The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) has significantly enhanced the capabilities of Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) in supporting humans with complex, real-world tasks. However, MAS still face challenges in effective task planning when handling highly complex tasks with uncertainty, often resulting in misleading or incorrect outputs that hinder task execution. To address this, we propose XAgents, a unified multi-agent cooperative framework built on a multipolar task processing graph and IF-THEN rules. XAgents uses the multipolar task processing graph to enable dynamic task planning and handle task uncertainty. During subtask processing, it integrates domain-specific IF-THEN rules to constrain agent behaviors, while global rules enhance inter-agent collaboration. We evaluate the performance of XAgents across three distinct datasets, demonstrating that it consistently surpasses state-of-the-art single-agent and multi-agent approaches in both knowledge-typed and logic-typed question-answering tasks. The codes for XAgents are available at: https://github.com/AGI-FHBC/XAgents.

Synthetic tabular data generation is increasingly essential in data management, supporting downstream applications when real-world and high-quality tabular data is insufficient. Existing tabular generation approaches, such as generative adversarial networks (GANs), diffusion models, and fine-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs), typically require sufficient reference data, limiting their effectiveness in domain-specific databases with scarce records. While prompt-based LLMs offer flexibility without parameter tuning, they often fail to capture dataset-specific feature-label dependencies and generate redundant data, leading to degradation in downstream task performance. To overcome these issues, we propose ReFine, a framework that (i) derives symbolic "if-then" rules from interpretable models and embeds them into prompts to explicitly guide generation toward domain-specific feature distribution, and (ii) applies a dual-granularity filtering strategy that suppresses over-sampling patterns and selectively refines rare but informative samples to reduce distributional imbalance. Extensive experiments on various regression and classification benchmarks demonstrate that ReFine consistently outperforms state-of-the-art methods, achieving up to 0.44 absolute improvement in R-squared for regression and 10.0 percent relative improvement in F1 score for classification tasks.

We address the task of temporal knowledge graph (TKG) forecasting by introducing a fully explainable method based on temporal rules. Motivated by recent work proposing a strong baseline using recurrent facts, our approach learns four simple types of rules with a confidence function that considers both recency and frequency. Evaluated on nine datasets, our method matches or surpasses the performance of eight state-of-the-art models and two baselines, while providing fully interpretable predictions.

Abstract--Rule-Based Moral Principles for Explaining Uncertainty in Natural Language Generation As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in high-stakes applications, the challenge of explaining uncertainty in natural language generation has become both a technical and moral imperative. Traditional approaches rely on probabilistic methods that are often opaque, difficult to interpret, and misaligned with human expectations of transparency and accountability. In response to these limitations, this paper introduces a novel framework based on rule-based moral principles--simple, human-inspired ethical guidelines--for responding to uncertainty in LLM-generated text. Drawing on insights from experimental moral psychology and virtue ethics, we define a set of symbolic behavioral rules such as precaution, deference, and responsibility to guide system responses under conditions of epistemic or aleatoric uncertainty. These rules are implemented declaratively and are designed to generate adaptive, context-sensitive explanations even in the absence of precise confidence metrics. The moral principles are encoded as symbolic rules within a lightweight Prolog-based engine, where each uncertainty tag (low, medium, high) activates an ethically aligned system action along with an automatically generated, plain-language rationale. We evaluate the framework through scenario-based simulations that benchmark rule coverage, assess fairness implications, and analyze trust calibration. An interpretive explanation module is integrated to reveal both the assigned uncertainty level and its underlying justification in a transparent and accessible way. We illustrate the framework through hypothetical yet plausible use cases in clinical and legal domains, demonstrating how rule-based moral reasoning can enhance user trust, promote fairness, and improve the interpretability of AI-generated language. By offering a lightweight, philosophically grounded alternative to probabilistic uncertainty modeling, our approach paves the way for more ethical, human-aligned, and socially responsible natural language generation.

Does Society Have Too Many Rules? When regular people seem burdened by bureaucracy, and the powerful act as they choose, it's worth asking whether we've forgotten what makes rules effective. I live in a three-generation household. Our place is big, but crowded: all of us have hobbies, and so every shelf or surface contains toys, books, art supplies, sporting goods, craft projects, cameras, musical instruments, or kitchen gadgets. Before the table can be set for dinner, it must be cleared of a board game or marble run. My desk, where I aim to write in the mornings, has been repurposed as a drone-repair workshop. The property includes two broken-down sheds and a garage.

Game-based interactive driving simulations have emerged as versatile platforms for advancing decision-making algorithms in road transport mobility. While these environments offer safe, scalable, and engaging settings for testing driving strategies, ensuring both realism and robust performance amid dynamic and diverse scenarios remains a significant challenge. Recently, the integration of game-based techniques with advanced learning frameworks has enabled the development of adaptive decision-making models that effectively manage the complexities inherent in varied driving conditions. These models outperform traditional simulation methods, especially when addressing scenario-specific challenges, ranging from obstacle avoidance on highways and precise maneuvering during on-ramp merging to navigation in roundabouts, unsignalized intersections, and even the high-speed demands of autonomous racing. Despite numerous innovations in game-based interactive driving, a systematic review comparing these approaches across different scenarios is still missing. This survey provides a comprehensive evaluation of game-based interactive driving methods by summarizing recent advancements and inherent roadway features in each scenario. Furthermore, the reviewed algorithms are critically assessed based on their adaptation of the standard game model and an analysis of their specific mechanisms to understand their impact on decision-making performance. Finally, the survey discusses the limitations of current approaches and outlines promising directions for future research.

