Large language models (LLMs) have been widely evaluated on macro-scale geographic tasks, such as global factual recall, event summarization, and regional reasoning. Yet, their ability to handle hyper-local knowledge remains poorly understood. This gap is increasingly consequential as real-world applications, from civic platforms to community journalism, demand AI systems that can reason about neighborhood-specific dynamics, cultural narratives, and local governance. Existing benchmarks fall short in capturing this complexity, often relying on coarse-grained data or isolated references. We present LocalBench, the first benchmark designed to systematically evaluate LLMs on county-level local knowledge across the United States. Grounded in the Localness Conceptual Framework, LocalBench includes 14,782 validated question-answer pairs across 526 U.S. counties in 49 states, integrating diverse sources such as Census statistics, local subreddit discourse, and regional news. It spans physical, cognitive, and relational dimensions of locality. Using LocalBench, we evaluate 13 state-of-the-art LLMs under both closed-book and web-augmented settings. Our findings reveal critical limitations: even the best-performing models reach only 56.8% accuracy on narrative-style questions and perform below 15.5% on numerical reasoning. Moreover, larger model size and web augmentation do not guarantee better performance, for example, search improves Gemini's accuracy by +13.6%, but reduces GPT-series performance by -11.4%. These results underscore the urgent need for language models that can support equitable, place-aware AI systems: capable of engaging with the diverse, fine-grained realities of local communities across geographic and cultural contexts.

Although recent generative models are remarkably capable of producing instruction-following and realistic outputs, they remain prone to notable physical plausibility failures. Though critical in applications, these physical plausibility errors often escape detection by existing evaluation methods. Furthermore, no framework exists for automatically identifying and interpreting specific physical error patterns in natural language, preventing targeted model improvements. W e introduce Matryoshka Transcoders, a novel framework for the automatic discovery and interpretation of physical plausibility features in generative models. Our approach extends the Matryoshka representation learning paradigm to transcoder architectures, enabling hierarchical sparse feature learning at multiple granularity levels. By training on intermediate representations from a physical plausibility classifier and leveraging large multimodal models for interpretation, our method identifies diverse physics-related failure modes without manual feature engineering, achieving superior feature relevance and feature accuracy compared to existing approaches. W e utilize the discovered visual patterns to establish a benchmark for evaluating physical plausibility in generative models. Our analysis of eight state-of-the-art generative models provides valuable insights into how these models fail to follow physical constraints, paving the way for further model improvements.

AI systems are increasingly able to autonomously conduct realistic software engineering tasks, and may soon be deployed to automate machine learning (ML) R&D itself. Frontier AI systems may be deployed in safety-critical settings, including to help ensure the safety of future systems. Unfortunately, frontier and future systems may not be sufficiently trustworthy, and there is evidence that these systems may even be misaligned with their developers or users. Therefore, we investigate the capabilities of AI agents to act against the interests of their users when conducting ML engineering, by sabotaging ML models, sandbagging their performance, and subverting oversight mechanisms. First, we extend MLE-Bench, a benchmark for realistic ML tasks, with code-sabotage tasks such as implanting backdoors and purposefully causing generalisation failures. Frontier agents make meaningful progress on our sabotage tasks. In addition, we study agent capabilities to sandbag on MLE-Bench. Agents can calibrate their performance to specified target levels below their actual capability. To mitigate sabotage, we use LM monitors to detect suspicious agent behaviour, and we measure model capability to sabotage and sandbag without being detected by these monitors. Overall, monitors are capable at detecting code-sabotage attempts but our results suggest that detecting sandbagging is more difficult. Additionally, aggregating multiple monitor predictions works well, but monitoring may not be sufficiently reliable to mitigate sabotage in high-stakes domains. Our benchmark is implemented in the UK AISI's Inspect framework and we make our code publicly available at https://github.com/TeunvdWeij/ctrl-alt-deceit

Augmenting Large Language Models (LLMs) with external tools enables them to execute complex, multi-step tasks. However, tool learning is hampered by the static synthetic data pipelines where data generation and model training are executed as two separate, non-interactive processes. This approach fails to adaptively focus on a model's specific weaknesses and allows noisy labels to persist, degrading training efficiency. We introduce LoopTool, a fully automated, model-aware data evolution framework that closes this loop by tightly integrating data synthesis and model training. LoopTool iteratively refines both the data and the model through three synergistic modules: (1) Greedy Capability Probing (GCP) diagnoses the model's mastered and failed capabilities; (2) Judgement-Guided Label Verification (JGLV) uses an open-source judge model to find and correct annotation errors, progressively purifying the dataset; and (3) Error-Driven Data Expansion (EDDE) generates new, challenging samples based on identified failures. This closed-loop process operates within a cost-effective, open-source ecosystem, eliminating dependence on expensive closed-source APIs. Experiments show that our 8B model trained with LoopTool significantly surpasses its 32B data generator and achieves new state-of-the-art results on the BFCL-v3 and ACEBench benchmarks for its scale. Our work demonstrates that closed-loop, self-refining data pipelines can dramatically enhance the tool-use capabilities of LLMs.

This paper introduces Tele-LLM-Hub, a user friendly low-code solution for rapid prototyping and deployment of context aware multi-agent (MA) Large Language Model (LLM) systems tailored for 5G and beyond. As telecom wireless networks become increasingly complex, intelligent LLM applications must share a domainspecific understanding of network state. We propose TeleMCP, the Telecom Model Context Protocol, to enable structured and context-rich communication between agents in telecom environments. Tele-LLM-Hub actualizes TeleMCP through a low-code interface that supports agent creation, workflow composition, and interaction with software stacks such as srsRAN. Key components include a direct chat interface, a repository of pre-built systems, an Agent Maker leveraging finetuning with our RANSTRUCT framework, and an MA-Maker for composing MA workflows. The goal of Tele-LLM-Hub is to democratize the design of contextaware MA systems and accelerate innovation in next-generation wireless networks.

