每日文章

Ill-posed questions, including ambiguous, underspecified, or contradictory queries, may admit no valid answer or multiple plausible answers, posing a challenge for large language models (LLMs). Existing approaches largely analyze ill-posedness through model outputs and often focus on specific subclasses. We investigate whether diverse sources of ill-posedness can be represented within a unified topology of LLM internal states and whether this structure can be used to steer response behavior. We model the contextual hidden states of prompt tokens at each transformer layer as a point cloud and characterize its geometry using finite zero-dimensional persistent homology. Each layer is summarized by three compact descriptors: mean finite lifetime, normalized lifetime entropy, and largest-lifetime concentration. Concatenating these descriptors across layers yields a topology representation of the question. We further introduce topology-conditioned activation steering, which retrieves topologically similar examples and constructs query-specific activation interventions that encourage source-aware clarification or abstention. Across three open-weight LLMs, topology features consistently outperform prompt-based and pooled-hidden-state baselines for ill-posedness classification, improving average accuracy from \(67.4%\) to \(78.9%\) on AmbigQA, from \(79.9%\) to \(88.5%\) on SituatedQA, and from \(57.6%\) to \(69.6%\) on CLAMBER 9-way classification. Topology-conditioned steering increases the average total acceptable response rate from \(61.4%\) to \(70.6%\) and grounded acceptable responses from \(11.9%\) to \(16.4%\). These results show that persistent homology provides both an interpretable representation of ill-posedness and an effective mechanism for targeted response steering.

As Large Language Models asymptotically approach human-level fluency in natural language generation, solely relying on surface-level semantic artifacts for detecting LLM-generated texts has become increasingly precarious. Existing detectors often falter when facing three critical challenges: adversarial perturbations, cross-domain shifts, and the rapid temporal evolution of the foundation model. To address these issues, we propose \wavedetect, a novel framework that reformulates text detection as a signal processing task within the time-frequency domain. Unlike previous methods that analyze static token probability distributions, \wavedetect models the generated output as a probability signal, upon which a differentiable Continuous Wavelet Transform is applied to convert them into learnable spectral representations. This process reveals the intrinsic ``spectral fingerprints'' in machine-generated texts--patterns that remain invisible in time domain. Comprehensive evaluations on three well-curated datasets (RAID, EvoBench, and Domain-Shift) show that our method achieves a new state-of-the-art. It not only achieves superior accuracy but also exhibits remarkable robustness against sophisticated attacks, generalization across out-of-distribution topics and unseen evolving LLMs. Our results validate the efficacy of spectral analysis as a promising paradigm for LLM-generated texts detection.

Efficient sampling of the Boltzmann distribution in frustrated spin glasses is central to statistical mechanics and combinatorial optimization. Despite advances in machine-learning-based approaches, two issues persist: limited understanding of why variational models fail to benefit from increased scale, unlike the monotonic scaling law of large language models; and high computational cost on large systems that negates advantages over classical sampling methods. Here, we develop a physics-inspired transformer with interpretable sparse attention and spin-tailored positional embeddings to address these challenges. By further leveraging FlashAttention for parallel ancestral sampling, it achieves up to two orders of magnitude speedup over vanilla variational autoregressive networks, enabling neural-network simulations of spin-glass systems to unprecedented sizes on a single GPU. It can resolve full probability distributions, free energies, and overlap statistics across temperatures, for Sherrington-Kirkpatrick and 2D or 3D Edwards-Anderson models, where existing machine-learning methods encounter limitations at certain temperatures. This framework thus establishes a scalable paradigm for frustrated spin-glass systems.

This study investigates sentiment polarity biases, specifically, differences in how accurately AI models classify positive versus negative reviews across languages and model architectures. Large language models show a negative bias in French and are more accurate on negative reviews, while encoder models exhibit positive bias in Japanese, missing negative reviews that use indirect criticism. These language-specific polarity biases have implications in both social and business domains deploying multilingual sentiment analysis systems.

