overfeed.news
Anuncio

Privum

Construimos, protegemos y operamos tu infraestructura digital.

Software, sistemas de IA, pruebas de penetración y nube segura para empresas.

Hablar con Privum

Tema

LLMs

2993documentos

239últimos 7 días

arXiv AI Papers

Who Is Sycophantic to Whom? Confident LLMs, Human Deference, and the Collapse of Trust Calibration

Research on sycophancy asks whether large language models (LLMs) bend towards what their users want to hear. We ask the reverse question: when an LLM is confident, consistent, and wrong, do users bend towards it? In a within-subjects experiment, 32 participants learned up to five science topics by chatting with five assistants built on the same model (GPT-5-mini). Unknown to participants, each assistant's briefing had 0, 25, 50, 75, or 100% of its facts replaced by plausible falsehoods, and every assistant spoke with full confidence. A surprise quiz after each topic offered the correct fact, the planted falsehood, and two distractors, with a confidence rating for every answer. Across 104 quizzes and 1,040 answers, scores fell from 7.4 to 2.9 out of 10, and the planted option was chosen on 60% of falsified items against 11% of correctly taught ones (odds ratio 12.5). Transcript coding showed that whenever the assistant stated a falsehood, it was adopted about 65% of the time at every falsification level. Absorbed falsehoods were held with high confidence (8.4/10), the modeled confidence advantage of right over wrong answers vanished, and the discrimination of confidence for correctness fell from an AUROC of 0.70 to chance, while post-task trust ratings barely moved. Participants tended to return to the chat more when the assistant was worse, but returning went with more absorption, not less, and 30% of all turns pasted quiz questions back to the source being checked. The assistant itself was almost never sycophantic and never conceded under pushback. We introduce a baseline-corrected Human Deference Index to quantify this human-side sycophancy and argue that trustworthiness is a property of the human-AI pair, that sycophancy evaluations should measure both directions, and that learning interfaces must make reliability legible claim by claim.

en
arXiv AI Papers

What Makes a Good Unmasking Policy? A Controlled Study of Learned Unmasking in Diffusion Language Models

Masked diffusion language models generate tokens in parallel, but their efficiency depends on which predictions are committed. Learned unmasking policies improve the speed--accuracy trade-off, yet differ in supervision, inputs, and capacity, obscuring which choices matter. We view supervised policies as distilling a decoding procedure through a teacher and examine independently what the teacher labels as committable, on which states the policy imitates it, what the policy observes, and how much the number of function evaluations (NFE) must decrease to offset policy overhead. We find that labeling predictions matching the final output is overly permissive at low NFE, and hidden states are weak alone but can complement confidence. About a 10% NFE reduction suffices to offset policy overhead for policies up to 7.5M parameters across tested settings. We therefore train a policy on trajectory-contraction targets, which accept only commitments staying on a reference trajectory, using confidence and hidden states. On LLaDA-8B-Instruct, the resulting 856K-parameter policy achieves the best accuracy--NFE frontier and highest throughput on GSM8K, is competitive at moderate targets on MATH-500 and HumanEval, and largely transfers to Dream-7B-Instruct.

en
arXiv AI Papers

Rethinking Sequence Compression with Test-time Regression

Sequence compression is a fundamental operation and a critical information bottleneck in efficient language and multimodal models, and yet prevailing approaches based on pooling or learned projections remain underperforming. We revisit sequence compression through the lens of test-time regression: input tokens define a regression problem whose fitted coefficients form the compressed representation. Importantly, the regression problem is learned end-to-end via backpropagation, while its coefficients are computed efficiently in closed form during the forward pass. This leads to TTR-Compressor, a general alternative to conventional pooling and projection-based compression. We evaluate TTR-Compressor as the compressor for block-wise sparse attention and the visual token merger for multimodal large language models. On block-wise sparse attention, TTR-Compressor improves RULER performance over attention-based compressors by a large margin. For visual token merging, it consistently outperforms the standard MLP merger and matches its performance with 55.6% fewer visual tokens. These results establish test-time regression as an effective primitive for sequence compression in efficient language and multimodal models.

en
arXiv AI Papers

Social-HUMINT: An LLM-Augmented Unified Framework for Measuring Social Media Exposure

