchmarks can quickly become stale. Questions initially requiring retrieval may become answerable from pretraining knowledge as newer models incorporate more recent information during pretraining, making it difficult to distinguish evidence-based reasoning from recall. We introduce NeoQA (News Events for Out-of-training Question Answering), a benchmark designed to address this issue. To construct NeoQA, we generated timelines and knowledge bases of fictional news events and entities along with news articles and Q\&A pairs to prevent LLMs from leveraging pretraining knowledge, ensuring that no prior evidence exists in their training data. We propose our dataset as a new platform for evaluating evidence-based question answering, as it requires LLMs to generate responses exclusively from retrieved evidence and only when sufficient evidence is available. NeoQA enables controlled evaluation across various evidence scenarios, including cases with missing or misleading details. Our findings indicate that LLMs struggle to distinguish subtle mismatches between questions and evidence, and suffer from short-cut reasoning when key information required to answer a question is missing from the evidence, underscoring key limitations in evidence-based reasoning.

Knowledge-intensive multi-hop question answering requires systems to select evidence and compose dependent facts, yet multilingual benchmarks usually translate an entire example into one language. This hides failures at language boundaries inside the reasoning chain. We introduce XHotpotQA, a controlled benchmark for cross-lingual knowledge composition over mixed-language evidence. Each instance is modeled as an evidence-dependency graph whose question, bridge evidence, answer-bearing evidence, and distractors have explicit language assignments. The audited resource contains 15,661 training and 7,405 validation instances, with sentence-level support supervision and supplied distractors. In validation, 99.81% of items cross the question-to-gold-evidence language interface and 95.60% use gold paragraphs in different languages. Across three reader artifacts, full question-evidence mismatch is associated with 10.25 to 15.79 lower Unicode-aware answer F1 than partial alignment, and different-script evidence with deficits of 11.98 to 23.70 points; the corresponding adapted-selector contrasts are 1.71 and 1.78 points. Under this supplied-candidate design, the evaluated readers therefore show substantially larger condition-associated deficits than the selector. XHotpotQA provides role-aware diagnostics, modular evaluation, and an audited test bed for knowledge-based systems that must integrate evidence across languages.

To enhance the efficiency and practicality of federated bandit learning, recent advances have introduced incentives to motivate communication among clients, where a client participates only when the incentive offered by the server outweighs its participation cost. However, existing incentive mechanisms naively assume the clients are truthful: they all report their true cost and thus the higher cost one participating client claims, the more the server has to pay. Therefore, such mechanisms are vulnerable to strategic clients aiming to optimize their own utility by misreporting. To address this issue, we propose an incentive compatible (i.e., truthful) communication protocol, named Truth-FedBan, where the incentive for each participant is independent of its self-reported cost, and reporting the true cost is the only way to achieve the best utility. More importantly, Truth-FedBan still guarantees the sub-linear regret and communication cost without any overheads. In other words, the core conceptual contribution of this paper is, for the first time, demonstrating the possibility of simultaneously achieving incentive compatibility and nearly optimal regret in federated bandit learning. Extensive numerical studies further validate the effectiveness of our proposed solution.

This paper investigates the rational thinking capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) in multi-round argumentative debates by exploring the impact of fallacious arguments on their logical reasoning performance. More specifically, we present Logic Competence Measurement Benchmark (LOGICOM), a diagnostic benchmark to assess the robustness of LLMs against logical fallacies. LOGICOM involves two agents: a persuader and a debater engaging in a multi-round debate on a controversial topic, where the persuader tries to convince the debater of the correctness of its claim. First, LOGICOM assesses the potential of LLMs to change their opinions through reasoning. Then, it evaluates the debater's performance in logical reasoning by contrasting the scenario where the persuader employs logical fallacies against one where logical reasoning is used. We use this benchmark to evaluate the performance of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 using a dataset containing controversial topics, claims, and reasons supporting them. Our findings indicate that both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 can adjust their opinion through reasoning. However, when presented with logical fallacies, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 are erroneously convinced 41% and 69% more often, respectively, compared to when logical reasoning is used. Finally, we introduce a new dataset containing over 5k pairs of logical vs. fallacious arguments. The source code and dataset of this work are made publicly available.

In this position paper, we argue that instead of morally aligning LLMs to specific set of ethical principles, we should infuse generic ethical reasoning capabilities into them so that they can handle value pluralism at a global scale. When provided with an ethical policy, an LLM should be capable of making decisions that are ethically consistent to the policy. We develop a framework that integrates moral dilemmas with moral principles pertaining to different foramlisms of normative ethics, and at different levels of abstractions. Initial experiments with GPT-x models shows that while GPT-4 is a nearly perfect ethical reasoner, the models still have bias towards the moral values of Western and English speaking societies.

