Daily Papers

Speaker verification systems achieve high accuracy but provide little account of the acoustic evidence behind their judgments. Making these systems inspectable requires exposing interpretable evidence while retaining the richer information on which their decisions depend. We present CoLMbo-SV, a speaker language model that combines strong speaker discrimination with structured, acoustically grounded comparison reports. By connecting a pretrained speaker encoder to a language model and supplying explicit acoustic measurements, CoLMbo-SV makes voice comparisons inspectable without restricting verification to the evidence verbalized in its reports. We additionally introduce VoxReason, paired recordings with measured acoustic properties and comparison reports filtered through numerical and qualitative checks, providing supervision for this combined capability. We also develop an evaluation framework that separates what acoustic information a speaker representation encodes, what influences the verification score, and what the generated report discusses. On VoxCeleb1-O, CoLMbo-SV achieves 0.99\% EER, reducing verification error by approximately 80\% relative to the strongest audio-language baseline fine-tuned on VoxReason, while attaining a numerical-grounding score of 0.82. Our analysis further demonstrates that acoustic correctness and decision relevance are distinct properties of an explanation, exposing a gap that numerical-grounding metrics miss. Together, these contributions substantially advance audio-language speaker verification, bring its accuracy toward that of dedicated speaker encoders while adding checkable acoustic reporting, and establish an empirical framework for connecting natural-language explanations to the decisions they explain.

Agent skills are increasingly used to equip large language model (LLM) agents with reusable procedural knowledge. Although recent work has substantially improved skill retrieval due to the increasing skill libraries, retrieving a plausible skill bundle does not guarantee that executing it is worthwhile. Since every skill-conditioned rollout is computationally expensive, deciding whether a retrieved bundle should be executed has become an increasingly important challenge. To this end, we introduce the Reward-Aware Dynamic Execution Gate (RADEG), a lightweight, retriever-agnostic decision layer between skill retrieval and agent execution. RADEG learns a low-cost surrogate model that predicts the execution utility of a query--bundle pair before the expensive rollout is launched. To obtain informative supervision while controlling for task difficulty, we locally perturb each retrieved bundle by deleting, adding, or replacing one skill, producing matched same-query rollouts that isolate the effect of bundle composition on verifier reward. During deployment, RADEG updates only a warm-started logistic head as new verifier feedback becomes available, enabling inexpensive adaptation of the execute/skip boundary without retraining either the retriever or the agent. Under a query-level held-out evaluation on 288 collected rollouts, RADEG substantially reduces unnecessary agent executions while preserving a large fraction of the downstream verifier reward. It consistently outperforms relevance-based and random gating across different execution budgets, demonstrating that execution-aware surrogate modeling provides a practical and cost-effective complement to skill retrieval.

Standard Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems predominantly rely on semantic relevance as a proxy for utility. However, this assumption collapses in realistic decision-making scenarios where user queries are laden with cognitive biases, such as false premises or confirmation bias. In such cases, maximizing relevance paradoxically promotes the retrieval of sycophantic evidence that reinforces hallucinations, a critical failure we term the ``Relevance-Robustness Gap''. To bridge this gap, we propose CoRM-RAG (Counterfactual Risk Minimization for RAG), a framework that aligns retrieval with decision safety rather than mere similarity. Grounded in causal intervention, we introduce a Cognitive Perturbation Protocol to simulate user biases during training, which is then distilled into a lightweight Evidence Critic. This scoring module learns to identify documents that possess sufficient evidential strength to steer the model toward correctness despite adversarial query perturbations. Extensive experiments on decision-making benchmarks demonstrate that CoRM-RAG significantly outperforms strong dense retrievers and LLM-based rerankers in adversarial settings, while enabling effective risk-aware abstention through reliable robustness scoring. Our code is available at https://github.com/PeiYangLiu/CoRM-RAG.git.

Practitioners who wish to build real-world applications that rely on ranking models, need to decide which modelling paradigm to follow. This is not an easy choice to make, as the research literature on this topic has been shifting in recent years. In particular, whilst Gradient Boosted Decision Trees (GBDTs) have reigned supreme for more than a decade, the flexibility of neural networks has allowed them to catch up, and recent works report accuracy metrics that are on par. Nevertheless, practical systems require considerations beyond mere accuracy metrics to decide on a modelling approach. This work describes our experiences in balancing some of the trade-offs that arise, presenting a case study on a short-video recommendation application. We highlight (1) neural networks' ability to handle large training data size, user- and item-embeddings allows for more accurate models than GBDTs in this setting, and (2) because GBDTs are less reliant on specialised hardware, they can provide an equally accurate model at a lower cost. We believe these findings are of relevance to researchers in both academia and industry, and hope they can inspire practitioners who need to make similar modelling choices in the future.