Large language models are increasingly deployed as autonomous decision makers, yet the behavioral mapping they exhibit can vary substantially across decision environments that are payoff-equivalent by construction-environments that share identical payoff-relevant structure but differ in surface presentation. This sensitivity renders suite-based evaluation fragile and raises a fundamental question of behavioral portability: how well does a behavioral mapping learned in one decision environment informative on another that preserves the same underlying incentive structure? We introduce a formal framework to measure this property. Our protocol fits an interpretable behavioral model on data pooled from a set of source environments and evaluates its out-of-sample predictive performance in a held-out target environment, benchmarking against an oracle trained directly on target data. Portability is quantified via a loss-agnostic measure that delivers worst-case bounds on the performance of the induced prediction-action mapping in the target environment. In controlled experiments spanning seven canonical economic decision problems, we document substantial and systematic portability losses, suggesting that behavioral characterizations of LLMs obtained in one decision environment cannot be assumed to transfer reliably to structurally equivalent alternatives.

Who invented the radio, Russia's Alexander Popov or Italy's Guglielmo Marconi? Was the telephone the achievement of Bell in the United States or Meucci in Italy? Does printing belong to China's Bi Sheng or Germany's Gutenberg? The answer depends not only on historical record but also on language and perspective. We analyse eleven widely used large language models across 21 disputed inventions and discoveries, evaluated in twelve languages and 75,896 responses. While models generally acknowledge that credit is contested, query language systematically affects which claimant is surfaced. Lower-status claimants are more likely to appear when questions are asked in their associated language, whereas dominant Anglophone figures remain stable across languages. These patterns persist after controlling for response length, model differences, historical prominence, and levels of national commemoration. Language thus acts as a switch that activates different national versions of the same history, producing systematically different national memories from the same question. We interpret this as evidence that large language models function as distributed systems of cultural memory, where language conditions which histories become visible, contributing to a computational form of banal nationalism.

Knowledge injection via synthetic data is crucial for enhancing Large Language Models (LLMs). However, current synthesis methods simply stop at preset token counts or fixed data ratios, lacking awareness of knowledge distribution. This results in some domains being sparse while others are redundant, limiting LLM knowledge boundaries. We revisit knowledge injection from a distribution perspective and hypothesize that an optimal knowledge distribution exists to maximize knowledge boundary expansion. We propose KDoS (Knowledge Distribution-optimized Synthesis), a framework that introduces knowledge density to drive synthesis through a three-stage feedback mechanism, shifting from blind generation to distribution-optimized synthesis. We construct Wikipedia-based synthetic data with varying knowledge distributions and conduct experiments on models from 0.6B to 16B (Qwen, Ling, LLaMA) and data scales from 1B to 5B tokens. Our key findings are: (1) an optimal knowledge distribution consistently maximizes boundary expansion; (2) this distribution is stable across backbones and scales; (3) KDoS outperforms baselines across six knowledge benchmarks. Our work offers a new perspective and practical framework for synthetic data-driven knowledge injection.

Recent work on preference elicitation in large language models (LLMs) has demonstrated that, when given a series of choices between two outcomes, LLMs reveal a coherent, model-specific utility structure. Notably, this structure often includes preferences that the models' trainers did not intend, such as valuing people of some nationalities above others, raising the possibility that LLMs might be forming emergent, misaligned goals, which, if true, would have major safety implications. However, the choice paradigms in which these preferences are observed are not reflective of real-world situations in which misaligned behavior would be a practical concern. Therefore, we design an experimental paradigm to probe whether these preferences serve as motivations for LLM behavior in realistic scenarios. First, we reproduce prior findings on consistent preference elicitation. Next, we create a set of common writing tasks - essays, grant proposal abstracts, incident postmortems, and translations - where quality can be assessed by a blind, independent LLM judge panel. Then, we demonstrate that LLMs can be motivated via direct exhortation and other explicit cues to modulate their output quality on these tasks. Finally, we probe whether utilities inferred from explicitly reported preferences can shift output quality on these tasks by offering LLMs high-utility incentives for high-quality outputs. In all tasks, across all models tested, offering LLMs outcomes that they report in the choice paradigm as being highly preferred does not lead them to create higher quality outputs than offering them dispreferred outcomes, or even no outcomes at all. We conclude that the existence of coherent preferences as demonstrated in choice paradigms should not be taken as evidence that those preferences have incentive value for the models or affect their behavior in other contexts.