A/B tests are typically analyzed via frequentist p-values and confidence intervals; but these inferences are wholly unreliable if users endogenously choose samples sizes by *continuously monitoring* their tests. We define *always valid* p-values and confidence intervals that let users try to take advantage of data as fast as it becomes available, providing valid statistical inference whenever they make their decision. Always valid inference can be interpreted as a natural interface for a sequential hypothesis test, which empowers users to implement a modified test tailored to them. In particular, we show in an appropriate sense that the measures we develop tradeoff sample size and power efficiently, despite a lack of prior knowledge of the user's relative preference between these two goals. We also use always valid p-values to obtain multiple hypothesis testing control in the sequential context. Our methodology has been implemented in a large scale commercial A/B testing platform to analyze hundreds of thousands of experiments to date.

Existing datasets that contain boolean questions, such as BoolQ and TYDI QA , provide the user with a YES/NO response to the question. However, a one word response is not sufficient for an explainable system. We promote explainability by releasing a new set of annotations marking the evidence in existing TyDi QA and BoolQ datasets. We show that our annotations can be used to train a model that extracts improved evidence spans compared to models that rely on existing resources. We confirm our findings with a user study which shows that our extracted evidence spans enhance the user experience. We also provide further insight into the challenges of answering boolean questions, such as passages containing conflicting YES and NO answers, and varying degrees of relevance of the predicted evidence.

Retrieval-augmented language models are being increasingly tasked with subjective, contentious, and conflicting queries such as "is aspartame linked to cancer". To resolve these ambiguous queries, one must search through a large range of websites and consider "which, if any, of this evidence do I find convincing?". In this work, we study how LLMs answer this question. In particular, we construct ConflictingQA, a dataset that pairs controversial queries with a series of real-world evidence documents that contain different facts (e.g., quantitative results), argument styles (e.g., appeals to authority), and answers (Yes or No). We use this dataset to perform sensitivity and counterfactual analyses to explore which text features most affect LLM predictions. Overall, we find that current models rely heavily on the relevance of a website to the query, while largely ignoring stylistic features that humans find important such as whether a text contains scientific references or is written with a neutral tone. Taken together, these results highlight the importance of RAG corpus quality (e.g., the need to filter misinformation), and possibly even a shift in how LLMs are trained to better align with human judgements.

Providing high quality explanations for AI predictions based on machine learning is a challenging and complex task. To work well it requires, among other factors: selecting a proper level of generality/specificity of the explanation; considering assumptions about the familiarity of the explanation beneficiary with the AI task under consideration; referring to specific elements that have contributed to the decision; making use of additional knowledge (e.g. expert evidence) which might not be part of the prediction process; and providing evidence supporting negative hypothesis. Finally, the system needs to formulate the explanation in a clearly interpretable, and possibly convincing, way. Given these considerations, ANTIDOTE fosters an integrated vision of explainable AI, where low-level characteristics of the deep learning process are combined with higher level schemes proper of the human argumentation capacity. ANTIDOTE will exploit cross-disciplinary competences in deep learning and argumentation to support a broader and innovative view of explainable AI, where the need for high-quality explanations for clinical cases deliberation is critical. As a first result of the project, we publish the Antidote CasiMedicos dataset to facilitate research on explainable AI in general, and argumentation in the medical domain in particular.

This paper presents a case study on the design, administration, post-processing, and evaluation of surveys on large language models (LLMs). It comprises two components: (1) A statistical method for eliciting beliefs encoded in LLMs. We introduce statistical measures and evaluation metrics that quantify the probability of an LLM "making a choice", the associated uncertainty, and the consistency of that choice. (2) We apply this method to study what moral beliefs are encoded in different LLMs, especially in ambiguous cases where the right choice is not obvious. We design a large-scale survey comprising 680 high-ambiguity moral scenarios (e.g., "Should I tell a white lie?") and 687 low-ambiguity moral scenarios (e.g., "Should I stop for a pedestrian on the road?"). Each scenario includes a description, two possible actions, and auxiliary labels indicating violated rules (e.g., "do not kill"). We administer the survey to 28 open- and closed-source LLMs. We find that (a) in unambiguous scenarios, most models "choose" actions that align with commonsense. In ambiguous cases, most models express uncertainty. (b) Some models are uncertain about choosing the commonsense action because their responses are sensitive to the question-wording. (c) Some models reflect clear preferences in ambiguous scenarios. Specifically, closed-source models tend to agree with each other.

Pursuit of honest and truthful decision-making is crucial for governance and accountability in democracies. However, people sometimes take different perspectives of what it means to be honest and how to pursue truthfulness. Here we explore a continuum of perspectives from evidence-based reasoning, rooted in ascertainable facts and data, at one end, to intuitive decisions that are driven by feelings and subjective interpretations, at the other. We analyze the linguistic traces of those contrasting perspectives in Congressional speeches from 1879 to 2022. We find that evidence-based language has continued to decline since the mid-1970s, together with a decline in legislative productivity. The decline was accompanied by increasing partisan polarization in Congress and rising income inequality in society. Results highlight the importance of evidence-based language in political decision-making.

Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) has become a crucial technology for aligning language models with human values and intentions, enabling models to produce more helpful and harmless responses. Reward models are trained as proxies for human preferences to drive reinforcement learning optimization. While reward models are often considered central to achieving high performance, they face the following challenges in practical applications: (1) Incorrect and ambiguous preference pairs in the dataset may hinder the reward model from accurately capturing human intent. (2) Reward models trained on data from a specific distribution often struggle to generalize to examples outside that distribution and are not suitable for iterative RLHF training. In this report, we attempt to address these two issues. (1) From a data perspective, we propose a method to measure the strength of preferences within the data, based on a voting mechanism of multiple reward models. Experimental results confirm that data with varying preference strengths have different impacts on reward model performance. We introduce a series of novel methods to mitigate the influence of incorrect and ambiguous preferences in the dataset and fully leverage high-quality preference data. (2) From an algorithmic standpoint, we introduce contrastive learning to enhance the ability of reward models to distinguish between chosen and rejected responses, thereby improving model generalization. Furthermore, we employ meta-learning to enable the reward model to maintain the ability to differentiate subtle differences in out-of-distribution samples, and this approach can be utilized for iterative RLHF optimization.

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) for large language models (LLMs) has achieved remarkable progress in enhancing LLMs' reasoning capabilities on tasks with clear correctness criteria, such as mathematical reasoning tasks. Several training metrics, such as entropy or response length, have been observed to correlate with different reasoning behaviors in reinforcement learning. Prior approaches incorporate such priors through reward or advantage shaping, which often relies on hand-crafted penalties and preferences (e.g., higher-is-better or lower-is-better). However, without careful hyperparameter tuning, these directional priors can be overly biased and may lead to failure. To this end, we introduce Conditional advANtage estimatiON (CANON), amplifying the impact of the target metric without presuming its direction. Specifically, CANON regroups the sampled responses into two groups based on the higher or lower value of a target metric, measures which metric trend contributes to better performance through inter-group comparison, and identifies the better response within the same group. In summary, CANON based on entropy consistently outperforms prior methods across three LLMs on both math reasoning and high-complexity logic tasks. When applied to response length, CANON further improves token efficiency, yielding a more favorable Pareto frontier in the performance-cost trade-off.

Deep research agents are increasingly evaluated on their ability to search for evidence, reason over retrieved sources, and produce grounded answers. Existing browsing benchmarks, however, largely assume that the user's query and the supporting evidence are written in the same language, leaving open whether agentic search systems can operate when relevant evidence appears in another language. We introduce XBCP (Cross-lingual BrowseComp-Plus), a controlled benchmark that preserves the English question-and-answer space of BrowseComp-Plus but varies the languages of the supporting documents. XBCP instantiates two complementary settings: in the cross-lingual setting, each query is paired with evidence in a single assigned language. In the multilingual setting, the full evidence corpus is distributed equally and randomly across 12 languages spanning high-resource and low-resource regimes. We evaluate four deep research agents using sparse and dense multilingual retrievers, measuring answer accuracy, evidence recall, search behavior, calibration, citation fidelity, and oracle retrieval. Results reveal substantial degradation when evidence is translated. Even strong, dense retrievers lose evidence recall, and agents become less calibrated and cite evidence less reliably. Notably, accuracy remains lower even when all gold evidence is supplied directly. These findings suggest that cross-lingual deep research exposes both retrieval failures and an independent, agent-side difficulty in integrating language-mismatched evidence.

Fake news detection becomes particularly challenging in real-time scenarios, where emerging events often lack sufficient supporting evidence. Existing approaches often rely heavily on external evidence and therefore struggle to generalize under evidence scarcity. To address this issue, we propose Evaluation-Aware Selection of Experts (EASE), a novel framework for real-time fake news detection that dynamically adapts its decision-making process according to the assessed sufficiency of available evidence. EASE introduces a sequential evaluation mechanism comprising three independent perspectives: (1) Evidence-based evaluation, which assesses evidence and incorporates it into decision-making only when the evidence is sufficiently supportive; (2) Reasoning-based evaluation, which leverages the world knowledge of large language models (LLMs) and applies them only when their reliability is adequately established; and (3) Sentiment-based fallback, which integrates sentiment cues when neither evidence nor reasoning is reliable. To enhance the accuracy of evaluation processes, EASE employs instruction tuning with pseudo labels to guide each evaluator in justifying its perspective-specific knowledge through interpretable reasoning. Furthermore, the expert modules integrate the evaluators' justified assessments with the news content to enable evaluation-aware decision-making, thereby enhancing overall detection accuracy. Moreover, we introduce RealTimeNews-25, a new benchmark comprising recent news for evaluating model generalization on emerging news with limited evidence. Extensive experiments demonstrate that EASE not only achieves state-of-the-art performance across multiple benchmarks, but also significantly improves generalization to real-time news. The code and dataset are available: https://github.com/wgyhhhh/EASE.

