paperlist.ai

AI conference papers

AI conference paper library

Search papers from 30+ top conferences, including NeurIPS, ICLR, ICML, CVPR, ACL and AAAI. Filter by keyword, then open any paper for its abstract, authors and links.

arXiv

Personalized Auto-Research: Towards a True AI Co-Scientist

Bo Ni, Franck Dernoncourt, Hongjie Chen, Yu Wang, Nesreen K. Ahmed, Zhengzhong Tu, Tyler Derr, Ryan A. Rossi

AI co-scientists that generate hypotheses, retrieve related work, design experiments, execute code, and draft full papers are beginning to change how research is carried out. Despite this rapid progress, state-of-the-art systems remain researcher-agnostic: given a research goal, they optimize novelty, validity, or reviewer score while ignoring the individual scientist who will use the output. This overlooks a fundamental fact about research, namely, that what counts as novel, valuable, or feasible depends on the researcher, including their prior work, methodological repertoire, and the collaborators and communities in which they are embedded. In this work, we introduce the problem of personalized auto-research, which conditions every stage of the research process on a representation of the individual researcher. We argue that personalization is not a convenience layer, but rather the fundamental property that allows an AI system to serve as a genuine co-scientist rather than a generic instrument. To address this problem, we propose a general and flexible framework that threads a graph-grounded researcher context through retrieval, hypothesis search, experimentation, writing, and review. The framework consists of three fundamental components: (i) graph-grounded researcher representations, (ii) personalization across the full research pipeline, and (iii) evaluation grounded in the individual. Notably, we highlight a one-size-fits-all failure mode where distinct researchers issuing the same goal receive essentially the same research, erasing the tacit knowledge through which novel ideas arise. Finally, we discuss fundamental open problems and challenges.

arXiv

Workspace Topology as an Attack Vector in Agentic Coding Assistants

Alexandre G. R. Day, Pradeep Yadlapalli, Sriram Venkatapathy, Thomas Paniagua, Nick Raines, Sahil Wadhwa, Himanshu Kumar, Andy Luo, Sudeep Panyam, Rikhiya Ghosh, Pranab Mohanty, Giri Iyengar

Agentic coding assistants are finding widespread use, not just in new code development but in quickly ingesting and leveraging third-party code. This opens up a risk of malicious code being ingested as these coding tools operate with broad filesystem access inside developer workspaces. In this paper, we extensively study the impact of different dimensions of a novel attack surface we term workspace topology -- defined via directory depth, codebase modularity, in-file injection position and context framing -- on the attack success rate of adversarial prompt injection attempts. We perform an empirical study of indirect prompt injection (IPI) across a diverse set of open-source repositories spanning 10 languages and 6 engineering domains, evaluating three IPI entry points against open-weight models operating open source code harnesses. We find that workspace topology measurably affects IPI success. Specifically, changes in codebase modularity can significantly alter the Attack Success Rate (ASR), with highly modular environments demonstrating significantly lower attack success rates. Furthermore, context framing and introduction of security-cues in the workspace can also alter the ASR. Our findings offer practical value for the evaluation and security testing of coding agents across diverse settings, while underscoring the importance of an uncontaminated testing environment to obtain reliable results and conclusions.

arXiv

What to Forget in Unlearning? Forget Set Curation for Language Models

Animesh Jha, Arpandeep Khatua, Youssef Allouah, Sanmi Koyejo

Machine unlearning aims to remove targeted data or behaviors from a trained model without retraining from scratch. Yet most evaluations assume that the examples to forget are already known. In realistic language-model deployments, a requester may ask a model to stop reproducing a song or book without knowing which spans, documents, quotations, or near-duplicates in a trillion-token corpus support that behavior. We study this missing upstream problem, forget set curation: mapping a suppression request to the data passed to an unlearning algorithm. We introduce CleanSlate, a benchmark for verbatim output suppression over songs and books, with model-specific extraction profiles, content-grounded QA, and capability-retention evaluations. CleanSlate exposes two failure modes. Natural lexical and exact-substring curators often yield forget sets that lead to weak suppression. An evaluation-aware curator suppresses requested continuations almost completely, but causes collateral regression on non-requested content and model-dependent capability loss. These results show that practical unlearning is not only an optimization problem once a forget set is given: the data chosen for forgetting determines both what can be unlearnt and what else is damaged.

