Unified Multimodal Models aim to achieve any-to-any understanding and generation across arbitrary modalities. However, existing methods primarily rely on modeling implicit statistical correlations and lack cross-modal structural consistency constraints. This deficiency leads to profound issues, including semantic drift, poor compositional generalization, and instability under interventions. In this paper, we propose C3-UniMM, a unified multimodal modeling framework based on Causal Cycle Consistency and Super Alignment. Specifically, we introduce a Structured Latent Causal Graph (SLCG) as a shared cross-modal semantic space and design unified multimodal encoding blocks, enabling understanding and generation to be synergistically optimized within the identical causal semantic structure. Furthermore, we propose a Unified Decoding Space to enforce structural preservation and semantic invertibility during the cross-modal generation process. Theoretical analyses demonstrate that our approach significantly enhances both the invertibility and mechanism invariance of cross-modal mappings. Extensive experimental results across multiple understanding, generation, and compositional generalization tasks indicate that C3-UniMM substantially outperforms existing unified multimodal baselines.
Parkinson disease PD is a progressive neurodegenerative disease that can have a significant impact on motor performance resulting in the appearance of symptoms such as tremors rigidity postural instabilities and bradykinesia. Timely clinical treatment disease management and quality life of the patients are closely linked to early and appropriate identification of PD. Over the past few years the growth of wearable sensor technology and artificial intelligence AI have made it possible to create noninvasive and data driven disease detection methods. This paper proposes a comparative system using artificial intelligence to detect Parkinsons disease by analyzing the motion and tremor data captured by an inertial measurement unit IMU. The data comprises the signals of the acceleration and gyroscope sensors measuring movement in three directions X Y and Z. The signs and symptoms provide helpful information about subtle motor deficits associated with PD. Several classification models like Support Vector Machine SVM Logistic Regression LR KNearest Neighbors KNN Decision Tree DT Extreme Gradient Boosting XGBoost and Light Gradient Boosting Machine LightGBM were used to compare their effectiveness. The Logistic Regression model had a performance around 75 percent in all evaluation metrics and KNearest Neighbours KNN around 90 percent. The support vector machine SVM performed almost 94 percent whereas the performance of classifiers such as Decision Tree and XGBoost was close to 96 percent and overall classification efficacy respectively. LightGBM model performs consistently at the best rank among all of the evaluated methods having Accuracy, Precision, Recall and F1score of around 97 percent. The results show that the proposed machine learning approach offers an accurate and effective predictive capability in the classification of PD severity.
Rehan Khan, Muhammad Junaid Asif, Rana Fayyaz Ahmad· 0 citations
Interactive visualizations support conceptual understanding in undergraduate mathematics, but building them has required programming expertise most instructors lack. Using a design-based research approach, we develop, deploy, and evaluate a six-phase workflow (Foundation, Customization, Mathematical Depth, Application, Accessibility, Pedagogical Control) that uses generative AI to build WCAG~2.2 Level~AA compliant visualizations without programming. The six phases structure every prompt, scaffold the AI's code generation, and define where human verification is applied. We ask whether the structure reliably yields correct and accessible tools, whether it runs both backward (reverse-engineering prompts from a finished tool) and forward (generating a tool from a plain-language idea), and what verification each phase requires. Across four deployed tools spanning calculus, multivariable calculus, and differential equations, we evaluate mathematical correctness against closed forms, accessibility through automated and manual screen-reader testing, and the errors that recurred. The structure produces structurally complete first-pass tools, but human verification remains mandatory at every phase: each output must be checked for mathematical correctness, accessibility, and pedagogical fit before the next phase begins. The workflow is platform-independent and serves both instructors and students.
