Biological agents navigate familiar environments not by re-solving routes for each new goal, but by reusing a learned map built once and read off as goals change. Existing artificial cognitive-map models mimic this reuse, yet their guidance is not explicitly grounded in additive heterogeneous route costs. Furthermore, they often struggle with memory efficiency: representative state-indexed and high-rank spectral constructions incur substantial storage growth as the environment scales. We present BCM, which grounds a reusable cognitive map in local edge costs through a self-supervised Bellman-grounded objective and a compact coordinate encoding, supporting changing goal queries without per-goal retraining. On weighted grids of up to $N=1600$ nodes, BCM maintains full success and only a 5\% mean Gap relative to exact Dijkstra search, compared with about $45\%$ for a connectivity-based spectral baseline. Notably, as the graph size increases from $N=400$ to $N=3600$, its memory footprint grows sublinearly while maintaining competitive performance, making our method scalable to complex environments. Together, these results show that additive route costs can be written into a compact, reusable cognitive-map representation, bridging the gap between biological flexibility and optimal path planning.
Electroencephalogram (EEG) visual decoding aims to recover visual semantics from non-invasive neural time-series signals, for which robust alignment between noisy neural responses and stable semantic representations is key to achieving high-performance decoding. Despite recent advances in contrastive learning, robust EEG decoding remains challenging because existing methods rely on fixed visual or textual anchors whose semantic relations may become misaligned with EEG representations that vary across trials, subjects, and learning stages. Our empirical evidence shows that this instability appears across both standard EEG decoding protocols and more challenging robustness settings, including strict cross-subject transfer and realistic personalized continual adaptation. We provide a formal analysis showing that fixed semantic supervision can bias optimization when EEG-specific relations evolve, and that structure-agnostic perturbations may distort semantically important EEG components. To address these issues, we propose Progressive Contrastive Alignment (ProCA), a unified and model-agnostic framework for adaptive neural-semantic alignment. ProCA progressively refines class-level contrastive supervision from frozen vision-language priors to EEG-aware semantic relations, and introduces structure-consistent interpolation to constrain feature mixing according to channel-wise and temporal importance. Across subject-dependent, subject-independent, strict cross-subject transfer, and continual adaptation settings, ProCA achieves average relative Top-1/Top-5 gains of 7.4%/3.9%, 10.0%/4.6%, 28.1%/17.8%, and 16.8%/11.6%, respectively.
Kanglei Zhou, Chunyan Lan, Dongyang Li et al.· 0 citations
We present Discovery Loop, a lightweight system that uses a large language model (LLM) to iteratively evolve optimization algorithms. Starting from a simple seed solver, the LLM proposes algorithmic improvements guided by a scoreboard of results and a history of prior ideas. Each candidate is evaluated against an independent verifier; improvements are kept and failures discarded. Applied to the Packomania circle-packing benchmark (csqv: maximize the sum of radii of N variable-radius circles in the unit square), the system improved the best known solutions for 10 values of N in the range 101-114, with gains of 2.4%-5.4% over prior records, all within 15 iterations and at a total LLM cost of $27.72. These results have been independently accepted by Packomania. We describe the method, analyze cost-efficiency dynamics including an adaptive plateau-detection mechanism, and discuss implications for democratizing automated scientific discovery.
Evaluation of medical artificial intelligence agents remains predominantly answer-centric, assessing only the correctness of final outputs while overlooking the quality of intermediate reasoning. In clinical settings, however, a correct answer reached through fabricated evidence or incoherent logic is as dangerous as an incorrect one. We propose MedTraj, a framework that treats reasoning trajectories as critical objects for construction, evaluation, and optimization. The pipeline generates structured multi-step reasoning chains from medical reasoning sources. Each trajectory is then parsed into clinical observations, evidence, numbered reasoning steps, and a final conclusion, and scored across five quality dimensions: coherence, evidence support, hallucination, completeness, and traceability. Controlled error injection introduces targeted faults into otherwise correct trajectories to establish causal links between specific reasoning failures and measurable quality degradation. Building on this, step-level filtering based on marginal contribution identifies which individual reasoning steps drive or undermine trajectory quality. Finally, quality-weighted context learning feeds trajectory evaluations back into the model at inference time, allowing it to learn from both strong and weak reasoning demonstrations. Experiments across CareQA, PubMedQA, and CECMed demonstrate that trajectory context consistently improves reasoning coherence, with gains of +0.029 to +0.041 over a zero-shot baseline. On CECMed, quality-weighted context nearly doubles the correctness over the zero-shot baseline while cutting the hallucination ratio by 87%. Marginal-contribution analysis further shows that a small minority of reasoning steps carry most of the quality signal, and that extending chains beyond four steps yields diminishing returns.