Personal Graphical User Interface (GUI) agents rely on interaction history to infer what a user wants from ambiguous instructions and to anticipate recurring routines. Existing approaches retrieve task-relevant history and append it to the policy's context, implicitly assuming that experience relevant to a task remains useful for each decision within it. We find that this help is largely spent at the first decision: retrieved history strongly improves the opening step of an episode, yet provides little sustained benefit over the remaining 90\% of steps, and offers weak guidance on whether a proactive suggestion is warranted. A relevant record may tell the agent where to begin, but not which past action applies to the current screen or whether a routine is due now. The underlying issue is that relevance does not imply applicability}: relevance is determined at the task level, whereas applicability depends on the situation at decision time. We therefore recast personalization as experience activation and introduce ExpActivator, a training-free framework that activates only the experience applicable to the current situation. During execution, ExpActivator matches each new screen to historical states in the frozen GUI backbone's latent space and supplies the corresponding action as a reference. Before execution, it activates a recurring intent only when the current time and scenario provide sufficient support, and otherwise abstains. Across four GUI backbones, ExpActivator improves within-trajectory step success by 28\% on average, achieves the best personalized execution on every backbone while using about one-fifth as many history tokens, and reaches approximately 2.3times the Matthews correlation coefficient of the strongest proactive baseline. Experience pays where it is activated, not where it is appended.

We consider the problem of Recognizing Textual Entailment within an Information Retrieval context, where we must simultaneously determine the relevancy as well as degree of entailment for individual pieces of evidence to determine a yes/no answer to a binary natural language question. We compare several variants of neural networks for sentence embeddings in a setting of decision-making based on evidence of varying relevance. We propose a basic model to integrate evidence for entailment, show that joint training of the sentence embeddings to model relevance and entailment is feasible even with no explicit per-evidence supervision, and show the importance of evaluating strong baselines. We also demonstrate the benefit of carrying over text comprehension model trained on an unrelated task for our small datasets. Our research is motivated primarily by a new open dataset we introduce, consisting of binary questions and news-based evidence snippets. We also apply the proposed relevance-entailment model on a similar task of ranking multiple-choice test answers, evaluating it on a preliminary dataset of school test questions as well as the standard MCTest dataset, where we improve the neural model state-of-art.

Large language models (LLMs) have significantly advanced natural language processing tasks, yet they are susceptible to generating inaccurate or unreliable responses, a phenomenon known as hallucination. In critical domains such as health and medicine, these hallucinations can pose serious risks. This paper introduces HALO, a novel framework designed to enhance the accuracy and reliability of medical question-answering (QA) systems by focusing on the detection and mitigation of hallucinations. Our approach generates multiple variations of a given query using LLMs and retrieves relevant information from external open knowledge bases to enrich the context. We utilize maximum marginal relevance scoring to prioritize the retrieved context, which is then provided to LLMs for answer generation, thereby reducing the risk of hallucinations. The integration of LangChain further streamlines this process, resulting in a notable and robust increase in the accuracy of both open-source and commercial LLMs, such as Llama-3.1 (from 44% to 65%) and ChatGPT (from 56% to 70%). This framework underscores the critical importance of addressing hallucinations in medical QA systems, ultimately improving clinical decision-making and patient care. The open-source HALO is available at: https://github.com/ResponsibleAILab/HALO.

Memory lets an embodied agent reuse past experience, yet retaining useful information does not ensure that the agent can apply it when conditions change. We present MemTransfer, a benchmark comparing six memory representations, a working-memory baseline and five representations of past experience, under a shared frozen vision-language-model policy. It comprises 100 navigation cases across ten task types in a simulated warehouse, with expert demonstrations supplying the history. Three comparisons vary the starting pose, route availability, and amount and task relevance of history. With one demonstration per task, Full-context and Episodic memory reach 95.3% and 100.0% success at the original demonstration start, but lose 48-49 percentage points at a new test start. Summary changes little between these two test starts, yet with four demonstrations per task it retains a smaller fraction of its unchanged-route success after blocking (39.3%) than Working memory (44.8%) or the two trajectory memories (56-58%). At the new test start, increasing from one to four relevant demonstrations raises Episodic success by 14.3 percentage points, while the other evaluated representations gain no more than 1.3 percentage points. Replacing half of the relevant histories with other-task experience lowers success for both trajectory memories. These results show that robustness to one kind of mismatch does not imply robustness to another, motivating evaluation of both stored information and its use at decision time.