arXiv

Writing Style Similarity Reflects Academic Genealogy

Cameron Manzo

As authorship attribution systems are increasingly deployed to detect ghostwritten and AI-generated papers, their errors can support accusations against legitimate authors. These systems conflate stylistic similarity with individual identity. Researchers, however, study under advisors, and inherit their stylistic quirks. We build a corpus of arXiv authors with $\geq 2$ solo papers from the Mathematics Genealogy Project graph, giving $5{,}803$ total authors and $2{,}501$ ground-truth advisor-student pairings. Using embeddings from a fine-tuned model, advisors sit $39.9\%$ closer in cosine distance to their students than a random same-field author does. Using two open models, we reproduce the effect at $12.6\%$ and $14.5\%$. Academic siblings, two students of one advisor who may never have met, sit $30.4\%$ closer across $8{,}360$ pairs, even when they studied at different institutions. Pairs who share only institution and field show negligible similarity. Given a closed-set attribution task over the same corpus, the system's errors occur on the true author's advisor, student, academic sibling, or lab mate $11$ times more often than chance.

arXiv

The Recall Trap: A Recall-Maximizing Retriever Configuration Reduces Issue Resolution in Fixed-Budget Code Context

Alexander Adkins, Teimuraz Trapaidze

Retrieval components for code assistants are tuned against retrieval metrics: a configuration that raises recall@k is adopted, and downstream task success is assumed to follow. We report a controlled case study in code repair, not a new phenomenon but a deployed-flag, execution-graded instance of the known relevance-diversity and objective-mismatch tradeoff (Levy et al., 2025). On SWE-bench Verified we inject a retriever's hits as a fixed 12-slot context pack with no search tools and toggle one flag (one-chunk-per-file deduplication) on an otherwise identical stack. The flag is the higher-recall configuration (gold file present in 0.878 of served packs against 0.806 disabled), yet disabling it, trading file breadth for within-file depth, raises the single-shot resolve rate: gpt-5.6-sol +7.6pp (39.2% to 46.8%, n=500, McNemar exact p=0.0003), and a pre-registered open-weights replication any reviewer can re-run (Qwen3.6-27B, +3.6pp, n=499, p=0.0133); both survive repository-clustered inference. The gain tracks within-file anchor dose, and a random-chunk control refutes an argmax-selection artifact. We map where it holds: it reverses on a lexical BM25 retriever (-3.2pp, significant cross-paradigm interaction), is not detected under unrestricted-Read agents (a powered null), and across four languages (SWE-PolyBench, N=617) is positive but not significant (+2.6pp, p=0.056), a mapped boundary rather than a confirmed extension. Operationally, at a tight fixed budget: do not hard-deduplicate by file, and A/B packing policies against the task, not the metric the flag was tuned to.

arXiv

MINT: Min-Selection Preference Distillation for Balanced Multi-Objective Alignment

Tony Tu, Sayan Chakraborty, Ruomeng Xu, Tony Qin, Austin Tian

Aligning a language agent to several objectives at once is a persistent failure mode of preference-based training: when objectives are combined additively, optimization collapses onto whichever is cheapest to improve and sacrifices the rest, so a support agent learns to sound warm while giving no real help. The root issue is that an additive reward has no notion of balance. We introduce Mint (MIN-selection preference disTillation), a one-line change to preference distillation: rather than ranking sampled candidates by a weighted sum of rewards, we rank them by their weakest objective, distilling the best-balanced candidate over the most lopsided one with an unchanged DPO objective. This is the p -> negative infinity limit of a generalized-mean family spanning additive to worst-case selection. Across cooperative emotional support and adversarial negotiation, min-selection lifts both objectives while sharply cutting their imbalance; on emotional support it raises the weaker axis from 0.37 to 0.64 (p < 10^-40), surpassing human experts and persisting across full multi-turn rollouts. A turn-by-turn analysis yields our central finding: min-selection corrects imbalance in proportion to how imbalanced the reference policy is, and its benefit endures over an interaction precisely as long as that imbalance does.

arXiv

Beyond the pale: Assessing prevalence and contents of extremist speech in LLM training data

Dmitry Nikolaev, Ashley A. Mattheis

Despite a strong interest on the part of the research community in the topic of trustworthy and safe AI, the composition of the text corpora that large language models (LLMs) encounter in pre- and post-training has not yet drawn much attention. In this work, we address the question of whether LLMs are exposed to unfiltered, uncontextualised extremist speech. Using several definitions of extremist speech, stemming from official documents and research literature, and an extraction pipeline combining automated text processing with expert verification, we provide a lower bound on the prevalence of extremist documents in Dolma, an open training corpus underpinning the OLMo series of models. We show that Dolma is likely to include hundreds of thousands of documents containing extremist content and hate speech of several types, including direct calls for violence, and discuss the implications of this for data curation and model pre-training.