In the post-API landscape, social-media profiling has become inexpensive and automated: Large Language Models (LLMs) can extract structured information from unstructured content and deduce attributes users never disclosed. A person's true exposure is not what they post but what can be inferred from it. As these practices become routine, exposure to social engineering attacks becomes an operational certainty, demanding a shared framework for assessment and mitigation. We make this exposure measurable by quantifying how accurately a target can be profiled, and how far that profile enables social engineering attacks. Because no existing model fully spans this continuum, we unify Social Media Intelligence (SOCMINT) and Cyber Human Intelligence (Cyber-HUMINT), two individual-focused disciplines that evolved separately, into a single doctrine-grounded taxonomy of 38 capabilities across the Cyber Threat Intelligence lifecycle, where user profiling bridges passive collection and active engagement. Domain experts validated the taxonomy (Fleiss' κ = 0.92). We operationalize its core path (extraction, inference, and susceptibility assessment) as an LLM-augmented multi-agent pipeline, evaluated on real participants' public data. Susceptibility is assessed indirectly: the pipeline predicts how each target would rank personalized engagement options, matching their actual choices significantly above chance. This ranking capacity captures the personalization on which tailored attacks depend. The underlying profiles are accurate: extraction reaches F1 = 97.3%, and inferred attributes score 4.73/5, both far above rule-based and NER-based baselines at negligible cost. The framework augments security analysts' tradecraft rather than replacing it and enables defenders to gauge their own exposure before an adversary does.

en
arXiv AI Papers

On the Token Collapse Phenomenon in Textual Graph Soft Prompting

Recent methods for injecting graph structure into LLM prompts include graph soft prompting, in which a graph neural network (GNN) learns graph-specific tokens that capture relational information among entities in textual prompts. G-Retriever combines graph soft prompts with a verbalized description of the same graph to strengthen the textual prompt signal. We conduct an in-depth analysis of G-Retriever and uncover a pathological behavior we term token collapse. Across three benchmarks, three graph encoders, two LLM families, and both frozen and LoRA-adapted models, G-Retriever's graph tokens become almost indistinguishable across inputs. We provide evidence that the same failure is inherited by subsequent methods, even with multi-token pooling. Under the standard setup, swapping a token with the dataset mean, a token from another example, or one derived from a corrupted graph produces no resolved answer-level effect in accuracy. Moreover, a learned constant prompt that never accesses the graph matches or surpasses G-Retriever on all three benchmarks. These findings indicate that, rather than conveying graph content as intended, the collapsed token functions primarily as a generic soft prompt. We also examine conditions linked to this collapse and propose a two-stage procedure that yields non-collapsed tokens while maintaining competitive performance in most cases. However, token variability alone does not prove that the model uses graph information: via interventions and decoding probes, we show that depending on the configuration, a token can reflect the question, an answer prior, or graph-derived content that the LLM may or may not use. Overall, our results offer a practical approach to evaluating graph-token alignment rather than inferring it from task accuracy alone. Code to reproduce our experiments is available at https://github.com/difra100/Token_Collapse_KGQA.

en
arXiv AI Papers

Diffusion Language Models for Perplexity-Aware Black-Box Attacks

Continuous-space attacks find prompts that trigger malicious behaviors, such as overthinking, in black-box LLMs by sampling or optimizing over a low-dimensional Gaussian latent space and decoding it to text through a random mapping and nearest-token lookup. Because the random mapping is not learned from language, its prompts can be highly unnatural, and as such easily detectable through input guardrails, and the risk estimates they yield are not grounded in natural prompts. In this paper, we demonstrate that the same continuous latent-space framework can be coupled directly to a learned generative distribution over language, a continuous diffusion language model (dLLM), which removes the artificial random mapping while preserving the standard-Gaussian latent formulation and the downstream sampling or optimization procedure. We evaluate this approach under two settings: sampling-based estimation using RareTrap and optimization-based search using ThinkTrap. We find that character-level perplexity drops from 10^3--10^7 to 3--5 in RareTrap and from 20--28 to 4.3--5.4 in ThinkTrap. We also find that model risk estimates can differ by an order of magnitude across the two mappings.