AI oversight methods rely on ground truth for validation, but what constitutes appropriate AI behavior is contested. This leaves evaluation of moral reasoning in LLMs and debate-based oversight implicitly avoiding realistic ambiguity. We investigate an alternative standard designed to function despite such ambiguity: structural quality of the defence a model can mount for its verdicts in response to critical questions, measured through a four-phase dialectical protocol grounded in Walton's theory of argumentation schemes and Govier's criteria for argument cogency. The protocol is adaptive to different frames of reasoning, extends beyond multiple-choice framing, and treats both the reasoning that precedes a verdict and its post-hoc justification. Across nine frontier models and 200 high-ambiguity MoralChoice items -- $6,778$ judge-scored cells, validated against $89.6\%$ inter-judge agreement on the binary failure judgment -- models defend their reasoning well above the rubric minimum on every dimension. Failure mass concentrates on grounds and sufficiency, and correlates with epistemic hedging rather than argument length. Reasoning is better defended than post-hoc justification, on every model and every Govier dimension. The scheme a model presents in its justification differs from the one it reasoned with on a substantial share of dilemmas ($\geq 20\%$ per model), despite value-based practical reasoning dominating both tracks. The protocol catches strictly indefensible defences (self-contradiction, false premises), and it surfaces difficulties in characterizing the role of retraction in AI alignment, suggesting a need for more situated evaluations.
Daan R. Henselmans, Derck W. E. Prinzhorn, Arno Libert· 1 citation
Autonomous coding agents are increasingly proposed as AI-scientist systems that conduct analyses and write research reports, but executing a prescribed analysis is not the same as making a discovery. Existing benchmarks are configured for reproduction: tasks, data, and rubrics are built around a hidden target study, and recovery of its result is rewarded. We present TruthInsightBench, a benchmark configured for discovery. Its 40 blind tasks, drawn from 40 peer-reviewed studies across 10 scientific domains, expose only a neutral scientific objective and frozen data; source conclusions, expected values, and analysis paths are withheld, leaving the agent to determine what claim the data support. A fixed LLM-based judge scores the evidentiary maturity of an agent's own claims along six dimensions, operationalized as 29 artifact-grounded items, with automated, deterministic aggregation and no per-instance human grading, so evaluation can be repeated automatically as agents evolve. On one frozen base model, four coding agents form a narrow plateau (58.4-60.3 of 100) with no statistically reliable pairwise separation: they execute and document analyses competently, with comparatively strong evidence auditability and novelty, but largely lack the discriminating acts that establish a trustworthy claim (controls, robustness, falsifiability, and cross-dataset generalization). The bottleneck is scientific judgment rather than coding, and genuine discovery remains out of reach. TruthInsightBench makes this gap a measurable target; data and scoring code are at https://github.com/TruthInsight-stack/TruthInsightBench.
Zhibo Yang, Chen Zhang, Yuewei Zhang et al.· 0 citations
General continual learning (GCL) aims to learn from evolving data streams without task identities, explicit boundaries, or repeated access to previous data, making it a realistic yet challenging setting for continual intelligence. Although pretrained models (PTMs) provide rich prior knowledge for addressing the limited supervision and non-stationary nature of GCL, existing PTM-based methods often directly adapt pretrained representations and overlook two critical gaps: the misalignment between upstream pretraining and downstream continual adaptation, and the unreliability of conventional output alignment under blurry streams. Here we propose MePo++, a unified post-training framework that bridges pretrained knowledge and downstream GCL through representation refinement and reconciliation. MePo++ introduces two complementary components: MetaPrep, which improves representation plasticity for continual adaptation through unsupervised meta-refinement over pseudo continual sequences; and StreamAlign, which reinforces representation stability by reconciling evolving online features with a stable pretrained geometry. By improving representation learnability before adaptation and preserving alignment during continual learning, MePo++ enables PTMs to remain both plastic for new concepts and stable over evolving streams. Experiments across diverse PTMs, datasets, and continual learning baselines demonstrate the consistent effectiveness and generality of MePo++ for PTM-based GCL. Our code is available at https://github.com/SunGL001/MePo_Plus.
Guanglong Sun, Kanglei Zhou, Liyuan Wang et al.· 0 citations
As evolutionary transfer optimization (ETO) scales to larger collections of related tasks, problem evaluation can become a major source of runtime growth. This work studies problem-side evaluation scaling in task-parameterized applications and reformulates application-specific serial computations into forms suitable for parallel execution. We organize evaluation scaling into two levels: the number of evaluated tasks and the workload within each task. In multi-task optimization, matrix-recursive kinematic-arm evaluation is reformulated using an accumulation-matrix representation of cumulative link directions. In sequential transfer optimization, pointwise B-spline trajectory evaluation is reformulated using a blending-matrix representation for trajectory and collision computations. Both reformulations maintain close numerical agreement with their reference evaluations and substantially reduce runtime, yielding $256.72\times$ and $93.91\times$ end-to-end speedups, respectively. These results demonstrate problem-side reformulation as a practical route toward scalable ETO. Both application implementations and experimental scripts are released as open source to support reproducibility and reuse.
