JavaScript obfuscators are widely deployed to protect intellectual property and resist reverse engineering, yet their correctness has been largely overlooked compared to performance and resilience. Existing evaluations typically measure resistance to deobfuscation, leaving the critical question of whether obfuscators preserve program semantics unanswered. Incorrect transformations can silently alter functionality, compromise reliability, and erode security-undermining the very purpose of obfuscation. To address this gap, we present OBsmith, a novel framework to systematically test JavaScript obfuscators using large language models (LLMs). OBsmith leverages LLMs to generate program sketches abstract templates capturing diverse language constructs, idioms, and corner cases-which are instantiated into executable programs and subjected to obfuscation under different configurations. Besides LLM-powered sketching, OBsmith also employs a second source: automatic extraction of sketches from real programs. This extraction path enables more focused testing of project specific features and lets developers inject domain knowledge into the resulting test cases. OBsmith uncovers 11 previously unknown correctness bugs. Under an equal program budget, five general purpose state-of-the-art JavaScript fuzzers (FuzzJIT, Jsfunfuzz, Superion, DIE, Fuzzilli) failed to detect these issues, highlighting OBsmith's complementary focus on obfuscation induced misbehavior. An ablation shows that all components except our generic MRs contribute to at least one bug class; the negative MR result suggests the need for obfuscator-specific metamorphic relations. Our results also seed discussion on how to balance obfuscation presets and performance cost. We envision OBsmith as an important step towards automated testing and quality assurance of obfuscators and other semantic-preserving toolchains.

Medical vision-language models (VLMs) excel at image-text understanding but typically rely on a single-pass reasoning that neglects localized visual cues. In clinical practice, however, human experts iteratively scan, focus, and refine the regions of interest before reaching a final diagnosis. To narrow this machine-human perception gap, we introduce ViT AR, a novel VLM framework that emulates the iterative reasoning process of human experts through a cognitive chain of "think-act-rethink-answer". ViT AR treats medical images as interactive objects, enabling models to engage multi-step visual reasoning. To support this approach, we curate a high-quality instruction dataset comprising 1K interactive examples that encode expert-like diagnostic behaviors. In addition, a 16K visual question answering training data has been curated towards fine-grained visual diagnosis. We introduce a two-stage training strategy that begins with supervised fine-tuning to guide cognitive trajectories, followed by the reinforcement learning to optimize decision-making. Extensive evaluations demonstrate that ViT AR outperforms strong state-of-the-art models. Visual attention analysis reveals that from the "think" to "rethink" rounds, ViT AR increasingly anchors visual grounding to clinically critical regions and maintains high attention allocation to visual tokens during reasoning, providing mechanistic insight into its improved performance. These findings demonstrate that embedding expert-style iterative thinking chains into VLMs enhances both performance and trustworthiness of medical AI. Medical vision-language models (VLMs) have evolved from task-specific architectures to versatile frameworks, advancing large-scale medical image annotation (Xie et al., 2024), outcome prediction (Zhong et al., 2025), and clinical reasoning (Chen et al., 2024a). Powered by large language models (LLMs), systems such as LLaV A-Med (Li et al., 2023) and Lingshu (Xu et al., 2025) can engage human-like clinical dialogues and act as visual assistants. Nevertheless, current VLMs typically perform a single-pass inference strategy (Zhang et al., 2024), generating predictions from the entire images without explicitly identifying key visual cues that is vital for decision-making. In the realm of medical imaging diagnosis, human experts follow an iterative cognitive process essentially comprising a multiscale observation (Aggarwal et al., 2021). Clinicians begin with a global image examination to locate suspicious regions of interest (ROIs).

Large language models (LLMs) enable end-users to delegate complex tasks to autonomous agents through natural language. However, prompt-based interaction faces critical limitations: Users often struggle to specify procedural requirements for tasks, especially those that don't have a factually correct solution but instead rely on personal preferences, such as posting social media content or planning a trip. Additionally, a ''successful'' prompt for one task may not be reusable or generalizable across similar tasks. We present ALLOY, a system inspired by classical HCI theories on Programming by Demonstration (PBD), but extended to enhance adaptability in creating LLM-based web agents. ALLOY enables users to express procedural preferences through natural demonstrations rather than prompts, while making these procedures transparent and editable through visualized workflows that can be generalized across task variations. In a study with 12 participants, ALLOY's demonstration--based approach outperformed prompt-based agents and manual workflows in capturing user intent and procedural preferences in complex web tasks. Insights from the study also show how demonstration--based interaction complements the traditional prompt-based approach.