Large language models (LLMs) achieve strong performance on mathematical reasoning benchmarks, yet the mathematically meaningful skills underlying their reasoning remain underexplored. We introduce \texttt{SHAPE}, a framework that analyzes Chain-of-Thought (CoT) trajectories through two lenses developed in mathematics education: (1) semantic spaces: the model's evolving mathematical interpretations of a problem (e.g., algebraic, geometric), and (2) heuristics: the specific mathematical actions taken within those spaces (e.g., simplifying the problem, working backward). We first use \texttt{SHAPE} to analyze the reasoning patterns of various models. Our findings reveal that the mathematical heuristics employed by a model better explain final answer correctness than traditional CoT features. Furthermore, models are likely to reach correct solutions by concentrating their reasoning effort within a few semantic spaces rather than exploring many disparate ones -- a pattern consistent with human behavior. Next, we utilize the \texttt{SHAPE} lens to evaluate whether post-training truly enhances mathematical proficiency. We find that reinforcement learning induces mode-seeking in heuristic usage. Lastly, we post-train LLMs by promoting diverse heuristics and demonstrate its effectiveness in improving accuracy. Overall, \texttt{SHAPE} provides a theoretically-grounded diagnostic framework for decoding LLM reasoning and offers a new path toward post-training LLMs for math reasoning. The code for our model is available at https://github.com/holi-lab/SHAPE-of-CoT
Jonghyun Song, Sangjun Song, Minjae Oh et al.· 0 citations
Reach audiences
Advertise in front of researchers, engineers, and readers.
Clinical diagnosis is a step-by-step, cost-aware process: a physician orders examinations one at a time, observes the results, and updates the diagnosis before reaching a final conclusion. Most medical language models instead treat diagnosis as a one-pass classification task and ignore the trade-off between a test's value and its cost. We model diagnosis as a cost-aware sequential decision process and train the policy with reinforcement learning. The main difficulty is credit assignment: the only reliable signal comes once at the end of a long trajectory, so it scores a wasteful workup the same as an efficient one. We propose CDPR (Counterfactual Diagnostic Process Reward), which needs no expert labels and no learned critic. CDPR first finds the states where the policy hesitates, using the uncertainty of its action distribution, and then scores the chosen action by its advantage over the alternatives the policy itself would consider, estimated with short rollouts under a utility that balances correctness against test count, cost, and infeasible requests. A rollout cache reuses within-batch trajectories to keep the cost low. We integrate CDPR into GRPO and test it on one in-domain (MIMIC-IV) and two out-of-domain (ClinicalBench and a private hospital dataset) benchmarks. CDPR improves diagnostic accuracy while clearly reducing the number and cost of examinations.
Qi Peng, Yi Cai, Changmeng Zheng et al.· 0 citations
Online surveys are a foundational data collection instrument in a variety of fields, with attention checks serving as critical guardians of response quality. However, the rapid emergence of agentic AI (goal directed systems powered by a large language model (LLM) brain and/or a multimodal processing unit with tool-augmented capabilities) raises new questions about the robustness of these safeguards. We investigate how well agentic AI architectures can complete web-based surveys and pass standard attention checks. We evaluate a single-agent architecture capable of multimodal input processing and tool-based web interaction on a controlled survey sandbox. We analyze the problem from two perspectives. From an attack perspective, we demonstrate how structural vulnerabilities such as exposed DOM metadata and predictable option encoding allow agents to resolve attention checks through structured parsing only. From a defense perspective, we implement a mitigation strategy of DOM metadata obfuscation to remove semantic cues in text-based questions. We evaluate multiple open-source language and multimodal models to study capability and orchestration effectiveness. Based on our evaluations, we offer perspectives on how to simultaneously meet the needs of empiricists and agentic AI researchers.
