We study the problem of formally explaining why a candidate was not selected by a given tournament rule, by identifying sub-tournaments in which the candidate loses independently of how the rest of the tournament is completed. We define destructive minimal supports as any minimal sub-tournament satisfying this property, which in formal explainable artificial intelligence corresponds to abductive explanations for the question "Why does the loser lose the tournament?". For six common tournament solutions (maximin, uncovered set and its weighted variant, top cycle, Copeland, and Borda) we provide characterizations of when a candidate is either a necessary loser or a possible winner, we determine the size of the smallest destructive minimal supports, complemented by polynomial-time algorithms for their computation except for the case of Borda and Copeland rules which we conjecture to also be polynomial.
Tool-using agents increasingly rely on external tools to complete multi-step tasks, but tool returns can fail in different ways and require different recovery actions. Existing robustness studies often use uncertainty-based measures to detect when an agent becomes unreliable. These measures can reveal that something has gone wrong, but they do not directly identify the type of tool failure or the appropriate response. We address this limitation by analyzing tool failures at the moment a return enters the agent context. Our approach combines two complementary signals. The first compares the likelihood of the returned content under the tool schema and under the full trajectory prefix. The second measures the agent's probability distribution over its legal next actions. We evaluate the approach by injecting incomplete and inconsistent returns into a retail customer-service benchmark. The results show that likelihood-based signals clearly capture incomplete returns and some direct inconsistencies, while action-based signals reveal how strongly a failure changes the next decision. Some failures that are weak under likelihood signals can still redirect the agent toward state-changing actions. These findings show that tool failures can be recognized at the return boundary, but reliable diagnosis requires combining multiple signals.
Jiachen Xu, T. Pedersen, Zhongming Yao et al.· 0 citations
Physical automation is scaling toward fleets of embodied machines commanded by an AI brain. Early deployments already run factories and warehouses at production rates beyond any human line, and their adoption is accelerating. But when their joint decisions cause harm, everyone involved has reason to blame everyone else, the machine vendor, the algorithm provider, the factory operator, the insurer, and the regulator, and no method can divide the responsibility between them. Existing methods read logs whose origin they cannot verify and name a single culprit, misrepresenting outcomes that are overdetermined, preempted, or caused by an omission. We present AUDITA, an audit layer pairing a tamper-evident record of every inter-agent command with a certified, graded causal-attribution engine. We prove its verdict cannot be gamed: a rule-following agent can never be made to look guilty, an attempt to shift blame is itself caught and graded, and we establish the exact limit of what an evidence-based auditor can certify. On live language-model pipelines it reduces the standard judge baseline's responsibility error roughly threefold; on a benchmark of accident-grounded structures it recovers responsibility where single-culprit baselines fail, and stays invariant under forgery. AUDITA turns the question of who is to blame from an argument about logs into a calculation over evidence.
Active inference offers a unified framework for perception, learning, and action, but scaling discrete active-inference models to rich spatial and temporal domains remains difficult. Renormalising generative models (RGMs) address this challenge by composing discrete generative models across spatial and temporal scales, coarse-graining lower-level states and paths into higher-level causes for objects, events, and action. However, fully reproducing and adapting the framework remains difficult: the mathematical exposition is compact, and the reference implementations are deeply integrated within specialized software environments, leaving many algorithmic details implicit. This paper addresses these challenges by providing a self-contained, derivation-oriented account of RGMs together with an open, verified implementation. We explain how the hierarchy is built, how beliefs and actions are updated within it, and how information is passed between levels. Where the published equations and implementation differ in emphasis, we make those choices explicit and explain their modelling consequences. By clarifying the theory and separating it from its original implementation context, this work lowers practical barriers to entry and makes RGMs more transparent, auditable, and reproducible, providing a foundation for future quantitative evaluation and development on machine-learning benchmarks.
Karim Zaghw, Andrew Pashea, Marc Pritsch et al.· 0 citations
Reach audiences
Advertise in front of researchers, engineers, and readers.