en
arXiv AI Papers

Contestable Agents for Data Governance: Recording Human Stewardship of AI-Generated Metadata Across Structured and Unstructured Systems

Industrial organizations hold operational knowledge in structured records, such as telemetry, point lists, and transactions, and in unstructured sources, such as manuals, service notes, communications, and inspection reports. Governance programs often manage these sources separately. Classifying, linking, and documenting them depends on a small group of employees with deep domain knowledge. Agents built on large language models can propose metadata, cite documents, and flag quality issues, but unreviewed proposals can spread errors into downstream systems. A perfunctory approval leaves no record of what a reviewer checked. We present contestable governance: specialist agents produce scored, cited arguments for disputed metadata decisions; a steward can accept, reject, modify, or add arguments before commit; and a governance record retains the evidence, interventions, and outcome. A versioned domain glossary supplies model-specific terms and acronym definitions to the agents. We describe the workflow, a triage path that reserves full argumentation for uncertain proposals while preserving review before commit, the scoring and record models, and a gate that controls which verified decisions become precedent. Two HVAC use cases illustrate the pattern: point classification using Brick Schema class labels, supported by an open reference implementation, and an illustrative warranty failure-mode decision linking claim fields and telemetry to service notes and revisioned bulletins.

en
arXiv AI Papers

An Empirical Study of Recent Large Language Models for Knowledge Graph to Text Generation on Standard Benchmarks

Knowledge graph-to-text (KG-to-text) generation verbalizes a set of knowledge graph triples into fluent natural language. While fine-tuned encoder-decoder models have long been the standard approach, recent LLMs are becoming increasingly competitive. We benchmark recent LLMs against fine-tuned encoder-decoder models, using reference-based metrics and graph-grounded reference-free LLM-based evaluation validated against human annotations. We observed that recent LLMs substantially narrow, and in several settings close, the gap with fine-tuned models on reference-based metrics, while performing better on graph-grounded metrics. LLM-based evaluation scores show limited correlation with reference-based metrics, suggesting that the two approaches capture different aspects of generation quality. Graph-grounded evaluation reveals that prompted models produce fewer contradictions and triple omissions than fine-tuned models, and these errors increase more rapidly with graph size for fine-tuned models, highlighting differences between the two approaches that reference-based metrics may not fully capture.

en
arXiv AI Papers

Jev-DLC: Decision-Level Continual Learning from Typed Feedback

Individual preferences often become visible only after deployment, when a user accepts one decision or revokes it in favor of another. Jev-style typed interfaces make this feedback explicit by identifying the selected action and, under revocation, the decision it replaces. We study how these consequences persist across requests as Decision-Level Continual Learning from Typed Feedback (Jev-DLC). Jev-DLC treats each correction as both evidence about a recurring action identity and a directed relation between the preferred and rejected choices. It preserves these signals in complementary bounded channels above a frozen scorer and combines their scores to shape the next decision. The method retains no raw interaction history, adds no scorer call, and performs no runtime language-model backward pass. We also introduce TCPA-Bench, a chronological suite that credits a correction only through its effect on later decisions. On TCPA-Repeat, Jev-DLC reaches 44.83% user-macro accuracy overall, 2.43 points above Recent-4 history replay. After at least two earlier feedback events, it reaches 56.07%, a 7.54-point margin over the strongest reported comparison at this depth. These results show how explicit typed corrections can become compact causal state for continual personalization.

en
arXiv AI Papers

The Geometry of Metaphor: Probing and Steering Metaphor Representations in Large Language Models

Metaphor is a crucial aspect of human cognition. As such, we would like to understand how it is represented in large language models (LLMs) and how it might be controlled. We use mechanistic interpretability techniques to identify causal subspaces in a range of LLMs covering different architectures and sizes. We show that we are able to steer output on classification tasks across different parts of speech. We are also able to steer output on generation tasks, indicating that these techniques can be used to control the metaphoricity of LLM output.

en
arXiv AI Papers

From Prompt Rules to Golden Data Model: Production-Scale Generation of Personalized, Compliant Pharmaceutical Claims