Users increasingly rely on Large Language Models (LLMs) for Deep Research, using them to synthesize diverse sources into structured reports that support understanding and action. In this context, the practical reliability of such reports hinges on logical quality: whether the report's claims and arguments are explicitly supported and can be trusted as a basis for downstream use, rather than merely appearing fluent or informative. However, current evaluation frameworks largely overlook this requirement. To bridge this gap, we introduce ReportLogic, a benchmark that quantifies report-level logical quality through a reader-centric lens of auditability. Specifically, ReportLogic adopts a hierarchical taxonomy that evaluates whether readers can (1) trace an on-topic report structure with a unified analytical arc (Macro-Logic), (2) understand the progression with necessary context (Expositional-Logic), and (3) verify conclusions via explicit claim--support (Structural-Logic). Based on this taxonomy, we construct a human-annotated rubric-guided dataset and train an open-source LogicJudge for scalable evaluation. We further evaluate judge robustness via adversarial attacks, showing that off-the-shelf LLM judges are frequently influenced by superficial cues (e.g., verbosity), and reasoning modes can mask broken support relations. Overall, our results provide actionable guidance for building more robust logic evaluators and improving the logical reliability of LLM-generated reports.

Radiology report generation (RRG) is commonly formulated as a single-path generation task, where a multimodal large language model (MLLM) produces one decoded report as the final output. While recent progress has largely been driven by scaling training data, model capacity, and retrieval mechanisms, improving report quality at inference time remains underexplored. In this work, we observe that fixed radiology MLLMs often generate clinically stronger reports elsewhere in their candidate pool than the one selected by default decoding, suggesting that inference-time decision making remains an overlooked bottleneck. To address this, we propose Clinical Consensus Selection (CCS), a decoder-agnostic inference-time selection framework that samples multiple candidate reports and selects the one with the highest clinical consensus across the rollout pool. CCS unifies text-based utilities with a radiology-adapted utility computed by an image--report-trained multimodal embedder, which measures candidate agreement beyond surface-level textual similarity. Across three datasets and multiple radiology MLLMs, CCS consistently improves inference-time performance over single-path decoding and generic Best-of-N baselines, with particularly clear gains on clinical metrics. Further analysis shows that image-grounded utility forms a selection axis distinct from textual consensus and that substantial headroom remains for improving RRG at inference time.

Large Language Models (LLMs) empowered with retrieval mechanisms have achieved strong progress in open-domain question answering (QA). Yet, the conventional retrieve--then--answer paradigm often suffers from two key limitations: (1) low signal-to-noise ratio in retrieved evidence, where useful information is buried under irrelevant content, and (2) error accumulation in multi-hop reasoning when incomplete or noisy passages are involved. To address these challenges, we present EviNote-RAG, an agentic RAG framework that introduces a structured retrieve--note--answer pipeline. Instead of directly reasoning over raw retrievals, the model is trained to compose Supportive-Evidence Notes (SENs), concise, human-like notes that preserve only answer-relevant information, highlight uncertainty, and explicitly state when no useful evidence exists. This distillation process is further reinforced by the Evidence Quality Reward (EQR), an entailment-based signal that evaluates whether SENs logically support the final answer. Together, SENs and EQR guide the model toward faithful and robust reasoning, while reducing the impact of noise. Experiments on in-domain and out-of-domain QA benchmarks show that EviNote-RAG consistently outperforms strong baselines in accuracy, generalization, and training stability. In particular, it achieves state-of-the-art results while enhancing robustness and efficiency, yielding relative F1 gains of 20\% on HotpotQA (+0.093), 40\% on Bamboogle (+0.151), and 91\% on 2Wiki (+0.256) via denser rewards and reduced verbosity.

The question of how to make decisions that maximise the well-being of all persons is very relevant to design language models that are beneficial to humanity and free from harm. We introduce the Greatest Good Benchmark to evaluate the moral judgments of LLMs using utilitarian dilemmas. Our analysis across 15 diverse LLMs reveals consistently encoded moral preferences that diverge from established moral theories and lay population moral standards. Most LLMs have a marked preference for impartial beneficence and rejection of instrumental harm. These findings showcase the 'artificial moral compass' of LLMs, offering insights into their moral alignment.