arXiv

Do LLMs Know What to Ask and When? Evaluating Multi-Turn Information Seeking

Yepeng Huang, Jiawen Zhang, Michelle Dai, Xiaorui Su, Shanghua Gao, Zi Wang, Marinka Zitnik

When a user question is underspecified, a capable model should recognize that its context is insufficient, identify the missing information, ask for it, and respond only once that information determines a unique answer. We formalize multi-turn information seeking as solving a k-underspecified constraint satisfaction problem, where k is the number of variables jointly required to determine the target and therefore measures the degree of missing information. We instantiate the formulation in MT-InfoSeek, a controlled evaluation suite of 5,251 problems and 9,006 task instances spanning mathematics, logic, biology, medicine, and general knowledge. We evaluate models along three axes: what they ask, when they ask it, and how the acquired information affects the final answer. Performance degrades across models and domains as underspecification increases. Models recognize that additional information is needed but underestimate how much, and in logical problems at k = 2 they under-predict the degree of missing information about four times as often as they over-predict it. They also fail to identify a minimal sufficient set of queries, improve only marginally when given the true k, and often stop before acquiring sufficient information. In tasks with ordered dependencies, an incorrect query order reduces final accuracy even when the model eventually acquires all necessary information. We measure information seeking directly through final sufficiency, which records whether the acquired information determines the target independent of answer generation. This separation shows differences between models that final accuracy alone does not capture, and indicates that the ability to seek information over multiple turns is distinct from the ability to generate answers and is not measured by current LLM evaluations.

arXiv

Beyond Tokens: A Survey on Decoding Methods for Large Language and Vision-Language Models

Haoran Wang, Xiongxiao Xu, Philip S. Yu, Kai Shu

Large language models (LLMs) and large vision-language models (LVLMs) have demonstrated impressive generative capabilities, yet ensuring their outputs align with user intent is still challenging. While most existing approaches address this issue at the training stage, inference-time approaches like decoding methods offer a more efficient and scalable solution. Decoding methods control model generation by guiding token-level selection, performing sequence-level generation, or generating tokens in parallel to accelerate the process. In this survey, we identify three emerging paradigms from recent works on decoding methods for LLMs and LVLMs, provide a systematic review of these methods, highlight ongoing challenges, and discuss potential future research directions. Our goal is to underscore the efficiency and effectiveness of decoding methods and offer a practical view of their applications. Paper lists and more resources on decoding methods for LLMs and LVLMs can be found at https://github.com/wang2226/Awesome-LLM-Decoding.

arXiv

Prompting is not enough: supervised baselines and leakage control for measuring shared decision-making with LLMs in pediatric encounters

Bernardo Modenesi, Jody Lin, Kimberly Kaphingst, Angela Zhu, Maya Wheeler, Peilu Zhang, Angela Fagerlin

Objectives: To determine whether zero-shot prompting of a large language model (LLM) is sufficient to detect shared decision-making (SDM) behaviors in real clinical encounters, and whether supervised learning adds value under patient-grouped, nested evaluation. Methods: We analyzed 21 audio-recorded outpatient surgical decision encounters (19 unique patients; 7,566 utterance segments; ~6.1 hours) between families of children with multiple long-term conditions and their surgical providers. Trained coders labeled segments for 12 SDM behaviors (human-human macro Cohen's kappa = 0.695). We compared a zero-shot local LLM (Qwen 2.5 32B), a supervised classifier over frozen sentence embeddings, and their logistic stack, under patient-grouped outer folds with inner cross-fitted thresholds and patient-resampled confidence intervals. Results: The zero-shot LLM reached macro kappa = 0.139 (95% CI 0.111-0.164). The supervised classifier reached kappa = 0.227 (0.186-0.262), a paired improvement of 0.088 (0.051-0.119). A logistic stack of the two reached kappa = 0.242 (0.198-0.284). We identified multiple corpus-specific leakage paths, including grouping sibling recordings separately and allowing labels from an outer held-out patient to enter few-shot exemplars used while fitting downstream models. Conclusion: Zero-shot prompting alone is not sufficient to measure SDM behavior as reliably as a small supervised model, and patient-level grouping alone does not prevent leakage when labeled prompt exemplars are precomputed outside the outer evaluation loop. Reported performance is sensitive to the unit of data splitting and to where labeled exemplars enter the pipeline. External validation is needed before these findings generalize beyond this population, model, prompt, and codebook.