Priorities in multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) convey the relevance preference of one criterion over another, which is usually reflected by imposing the non-negativity and unit-sum constraints. The processing of such priorities is different than other unconstrained data, but this point is often neglected by researchers, which results in fallacious statistical analysis. This article studies three prevalent fallacies in group MCDM along with solutions based on compositional data analysis to avoid misusing statistical operations. First, we use a compositional approach to aggregate the priorities of a group of DMs and show that the outcome of the compositional analysis is identical to the normalized geometric mean, meaning that the arithmetic mean should be avoided. Furthermore, a new aggregation method is developed, which is a robust surrogate for the geometric mean. We also discuss the errors in computing measures of dispersion, including standard deviation and distance functions. Discussing the fallacies in computing the standard deviation, we provide a probabilistic criteria ranking by developing proper Bayesian tests, where we calculate the extent to which a criterion is more important than another. Finally, we explain the errors in computing the distance between priorities, and a clustering algorithm is specially tailored based on proper distance metrics.

Deep neural networks are a promising tool for Audio Event Classification. In contrast to other data like natural images, there are many sensible and non-obvious representations for audio data, which could serve as input to these models. Due to their black-box nature, the effect of different input representations has so far mostly been investigated by measuring classification performance. In this work, we leverage eXplainable AI (XAI), to understand the underlying classification strategies of models trained on different input representations. Specifically, we compare two model architectures with regard to relevant input features used for Audio Event Detection: one directly processes the signal as the raw waveform, and the other takes in its time-frequency spectrogram representation. We show how relevance heatmaps obtained via "Siren"{Layer-wise Relevance Propagation} uncover representation-dependent decision strategies. With these insights, we can make a well-informed decision about the best input representation in terms of robustness and representativity and confirm that the model's classification strategies align with human requirements.

Clinical decision-making increasingly relies on timely and context-aware access to patient information within Electronic Health Records (EHRs), yet most existing natural language question-answering (QA) systems are evaluated solely on benchmark datasets, limiting their practical relevance. To overcome this limitation, we introduce EHRNavigator, a multi-agent framework that harnesses AI agents to perform patient-level question answering across heterogeneous and multimodal EHR data. We assessed its performance using both public benchmark and institutional datasets under realistic hospital conditions characterized by diverse schemas, temporal reasoning demands, and multimodal evidence integration. Through quantitative evaluation and clinician-validated chart review, EHRNavigator demonstrated strong generalization, achieving 86% accuracy on real-world cases while maintaining clinically acceptable response times. Overall, these findings confirm that EHRNavigator effectively bridges the gap between benchmark evaluation and clinical deployment, offering a robust, adaptive, and efficient solution for real-world EHR question answering.

We investigate the exploitation of both lexical and neural relevance signals for ad-hoc passage retrieval. Our exploration involves a large-scale training dataset in which dense neural representations of MS-MARCO queries and passages are complemented and integrated with 253 hand-crafted lexical features extracted from the same corpus. Blending of the relevance signals from the two different groups of features is learned by a classical Learning-to-Rank (LTR) model based on a forest of decision trees. To evaluate our solution, we employ a pipelined architecture where a dense neural retriever serves as the first stage and performs a nearest-neighbor search over the neural representations of the documents. Our LTR model acts instead as the second stage that re-ranks the set of candidates retrieved by the first stage to enhance effectiveness. The results of reproducible experiments conducted with state-of-the-art dense retrievers on publicly available resources show that the proposed solution significantly enhances the end-to-end ranking performance while relatively minimally impacting efficiency. Specifically, we achieve a boost in nDCG@10 of up to 11% with an increase in average query latency of only 4.3%. This confirms the advantage of seamlessly combining two distinct families of signals that mutually contribute to retrieval effectiveness.

Large language models (LLMs) have significantly advanced autonomous agents, particularly in zero-shot tool usage, also known as function calling. This research delves into enhancing the function-calling capabilities of LLMs by exploring different approaches, including prompt formats for integrating function descriptions, blending function-calling and instruction-following data, introducing a novel Decision Token for conditional prompts, leveraging chain-of-thought reasoning, and overcoming multilingual challenges with a translation pipeline. Our key findings and contributions are as follows: (1) Instruction-following data improves both function-calling accuracy and relevance detection. (2) The use of the newly proposed Decision Token, combined with synthetic non-function-call data, enhances relevance detection. (3) A tailored translation pipeline effectively overcomes multilingual limitations, demonstrating significant improvements in Traditional Chinese. These insights highlight the potential for improved function-calling capabilities and multilingual applications in LLMs.