Competency Questions (CQs) play a crucial role in validating ontology design. While manually crafting CQs can be highly time-consuming and costly for ontology engineers, recent studies have explored the use of large language models (LLMs) to automate this process. However, prior approaches have largely evaluated generated CQs based on their similarity to existing datasets, which often fail to verify semantic pitfalls such as "Misusing allValuesFrom". Since such pitfalls cannot be reliably detected through rule-based methods, we propose a novel dataset and model of Validating Semantic Pitfalls in Ontology (VSPO) for CQ generation specifically designed to verify the semantic pitfalls. To simulate missing and misused axioms, we use LLMs to generate natural language definitions of classes and properties and introduce misalignments between the definitions and the ontology by removing axioms or altering logical operators (e.g., substituting union with intersection). We then fine-tune LLaMA-3.1-8B-Instruct to generate CQs that validate these semantic discrepancies between the provided definitions and the corresponding axioms. The resulting CQs can detect a broader range of modeling errors compared to existing public datasets. Our fine-tuned model demonstrates superior performance over baselines, showing 26% higher precision and 28.2% higher recall than GPT-4.1 in generating CQs for pitfall validation. This research enables automatic generation of TBox-validating CQs using LLMs, significantly reducing manual effort while improving semantic alignment between ontologies and expert knowledge. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to target semantic pitfall validation in CQ generation using LLMs.

Reinforcement Learning (RL) has been shown to improve the capabilities of large language models (LLMs). However, applying RL to open-domain tasks faces two key challenges: (1) the inherent subjectivity of these tasks prevents the verifiable rewards as required by Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR); (2) Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) relies on external reward mechanisms. To overcome these limitations, we propose Self-Examining Reinforcement Learning (SERL), a novel self-improving framework where the LLM serves as both Actor and Judge. SERL introduces two synergistic reward mechanisms without any external signals. On the one hand, to improve the Actor's capability, we derive rewards from Copeland-style pairwise comparison judgments across a group of generated responses. On the other hand, a self-consistency reward that encourages coherent judgments is proposed to improve the Judge's reliability. This process refines the Judge's capability, which in turn provides a more robust reward for Actor. Experiments show that our method outperforms existing self-improvement training methods. SERL improves the LC win rate of Qwen3-8B on AlpacaEval 2 from 52.37% to 59.90%. To the best of our knowledge, our method achieves state-of-the-art performance among self-improving approaches. Furthermore, it achieves a performance comparable to significantly larger models like Qwen3-32B, demonstrating superior effectiveness and robustness on open-domain tasks.

The convincingness of an argument does not only depend on its structure (logos), the person who makes the argument (ethos), but also on the emotion that it causes in the recipient (pathos). While the overall intensity and categorical values of emotions in arguments have received considerable attention in the research community, we argue that the emotion an argument evokes in a recipient is subjective. It depends on the recipient's goals, standards, prior knowledge, and stance. Appraisal theories lend themselves as a link between the subjective cognitive assessment of events and emotions. They have been used in event-centric emotion analysis, but their suitability for assessing argument convincingness remains unexplored. In this paper, we evaluate whether appraisal theories are suitable for emotion analysis in arguments by considering subjective cognitive evaluations of the importance and impact of an argument on its receiver. Based on the annotations in the recently published ContArgA corpus, we perform zero-shot prompting experiments to evaluate the importance of gold-annotated and predicted emotions and appraisals for the assessment of the subjective convincingness labels. We find that, while categorical emotion information does improve convincingness prediction, the improvement is more pronounced with appraisals. This work presents the first systematic comparison between emotion models for convincingness prediction, demonstrating the advantage of appraisals, providing insights for theoretical and practical applications in computational argumentation.

Natural language interfaces to tabular data must handle ambiguities inherent to queries. Instead of treating ambiguity as a deficiency, we reframe it as a feature of cooperative interaction where users are intentional about the degree to which they specify queries. We develop a principled framework based on a shared responsibility of query specification between user and system, distinguishing unambiguous and ambiguous cooperative queries, which systems can resolve through reasonable inference, from uncooperative queries that cannot be resolved. Applying the framework to evaluations for tabular question answering and analysis, we analyze the queries in 15 popular datasets, and observe an uncontrolled mixing of query types neither adequate for evaluating a system's execution accuracy nor for evaluating interpretation capabilities. This conceptualization around cooperation in resolving queries informs how to design and evaluate natural language interfaces for tabular data analysis, for which we distill concrete directions for future research and broader implications.

IntelliProof structures an essay as an argumentation graph, where claims are represented as nodes, supporting evidence is attached as node properties, and edges encode supporting or attacking relations. Unlike existing automated essay scoring systems, IntelliProof emphasizes the user experience: each relation is initially classified and scored by an LLM, then visualized for enhanced understanding. The system provides justifications for classifications and produces quantitative measures for essay coherence. It enables rapid exploration of argumentative quality while retaining human oversight. In addition, IntelliProof provides a set of tools for a better understanding of an argumentative essay and its corresponding graph in natural language, bridging the gap between the structural semantics of argumentative essays and the user's understanding of a given text.