arXiv

From Positionwise Confidence to Prefix Scheduling: Verifier Skipping in Speculative Decoding

Haoxuan Luo, Jameson Sandler, Ferdinando Fioretto

Speculative decoding is a leading technique to reduce the cost of autoregressive generation by using a small drafter to propose several tokens, which are then verified in parallel by a larger target model. Speculative diffusion decoding (SDD) further removes sequential drafting by generating every position in a draft block in parallel with a discrete diffusion model. However, SDD still invokes the target on every block, leaving verification as a potential bottleneck. This paper recognizes that this creates a new control handle: whether to invoke the verifier at all. Thus, we study verifier skipping, a lossy policy that commits a selected draft prefix directly, and ask which confidence signal should schedule it. Interestingly, our study finds that better token predictors need not yield better schedulers: skips require contiguous high-confidence prefixes, while short skips can induce additional drafting rounds. To study this mismatch, we compare raw confidence with learned marginal and conditional survival scores under the same policy, using Strict SDD, lenience, and top-$k$ acceptance as baselines. On HumanEval with DiffuCoder-7B-Instruct and Qwen3-32B, all three confidence signals save $9.6\%$ to $13.5\%$ of verifier calls at the same observed pass@1 as Strict SDD. Surprisingly, raw confidence saves the most; marginal survival has higher positionwise AUROC than raw confidence at most positions, yet neither learned signal dominates online. Our analysis shows that verifier skipping is a useful new lossy axis and, surprisingly, its key challenge is prefix scheduling rather than token prediction alone.

arXiv

From Errors to Proofs: Minimal-Core-Guided Repair for Neuro-Symbolic Constraint Solving

Dipankar Sarkar

Making language models solve constraint problems reliably often means having them translate the problem into a formal specification and delegating the search to a sound solver. But the translation is itself a language-model task, and an unfaithful translation makes the solver faithfully solve the wrong problem. Existing pipelines repair only translations that crash, returning the solver's error message and falling silent when the program runs but is wrong. We replace the error message with a proof: when the generated program is unsatisfiable, we extract a minimal unsatisfiable core over the model's own constraints and hand it back the exact set that cannot hold together, a leakage-free signal that localizes the fault. On a new benchmark of 77 problems with an exact oracle, translation to Answer Set Programming is faithful on six of seven domains and fails only on aggregate coverage scheduling, which concentrates the translation tax in one diagnosable pattern. A minimal core, rather than a bare error, is what stops a weaker model from fabricating solutions to infeasible problems, cutting fabrication from 79% to 7%. A strong chain-of-thought baseline meanwhile matches the symbolic route on accuracy, so the route's value is not accuracy but certificates and its refusal to fabricate.

arXiv

NARRATE: A Multimodal Real-World Australian Driving Dataset for Human-Centred Explanations in Automated Driving

Ashkan Yousefi Zadeh, Zishuo Zhu, Xiaomeng Li, Andry Rakotonirainy, Sebastien Glaser, Ronald Schroeter, Patricia Delhomme, Zahra Mehraban

Automated vehicles must explain their decisions in ways that passengers can understand, monitor, and trust. Existing language-annotated driving datasets are mostly observer-written, post-hoc, simulation-based, or generated from sensor inputs, rather than elicited from the driver performing the action. We introduce NARRATE, a multimodal real-world Australian driving dataset comprising 2,050 annotated events from 35 experienced drivers and driving instructors on public roads. Each event is grounded in synchronised visual, localisation, motion, and LiDAR streams and paired with in-vehicle and/or post-drive free-text explanations. NARRATE provides action labels, scenario-context labels spanning six high-level and 32 fine-grained categories, and span-level Situational Awareness (SA) annotations over driver explanations for Perception, Comprehension and Projection. Four benchmark tasks (SA, scenario-context, driver-action classification, and explanation generation) show that this structure is learnable from driver language, while fine-grained context recognition and explanation generation remain challenging. NARRATE paves a path towards more human-centred and domain-aware explanation models for automated driving.