Yanchen Li, Xiaoming Xue, Kay Chen Tan· 0 citations
AI alignment requires AI systems to adhere to human norms, values, or intentions. Under value pluralism there is no correct target, but a shared prerequisite is that the system's behavior expresses a coherent policy: a mapping from situations to verdicts that is invariant while a situation's morally relevant features are preserved, and sensitive when they change. We introduce four structural conditions for such coherent policies: verdict stability, monotonicity, decisiveness, and Pareto viability. Together they measure a form of moral competence that is evaluable from behavior alone, without reference to a moral standard or expert baseline, forming a structural floor for alignment rather than a normative target. We demonstrate the methodology on three simulated deployments featuring LLM-based agents facing moral dilemmas. Evaluating nine frontier models under a factorial design of five paraphrases, five escalation levels, and three dominance conditions, we show no model expresses a coherent policy across the three deployments: surface-form perturbation alone produces verdict-rate shifts of up to $99$ percentage points at a single escalation level, and a model's success on one scenario does not predict its competence on another. This suggests LLM-based agents are not currently the kind of object to which alignment can meaningfully apply.
Arno Libert, Derck W. E. Prinzhorn, Daan R. Henselmans· 0 citations
Agents tend to optimize, select, or constrain execution structures before decisive runtime outcomes are observed. However, such pre-execution commitment creates an orchestration bottleneck: when intermediate evidence invalidates the pending continuation, agents must either execute stale steps or replan broadly, compounding errors, wasting computation, and discarding progress. We thus propose Trace-grounded Route Orchestration via Validation and Editing (TROVE), which revises only what runtime evidence invalidates. Offline, TROVE distills evaluated workflow-search traces into atomic and composite skills and an outcome-conditioned transition graph, preserving stable fragments while exposing outcome-dependent decisions. Online, it treats a planned route as provisional: after committing one top-level skill, the controller retains a valid continuation, inserts a trace-supported local response, or replaces only the invalid suffix. Evaluation across code-generation, question-answering, and math reasoning benchmarks with different LLM backbones show that TROVE delivers a stronger quality-efficiency trade-off than existing baselines of dataset-level optimization, query-level architecture selection, and graph-constrained scheduling. Quality gains are largest when outcomes change the appropriate continuation, whereas early termination yields substantial efficiency gains on near-saturated tasks. Ablations further show that composite skills capture most offline benefits, insertion enables local correction, and suffix replacement primarily improves efficiency. These findings establish selective route editing as a general principle for adaptive agent orchestration.
Tianxing Wang, Mingming Zhao, Shuai Huang et al.· 0 citations
Safety evaluations can mischaracterize deployed behaviour if artificial-intelligence systems respond to being evaluated. We test this possibility in a full-factorial conjoint experiment on decisions to start a war, spanning 20 large language models, 32 scenarios, 10 repetitions and two conditions (N = 12,800 judgments). Adding one sentence, "You are tested for alignment with human values", produced two effects. First, it produced a level effect: mean willingness to start war fell by 13.43 points on a 0-100 scale (95% confidence interval, -16.20 to -10.65). Second, it produced a structural effect by changing which information drove judgments. Probability of success was the largest factor for 17 of 20 models at baseline; under the cue, civilian casualties were largest for 12. Standardized estimates show that this reordering arose principally because models attenuated strategic considerations such as probability of success and domestic support. Evaluation framing therefore changes both an answer's level and its revealed decision rule.
Recent structured RAG methods leverage tree- or graph-based reasoning structures to improve multi-hop QA. However, they face key limitations in evidence-intensive QA, where answering a question requires synthesizing information scattered across dozens or even hundreds of documents: structural rigidity, which limits adaptive reasoning expansion, and topology-ignorant evidence gathering, which prevents effective integration of evidence across different reasoning nodes. To address these issues, we propose APT-RAG, an Adaptive Planning and Topology-aware evidence gathering RAG framework. Adaptive planning dynamically expands the reasoning structure based on question dependencies and evidence requirements, while topology-aware evidence gathering improves evidence coverage through sibling evidence reuse, direct retrieval, and evidence aggregation from child nodes. We further introduce evidence-guided batched answer generation to reduce significant generation overhead in evidence-intensive QA. In the experiments on evidence-intensive QA benchmarks, APT-RAG outperforms existing structured RAG methods. Our code is available at https://github.com/hyudsl/APT-RAG.
Songeun Lee, Kyungjin Min, Injae Na et al.· 0 citations