The increasing complexity of Artificial Intelligence models poses challenges to interpretability, particularly in the healthcare sector. This study investigates the impact of deep learning model complexity and Explainable AI (XAI) efficacy, utilizing four ResNet architectures (ResNet-18, 34, 50, 101). Through methodical experimentation on 4,369 lung X-ray images of COVID-19-infected and healthy patients, the research evaluates models' classification performance and the relevance of corresponding XAI explanations with respect to the ground-truth disease masks. Results indicate that the increase in model complexity is associated with a decrease in classification accuracy and AUC-ROC scores (ResNet-18: 98.4%, 0.997; ResNet-101: 95.9%, 0.988). Notably, in eleven out of twelve statistical tests performed, no statistically significant differences occurred between XAI quantitative metrics - Relevance Rank Accuracy and the proposed Positive Attribution Ratio - across trained models. These results suggest that increased model complexity does not consistently lead to higher performance or relevance of explanations for models' decision-making processes.

Multi-agent systems (MAS) increasingly solve complex tasks by orchestrating agents and tools selected from rapidly growing marketplaces. As these marketplaces expand, many candidates become functionally overlapping, making selection not just a retrieval problem: beyond filtering relevant agents, an orchestrator must choose options that are reliable, compatible with the current execution context, and able to cooperate with other selected agents. Existing recommender systems -- largely built for item-level ranking from flat user-item logs -- do not directly address the structured, sequential, and interaction-dependent nature of agent orchestration. We address this gap by formulating agent recommendation in MAS as a constrained decision problem and introducing a generic constrained recommendation framework that first uses retrieval to build a compact candidate set conditioned on the current subtask and context, and then performs utility optimization within this feasible set using a learned scorer that accounts for relevance, reliability, and interaction effects. We ground both the formulation and learning signals in historical calling trees, which capture the execution structure of MAS (parent-child calls, branching dependencies, and local cooperation patterns) beyond what flat logs provide. The framework supports two complementary settings: agent-level recommendation (select the next agent/tool) and system-level recommendation (select a small, connected agent team/subgraph for coordinated execution). To enable systematic evaluation, we construct a unified calling-tree benchmark by normalizing invocation logs from eight heterogeneous multi-agent corpora into a shared structured representation.

We introduce COMET (Causal Object-centric Model for Efficient Tree search), a model-based reinforcement learning algorithm that performs Monte Carlo Tree Search in a slot-structured latent space. COMET pairs a frozen unsupervised object-centric encoder with a transformer-based world model, in which actions are bound to objects through a novel action-slot fusion mechanism that is used in slot transition prediction. Policy and value heads use object-causal attention, modulating token interactions by learned per-slot relevance scores so that decision-making concentrates on task-relevant entities. COMET adds an explicit object-level inductive bias to MuZero-style latent planning. Across eight visually and dynamically diverse tasks from the Object-Centric Visual RL benchmark, ManiSkill, Robosuite, and VizDoom, COMET achieves a higher mean normalized score during the early stages of training compared to object-centric and monolithic baselines.

Large language models (LLMs) have recently demonstrated strong capabilities as autonomous agents, showing promise in reasoning, tool use, and sequential decision-making. While prior benchmarks have evaluated LLM agents in domains such as software engineering and scientific discovery, the finance domain remains underexplored, despite its direct relevance to economic value and high-stakes decision-making. Existing financial benchmarks primarily test static knowledge through question answering, but they fall short of capturing the dynamic and iterative nature of trading. To address this gap, we introduce StockBench, a contamination-free benchmark designed to evaluate LLM agents in realistic, multi-month stock trading environments. Agents receive daily market signals -- including prices, fundamentals, and news -- and must make sequential buy, sell, or hold decisions. Performance is assessed using financial metrics such as cumulative return, maximum drawdown, and the Sortino ratio. Our evaluation of state-of-the-art proprietary (e.g., GPT-5, Claude-4) and open-weight (e.g., Qwen3, Kimi-K2, GLM-4.5) models shows that while most LLM agents struggle to outperform the simple buy-and-hold baseline, several models demonstrate the potential to deliver higher returns and manage risk more effectively. These findings highlight both the challenges and opportunities in developing LLM-powered financial agents, showing that excelling at static financial knowledge tasks does not necessarily translate into successful trading strategies. We release StockBench as an open-source resource to support reproducibility and advance future research in this domain.