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) often rely on generating intermediate reasoning steps to enhance accuracy. However, little work has examined how reasoning utility contributes to the final answer's correctness. Due to the stochastic nature of autoregressive generation, generating more context does not guarantee increased confidence in the answer. If we could predict, during generation, whether a reasoning step will be useful, we could stop early or prune ineffective steps, avoiding distractions in the final decision. We present an oracle study on MATH dataset, using Qwen2.5-32B and GPT-4o to generate reasoning chains, and then employing a separate model (Qwen3-8B) to quantify the utility of these chains for final accuracy. Specifically, we measure the model's uncertainty on the answer span Y at each reasoning step using conditional entropy (expected negative log-likelihood over the vocabulary) with context expanding step by step. Our results show a clear pattern: conditional entropy that decreases over steps is strongly associated with correct answers, whereas flat or increasing entropy often results in wrong answers. We also corroborate that incorrect reasoning paths tend to be longer than correct ones, suggesting that longer reasoning does not necessarily yield better outcomes. These findings serve as a foundation to inspire future work on designing efficient reasoning pipelines that detect and avoid unproductive reasoning early.

Evaluating the truthfulness of online content is critical for combating misinformation. This study examines the efficiency and effectiveness of crowdsourced truthfulness assessments through a comparative analysis of two approaches: one involving full-length webpages as evidence for each claim, and another using summaries for each evidence document generated with a large language model. Using an A/B testing setting, we engage a diverse pool of participants tasked with evaluating the truthfulness of statements under these conditions. Our analysis explores both the quality of assessments and the behavioral patterns of participants. The results reveal that relying on summarized evidence offers comparable accuracy and error metrics to the Standard modality while significantly improving efficiency. Workers in the Summary setting complete a significantly higher number of assessments, reducing task duration and costs. Additionally, the Summary modality maximizes internal agreement and maintains consistent reliance on and perceived usefulness of evidence, demonstrating its potential to streamline large-scale truthfulness evaluations.

As large language models increasingly participate in scientific evaluation, we investigate a potential form of reward hacking: how rhetorical choices shape AI-review judgments when reported scientific content is preserved and how these effects vary across evaluation conditions. We construct a controlled corpus of 4,200 full-paper manuscripts derived from 120 anonymized ICLR 2026 submissions. Two LLM rewriters transform six rhetorical dimensions in opposing directions, and five LLM reviewers evaluate the resulting manuscripts under standard and strict protocols. We also test joint, recursive, and reviewer-guided rewriting. Our results show that rhetorical sensitivity is structured rather than uniform. Evidence framing and novelty stance produce the largest positive-negative contrasts in overall assessment, with scope framing forming a weaker second tier; the remaining dimensions have smaller or less stable effects. This hierarchy persists across human-assessed quality levels, but score movement depends strongly on the AI reviewer's original score: lower scores tend to rise, higher scores tend to fall, and directional contrasts are clearest in the middle ranges. More elaborate workflows do not reliably yield larger gains. Joint rewriting is strongly rewriter-dependent, reviewer guidance does not consistently outperform an unguided second pass, and repeated rewriting yields diminishing, configuration-dependent returns. Across conditions, the rewriter primarily determines the separation between opposing variants, whereas the reviewer determines the magnitude and sign of their score effects. Strict review lowers mean OA by 1.36 points without consistently changing rhetorical sensitivity. These findings identify when rhetorical presentation influences AI scientific review and motivate evaluation systems robust to content-preserving variation in scientific writing.

Risk-averse reinforcement learning finds application in various high-stakes fields. Unlike classical reinforcement learning, which aims to maximize expected returns, risk-averse agents choose policies that minimize risk, occasionally sacrificing expected value. These preferences can be framed through utility theory. We focus on the specific case of the exponential utility function, where we can derive the Bellman equations and employ various reinforcement learning algorithms with few modifications. However, these methods suffer from numerical instability due to the need for exponent computation throughout the process. To address this, we introduce a numerically stable and mathematically sound loss function based on the Itakura-Saito divergence for learning state-value and action-value functions. We evaluate our proposed loss function against established alternatives, both theoretically and empirically. In the experimental section, we explore multiple financial scenarios, some with known analytical solutions, and show that our loss function outperforms the alternatives.

Large language models (LLMs) are transforming the landscape of medicine, yet two fundamental challenges persist: keeping up with rapidly evolving medical knowledge and providing verifiable, evidence-grounded reasoning. Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has been widely adopted to address these limitations by supplementing model outputs with retrieved evidence. However, whether RAG reliably achieves these goals remains unclear. Here, we present the most comprehensive expert evaluation of RAG in medicine to date. Eighteen medical experts contributed a total of 80,502 annotations, assessing 800 model outputs generated by GPT-4o and Llama-3.1-8B across 200 real-world patient and USMLE-style queries. We systematically decomposed the RAG pipeline into three components: (i) evidence retrieval (relevance of retrieved passages), (ii) evidence selection (accuracy of evidence usage), and (iii) response generation (factuality and completeness of outputs). Contrary to expectation, standard RAG often degraded performance: only 22% of top-16 passages were relevant, evidence selection remained weak (precision 41-43%, recall 27-49%), and factuality and completeness dropped by up to 6% and 5%, respectively, compared with non-RAG variants. Retrieval and evidence selection remain key failure points for the model, contributing to the overall performance drop. We further show that simple yet effective strategies, including evidence filtering and query reformulation, substantially mitigate these issues, improving performance on MedMCQA and MedXpertQA by up to 12% and 8.2%, respectively. These findings call for re-examining RAG's role in medicine and highlight the importance of stage-aware evaluation and deliberate system design for reliable medical LLM applications.

