Glacial lake monitoring bears great significance in mitigating the anticipated risk of Glacial Lake Outburst Floods. However, existing segmentation methods based on convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and Vision Transformers (ViTs), remain constrained to pixel-level predictions, lacking high-level global scene semantics and human-interpretable reasoning. To address this, we introduce GLACIA (\textbf{G}lacial \textbf{LA}ke segmentation with \textbf{C}ontextual \textbf{I}nstance \textbf{A}wareness), the first framework that integrates large language models with segmentation capabilities to produce both accurate segmentation masks and corresponding spatial reasoning outputs. We construct the Glacial Lake Position Reasoning (GLake-Pos) dataset pipeline, which provides diverse, spatially grounded question-answer pairs designed to overcome the lack of instance-aware positional reasoning data in remote sensing. Comparative evaluation demonstrate that GLACIA (mIoU: 87.30) surpasses state-of-the-art method based on CNNs (mIoU: 78.55 - 79.01), ViTs (mIoU: 69.27 - 81.75), Geo-foundation models (mIoU: 76.37 - 87.10), and reasoning based segmentation methods (mIoU: 60.12 - 75.66). Our approach enables intuitive disaster preparedness and informed policy-making in the context of rapidly changing glacial environments by facilitating natural language interaction, thereby supporting more efficient and interpretable decision-making. The code is released on https://github.com/lalitmaurya47/GLACIA

Large language models handle single-turn generation well, but multi-turn interactions still require the model to reconstruct user intent and task state from an expanding token history because internal representations do not persist across turns. This token-first paradigm leads to drift, inconsistent reasoning modes, and growing prompts as conversations deepen. We propose CORE, a concept-first interaction layer that improves multi-turn stability without modifying model weights. CORE combines a small library of universal cognitive operators with a persistent Local Concept--a compact semantic state capturing the task, constraints, preferences, and intermediate results. Each model call receives only this concept state, the user's latest instruction, and the selected operator, eliminating the need to replay full history. A preliminary prototype simulating CORE's behavior shows a ~42% reduction in cumulative prompt tokens, though this number reflects prototype conditions and should not be interpreted as a real-world performance estimate. CORE offers a model-agnostic mechanism that separates conceptual reasoning from language generation, suggesting a scalable direction for more stable multi-turn systems.

Large Language Models (LLMs) and transformer architectures have shown impressive reasoning and generation capabilities across diverse natural language tasks. However, their reliability and robustness in real-world engineering domains remain largely unexplored, limiting their practical utility in human-centric workflows. In this work, we investigate the applicability and consistency of LLMs for analog circuit design -- a task requiring domain-specific reasoning, adherence to physical constraints, and structured representations -- focusing on AI-assisted design where humans remain in the loop. We study how different data representations influence model behavior and compare smaller models (e.g., T5, GPT-2) with larger foundation models (e.g., Mistral-7B, GPT-oss-20B) under varying training conditions. Our results highlight key reliability challenges, including sensitivity to data format, instability in generated designs, and limited generalization to unseen circuit configurations. These findings provide early evidence on the limits and potential of LLMs as tools to enhance human capabilities in complex engineering tasks, offering insights into designing reliable, deployable foundation models for structured, real-world applications.

Deception is a fundamental challenge for multi-agent reasoning: effective systems must strategically conceal information while detecting misleading behavior in others. Yet most evaluations reduce deception to static classification, ignoring the interactive, adversarial, and longitudinal nature of real deceptive dynamics. Large language models (LLMs) can deceive convincingly but remain weak at detecting deception in peers. We present WOLF, a multi-agent social deduction benchmark based on Werewolf that enables separable measurement of deception production and detection. WOLF embeds role-grounded agents (Villager, Werewolf, Seer, Doctor) in a programmable LangGraph state machine with strict night-day cycles, debate turns, and majority voting. Every statement is a distinct analysis unit, with self-assessed honesty from speakers and peer-rated deceptiveness from others. Deception is categorized via a standardized taxonomy (omission, distortion, fabrication, misdirection), while suspicion scores are longitudinally smoothed to capture both immediate judgments and evolving trust dynamics. Structured logs preserve prompts, outputs, and state transitions for full reproducibility. Across 7,320 statements and 100 runs, Werewolves produce deceptive statements in 31% of turns, while peer detection achieves 71-73% precision with ~52% overall accuracy. Precision is higher for identifying Werewolves, though false positives occur against Villagers. Suspicion toward Werewolves rises from ~52% to over 60% across rounds, while suspicion toward Villagers and the Doctor stabilizes near 44-46%. This divergence shows that extended interaction improves recall against liars without compounding errors against truthful roles. WOLF moves deception evaluation beyond static datasets, offering a dynamic, controlled testbed for measuring deceptive and detective capacity in adversarial multi-agent interaction.

Graph-based Retrieval-Augmented Generation (GraphRAG) enhances Large Language Models (LLMs) by incorporating external knowledge from linearized subgraphs retrieved from knowledge graphs. However, LLMs struggle to interpret the relational and topological information in these inputs, resulting in hallucinations that are inconsistent with the retrieved knowledge. To analyze how LLMs attend to and retain structured knowledge during generation, we propose two lightweight interpretability metrics: Path Reliance Degree (PRD), which measures over-reliance on shortest-path triples, and Semantic Alignment Score (SAS), which assesses how well the model's internal representations align with the retrieved knowledge. Through empirical analysis on a knowledge-based QA task, we identify failure patterns associated with over-reliance on salient paths and weak semantic grounding, as indicated by high PRD and low SAS scores. We further develop a lightweight post-hoc hallucination detector, Graph Grounding and Alignment (GGA), which outperforms strong semantic and confidence-based baselines across AUC and F1. By grounding hallucination analysis in mechanistic interpretability, our work offers insights into how structural limitations in LLMs contribute to hallucinations, informing the design of more reliable GraphRAG systems in the future.