Hard negative mining has become the dominant strategy for training retrievers, yet it faces intrinsic limitations: negatives are bounded by corpus availability, selected by retriever score rather than diagnostic value, and increasingly contaminated by false positives as the retriever improves. LLM-based synthesis offers a principled alternative, where negatives that are unconstrained, targeted, and free from false positive risk. But we show that naively incorporating generated negatives into contrastive learning often degrades retrieval performance. We identify and formalize the root cause as a generative-discriminative gap: LLM generation optimizes for fluent, plausible text, while contrastive learning demands strategic violations of relevance at the decision boundary. Our analysis reveals two compounding failure modes: discriminative-agnostic generation, where the LLM lacks an explicit model of query information needs and defaults to generic or topic-drifted text that provides no contrastive signal; and source-dependent shortcuts, where distributional artifacts enable the model to distinguish negatives by origin rather than relevance, causing gradient drift that actively corrupts optimization. To close this gap, we propose CausalNeg consisting of two main modules: (1) CoT-guided counterfactual perturbation for data construction: decomposes why a document satisfies a query into explicit information requirements, then surgically violates individual requirements to construct negatives with controlled, interpretable hardness. (2) Query-view entropy maximization during training: disperses generated negatives across the similarity spectrum, minimizing the mutual information between source identity and similarity scores to suppress shortcut exploitation. We make our code publicly available at https://github.com/mzhangzhicheng/CausalNeg.

Interactive Natural Language Processing (iNLP) has emerged as a novel paradigm within the field of NLP, aimed at addressing limitations in existing frameworks while aligning with the ultimate goals of artificial intelligence. This paradigm considers language models as agents capable of observing, acting, and receiving feedback iteratively from external entities. Specifically, language models in this context can: (1) interact with humans for better understanding and addressing user needs, personalizing responses, aligning with human values, and improving the overall user experience; (2) interact with knowledge bases for enriching language representations with factual knowledge, enhancing the contextual relevance of responses, and dynamically leveraging external information to generate more accurate and informed responses; (3) interact with models and tools for effectively decomposing and addressing complex tasks, leveraging specialized expertise for specific subtasks, and fostering the simulation of social behaviors; and (4) interact with environments for learning grounded representations of language, and effectively tackling embodied tasks such as reasoning, planning, and decision-making in response to environmental observations. This paper offers a comprehensive survey of iNLP, starting by proposing a unified definition and framework of the concept. We then provide a systematic classification of iNLP, dissecting its various components, including interactive objects, interaction interfaces, and interaction methods. We proceed to delve into the evaluation methodologies used in the field, explore its diverse applications, scrutinize its ethical and safety issues, and discuss prospective research directions. This survey serves as an entry point for researchers who are interested in this rapidly evolving area and offers a broad view of the current landscape and future trajectory of iNLP.

Attending to what is relevant is fundamental to both the mammalian brain and modern machine learning models such as Transformers. Yet, determining relevance remains a core challenge, traditionally offloaded to learning algorithms like backpropagation. Inspired by recent cellular neurobiological evidence linking neocortical pyramidal cells to distinct mental states, this work shows how models (e.g., Transformers) can emulate high-level perceptual processing and awake thought (imagination) states to pre-select relevant information before applying attention. Triadic neuronal-level modulation loops among questions (Q), clues (keys, K), and hypotheses (values, V) enable diverse, deep, parallel reasoning chains at the representation level and allow a rapid shift from initial biases to refined understanding. This leads to orders-of-magnitude faster learning with significantly reduced computational demand (e.g., fewer heads, layers, and tokens), at an approximate cost of O(N), where N is the number of input tokens. Results span reinforcement learning (e.g., CarRacing in a high-dimensional visual setup), computer vision, and natural language question answering.

Relevance and utility are two frequently used measures to evaluate the effectiveness of an information retrieval (IR) system. Relevance emphasizes the aboutness of a result to a query, while utility refers to the result's usefulness or value to an information seeker. In Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), high-utility results should be prioritized to feed to LLMs due to their limited input bandwidth. Re-examining RAG's three core components -- relevance ranking derived from retrieval models, utility judgments, and answer generation -- aligns with Schutz's philosophical system of relevances, which encompasses three types of relevance representing different levels of human cognition that enhance each other. These three RAG components also reflect three cognitive levels for LLMs in question-answering. Therefore, we propose an Iterative utiliTy judgmEnt fraMework (ITEM) to promote each step in RAG. We conducted extensive experiments on retrieval (TREC DL, WebAP), utility judgment task (GTI-NQ), and factoid question-answering (NQ) datasets. Experimental results demonstrate significant improvements of ITEM in utility judgments, ranking, and answer generation upon representative baselines.