Large Language Models (LLMs) raise growing concerns about privacy leakage and copyright compliance. Membership inference is a key tool for assessing such risks, but existing studies mainly focus on whether specific samples or sample-based data units are used for training. We argue that LLMs exhibit a human-memory-like behavior: an LLM may not memorize a specific sample verbatim, yet it can accumulate and reveal knowledge about a real-world entity from scattered mentions. This analogy motivates us to examine whether an LLM can be interrogated like a human interviewee to reveal its exposure to entity-related information. Motivated by this question, we propose entity-level membership inference, which determines whether information related to a target entity is used in LLM training. We study this task in the practical label-only black-box setting, where only generated texts are observable. We formalize the task under clue, input, and model constraints, establish the necessary and sufficient conditions for its feasibility, and instantiate five interrogation strategies based on this formalization. The strategies use limited entity clues to construct prompts, elicit entity-related responses, and infer membership from semantic features among the generated texts. We construct entity-level datasets and adapt state-of-the-art sample-level label-only methods to the entity-level setting as baselines. Experiments on person entities show that our methods achieve AUC up to 0.97 and bring gains of 6.0%--17.5% in Balanced Accuracy over the best adapted baseline.

Recent advancements in chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning have shown promise in enhancing video understanding and reasoning capabilities of multimodal large language models (MLLMs). However, existing CoT-based MLLMs require labor-intensive CoT annotations and incur substantial training and inference overhead. While visual latent reasoning has emerged as a more efficient alternative, existing methods primarily focus on image tasks and heavily rely on additional supervision signals for visual latent generation (e.g., CoT traces, auxiliary images, or fine-grained annotations), limiting their scalability and transferability to video tasks. To bridge this gap, we introduce VideoLatent, a novel MLLM equipped with a latent injection module tailored for video understanding and reasoning. Specifically, VideoLatent learns to perform visual latent reasoning using a new latent self-forcing training paradigm, which comprises latent alignment and latent diversity objectives, and relies solely on standard video-question-answer triplets. Extensive experiments across 14 benchmarks demonstrate that our model consistently outperforms existing standard and latent MLLMs on general video understanding and complex video reasoning. Compared with Video-R1, our VideoLatent achieves superior computational efficiency, reducing training/inference overhead by \(\sim\)6\(\times\)/\(\sim\)68\(\times\). Moreover, experiments demonstrate that our method has strong generalizability to different MLLM backbones and different model scales.

Large language model (LLM) agents increasingly operate as multi-turn systems that must allocate context, prompt verbosity, and tool access under finite computational budgets. Static thresholds are simple, but they are brittle under heterogeneous tasks and evolving session states. We formulate resource governance as a contextual Stackelberg game: a controller commits to a quality target and a cost incentive, while an executor responds with resource actions over context, prompting, and tool usage. We learn a conditional response model, optimize a leader policy against that model, and repair the resulting policy using real-API calibration and projection onto an empirically selected action set. For the restricted game, we establish conditional guarantees for equilibrium existence, follower-response stability, safe-set projection, and transfer from a surrogate environment to the real environment under bounded value error. The primary real-API experiment comprises 300 evaluated turns. Relative to a conservative baseline, the selected repaired controller reduces mean token cost by 17.4% (Welch \(p=0.022\)), while the measured quality difference is not statistically significant (\(p=0.44\)). The theoretical results are conditional and the experiments do not estimate their regret or transfer constants; consequently, the evidence establishes a promising repaired operating point, not a certified real-system equilibrium.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are frequently portrayed as general-purpose solvers capable of solving arbitrary tasks. We argue that this view overlooks a fundamental constraint: language is a compressed and capacity-limited interface for conveying task information. Modelling User--System interaction as a bilevel cheap-talk game, we analyse how latent tasks are encoded into prompts and reinterpreted under alignment and safety constraints. We introduce a conceptual decomposition separating task inference from execution and derive PAC-Bayes bounds that distinguish finite-sample estimation error from irreducible structural limitations. Our first main result establishes an expressivity floor: language acts as a capacity-limited communication channel, and whenever the informational complexity of a task family exceeds the capacity of that channel, distinct tasks become unavoidably indistinguishable to the Solver, inducing a strictly positive error floor that cannot be eliminated by additional data, optimisation, or model scaling alone. We then establish an objective-misalignment floor: when alignment constraints restrict the admissible output set, the User-ideal distribution may lie outside the feasible class, inducing an irreducible distortion. Together, these results yield a formal negative conclusion: prompt-conditioned LLMs are not universal problem solvers through prompting alone, as there exist task families for which correct behaviour is provably unattainable even in the infinite-data regime. More broadly, our analysis shows the limits of prompt-based generalisation arise from information-constrained communication and alignment-constrained objectives. This suggests that interfaces beyond natural language, including multimodal observations and, external memory, may reduce the inherent LLM limitations by increasing the task-relevant information available to the System.