arXiv

Discovering Conceptual Metaphors Across Topics and Media Types

Alexandria Leto, Rohan Das, Juan Vásquez, Abram Handler, Maria Leonor Pacheco

Conceptual metaphors guide our thinking and actions by allowing us to reason about more abstract experiences (e.g., paying taxes) in terms of more concrete or embodied experiences (e.g., carrying a physical load) (Lakoff and Johnson, 2011). It follows that different conceptual metaphors can result in different reasoning: framing paying taxes as an investment in a community rather than a physical load leads to a very different outlook on taxation. Identifying the conceptual metaphors guiding a speaker or writer thus helps to reveal their framing of events. Though these metaphors can't be observed directly, groups of linguistic metaphors, metaphorical expressions as they appear in language, serve as evidence for them. Motivated by this, we present an unsupervised method that extracts linguistic metaphors from a corpus and uses a structured clustering approach to form groups corresponding to conceptual metaphors. Using this method, we point to key topical and framing differences in left- vs. right-leaning podcasts. For example, left-leaning podcasts tend to conceptualize media stories as a weapon, while right-leaning sources commonly discuss the economy as a system subject to vertical changes.

arXiv

Efficient Safety Alignment of Language Models via Latent Personality Traits

Mohamed Amine Merzouk, Nolan Smyth, Damiano Fornasiere, Linh Le, David Williams-King, Adam Oberman

Current safety methods for large language models are known to be vulnerable to adversarial attacks, motivating research into robust alternatives. Latent Adversarial Training (LAT) is among the most effective defenses, but can degrade utility and requires training on large datasets of harmful prompts. We introduce Latent Personality Alignment (LPA), which replaces explicit harm refusal with adversarial training on just 66 harm-agnostic statements drawn from psychometric personality literature. We hypothesize that personality-anchored representations share latent structure with harm avoidance, so adversarially stabilizing them implicitly constrains the subspace exploited by jailbreak attacks. LPA achieves near-zero attack success rates on HarmBench across direct requests and five jailbreak methods, despite never seeing harmful content during training and no loss of performance on standard benchmarks. Moreover, the training process is lightweight; the entire procedure completes in minutes on a single GPU and uses 75x fewer examples than standard LAT. Extensive ablations demonstrate the robustness, efficiency, and generalization of our method.

arXiv

I-CALM: Incentivizing Confidence-Aware Abstention for LLM Selective Answering

Haotian Zong, Binze Li, Yufei Long, Sinyin Chang, Jialong Wu, Gillian K Hadfield

Large language models (LLMs) often produce confident but incorrect answers, in part because standard evaluation incentives reward guessing over expressing uncertainty. We study epistemic abstention for factual questions with verifiable answers, where the goal is to improve selective answering, making LLMs abstain when they are likely to be wrong while preserving correct answers. Inspired by human behavioral decisions in question answering, we introduce I-CALM, a prompt-level framework for black-box LLMs. I-CALM combines elicited verbal confidence, announced answer/abstain payoffs, and normative guidance emphasizing truthfulness, humility, evidential support, and responsibility. To distinguish targeted abstention from indiscriminate refusal, we use a two-stage evaluation protocol, in which LLMs first choose whether to answer or abstain, and are then forced to provide a best guess for the abstained ones. Across models and factual QA datasets, I-CALM improves selective answering by reducing false-answer rate among surfaced responses and improving abstention quality, shifting error-prone cases into abstention while retaining answers the model would have answered correctly. Overall, I-CALM offers a lightweight way to improve inference-time selective answering without retraining or access to model's internal states. Code is available at https://github.com/FayLONG03/hallucinationControl.

arXiv

Reasoning-Based Personalized Generation for Users with Sparse Data

Bo Ni, Branislav Kveton, Samyadeep Basu, Subhojyoti Mukherjee, Leyao Wang, Franck Dernoncourt, Sungchul Kim, Seunghyun Yoon, Zichao Wang, Ruiyi Zhang, Puneet Mathur, Jihyung Kil, Jiuxiang Gu, Nedim Lipka, Yu Wang, Ryan A. Rossi, Tyler Derr

Large Language Model (LLM) personalization holds great promise for tailoring responses by leveraging personal context and history. However, real-world users usually possess sparse interaction histories with limited personal context, such as cold-start users in social platforms and newly registered customers in online E-commerce platforms, compromising the LLM-based personalized generation. To address this challenge, we introduce GraSPer (Graph-based Sparse Personalized Reasoning), a novel framework for enhancing personalized text generation under sparse context. GraSPer first augments user context by predicting items that the user would likely interact with in the future. With reasoning alignment, it then generates texts for these interactions to enrich the augmented context. In the end, it generates personalized outputs conditioned on both the real and synthetic histories, ensuring alignment with user style and preferences. Extensive experiments on three benchmark personalized generation datasets show that GraSPer achieves significant performance gain, substantially improving personalization in sparse user context settings.