Large language model (LLM) agents have shown remarkable reasoning abilities. However, existing multi-agent frameworks often rely on fixed roles or centralized control, limiting scalability and adaptability in long-horizon reasoning. We introduce SwarmSys, a closed-loop framework for distributed multi-agent reasoning inspired by swarm intelligence. Coordination in SwarmSys emerges through iterative interactions among three specialized roles, Explorers, Workers, and Validators, that continuously cycle through exploration, exploitation, and validation. To enable scalable and adaptive collaboration, we integrate adaptive agent and event profiles, embedding-based probabilistic matching, and a pheromone-inspired reinforcement mechanism, supporting dynamic task allocation and self-organizing convergence without global supervision. Across symbolic reasoning, research synthesis, and scientific programming tasks, SwarmSys consistently outperforms baselines, improving both accuracy and reasoning stability. These findings highlight swarm-inspired coordination as a promising paradigm for scalable, robust, and adaptive multi-agent reasoning, suggesting that coordination scaling may rival model scaling in advancing LLM intelligence.

Optimizing LLM-based workflows is typically formulated as a global search, where candidate workflows are evaluated based on a scalar metric. This paradigm, however, suffers from a critical flaw: information collapse. By reducing rich, multi-step execution traces to simple success/failure signals, existing methods are rendered blind to the underlying structure of failures, fundamentally preventing them from modeling the workflow's failure distribution. We reconceptualize this challenge as a distributional problem. We propose a new paradigm where the optimization goal is not to maximize a scalar score, but to directly minimize a workflow's Expected Failure Mass, i.e., the integral of its failure probability density function defined over a high-dimensional Failure Signature Space (FSS). This distributional lens allows us to move from inefficient, zero-order optimization to a principled, gradient-like descent on the failure landscape itself. We introduce CE-Graph, a framework that operationalizes this paradigm through a novel, failure-driven refinement process. CE-Graph approximates the failure distribution from a pool of counterexamples, identifies its densest regions as recurring failure modes, and applies targeted, operator-constrained graph edits via a Propose-and-Verify mechanism to greedily reduce the failure mass. On math, code, and QA benchmarks, our CE-Graph achieves higher robustness at a significantly lower cost than strong baselines. This suggests that a system's reliability emerges not from avoiding failures, but from systematically learning and reshaping the geometric structure of its failure distributions.

Abstract--The rapid advancement of Low-Altitude Economy Networks (LAENets) has enabled a variety of applications, including aerial surveillance, environmental sensing, and semantic data collection. T o support these scenarios, unmanned aerial vehicles (UA Vs) equipped with onboard vision-language models (VLMs) offer a promising solution for real-time multimodal inference. However, ensuring both inference accuracy and communication efficiency remains a significant challenge due to limited onboard resources and dynamic network conditions. In this paper, we first propose a UA V-enabled LAENet system model that jointly captures UA V mobility, user-UA V communication, and the onboard visual question answering (VQA) pipeline. Based on this model, we formulate a mixed-integer non-convex optimization problem to minimize task latency and power consumption under user-specific accuracy constraints. T o solve the problem, we design a hierarchical optimization framework composed of two parts: (i) an Alternating Resolution and Power Optimization (ARPO) algorithm for resource allocation under accuracy constraints, and (ii) a Large Language Model-augmented Reinforcement Learning Approach (LLaRA) for adaptive UA V trajectory optimization. The large language model (LLM) serves as an expert in refining reward design of reinforcement learning in an offline fashion, introducing no additional latency in real-time decision-making. Numerical results demonstrate the efficacy of our proposed framework in improving inference performance and communication efficiency under dynamic LAENet conditions. Low-Altitude Economy Networks (LAENets) have recently garnered growing attention as a novel paradigm that leverages the low-altitude airspace (typically below 1000 meters) to deliver digital services [1]. Li and G. Liu are with the College of Computing and Data Science, the Energy Research Institute @ NTU, Interdisciplinary Graduate Program, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore (e-mail: yang048@e.ntu.edu.sg; Liu and D. Niyato are with the College of Computing and Data Science, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore (e-mails: ruichen.zhang@ntu.edu.sg; X. Wang is with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Western University, London, Canada (e-mail: xianbin.wang@uwo.ca).

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed for complex reasoning tasks, Long Chain-of-Thought (Long-CoT) prompting has emerged as a key paradigm for structured inference. Despite early-stage safeguards enabled by alignment techniques such as RLHF, we identify a previously underexplored vulnerability: reasoning trajectories in Long-CoT models can drift from aligned paths, resulting in content that violates safety constraints. We term this phenomenon Path Drift. Through empirical analysis, we uncover three behavioral triggers of Path Drift: (1) first-person commitments that induce goal-driven reasoning that delays refusal signals; (2) ethical evaporation, where surface-level disclaimers bypass alignment checkpoints; (3) condition chain escalation, where layered cues progressively steer models toward unsafe completions. Building on these insights, we introduce a three-stage Path Drift Induction Framework comprising cognitive load amplification, self-role priming, and condition chain hijacking. Each stage independently reduces refusal rates, while their combination further compounds the effect. To mitigate these risks, we propose a path-level defense strategy incorporating role attribution correction and metacognitive reflection (reflective safety cues). Our findings highlight the need for trajectory-level alignment oversight in long-form reasoning beyond token-level alignment.