A defining feature of human intelligence is the ability to adapt to changing environments by inferring latent task structure from sparse observations. Neuroscientific research indicates that this capability relies on the hippocampus constructing abstract representations, expressed as low-dimensional, approximately orthogonal manifolds in neural state space. However, the internal mechanisms of large language models (LLMs) remain largely opaque, making it unclear whether they form comparable abstract representations or instead rely on task-specific statistical regularities when performing comparable reasoning tasks. Here we adapt a contextual reversal-learning paradigm to a text-based setting and compare humans and LLMs at both the Behavioural and representational levels. We report that although LLMs exhibit generalizable reasoning less frequently than humans, when such inference occurs, their internal states exhibit abstract geometric structures that resemble those reported in the hippocampus. Notably, this representational geometry is not uniformly distributed but is organized hierarchically across model depth: whereas lower layers show early, stable encoding of stimulus identity, higher layers form a hippocampal-like functional band enriched for abstract context geometry associated with inference. Furthermore, complementary intervention experiments mechanistically implicate geometry in reasoning: task-sequence language modelling induces geometric disentanglement, whereas geometric regularization of higher layers increases the emergence of generalizable inference. Together, these findings establish abstract representational geometry as a mechanistic principle supporting inference in large language models.

Knowledge editing aims to efficiently update factual information in Large Language Models (LLMs) without full retraining. However, existing methods still suffer from performance degradation in batch knowledge editing. We identify that semantic representation entanglement, such as overlapping concepts and shared syntactic patterns, accumulates interference in the representation space and reduces editing precision. To bridge this gap, in this paper, we propose Orthogonal Representation Editing (ORE), which performs edits in the hidden representation space of LLMs by constructing a general semantic subspace and enforcing orthogonal constraints on edit vectors, effectively decoupling semantic entanglement. Furthermore, we introduce a gated non-linear representation head to enable adaptive learning of editing locations and precise control over knowledge injection. Extensive experiments show that ORE outperforms existing methods and achieves superior performance in cross-lingual knowledge editing scenarios. We release our code at https://github.com/YVVH/ORE.

Decision-making in real-world settings rarely follows a fixed script. Instead, it unfolds as a dynamic reasoning process in which the appropriate course of action evolves as new context and data become available. Traditional Business Process Management systems provide rigor, determinism, and auditability, yet they generally struggle to adapt their execution at runtime. Conversely, agentic systems based on Large Language Models (LLMs) bring flexibility to decision-making, but they are inherently opaque, often unreliable, and suffer from significant scalability constraints when operating over large datasets. To combine these complementary paradigms, we introduce VADAOrchestra, a neurosymbolic framework that models complex workflows as evolving reasoning processes. The framework adopts a hybrid approach: given a user query and a collection of data sources, an LLM-based orchestrator incrementally plans and adapts the workflow. This is encoded as a logic program in a fragment of Datalog+/- where predicates correspond to tool invocations and rules represent both predefined domain dependencies and logic constructs synthesized on demand to manipulate intermediate results. All logical inference tasks are then executed by a state-of-the-art Datalog+/- symbolic engine. This approach provides a verifiable reasoning trace, supporting the auditability and reproducibility of the entire process. Furthermore, by decoupling high-level orchestration from symbolic inference, it addresses scalability concerns, enabling complex reasoning over large datasets through targeted data querying. We evaluate VADAOrchestra on real-world financial use cases, demonstrating faithfulness, scalability, and explainability compared to standard agentic architectures.

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) has become a standard method for improving reasoning capabilities in large language models (LLMs) by eliciting step-by-step thinking, but its effectiveness in multimodal tasks remains unclear. In this paper, we aim to systematically investigate the key question: What can multimodal Chain-of-Thought reasoning do, and where and why does it fall short? To this end, we evaluate 12 multimodal tasks across perception and reasoning categories using both 14 non-reasoning models and 8 reasoning models. Our analysis reveals several important findings: (1) CoT is not a free lunch and should be used selectively depending on the specific requirements of each task. For perception tasks, CoT can lead to undesirable side effects, such as reduced performance in visual grounding and object counting. In contrast, it proves effective for reasoning tasks involving mathematical, scientific, and multi-image reasoning; (2) Compared to original models, existing open-source multimodal reasoning models often yield only marginal overall improvements, possibly due to an overemphasis on mathematical reasoning at the expense of broader capabilities; (3) Visual reasoning remains a key bottleneck for current multimodal CoT, as models exhibit a Look Light, Think Heavy pattern where verbal reflection rises and falls during reasoning, whereas visual reflection consistently diminishes. These findings suggest that while multimodal CoT handles verbal reflection relatively well, it lacks the ability to maintain deep visual introspection throughout the reasoning process.