Reinforcement learning enables Agentic RAG systems to learn multi-turn search from verifiable outcome rewards, but all- zero rollout groups provide no comparative signal and may hide useful search behavior. We present EviBack, an evidence- constrained Teacher backoff that supplies auxiliary super- vision to such groups while preserving verifiable Actor re- wards. It separates evidence assessment from answer refine- ment, preventing reference answers from overriding evidence- insufficiency judgments. A fully automated, end-to-end GPT- 5.5-assisted APE pipeline starts from a manually authored single-prompt dual-task Teacher, automatically partitions and labels rollout data, and performs ablation, task decomposition, evaluation, and selection to produce a gated two-stage Teacher. Compared with the manual design, the resulting Teacher im- proves downstream F1 and valid-answer rate while reduc- ing search, duplicate queries, and forced termination. Across seven open-domain QA benchmarks and three Qwen3 scales, EviBack improves F1 over Search-R1 and raises both single- and multi-hop macro F1. We guarantee that the code will be made publicly available at a later stage.

Clinical LLMs are often scaled by increasing model size, context length, retrieval complexity, or inference-time compute, with the implicit expectation that higher accuracy implies safer behavior. This assumption is incomplete in medicine, where a few confident, high-risk, or evidence-contradicting errors can matter more than average benchmark performance. We introduce SaFE-Scale, a framework for measuring how clinical LLM safety changes across model scale, evidence quality, retrieval strategy, context exposure, and inference-time compute. To instantiate this framework, we introduce RadSaFE-200, a Radiology Safety-Focused Evaluation benchmark of 200 multiple-choice questions with clinician-defined clean evidence, conflict evidence, and option-level labels for high-risk error, unsafe answer, and evidence contradiction. We evaluated 34 locally deployed LLMs across six deployment conditions: closed-book prompting (zero-shot), clean evidence, conflict evidence, standard RAG, agentic RAG, and max-context prompting. Clean evidence produced the strongest improvement, increasing mean accuracy from 73.5% to 94.1%, while reducing high-risk error from 12.0% to 2.6%, contradiction from 12.7% to 2.3%, and dangerous overconfidence from 8.0% to 1.6%. Standard RAG and agentic RAG did not reproduce this safety profile: agentic RAG improved accuracy over standard RAG and reduced contradiction, but high-risk error and dangerous overconfidence remained elevated. Max-context prompting increased latency without closing the safety gap, and additional inference-time compute produced only limited gains. Worst-case analysis showed that clinically consequential errors concentrated in a small subset of questions. Clinical LLM safety is therefore not a passive consequence of scaling, but a deployment property shaped by evidence quality, retrieval design, context construction, and collective failure behavior.

In the context of reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), the reward function is generally derived from maximum likelihood estimation of a random utility model based on pairwise comparisons made by humans. The problem of learning a reward function is one of preference aggregation that, we argue, largely falls within the scope of social choice theory. From this perspective, we can evaluate different aggregation methods via established axioms, examining whether these methods meet or fail well-known standards. We demonstrate that both the Bradley-Terry-Luce Model and its broad generalizations fail to meet basic axioms. In response, we develop novel rules for learning reward functions with strong axiomatic guarantees. A key innovation from the standpoint of social choice is that our problem has a linear structure, which greatly restricts the space of feasible rules and leads to a new paradigm that we call linear social choice.

This paper describes the results of SemEval 2023 task 7 -- Multi-Evidence Natural Language Inference for Clinical Trial Data (NLI4CT) -- consisting of 2 tasks, a Natural Language Inference (NLI) task, and an evidence selection task on clinical trial data. The proposed challenges require multi-hop biomedical and numerical reasoning, which are of significant importance to the development of systems capable of large-scale interpretation and retrieval of medical evidence, to provide personalized evidence-based care. Task 1, the entailment task, received 643 submissions from 40 participants, and Task 2, the evidence selection task, received 364 submissions from 23 participants. The tasks are challenging, with the majority of submitted systems failing to significantly outperform the majority class baseline on the entailment task, and we observe significantly better performance on the evidence selection task than on the entailment task. Increasing the number of model parameters leads to a direct increase in performance, far more significant than the effect of biomedical pre-training. Future works could explore the limitations of large models for generalization and numerical inference, and investigate methods to augment clinical datasets to allow for more rigorous testing and to facilitate fine-tuning. We envisage that the dataset, models, and results of this task will be useful to the biomedical NLI and evidence retrieval communities. The dataset, competition leaderboard, and website are publicly available.