We propose NxN E-valuation, a handy, e-value-based hypothesis-certification algorithm that lets a hypothesis be verified without building any case-specific certification procedure---such as constructing a dedicated null hypothesis---as long as a large enough dataset is available. The method is especially suited to LLM-based exploration systems, where LLMs are remarkably good at proposing hypotheses but suffer badly from hallucination; this hallucination prevents us from harvesting LLM outputs directly, and existing remedies each fall short. The most common solutions include letting the LLM verify or correct itself circular verification and held-out testing (where false hypotheses can still pass via spurious correlations), among other remedies detailed in the introduction. To resolve this, NxN E-valuation exploits the naturally existing large training set and lets different samples serve as null hypotheses for one another. This design directly realizes a conditional randomization test (CRT) that certifies each hypothesis. The approach can be a universally better replacement for at least LLM circular verification and held-out-data testing, provided the LLM's generations are hypotheses that apply to each individual sample.
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for automated fact-checking, yet their susceptibility to gender bias in this context remains underexplored. This study presents the first systematic investigation of gender bias in LLM-based fake news detection using real-world data. We augment the LIAR benchmark with three gender variants of speaker job titles (Neutral, Male, Female) for each statement to test whether veracity judgments vary solely based on gender presentation. Six state-of-the-art LLMs are evaluated across multiple bias and fairness metrics. All models exhibit gender sensitivity: 9.79%-35.13% of statements receive inconsistent labels across the three variants, with Male-Female comparisons showing 6.5%-23.6% flip rates. Two primary bias manifestations are identified: instability (inconsistent judgments) and directionality (systematic favoritism). Five models show statistically significant directional effects, with the strongest effects displaying male-skeptic patterns. These findings demonstrate that gender bias undermines both reliability and fairness in LLM-based fake news detection, highlighting the need for bias-aware evaluation and mitigation strategies. The augmented dataset is publicly released to support future research.
Razieh Chalehchaleh, R. Farahbakhsh, N. Crespi· 0 citations
Multimodal Large Language Models have sparked significant interest due to their potential for social intelligence; however, their ability to perform sequential motivation reasoning remains insufficiently studied. Existing evaluations predominantly examine static text or isolated visual snapshots, which do not reflect the cumulative nature of real-world behavioral drivers. To address this gap, we introduce MultivationBench, a benchmark designed to rigorously evaluate multimodal motivation reasoning within story-driven visual narratives. The benchmark builds upon established psychological frameworks - Maslow's hierarchy and Reiss's basic desires - and requires models to integrate accumulated multimodal context to infer evolving motivations. Results indicate that MultivationBench presents a significant challenge: all tested models struggle to maintain consistent motivation reasoning across sequential contexts, revealing a critical disconnect between static recognition capabilities and the dynamic reasoning essential for human-like social understanding.
Kawai Chung, Chunkit Chan, Yauwai Yim et al.· 0 citations
Text-to-SQL has advanced rapidly with large language models, but complex database queries still require reasoning beyond one-shot generation, including multi-step decomposition, execution-based diagnosis, and targeted correction. We present EvoSQL, a co-evolution framework that formulates SQL synthesis as an iterative interaction between a generator and a critic. EvoSQL maintains a contextualized candidate memory, verifies SQL candidates with both execution signals and LLM-based critique, and updates its memory through utility-guided aggregation. To strengthen the underlying generator-critic pair, we further introduce a Self-Distillation Policy Optimization (SDPO) fine-tuning stage that injects execution-aware supervision into modern coding LLM backbones. Experiments on Spider and BIRD show that EvoSQL consistently improves open-source models over Maj@16 baselines, with particularly large gains on BIRD-Dev, ranging from +1.37% for Qwen3-4B to +9.19% for Qwen2.5-Coder-3B. SDPO initialization further improves selected backbones on Spider-Test and BIRD-Dev. These results suggest that memory-grounded co-evolution is an effective path toward more reliable and generalizable Text-to-SQL systems. Code is available at https://github.com/valleysprings/EvoSQL.