AI systems are increasingly governed by natural language principles, yet a key challenge arising from reliance on language remains underexplored: interpretive ambiguity. As in legal systems, ambiguity arises both from how these principles are written and how they are applied. But while legal systems use institutional safeguards to manage such ambiguity, such as transparent appellate review policing interpretive constraints, AI alignment pipelines offer no comparable protections. Different interpretations of the same rule can lead to inconsistent or unstable model behavior. Drawing on legal theory, we identify key gaps in current alignment pipelines by examining how legal systems constrain ambiguity at both the rule creation and rule application steps. We then propose a computational framework that mirrors two legal mechanisms: (1) a rule refinement pipeline that minimizes interpretive disagreement by revising ambiguous rules (analogous to agency rulemaking or iterative legislative action), and (2) prompt-based interpretive constraints that reduce inconsistency in rule application (analogous to legal canons that guide judicial discretion). We evaluate our framework on a 5,000-scenario subset of the WildChat dataset and show that both interventions significantly improve judgment consistency across a panel of reasonable interpreters. Our approach offers a first step toward systematically managing interpretive ambiguity, an essential step for building more robust, law-following AI systems.

Cities today generate enormous streams of data from sensors, cameras, and connected infrastructure. While this information offers unprecedented opportunities to improve urban life, most existing systems struggle with scale, latency, and fragmented insights. This work introduces a framework that blends physics-informed machine learning, multimodal data fusion, and knowledge graph representation with adaptive, rule-based intelligence powered by large language models (LLMs). Physics-informed methods ground learning in real-world constraints, ensuring predictions remain meaningful and consistent with physical dynamics. Knowledge graphs act as the semantic backbone, integrating heterogeneous sensor data into a connected, queryable structure. At the edge, LLMs generate context-aware rules that adapt filtering and decision-making in real time, enabling efficient operation even under constrained resources. Together, these elements form a foundation for digital twin systems that go beyond passive monitoring to provide actionable insights. By uniting physics-based reasoning, semantic data fusion, and adaptive rule generation, this approach opens new possibilities for creating responsive, trustworthy, and sustainable smart infrastructures.

Short text clustering is a known use case in the text analytics community. When the structure and content falls in the natural language domain e.g. Twitter posts or instant messages, then natural language techniques can be used, provided texts are of sufficient length to allow for use of (pre)trained models to extract meaningful information, such as part-of-speech or topic annotations. However, natural language models are not suitable for clustering transaction counterparties, as they are found in bank payment messaging systems, such as SWIFT. The manually typed tags are typically physical or legal entity details, which lack sentence structure, while containing all the variations and noise that manual entry introduces. This leaves a gap in an investigator or counter-fraud professional's toolset when looking to augment their knowledge of payment flow originator and beneficiary entities and trace funds and assets. A gap that vendors traditionally try to close with fuzzy matching tools. With these considerations in mind, we are proposing a hybrid string similarity, topic modelling, hierarchical clustering and rule-based pipeline to facilitate clustering of transaction counterparties, also catering for unknown number of expected clusters. We are also devising metrics to supplement the evaluation of the approach, based on the well-known measures of precision and recall. Testing on a real-life labelled dataset demonstrates significantly improved performance over a baseline rule-based ('keyword') approach. The approach retains most of the interpretability found in rule-based systems, as the former adds an additional level of cluster refinement to the latter. The resulting workflow reduces the need for manual review. When only a subset of the population needs to be investigated, such as in sanctions investigations, the approach allows for better control of the risks of missing entity variations.

Machine-learning models are increasingly driving decisions in high-stakes settings, such as finance, law, and hiring, thus, highlighting the need for transparency. However, the key challenge is to balance transparency -- clarifying `why' a decision was made -- with recourse: providing actionable steps on `how' to achieve a favourable outcome from an unfavourable outcome. Counterfactual explanations reveal `why' an undesired outcome occurred and `how' to reverse it through targeted feature changes (interventions). Current counterfactual approaches have limitations: 1) they often ignore causal dependencies between features, and 2) they typically assume all interventions can happen simultaneously, an unrealistic assumption in practical scenarios where actions are typically taken in a sequence. As a result, these counterfactuals are often not achievable in the real world. We present P2C (Path-to-Counterfactuals), a model-agnostic framework that produces a plan (ordered sequence of actions) converting an unfavourable outcome to a causally consistent favourable outcome. P2C addresses both limitations by 1) Explicitly modelling causal relationships between features and 2) Ensuring that each intermediate state in the plan is feasible and causally valid. P2C uses the goal-directed Answer Set Programming system s(CASP) to generate the plan accounting for feature changes that happen automatically due to causal dependencies. Furthermore, P2C refines cost (effort) computation by only counting changes actively made by the user, resulting in realistic cost estimates. Finally, P2C highlights how its causal planner outperforms standard planners, which lack causal knowledge and thus can generate illegal actions.