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate domain-specific commercial & medical content (e.g., claims, statements, and promotional phrases) in regulated industries such as pharmaceuticals. However, ensuring its regulatory compliance, factual accuracy, and audience-specific personalization remains a major challenge. We report a production case study asking whether moving compliance and personalization signal from prompt-level rules into retrieval time structured context improves pharmaceutical claims generation, using Composer, a deployed internal tool built on a Golden Data Model (GDM) of 1,867 pharmaceutical claims spanning four products. The GDM integrates claim metadata, references, audience labels, material type, usage history, Match Text Variant (MTV) links, and a six dimension quality score (6C). Across six product-audience segments, the context pipeline improves intended indication (+29%), intended content type (+62%) and intended target audience (+67%), 6C quality score (+86%), and claim reuse (+34%). Production log analysis over the deployment period shows a 29.5% reduction in weekly API cost. We report this as descriptive deployment evidence. This work is a systems and data architecture contribution: it shows that in a regulated, high-stakes domain, restructuring claim data for retrieval-time filtering is a more scalable lever than expanding prompt-level rules, and documents the engineering path data cleaning, graph linking, and quality scoring.

en
arXiv AI Papers

Towards User Simulators That Stay On Task And Still Sound Natural

Users increasingly rely on AI systems for extended, multi-turn tasks, yet evidence indicates that LLM-based system performance degrades over prolonged interaction. To evaluate and improve AI assistants in such settings, we need user simulators that faithfully follow complex user intents while exhibiting realistic conversational behavior. Existing approaches manifest a trade-off: prompted assistants can follow complex user intents but lack behavioral fidelity, while specialized user simulators better approximate conversational behavior but struggle to remain faithful to complex intents. In this paper, we propose a reinforcement learning (RL) recipe that jointly rewards task intent adherence and behavioral naturalness. A crucial contribution of the method is operationalizing naturalness with a lightweight discriminator trained in an alternating, adversarial loop with the user simulator. We release the resulting model, UserLM-2.0, which produces valid simulated conversations (i.e., meeting both task-faithfulness and naturalness criteria) 46.2% of the time, over three times the rate of the strongest prior user simulator (14.1%).

en
arXiv AI Papers

DuoCook: An Overcooked-Inspired Benchmark for Visual Planning and Coordination

Coordinating two players in a cooking task requires a vision-language agent to track changing scene states, sequence recipe steps, and allocate shared resources under a time budget. We introduce an Overcooked-inspired benchmark for evaluating these capabilities in Unreal Engine environments constructed using coding agents. A single vision-language model controls both players from top-down visual observations, selecting high-level actions while the engine executes navigation. The benchmark contains 20 maps in five categories. These categories support evaluation of centralized coordination under equipment contention, changing terrain, and handoff dependencies. A prop legend and pot ingredient-count indicators provide explicit visual cues, while grid-based destinations support spatial grounding. The evaluation compares four VLMs on all 20 maps, measuring task score, order completion, delivery precision, action acceptance rate, and model API expenditure. A memory ablation on the same 20 maps examines the effect of a shared, self-authored notebook while retaining six-response action history in both conditions. The strongest evaluated model, gpt-6-astra, achieves 26.2\% mean order completion. Notebook memory has mixed score effects across models, with positive mean differences for Claude and Qwen and negative differences for GPT and Gemini.

en
arXiv AI Papers

Different Tasks, Different Timesteps: Temporal Task-Aware Quantization for Diffusion Language Models

Diffusion Language Models (DLMs) introduce unique quantization challenges due to their iterative denoising process. In this work, we reveal that quantization sensitivity is both taskand time-dependent, with different downstream tasks exhibiting distinct precision requirements across denoising steps. We further show that these patterns can be predicted without groundtruth labels or task-specific evaluation metrics. Building on these findings, we introduce T 2Quant, a task and time-aware mixedprecision quantization framework that uses a label-free sensitivity signal to optimally allocate activation precision across denoising steps under a fixed bit-width budget. Extensive experiments across three DLMs and six benchmarks demonstrate that T 2Quant consistently improves the average accuracy of existing quantization methods, achieving gains of up to 6.7 percentage points under the same budget.

en
arXiv AI Papers

When More Metadata Misleads: Probing Field-Level Grounding in LLM-Generated Museum Descriptions