Jiawei Zhou, Jianwei Wang, Chenyu Zhou et al.· 0 citations
LLMs increasingly generate workflow actions and repairs that may be well formed yet stale, infeasible, conflicting, or destructive of their own evidence. We introduce Agentic Transaction Processing (ATP), which treats generated actions as untrusted proposals until deterministic admission accepts them under an executable constraint set C. Its two-sided principle is: a proposal is not truth, and no proposal foresees every disruption. Anything may propose, but only the runtime admits and commits; unforeseen disruptions trigger bounded reactive repair whose output re-enters admission. Mnemosyne realizes ATP with an append-only transition log, effective-state projection, dependency-safe compensation, and active contract records. Under stated assumptions and relative to C, we prove four safety properties (authority separation, serial-equivalent generative admission, evidence-preserving repair, and obligation containment) and establish bounded reactive repair. Across nine safety benchmarks and a four-case Temporal SDK comparison, ATP rejects every targeted violation while admitting valid work. A matched data-size sweep measures 5.2-6.6% incremental throughput cost over the same local durable commit path and exposes local saturation. In a companion scheduling harness, local repair edits nearly an order of magnitude fewer operations than global recompute; a 12-scenario interruption stress test rejects every stale recovery candidate without losing observations or producing invalid commits. Two bounded pilots route 80 proposals from four heterogeneous LLMs through the same gate with zero invalid commits; 24 of 40 mid-execution proposals are admitted and 16 are rejected, including four explicit safety rejections.
Composition is a high-level visual intent that governs where subjects are placed and how a scene is organized, yet current unified multimodal models remain unreliable at fine-grained composition recognition and struggle to turn such intent into controllable generation. We present COMPASS, the first unified multimodal framework that grounds composition-intent control in a single system spanning both composition perception and composition-guided generation, with a shared expert token $\tau_c$ as the central intent anchor. On the perception side, COMPASS injects composition expertise into an MoE backbone in a minimally invasive manner and distills the inferred intent into $\tau_c$. On the generation side, COMPASS reuses $\tau_c$ as a global conditioning signal that steers the denoising trajectory, effectively converting passive composition analysis into explicit layout control. To support systematic instruction-following composition learning and evaluation at scale, we construct Comp-11, a large-scale dataset with an 11-class taxonomy and reasoning-augmented annotations. Extensive experiments show that COMPASS substantially improves category-level composition understanding and delivers more composition-consistent, prompt-faithful generation than strong baselines.
Ziqi Zhou, Weize Quan, Mining Tan et al.· 0 citations
Agentic AI systems powered by large language models (LLMs) are rapidly evolving into autonomous decision-making systems, exposing attack vectors beyond those of traditional LLM vulnerabilities. Existing security evaluations are often tied to specific implementations or domains, limiting unified comparison across heterogeneous systems. To address this gap, we introduce RIFT-Bench, a representation-driven methodology for dynamic red-teaming that enables unified evaluations across diverse agentic architectures. Building on a novel hierarchical representation, RIFT-Bench operates in two automated phases: Discovery, which extracts system structure, and Scanning, which executes adaptive adversarial attacks. It directly evaluates the examined system using 105 adaptive adversarial probes spanning diverse attack vectors and objectives. We demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed evaluation pipeline across 45 agentic systems spanning a diverse range of implementations, showing that the approach generalizes effectively to heterogeneous agentic architectures. Beyond systems and attacks, RIFT-Bench also supports direct evaluation of mitigation strategies. These key capabilities make RIFT-Bench a scalable foundation for security evaluation of agentic AI systems in practice. Infrastructure code and benchmark artifacts are available at https://tinyurl.com/RIFTBench.
Yarin Yerushalmi Levi, Roy Betser, Amit Giloni et al.· 0 citations
Open-ended deep research (OEDR) requires systems to acquire knowledge through multi-round retrieval and generate coherent long-form reports. The outline plays a central role as a structural scaffold that coordinates retrieval, evidence organization, and generation. However, existing methods either fix the outline before writing or refine it with local heuristics, leading to scaffold drift under continuous information accumulation and delayed feedback for evaluating outline modifications. We propose ScaffoldAgent, a utility-guided dynamic outline optimization framework for OEDR. ScaffoldAgent models outline evolution as a structured decision process with three operations: Expansion, Contraction, and Revision, enabling controlled updates to the report scaffold. It further introduces a utility-guided feedback mechanism that estimates the downstream value of each outline operation from retrieval gain, structural coherence, and trial-generation quality. The resulting utility signal guides node selection, operation scheduling, and termination during inference. Experiments on DeepResearch Bench and DeepResearch Gym show that ScaffoldAgent consistently improves long-form report generation and factual grounding over existing deep research agents.
Zhibang Yang, Xinke Jiang, Yuzhen Xiao et al.· 0 citations