arXiv

Agentic Test-Time Scaling for WebAgents

Nicholas Lee, Lutfi Eren Erdogan, Chris Joseph John, Surya Krishnapillai, Michael W. Mahoney, Kurt Keutzer, Amir Gholami

Test-time scaling has become a standard way to improve performance and boost reliability of neural network models. However, its behavior on agentic, multi-step tasks remains less well-understood: small per-step errors can compound over long horizons; and we find that naive policies that uniformly increase sampling show diminishing returns. In this work, we present CATTS, a simple technique for dynamically allocating compute for multi-step agents. We first conduct an empirical study of inference-time scaling for web agents. We find that uniformly increasing per-step compute quickly saturates in long-horizon environments. We then investigate stronger aggregation strategies, including an LLM-based Arbiter that can outperform naive voting, but that can overrule high-consensus decisions. We show that uncertainty statistics derived from the agent's own vote distribution (entropy and top-1/top-2 margin) correlate with downstream success and provide a practical signal for dynamic compute allocation. Based on these findings, we introduce Confidence-Aware Test-Time Scaling (CATTS), which uses vote-derived uncertainty to allocate compute only when decisions are genuinely contentious. CATTS improves performance on WebArena-Lite, Online-Mind2Web, and GoBrowse by up to 11.8% over majority voting while using fewer tokens than uniform scaling, providing both efficiency gains and an interpretable decision rule.

arXiv

LlamaRec-LKG-RAG: A Single-Pass, Learnable Knowledge Graph-RAG Framework for LLM-Based Ranking

Vahid Azizi, Fatemeh Koochaki

Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have driven their adoption in recommender systems through Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) frameworks. However, existing RAG approaches predominantly rely on flat, similarity-based retrieval that fails to leverage the rich relational structure inherent in user-item interactions. We introduce LlamaRec-LKG-RAG, a novel single-pass, end-to-end trainable framework that integrates personalized knowledge graph context into LLM-based recommendation ranking. Our approach extends the LlamaRec architecture by incorporating a lightweight user preference module that identifies salient relation paths within a heterogeneous knowledge graph constructed from user behavior and item metadata. These personalized subgraphs are seamlessly integrated into prompts for a fine-tuned Llama-2 model, enabling efficient and interpretable recommendations through a unified inference step. Comprehensive experiments on ML-100K and Amazon Beauty datasets demonstrate consistent improvements over LlamaRec across key ranking metrics (MRR, NDCG, Recall). LlamaRec-LKG-RAG demonstrates the critical value of structured reasoning in LLM-based recommendations and establishes a foundation for scalable, knowledge-aware personalization in next-generation recommender systems. Code is available at~\href{https://github.com/VahidAz/LlamaRec-LKG-RAG}{repository}.

arXiv

Split the Labor: Separating Evidence Interpretation from Decision Aggregation

Zhelun Wu

Systems that ask a language model to reach a conclusion from many sources usually concatenate them into one prompt. This conflates two operations with different requirements. Interpreting a source rewards capacity and context. Combining interpretations rewards fixed arithmetic, comparability across instances, and the option to return nothing. Once separated, the design problem becomes the interface between them. We propose a four-field evidence tuple (hypothesis, reliability bucket, rationale, provenance) and show that fixing it determines both halves. The separation also reveals a failure mode in how such systems combine, which we call count-scale drift. Thresholding a sum of unnormalized weights is exactly posterior thresholding, but at an operating point that slides with the number of sources consulted. The slide grows with reader reliability. When source reliabilities differ, the vote rule and the posterior order instances differently, and no threshold reconciles them. Pooling calibrated log-likelihood ratios addresses both problems. The fix is arithmetic rather than architectural, and applies to a class of rules beyond language models: score-summing triage engines, diagnostic panels scored by counting positives, and additive multi-signal detectors. We then instantiate the principle twice on one longitudinal corpus, once after outcomes resolve and once before. The same partition helps in both, at different granularities: over reading in the first, over learning capacity in the second. There, a small sequence encoder on an easy auxiliary objective plus a tree ensemble carrying the censored survival loss reaches 0.921 AUPRC against 0.805 for a hand-crafted baseline. We separate what transfers from what must be re-estimated per domain, and state five predictions that would falsify the framework, three negative results, and which comparisons remain confounded.

Keep browsing

More papers from top AI conferences

30+ top conferences, by conference, year, and topic.