Reliable hypothesis testing is the foundation of many empirical scientific claims. Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly used to automate this process, as they can inspect datasets, generate code, and produce analyses end-to-end. However, we show that they frequently make subtle inferential errors that lead to incorrect conclusions despite correctly executed analyses. Existing benchmarks fail to capture this failure mode, as they rarely assess whether a reported p-value is statistically valid given the assumptions underlying the data. We address this gap by building P-Bench, a benchmark comprising 425 open-ended, realistic hypothesis-testing tasks spanning economics, biology, and medicine. Each task requires an agent to select a statistical method, compute a p-value, and draw a conclusion given only a scientific hypothesis and a dataset. We further introduce Fisher-R1, an open-weight LLM agent trained for rigorous hypothesis testing using synthetic tasks and reinforcement learning. On P-Bench, Fisher-R1-14B substantially improves over its backbone and outperforms strong proprietary and open-source baselines, including GPT-5.4 and DeepSeekV4-Pro, achieving a 21% average relative improvement in single-trial success over DeepSeek-V4-Pro, with gains up to 26% on the most challenging tasks. Our results demonstrate that current LLM agents lack reliable statistical reasoning for hypothesis testing and that reinforcement learning on tasks with verified statistical reward substantially improves reliability.

Autonomous agents increasingly perform bounded software tasks under an orchestrator that retries, resumes, and budgets them. The machinery such orchestrators reach for is the service mesh's: retry, timeout, and error-rate circuit breaking. We report a failure study of a production agentic software-delivery platform over 147 numbered incidents spanning 81 runs, each with a measured cost and, in most cases, a mutation proof reproducing the failure. All three assumptions those primitives rest on are violated in practice, and we quantify the consequences: a loop of fifty-four consecutive successful tool calls no error-rate breaker could see; a progress signal constant by construction, guaranteeing a false trip on the third repair round and driving one run from six of six components to three; twenty-one events accumulated across six invocations of one delegation, making a correct, idempotent component unwinnable; a misrouted failure that woke five components for a two-component fault, leaving three bystanders regressing working code; and twelve incidents in which the enforcement layer blocked correct work, the most expensive costing 107 agent turns and zero accepted writes. We find one cross-cutting cause and its dual. Identity adequacy: in five separate subsystems an identity that failed to discriminate produced a confident wrong answer, and two of them derived the corrective rule independently. Evidence adequacy: a reliability decision may be taken only on evidence capable of moving, attributable to what it measures, and deterministic under identical conditions. From the findings we derive seven reliability primitives whose enforcement unit is the delegation rather than the message, and specify the controlled evaluation the study motivates but does not constitute.

Qualitative insights from user experiences are critical for informing product and policy decisions, but collecting such data at scale is constrained by the time and availability of experts to conduct semi-structured interviews. Recent work has explored using large language models (LLMs) to automate interviewing, yet existing systems lack a principled mechanism for balancing systematic coverage of predefined topics with adaptive exploration, or the ability to pursue follow-ups, deep dives, and emergent themes that arise organically during conversation. In this work, we formulate adaptive semi-structured interviewing as an optimization problem over the interviewer's behavior. We define interview utility as a trade-off between coverage of a predefined interview topic guide, discovery of relevant emergent themes, and interview cost measured by length. Based on this formulation, we introduce SparkMe, a multi-agent LLM interviewer that performs deliberative planning via simulated conversation rollouts to select questions with high expected utility. We evaluate SparkMe through controlled experiments with LLM-based interviewees, showing that it achieves higher interview utility, improving topic guide coverage (+4.7% over the best baseline) and eliciting richer emergent insights while using fewer conversational turns than prior LLM interviewing approaches. We further validate SparkMe in a user study with 70 participants across 7 professions on the impact of AI on their workflows. Domain experts rate SparkMe as producing high-quality adaptive interviews that surface helpful profession-specific insights not captured by prior approaches. The code, datasets, and evaluation protocols for SparkMe are available as open-source at https://github.com/SALT-NLP/SparkMe.