Analogical reasoning is a unique ability of humans to address unfamiliar challenges by transferring strategies from relevant past experiences. One key finding in psychology is that compared with irrelevant past experiences, recalling relevant ones can help humans better handle new tasks. Coincidentally, the NLP community has also recently found that self-generating relevant examples in the context can help large language models (LLMs) better solve a given problem than hand-crafted prompts. However, it is yet not clear whether relevance is the key factor eliciting such capability, i.e., can LLMs benefit more from self-generated relevant examples than irrelevant ones? In this work, we systematically explore whether LLMs can truly perform analogical reasoning on a diverse set of reasoning tasks. With extensive experiments and analysis, we show that self-generated random examples can surprisingly achieve comparable or even better performance, e.g., 4% performance boost on GSM8K with random biological examples. We find that the accuracy of self-generated examples is the key factor and subsequently design two improved methods with significantly reduced inference costs. Overall, we aim to advance a deeper understanding of LLM analogical reasoning and hope this work stimulates further research in the design of self-generated contexts.

Open-ended search combined with foundation models has produced advances such as faster algorithms, new results on open mathematical problems, and self-improving agents. We extend this paradigm to recommendation for decision-making, focusing on decisions where the set of possible choices is fixed but the reasons for choosing them are not. In high-stakes decisions, e.g., which company to acquire or which customer to target, comparing diverse, well-reasoned options can be more useful than a single ranked list. We formalize open-ended recommendation as building a diverse, high-quality set of recommendations, each an item together with a hypothesis, a natural-language reason why the item fits the needs of a decision maker. We propose QD-Rec, a quality--diversity method that selects items with a contextual bandit and generates hypotheses with a foundation model from earlier ones kept in an archive as stepping stones. A new recommendation enters the archive if it is novel or better than its nearest neighbor. Across M&A, customer targeting, and paper and book recommendation, QD-Rec gives the highest mean quality and builds the largest archive in most settings.

System-1 Decision Models directly make structured probabilistic decisions over query-specified options given a state in a single forward pass, without autoregressively generating reasoning trajectories or textual responses. Recent evaluations cover diverse tasks but often rely on existing benchmarks, where prior exposure to test material can obscure generalization. Moreover, real-world decision making often involves long contexts, large option spaces, and complex logical dependencies, challenges that existing benchmarks do not adequately capture together. Thus, we introduce MMDM (Massive Multitask Decision Making), a benchmark of 5,448 high-quality questions across 16 task categories, combining newly constructed tasks with source-grounded recompositions and rewrites for single-select, multi-select, and soft-label decision making in fresh contexts. It covers realistic scenarios such as agent state tracking, tool and skill selection, preference judgments, and rubric scoring, with option spaces ranging from 2 to 1,024 and inputs extending to 64,817 tokens. With MMDM, we conduct a comprehensive quantitative evaluation of 28 decision models, showing that many perform well on common knowledge yet struggle with interdependent options, constrained decisions, and multi-select tasks. For example, Perplexity Decider-V1.2 reaches 78.75% Hard Single-select Accuracy on world knowledge, but only 53.95% on option logic and 47.95% on constraint planning, while the best Hard Multi-select Accuracy across all models is 36.81%. These results highlight joint reasoning, constraint-aware selection, and complete multi-select recovery as key priorities for decision model development, with MMDM providing a testbed for measuring this progress.

Finding relevant literature underpins the practice of evidence-based medicine. From 2014 to 2016, TREC conducted a clinical decision support track, wherein participants were tasked with finding articles relevant to clinical questions posed by physicians. In total, 87 teams have participated over the past three years, generating 395 runs. During this period, each team has trialled a variety of methods. While there was significant overlap in the methods employed by different teams, the results were varied. Due to the diversity of the platforms used, the results arising from the different techniques are not directly comparable, reducing the ability to build on previous work. By using a stable platform, we have been able to compare different document and query processing techniques, allowing us to experiment with different search parameters. We have used our system to reproduce leading teams runs, and compare the results obtained. By benchmarking our indexing and search techniques, we can statistically test a variety of hypotheses, paving the way for further research.

Language models are no longer used only to generate text. Software also asks them for decisions, in routing, guardrails, and automated gates. System One decision models, also called typed decision models, such as Jev and Laya, return one fast decision over the legal options, leaving no text to inspect. However, a fast, well-formed decision does not show that the model used the evidence. Cognitive experiments can test this, because they vary task demands and measure how behavior changes, yet existing cognitive benchmarks evaluate language and multimodal models. We introduce S1CogBench to ask what these models can and cannot do on 24 cognitive tasks, evaluating five open models and Jev and keeping conditions and scoring apart from disclosed adaptations. We find that decision models vary widely in reliability, acting well does not imply predicting humans, aggregate scores hide how decisions respond to conditions, and speed comes mainly from answering without generation. To our knowledge, S1CogBench is the first benchmark of System One decision models on established cognitive experiments, and it gives a shared test of whether their decisions respond to evidence, feedback, memory load, and future opportunities before software relies on them.