We present SLEAN (Simple Lightweight Ensemble Analysis Network), a deterministic framework for coordinating multiple LLM providers through text-based prompt orchestration. Unlike complex multi-agent systems requiring specialized infrastructure, SLEAN operates as a simple prompt bridge between LLMs using .txt templates, requiring no deep technical knowledge for deployment. The three-phase protocol formed by independent analysis, cross-critique, and arbitration, filters harmful AI-generated code suggestions before production deployment, addressing how AI-assisted debugging increasingly produces modifications that introduce unnecessary complexity, break existing functionality, or address problems. Evaluating 15 software bugs, we analyzed 69 AI-generated fix propositions. SLEAN's filtering accepted 22 fixes (31.9%, 95% CI 20.9-42.9%) while rejecting 47 that would have been harmful if applied verbatim. The arbitration process reduced code change surface by 83-90% relative to raw AI outputs, enforcing minimal causal edits over scope-expanding modifications. Minimal Type 2 inputs proved more efficient than detailed Type 1 inputs, requiring 2.85 versus 3.56 propositions per accepted fix (35.1% versus 28.1% acceptance, about a 20% efficiency gain). Agreement between AI systems showed weak correlation with fix quality: high convergence (at least 80%) occurred in 4 of 15 cases and improved acceptance by only 2.4% points; arbitration appeared only at exactly 10% convergence in 2 of 15 cases, although low convergence alone did not necessitate arbitration. The file-driven, provider-agnostic architecture enables deployment without specialized coding expertise, making it applicable to security auditing, code review, document verification, and other domains requiring reliable multi-provider synthesis with end-to-end auditability.

Reasoning-augmented search agents, such as Search-R1, are trained to reason, search, and generate the final answer iteratively. Nevertheless, due to their limited capabilities in reasoning and search, their performance on multi-hop QA benchmarks remains far from satisfactory. To handle complex or compound queries, we train an LLM-based search agent with the native capability of query expansion through reinforcement learning. In each turn, our search agent proposes several query variants, which are searched simultaneously to cover more relevant information. Meanwhile, given limited post-training data and computing resources, it is very challenging for a search agent to master multiple tasks, including query generation, retrieved information understanding, and answer generation. Therefore, we propose incorporating a pre-trained squeezer model that helps the search agent understand the retrieved documents, allowing the search agent to focus on query generation for high retrieval recall. With the assistance of the squeezer model, we discover that even a small-scale 3B LLM can demonstrate a strong capability of query expansion and achieve state-of-the-art accuracy on the multi-hop QA benchmarks. To be specific, our experiments across seven question-answering benchmarks demonstrate that our method, named ExpandSearch, achieves an average improvement of 4.4% compared to state-of-the-art baselines, with strong gains on multi-hop reasoning tasks requiring diverse evidence aggregation.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in sensitive everyday contexts - offering personal advice, mental health support, and moral guidance - understanding their elicited values in navigating complex moral reasoning is essential. Most evaluations study this sociotechnical alignment through single-turn prompts, but it is unclear if these findings extend to multi-turn settings where values emerge through dialogue, revision, and consensus. We address this gap using LLM debate to examine deliberative dynamics and value alignment in multi-turn settings by prompting subsets of three models (GPT-4.1, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, and Gemini 2.0 Flash) to collectively assign blame in 1,000 everyday dilemmas from Reddit's "Am I the Asshole" community. We use both synchronous (parallel responses) and round-robin (sequential responses) formats to test order effects and verdict revision. Our findings show striking behavioral differences. In the synchronous setting, GPT showed strong inertia (0.6-3.1% revision rates) while Claude and Gemini were far more flexible (28-41%). Value patterns also diverged: GPT emphasized personal autonomy and direct communication, while Claude and Gemini prioritized empathetic dialogue. Certain values proved especially effective at driving verdict changes. We further find that deliberation format had a strong impact on model behavior: GPT and Gemini stood out as highly conforming relative to Claude, with their verdict behavior strongly shaped by order effects. These results show how deliberation format and model-specific behaviors shape moral reasoning in multi-turn interactions, underscoring that sociotechnical alignment depends on how systems structure dialogue as much as on their outputs.