We introduce OpenDebateEvidence, a comprehensive dataset for argument mining and summarization sourced from the American Competitive Debate community. This dataset includes over 3.5 million documents with rich metadata, making it one of the most extensive collections of debate evidence. OpenDebateEvidence captures the complexity of arguments in high school and college debates, providing valuable resources for training and evaluation. Our extensive experiments demonstrate the efficacy of fine-tuning state-of-the-art large language models for argumentative abstractive summarization across various methods, models, and datasets. By providing this comprehensive resource, we aim to advance computational argumentation and support practical applications for debaters, educators, and researchers. OpenDebateEvidence is publicly available to support further research and innovation in computational argumentation. Access it here: https://huggingface.co/datasets/Yusuf5/OpenCaselist

Agentic reasoning enables large reasoning models (LRMs) to dynamically acquire external knowledge, but yet optimizing the retrieval process remains challenging due to the lack of dense, principled reward signals. In this paper, we introduce InfoReasoner, a unified framework that incentivizes effective information seeking via a synthetic semantic information gain reward. Theoretically, we redefine information gain as uncertainty reduction over the model's belief states, establishing guarantees, including non-negativity, telescoping additivity, and channel monotonicity. Practically, to enable scalable optimization without manual retrieval annotations, we propose an output-aware intrinsic estimator that computes information gain directly from the model's output distributions using semantic clustering via bidirectional textual entailment. This intrinsic reward guides the policy to maximize epistemic progress, enabling efficient training via Group Relative Policy Optimxization (GRPO). Experiments across seven question-answering benchmarks demonstrate that InfoReasoner consistently outperforms strong retrieval-augmented baselines, achieving up to 5.4% average accuracy improvement. Our work provides a theoretically grounded and scalable path toward agentic reasoning with retrieval.

We present a complete theoretical characterization of Latent Posterior Factors (LPF), a principled framework for aggregating multiple heterogeneous evidence items in probabilistic prediction tasks. Multi-evidence reasoning arises pervasively in high-stakes domains including healthcare diagnosis, financial risk assessment, legal case analysis, and regulatory compliance, yet existing approaches either lack formal guarantees or fail to handle multi-evidence scenarios architecturally. LPF encodes each evidence item into a Gaussian latent posterior via a variational autoencoder, converting posteriors to soft factors through Monte Carlo marginalization, and aggregating factors via exact Sum-Product Network inference (LPF-SPN) or a learned neural aggregator (LPF-Learned). We prove seven formal guarantees spanning the key desiderata for trustworthy AI: Calibration Preservation (ECE <= epsilon + C/sqrt(K_eff)); Monte Carlo Error decaying as O(1/sqrt(M)); a non-vacuous PAC-Bayes bound with train-test gap of 0.0085 at N=4200; operation within 1.12x of the information-theoretic lower bound; graceful degradation as O(epsilon*delta*sqrt(K)) under corruption, maintaining 88% performance with half of evidence adversarially replaced; O(1/sqrt(K)) calibration decay with R^2=0.849; and exact epistemic-aleatoric uncertainty decomposition with error below 0.002%. All theorems are empirically validated on controlled datasets spanning up to 4,200 training examples. Our theoretical framework establishes LPF as a foundation for trustworthy multi-evidence AI in safety-critical applications.

Health economic evaluations are sensitive to the choice of analytical perspective (e.g., health system vs. societal). While guidelines often recommend specific perspectives, the uncertainty associated with this choice - and the potential decision discordance it creates - is rarely quantified. We present vop_poc_nz, a Python package that implements a framework for Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (DCEA) and operationalizes the quantification of perspective uncertainty through the Value of Perspective (VoP) metric. The package provides tools for Markov modeling, probabilistic sensitivity analysis, value of information analysis, and equity impact assessment. Unlike existing tools that treat perspective as a fixed input, vop_poc_nz allows for the simultaneous evaluation of multiple perspectives. This enables decision-makers to estimate the opportunity cost of perspective misalignment. We demonstrate the package's capabilities using case studies from Aotearoa New Zealand.

Urban assessments often compress diverse needs into single scores, which can obscure minority perspectives. We present a community-centered study in Montreal (n=35; wheelchair users, seniors, LGBTQIA2+ residents, and immigrants). Participants rated 20 streets (accessibility, inclusivity, aesthetics, practicality) and ranked 7 images on 12 interview-elicited criteria. Disagreement patterns were systematic in our sample: wheelchair users diverged most on accessibility and practicality; LGBTQIA2+ participants emphasized inclusion and liveliness; seniors prioritized security. Group discussion reduced information gaps but not value conflicts; ratings conveyed intensity, while rankings forced trade-offs. We then formalize negotiative alignment, a transparent, budget-aware bargaining procedure, and pilot it with role-played stakeholder agents plus a neutral mediator. Relative to the best base design under the same public rubric, the negotiated package increased total utility (21.10 to 24.55), raised the worst-group utility (3.20 to 3.90), improved twentieth percentile satisfaction (0.86 to 1.00; min-max normalized within the scenario), and reduced inequality (Gini 0.036 to 0.025). Treating disagreement as signal and reporting worst-group outcomes alongside totals may help planners and AI practitioners surface trade-offs and preserve minority priorities while maintaining efficiency.