We consider the question: when a large language reasoning model makes a choice, did it think first and then decide to, or decide first and then think? In this paper, we present evidence that detectable, early-encoded decisions shape chain-of-thought in reasoning models. Specifically, we show that a simple linear probe successfully decodes tool-calling decisions from pre-generation activations with very high confidence, and in some cases, even before a single reasoning token is produced. Activation steering supports this causally: perturbing the decision direction leads to inflated deliberation, and flips behavior in many examples (between 7 - 79% depending on model and benchmark). We also show through behavioral analysis that, when steering changes the decision, the chain-of-thought process often rationalizes the flip rather than resisting it. Together, these results suggest that reasoning models can encode action choices before they begin to deliberate in text.

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) on final-answer correctness is the dominant paradigm. This approach, however, provides a coarse signal for model improvement and overlooks the quality of the underlying reasoning process. We argue that a more granular evaluation of reasoning offers a more effective path to building robust models. We decompose reasoning quality into two dimensions: relevance and coherence. Relevance measures if a step is grounded in the problem; coherence measures if it follows logically from prior steps. To measure these aspects reliably, we introduce causal stepwise evaluation (CaSE). This method assesses each reasoning step using only its preceding context, which avoids hindsight bias. We validate CaSE against human judgments on our new expert-annotated benchmarks, MRa-GSM8K and MRa-MATH. More importantly, we show that curating training data with CaSE-evaluated relevance and coherence directly improves final task performance. Our work provides a scalable framework for analyzing, debugging, and improving LLM reasoning, demonstrating the practical value of moving beyond validity checks.

We introduce a dataset of natural-language questions in the decision theory of so-called Newcomb-like problems. Newcomb-like problems include, for instance, decision problems in which an agent interacts with a similar other agent, and thus has to reason about the fact that the other agent will likely reason in similar ways. Evaluating LLM reasoning about Newcomb-like problems is important because interactions between foundation-model-based agents will often be Newcomb-like. Some ways of reasoning about Newcomb-like problems may allow for greater cooperation between models. Our dataset contains both capabilities questions (i.e., questions with a unique, uncontroversially correct answer) and attitude questions (i.e., questions about which decision theorists would disagree). We use our dataset for an investigation of decision-theoretical capabilities and expressed attitudes and their interplay in existing models (different models by OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta, GDM, Reka, etc.), as well as models under simple prompt-based interventions. We find, among other things, that attitudes vary significantly between existing models; that high capabilities are associated with attitudes more favorable toward so-called evidential decision theory; and that attitudes are consistent across different types of questions.

We study reasoning in Rule-Governed Decision Tasks (RGDTs), where models apply external rules to case facts and justify decisions, as required in policy, contract, and compliance settings. Beyond the deductive capability emphasized by standard mathematical and logical reasoning tasks, RGDTs require interpreting rules and their applicability, assessing conditions from evidence, combining judgments under rules and exceptions, and providing checkable justifications. These demands motivate a benchmark assessing both decisions and their stated grounds. We introduce RGDT-Bench, providing 202.1K condition-level supervision slots across four task tracks and eight supported task-probe combinations that vary access to supporting information. Label-blind extraction and deterministic checks produce labels for warrant completeness: source-referenced coverage and consistency of stated decision grounds. The benchmark attributes failures to four process layers: rule use, condition, evidence, and aggregation, and checks the final outcome. Among evaluable correct responses, warrant incompleteness averages 40.2% across six evaluated LLMs and supported task-probe combinations. Such warrant incompleteness poses potential safety risks and remains difficult to detect: the best of seventeen existing evaluators reaches only 57.69% (random: 50%) task-averaged area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). To address this difficulty, we train a simple reward model with warrant supervision. It achieves 69.24% task-averaged AUROC among correct answers, exceeding the matched outcome-supervised baseline by 10.37 pp (percentage points) and the best existing evaluator by 11.55 pp. Beyond completeness assessment, the model outperforms both outcome-supervised baselines across nearly all response-selection comparisons, supporting RGDT-Bench's warrant supervision for RGDT reasoning.

Explanations of model behavior are commonly evaluated via proxy properties weakly tied to the purposes explanations serve in practice. We contribute a decision theoretic framework that treats explanations as information signals valued by the expected improvement they enable on a specified decision task. This approach yields three distinct estimands: 1) a theoretical benchmark that upperbounds achievable performance by any agent with the explanation, 2) a human-complementary value that quantifies the theoretically attainable value that is not already captured by a baseline human decision policy, and 3) a behavioral value representing the causal effect of providing the explanation to human decision-makers. We instantiate these definitions in a practical validation workflow, and apply them to assess explanation potential and interpret behavioral effects in human-AI decision support and mechanistic interpretability.