Metadata-conditioned generation is often framed as a data-to-text task in which additional input fields should improve grounding. Museum description generation challenges this assumption because catalogue records are heterogeneous, partially visual, and unevenly documented across geographic regions. We study how metadata composition shapes the generation of artefact descriptions through a two-phase framework. Phase 1 analyses natural metadata variation in a large museum collection, where field count, field type, image availability, and Place co-vary. Phase 2 introduces controlled field probes that hold object identity fixed while varying metadata quantity, field type, and image access. Our results show that metadata quantity alone does not explain generation behaviour. Field type determines whether models ground, omit, or infer information, while images can both support visual grounding and increase unsupported interpretation. More broadly, our findings show that metadata-conditioned data-to-text evaluation should assess field- and claim-level support, rather than relying only on aggregate input coverage or reference similarity.

en
arXiv AI Papers

Prompting Strategy Effects Depend on the Judge: A Multilingual Study of LLM-as-a-Judge Robustness

LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation is increasingly applied to multilingual tasks, yet prompting strategies such as Chain-of-Thought and Role Conditioning are recommended based solely on English benchmarks. Whether their effectiveness transfers across judge models and languages remains unknown: prompt-sensitivity studies are largely English-centric, while existing multilingual judge studies fix the prompt template. In this work, we address this gap by measuring this interaction through a benchmark of 9 prompting strategies, 4 open-weight judges, 27 languages, and 4 tasks across 13 datasets, yielding over 1M pointwise scores on gold-reference outputs, validated against human judgments. We find that prompting strategies are not transferable: the choice of the judge model dominates the choice of prompting strategy, strategy effects reverse direction across judges, and stability degrades in low-resource languages, where these effects are concealed by aggregate reporting. These findings show that prompting effects in multilingual evaluation are conditioned on the judge, task, and language. Consequently, prompting strategies should be validated for the intended evaluation setting, and cross-study comparisons should account for both judge and prompt configuration.

en
arXiv AI Papers

Network topology shapes consensus and vulnerability in LLM populations

As large language models (LLMs) are deployed in interacting populations, their collective behaviour depends not only on the models but also on who interacts with whom. Studies of convention formation in LLM populations have mainly tested well-mixed interactions. We place policies extracted from four LLMs on fully connected, random regular, and heterogeneous networks, with 10^3 to 10^5 agents playing the naming game. Topology affects how quickly consensus emerges, sometimes whether it emerges at all, and, in rare cases, which convention wins. Sparsest networks slow consensus up to twelvefold. Yet, by preserving correlations between persistent neighbours, they restore consensus in some cases that fail to converge under well-mixed interactions. Networks also govern vulnerability to adversarial attack. We measure the critical mass of committed agents needed to overturn an established convention. Tipping thresholds follow the same ordering across models and conditions: hubs random low-degree nodes. On the most heterogeneous topology, median critical masses are 3%, 16%, and 35%, respectively; targeting hubs requires one-sixth as many committed agents as random placement. For most models, networked populations are easier to tip than well-mixed ones, so well-mixed estimates can overstate robustness. Assessing the safety of multi-agent AI requires mapping who interacts with whom.

en
arXiv AI Papers

Prompt Sensitivity in Tool-Augmented Model Comparisons

Language models are compared on question-answering benchmarks that pose each question in one wording, and a reworded question can change which of two models scores higher. We ask whether giving the models tools makes such comparisons more stable. An accuracy gain cannot answer this, because tools change several steps between the question and the scored answer at once. We propose a matched protocol that separates those steps: the answer readout, reasoning, the decision to call, the tool's answer, and the report supplied without a call. We apply it to six open models in five domains under five wordings. We find that tools raise accuracy where a program answers the question and widen the wording sensitivity of many pairwise comparisons. The widening follows how often a model calls, and call frequency follows the wording for some models and not others. It also depends on the interface and the instructions: a native tool-calling interface and a second tool description leave no detected widening in molecules, and sensitivity persists where tools return intermediate results. These findings show that deterministic reports do not guarantee stable comparisons. We recommend reporting call frequency and comparison stability under several wordings beside accuracy.

en