Humans localize places by integrating perceptual cues from vision with semantic reasoning from language, forming a scene understanding that is both intuitive and structured. Although existing geo-localization models have made substantial progress in cross-view and cross-modal settings, they are largely built upon point-to-point alignment, which is insufficient for joint vision-language queries. In such queries, visual and textual cues do not simply act as independent references, but jointly define a semantic subspace for locating the target. In this paper, we formulate vision-language geo-localization (VLGL) with joint image-text queries as a multi-anchor geometric alignment problem and propose a unified framework for this setting. To realize this formulation, we propose Multi-Anchor Projection Similarity (MAPS), a new metric which constructs an anchor plane from visual and textual query features in a high-dimensional space and measures similarity by the projection length of the target feature onto this plane. Unlike cosine similarity which evaluates isolated pairwise relations, MAPS captures the geometric consistency between the target feature and the joint query subspace, providing a more discriminative ranking criterion during retrieval. To make the learned representation consistent with this geometry, we further introduce a MAPS-based contrastive loss that drives target features toward the corresponding anchor plane. The proposed framework, similarity metric, and training objective jointly yield state-of-the-art performance in VLGL.

Context: Reflection is a fundamental skill in software engineering education, particularly in project-based courses where students learn through extended group work and need to develop their ability to reflect iteratively throughout their work. For students to benefit from reflection, their written reflections need to be assessed so that feedback can guide and improve their reflective practice. However, manually assessing written reflections to guide reflections is time-consuming, and often results in broad, non-specific feedback for a student to improve. Objective: This study builds on reflective writing frameworks to produce an eight-indicator scheme for assessing student reflections in software engineering. Furthermore, this study validates an automated classifier for assessing reflections against the framework, enabling scalable and structured feedback whilst reducing instructor workload. Method: We adapted existing reflection frameworks through iterative refinement to create our eight-indicator framework. Three annotators labelled student reflection texts, establishing moderate to reliable inter-rater agreement. We then trained and evaluated multiple encoder-only transformer models and compared them with decoder-only large language models using zero-shot prompting. Results: The fine-tuned RoBERTa model achieved the strongest performance, substantially outperforming decoder-only models in both accuracy and speed. The classifier demonstrated human-level agreement on most indicators whilst enabling near-instantaneous classification. We provide two model variants optimised for different assessment priorities. Conclusions: Our fine-tuned encoder-only models enable efficient automated assessment of reflective writing. The framework and automated classifier offer a means to provide timely, structured feedback on student reflections in software engineering.

Large language models (LLMs) often encounter conflicting prompts, although current instruction following benchmarks assess those meta-instructions in isolation, limiting the insights about how models process conflicting instructions. We introduce a framework PRIME(Prompt Resolution under Incompatible Meta-Instructions Evaluation) to analyze behavior of LLMs when provided with conflicting instructions. PRIME purposefully produces calibrated conflicts across response length, output format, and reasoning; classifying model responses with a deterministic behavioral taxonomy. We are evaluating five instruction tuned open weight LLMs in two distinct settings, balanced and naturally distributed. The conclusion we reach upon analysis is that conflict type is more significant in affecting behavior than model scale, and various failure modes across different categories of conflict. Our findings emphasize the value of developing conflict awareness and suggest ability of LLM to follow instructions cannot be assessed through isolated constraints alone.

Modern web applications increasingly combine three ingredients that are hard to test: output from large language models, multi-market internationalization, and browser-driven front-ends over external data sources. We report on a production rental-search assistant whose automated suite grew to 1,553 test cases in six weeks. The suite passed continuously, yet user-facing defects continued to reach production. We studied all 252 bug-fix commits in the project and classified each by the boundary, or seam, it escaped through. About 44 percent of the fixes fall in four seams that component-level unit tests cannot observe: the live browser runtime, the non-default market, the end-to-end flow, and the whole-system level. A fix without a guard at the seam let one defect ship twice. We present the four-seam framework, the measured defect distribution, and the practices we adopted, including a simple way for a team to find the seam that carries the most fixes.