Accurate interpretation of pediatric dental clinical records and safe antibiotic prescribing remain persistent challenges in dental informatics. Traditional rule-based clinical decision support systems struggle with unstructured dental narratives, incomplete radiographic descriptions, and complex safety constraints. To address these limitations, this study proposes a Knowledge-Guided Large Language Model (KG-LLM) that integrates a pediatric dental knowledge graph, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), and a multi-stage safety validation pipeline for evidence-grounded antibiotic recommendation. The framework first employs a clinical NER/RE module to extract structured entities and relations from dental notes and radiology reports. Relevant guidelines, drug-safety rules, and analogous historical cases are subsequently retrieved from the knowledge graph and supplied to the LLM for diagnostic summarization and dose-drug-duration prediction. Safety assurance is achieved through a dual-layer validation mechanism combining deterministic rule checking with a learned classifier for detecting allergies, contraindications, and dosing errors. Experiments on 32,000 de-identified pediatric dental visit records demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach. Compared with a domain-adapted Llama-2 clinical baseline, KG-LLM improves record-understanding performance (F1: 0.914 vs. 0.867), drug-dose-duration accuracy (Top-1: 0.782 vs. 0.716), and reduces unsafe antibiotic suggestions by 50%. Additional evaluation across summary quality, recommendation accuracy, and global safety scores further confirms the robustness of the system. Ablation analyses indicate that the knowledge graph, RAG, and safety modules each contribute substantially to clinical reliability and interpretability.

This paper presents a formal, categorical framework for analysing how humans and large language models (LLMs) transform content into truth-evaluated propositions about a state space of possible worlds W , in order to argue that LLMs do not solve but circumvent the symbol grounding problem.

Agentic AI systems built on large language models (LLMs) offer significant potential for automating complex workflows, from software development to customer support. However, LLM agents often underperform due to suboptimal configurations; poorly tuned prompts, tool descriptions, and parameters that typically require weeks of manual refinement. Existing optimization methods either are too complex for general use or treat components in isolation, missing critical interdependencies. We present ARTEMIS, a no-code evolutionary optimization platform that jointly optimizes agent configurations through semantically-aware genetic operators. Given only a benchmark script and natural language goals, ARTEMIS automatically discovers configurable components, extracts performance signals from execution logs, and evolves configurations without requiring architectural modifications. We evaluate ARTEMIS on four representative agent systems: the \emph{ALE Agent} for competitive programming on AtCoder Heuristic Contest, achieving a \textbf{$13.6\%$ improvement} in acceptance rate; the \emph{Mini-SWE Agent} for code optimization on SWE-Perf, with a statistically significant \textbf{10.1\% performance gain}; and the \emph{CrewAI Agent} for cost and mathematical reasoning on Math Odyssey, achieving a statistically significant \textbf{$36.9\%$ reduction} in the number of tokens required for evaluation. We also evaluate the \emph{MathTales-Teacher Agent} powered by a smaller open-source model (Qwen2.5-7B) on GSM8K primary-level mathematics problems, achieving a \textbf{22\% accuracy improvement} and demonstrating that ARTEMIS can optimize agents based on both commercial and local models.

Hallucinations are outputs by Large Language Models (LLMs) that are factually incorrect yet appear plausible [1]. This paper investigates how such hallucinations influence users' trust in LLMs and users' interaction with LLMs. To explore this in everyday use, we conducted a qualitative study with 192 participants. Our findings show that hallucinations do not result in blanket mistrust but instead lead to context-sensitive trust calibration. Building on the calibrated trust model by Lee & See [2] and Afroogh et al.'s trust-related factors [3], we confirm expectancy [3], [4], prior experience [3], [4], [5], and user expertise & domain knowledge [3], [4] as userrelated (human) trust factors, and identify intuition as an additional factor relevant for hallucination detection. Additionally, we found that trust dynamics are further influenced by contextual factors, particularly perceived risk [3] and decision stakes [6]. Consequently, we validate the recursive trust calibration process proposed by Blöbaum [7] and extend it by including intuition as a user-related trust factor. Based on these insights, we propose practical recommendations for responsible and reflective LLM use.

Evaluating open-ended responses from large audio language models (LALMs) is challenging because human annotators often genuinely disagree on answer correctness due to multiple valid interpretations, partial correctness, and subjective judgment. Traditional metrics reporting only mean scores fail to capture this uncertainty. We present ORCA (Open-ended Response Correctness Assessment), a framework that models the variability in human judgments using Beta distributions to predict both expected correctness and uncertainty. Our three-stage annotation framework combines human judgment with structured feedback and iterative refinement to simultaneously curate training data and improve benchmark quality. We collected 11,721 annotations across 3,580 question-answer pairs from 15 LALMs on two audio QA benchmarks, achieving inter-annotator agreement of 0.82 (Krippendorff's alpha). ORCA achieves 0.91 Spearman correlation with mean human judgments, matching or outperforming LLM-judge baselines while providing uncertainty estimates and requiring significantly less compute. We release our models, code, and curated dataset.