Dingyan Shang

DACRI: Decision-Aware Causal Intervention Ranking for Critical Supply Chains

Detecting or attributing a supply-chain disruption is not the same as selecting the intervention that maximizes recoverable net value. We present CriticalSCM-Bench v1, a controlled synthetic benchmark with causal ground truth, paired factual/counterfactual rollouts, and an explicit net-value objective. Relative to a full-information train-selected static benchmark, LambdaMART improves median normalized net value by 5.7--16.2\%, with paired statistical support on the semiconductor and critical-material archetypes but not on digital infrastructure. On digital infrastructure, a domain-informed constant-buffer policy remains stronger, showing that greater model complexity is not uniformly justified. Across partial and delayed settings, LambdaMART retains 33--75\% of full-clamp value. Stress tests further show that intervention fidelity, timing, cost, and held-out disruptions can alter policy ordering. Critical materials show the weakest out-of-distribution retention. Separately, a guarded explanation study over 540 generations preserves every fixed intervention decision after deterministic validation and template fallback, although exact wording remains unstable. Within this controlled setting, the results identify regimes in which adaptive ranking adds value and those in which simpler structural policies remain preferable.

Context-Masked Truncated Reasoning Audits for Answer-Key Dependence in LLM Tutors

Large language model (LLM) tutors may have access to teacher notes, answer keys, rubrics, or retrieved solutions while producing student-facing explanations. We study whether truncated reasoning probes can distinguish direct access to such private context from answer information carried by the written explanation. Using Truncated Reasoning AUC Evaluation (TRACE), we evaluate 1000 GSM8K problems under question-only, correct answer-key, and wrong answer-key contexts. When forced-answer probes retain the private key, answer-key TRACE AUC rises from 0.375 to 0.900, and the gold answer is recoverable with no explanation at all in 998 of 1000 cases. We then introduce a context-masked replay: answer-key-generated prefixes are probed under the corresponding question-only prompt. Masking reduces 10\% prefix accuracy from 0.997 to 0.126 and median AUC from 0.900 to 0.375, nearly matching question-only values of 0.113 and 0.375. On 746 pairs where both explanations end correctly, the masked mean AUC difference is $-0.0086$ with a 95\% bootstrap interval spanning zero. Wrong keys still account for 272 of 387 incorrect final responses, showing that private artifacts can influence outputs even when early-prefix evidence disappears after masking. These results establish context masking as necessary for attributing early answer availability to an explanation rather than its hidden input.

Detecting Answer-Driven Reasoning in LLM-Based Educational Tutors via Truncated Chain-of-Thought Auditing

Safety, or Just Capability? A Validity Audit of Agent-Safety Benchmarks

Agent-safety benchmarks measure different behaviors, and their scores get quoted interchangeably as an agent's safety. We treat four of them (R-Judge, InjecAgent, AgentHarm, AgentDojo) as measurements to be validated, running each under its official implementation and author-provided scorer on up to 22 models, with MMLU and GPQA measured by us under one protocol as a capability composite. The metric is the first problem. On any binary trace-judgment benchmark scored by $F_1$, an ``always positive''policy attains $F_1 = 2\pi/(1+\pi)$; on R-Judge that is $0.690$, above five of the 21 models that actually discriminate. The three broad-coverage benchmarks then rank the same 18 models differently, and the trade-off behind that disagreement is a small-panel artifact: R-Judge specificity against AgentHarm safety correlates $-0.64$ at $n{=}7$ and $+0.02$ at $n{=}18$, and a quarter of random size-7 subsets reach $|\rho| \geq 0.5$ around that near-zero value. Held-out validity turns on which outcome you pick. Capability predicts task success ($\rho{=}{+}0.60$) but correlates negatively with misalignment safety ($\rho{=}{-}0.44$, $n{=}21$). On their paired $n{=}20$ panel, the corresponding contrast is $\Delta{=}{-}1.00$ (95% CI $[-1.48, -0.49]$, $p<0.001$), and it survives leave-one-organization-out and organization-clustered bootstrap analyses. On an expanded 41-model panel, the misalignment correlation weakens to $-0.16$ (95% CI $[-0.54, +0.22]$) and jailbreak strengthens to $+0.34$, though neither change is significant. \mbox{AgentHarm} shows the strongest held-out association, $\rho{=}{+}0.72$ with three-template jailbreak safety after controlling capability. But both instruments score harmful compliance, so this is evidence of convergent validity rather than general safety. Naming the benchmark, metric, target behavior, and model panel is the minimum a safety claim needs.