Sourav Panda, Hillmer Chona, Rupak Kumar Das et al.· 0 citations
Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly embedded in scientific workflows for literature analysis, drafting, and review. Existing systems advance autonomous discovery and manuscript generation, but do not resolve the governance problem that arises when ideas, methods, results, and claims propagate through AI-assisted workflows without mandatory human approval or artifact-level traceability. This paper proposes Paper Pilot, a human-in-the-loop expert system for evidence-traceable scientific manuscript generation in applied sciences. It adapts the Collaborative Agent Reasoning Engineering (CARE) methodology to manuscript development through manuscript-owner approval gates, explicit no-pass criteria, claim classification, audit logging, advisory LLM review, and evidence-locked revision control. The framework defines eight approval gates across the idea-to-claim pipeline and distinguishes literature-grounded from artifact-grounded claims, requiring reported numbers and interpretations to remain traceable to approved evidence; its system prompt is openly released for deployment in ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, or institutional LLM environments. As a first empirical validation, we evaluate the citation-grounding layer with a controlled, mechanically scored benchmark (two commercial LLMs, real arXiv papers, no LLM judge): under coverage pressure ungated drafters fabricated up to 25% of their citations and never flagged an evidence gap, whereas the same models under Paper Pilot's evidence-locked rules produced zero fabricated citations and surfaced the planted gaps as explicit placeholders. Preliminary results for result grounding, revision, and adversarial robustness point the same way; full evaluation is left to future work. Paper Pilot positions LLM-assisted writing as a controlled human-AI decision-support process rather than a fully autonomous authorship pipeline.
Conversational analytics systems assume the user already has a well-formed question, leaving a non-expert facing a blank query box on an unfamiliar enterprise schema. Commercial 'proactive' tools narrow this gap only by detecting statistical anomalies over analyst-curated metric layers, and academic next-question recommenders depend on query logs that a fresh dataset lacks. We describe a production analytics system that inverts the interaction model from question-first to analyst-first through two coupled architectural ideas. First, a pluggable domain-expert 'skill' abstraction: a folder-based, database-free subject-matter pack (a manifest, per-stage prompt facets, keyword-routed references, report templates, and optional compute) auto-selected per (client, dataset) by deterministic schema matching and spliced as a cross-cutting concern into every stage of an agentic pipeline, the schema explorer, and the report engines, degrading to a strict no-op when absent. Because a skill is a self-contained folder resolved deterministically, the catalogue is open-ended: an extensible marketplace of domain experts. Second, an offline knowledge-compilation loop: an agent probes the dataset's parquet via DuckDB (zero load on production), runs critic-gated per-table convergence with self-healing retries, and data-validates joins by value overlap, producing durable schema knowledge that drives standing expert reports whose every published metric is re-verified by re-executing its evidence SQL, plus suggested questions that mirror the report agenda. These close a proactive loop: reports surface numbers, the numbers seed questions, and a click launches a verified deep dive, all before the query box is used. We give a formal model and report illustrative single-tenant evidence. We make no user-study or benchmark claims; the contribution is the architecture and its defensibility.
With the increasing development of AI regulatory frameworks, ensuring that artificial intelligence systems, particularly generative models, operate in accordance with legal and ethical standards has become a critical priority. Existing proposals for AI alignment and value-guided behavior, however, face some limitations. Approaches such as Constitutional AI depend on human supervision, while broad normative frameworks like the Good-for-Humanity (GfH) principle may be overly general and ambiguous to provide actionable governance guidance. To overcome these limitations, we propose a hybrid approach called Statutory AI that employs pre-existing human-authored principles drawn from specific themes within a legal corpus. Specifically, Statutory AI uses legal texts as a constitutional framework, enabling AI systems to autonomously critique and revise their outputs according to established norms. It operates in two stages, both using Chain-of-Thought prompting. The first stage classifies the user prompt into one of the identified themes, while the second stage analyzes it in conjunction with relevant articles selected from the legal corpus of that theme. To illustrate the potential of our approach, we conducted an experiment involving 1,000 red-teaming prompts and five penal themes: discrimination, disclosure of confidential information, violence, fraud, and abuse of vulnerable persons. Statutory AI reduced harmful content by 52 to 59 percentage points across tested models, approximately 10 percentage points higher than standard Constitutional AI, while cutting computation time by over 50%.
Cindy Delage, St\'ephane Canu, Marc D\'ecombas et al.· 0 citations
Large language models (LLMs) achieve high scores on medical knowledge examinations, yet real-world oncology is not a knowledge test--it is a sequence of guideline-pathway choices, escalation judgments, and commitments under uncertainty. Existing benchmarks largely measure factual recall, leaving open whether frontier LLMs share decision-path blind spots that combining models cannot fix. We built the Oncology Decision Boundary Benchmark (ODBB)--2,005 oncology decision points across NCCN guidelines and colorectal cancer cases--and evaluated nine frontier LLMs (four closed-source, five open-weight families) released between June 2025 and April 2026. A fully deterministic scorer (zero LLM inference) classified outputs into 14 failure types, independently validated by two oncologists (Cohen's weighted $\kappa$ = 0.939 and 0.790) on a 225-item stratified sample. Treating the nine as a pooled super-model, 42.1% (Wilson 95% CI 40.0--44.3%) of all items--35.7% of the 1,586 NCCN items and 66.4% of the 419 colorectal-cancer cases--were answered correctly by none, with failures concentrated in choosing between guideline pathways before reasoning within any: a consistent blind spot in clinical meta-judgment that likely requires architectural intervention rather than more training data. Two models tuned for decisiveness (GPT-5.5, Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview) made unsafe commitments three to five times more often than the seven cautious models without scoring higher. In 3--9% of items, models stated the correct next clinical step yet did not commit to it--failures of decision, not knowledge. Model quality is no longer the primary bottleneck for clinical LLM deployment; the binding constraint is the assumption that any single model can be the sole basis for a clinical decision. Progress requires architectures that detect when a model reaches its competence boundary and route the decision to a clinician.
Zhang Sheng, Jinming Li, Wangyang Chen et al.· 0 citations
Recent advancements in AI are helping scientists achieve breakthroughs in fields such as mathematics, medicine, and materials sciences. New evaluation datasets for AI models contribute to such advancement in AI. In the STEM domain, frontier models have consumed most of the available online data, creating the need for human-created datasets that codify the knowledge of leading experts in the domain. There are several STEM datasets available for the research community in this field. However, there are some gaps in these datasets, leaving room for improvement. Examples of gaps include (1) saturation in model performance on these datasets, leaving no head-room for meaningful evaluations, (2) skewed taxonomy distributions, (3) multiple choice question format that is misaligned with how scientists use AI in the real world, and (4) inaccurate answers and rationales partially led by a contest-based data collection and a time-bound review process. In this study, we present 'Expert-validated STEM QA', a high-quality, expert-validated STEM dataset (N=398) in Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and Mathematics, created by 241 domain experts. We (1) carefully designed a taxonomy with balanced distribution, (2) vetted question contributors with quality-driven incentive, (3) conducted multiple rounds of reviews with revisions validated by domain experts based on consensus, and (4) created the dataset in verifiable question and answer format. Our study demonstrated low performance ($<25\%$) of frontier AI models on the dataset as a benchmark. Post-training on a separate, private version of the dataset (N=2,000) increased performance of the open source model by $15\%$ relative to the baseline model (p=0.045) on the STEM subset of HLE-verified dataset, indicating potential utility of the dataset for model training. We have open-sourced a portion of our dataset for the AI research community.
Kihwan Han, Saurabh Patil, Chinmayee Shukla et al.· 0 citations
Large Language Model (LLM) agents have shown promise for automating data-science workflows, yet their end-to-end performance depends critically on the agent harness that represents tasks, manages execution state, constrains output artifacts, and provides evaluation feedback. Existing data-science agents often leave this harness implicit, making results difficult to reproduce, compare, and attribute across heterogeneous tasks. We introduce DS-Lighting, a unified harness toolkit that makes harness design explicit for data-science automation. DS-Lighting decomposes the harness into four reusable layers: data, workflow, execution, and evaluation, and represents diverse agents as executable operator programs that support both predefined pipelines and adaptive search. We further integrate multiple open-source data-science benchmarks into an MLE-Bench-style task format, enabling controlled comparison under a shared task interface, sandboxed runtime, and metric protocol. Experiments across agents, harnesses, models, and ablations show that explicit harness design improves reproducibility, comparability, and reliability, while reducing avoidable system-level failures in end-to-end data-science workflows. Our code is available at https://github.com/usail-hkust/dslighting