Relevance is a query-dependent estimate of whether a document or excerpt contains useful evidence. Existing retrieval agents use relevance to select top-k content, but document relevance alone cannot localize, compose, or verify the evidence required by complex questions. Direct Corpus Interaction (DCI) enables such fine-grained operations through grep-style exploration, but its relevance-agnostic search can expose useful clues late and delay convergence. Recent advances use relevance to narrow the corpus into a working space for interaction. Once interaction begins, however, relevance still does not directly guide which documents grep searches first or distinguish informative excerpts from a broad set of matches to let LLMs see them first. We introduce the Relevance-Aware RipGrep Search Agent (RARG), which turns relevance into an execution prior for corpus interaction. RARG provides coarse-to-fine relevance guidance: it orders documents for sequential 'ripgrep' traversal to expose globally relevant clues earlier, initializes promising entry points with query-relevant paragraphs, and reranks grep matches to surface informative excerpts that document-level ranking may otherwise obscure. Across challenging browse question answering and reasoning-intensive retrieval, RARG improves the accuracy--efficiency frontier over retrieval-based and direct-interaction agents. These results demonstrate that relevance-aware interaction enables faster and more reliable search convergence.

Using Large Language Models (LLMs) for relevance assessments offers promising opportunities to improve Information Retrieval (IR), Natural Language Processing (NLP), and related fields. Indeed, LLMs hold the promise of allowing IR experimenters to build evaluation collections with a fraction of the manual human labor currently required. This could help with fresh topics on which there is still limited knowledge and could mitigate the challenges of evaluating ranking systems in low-resource scenarios, where it is challenging to find human annotators. Given the fast-paced recent developments in the domain, many questions concerning LLMs as assessors are yet to be answered. Among the aspects that require further investigation, we can list the impact of various components in a relevance judgment generation pipeline, such as the prompt used or the LLM chosen. This paper benchmarks and reports on the results of a large-scale automatic relevance judgment evaluation, the LLMJudge challenge at SIGIR 2024, where different relevance assessment approaches were proposed. In detail, we release and benchmark 42 LLM-generated labels of the TREC 2023 Deep Learning track relevance judgments produced by eight international teams who participated in the challenge. Given their diverse nature, these automatically generated relevance judgments can help the community not only investigate systematic biases caused by LLMs but also explore the effectiveness of ensemble models, analyze the trade-offs between different models and human assessors, and advance methodologies for improving automated evaluation techniques. The released resource is available at the following link: https://llm4eval.github.io/LLMJudge-benchmark/

Decision models target structured tasks by directly predicting choices or scores, avoiding autoregressive decoding latency. However, transferring a generative LLM's ranking knowledge to a decision model remains challenging: the teacher expresses preferences through a ranked list of document ID sequences, while the student determines the ranking using scores from the first-token position. To bridge this gap, we introduce DecisionRank, a decision model trained through item-space on-policy distillation (OPD). Item-space OPD constructs the student's rollout by sorting its document scores into a ranked sequence. A generative teacher takes the resulting ranking list as inputs and provides conditional feedback to directly supervise those scores. Combined with offline ranking supervision, DecisionRank achieves state-of-the-art performance on both general and reasoning-intensive retrieval benchmarks such as TREC DL, BEIR, and BRIGHT. Across four benchmarks, item-space OPD consistently outperforms alternative training objectives. Even at 1.7B parameters, DecisionRank surpasses its 27B generative teacher on TREC DL19--23. At 8B, it outperforms its generative listwise counterpart while running 24.5times faster on TREC DL and 16.7times faster on BRIGHT.

When asked, current large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT claim that they can assist us with relevance judgments. Many researchers think this would not lead to credible IR research. In this perspective paper, we discuss possible ways for LLMs to assist human experts along with concerns and issues that arise. We devise a human-machine collaboration spectrum that allows categorizing different relevance judgment strategies, based on how much the human relies on the machine. For the extreme point of "fully automated assessment", we further include a pilot experiment on whether LLM-based relevance judgments correlate with judgments from trained human assessors. We conclude the paper by providing two opposing perspectives - for and against the use of LLMs for automatic relevance judgments - and a compromise perspective, informed by our analyses of the literature, our preliminary experimental evidence, and our experience as IR researchers. We hope to start a constructive discussion within the community to avoid a stale-mate during review, where work is dammed if is uses LLMs for evaluation and dammed if it doesn't.

Training data influence estimation methods quantify the contribution of training documents to a model's output, making them a promising source of information for example-based explanations. As humans cannot interpret thousands of documents, only a small subset of the training data can be presented as an explanation. Although the choice of which documents to include directly affects explanation quality, previous evaluations of such systems have largely ignored any selection strategies. To address this, we propose a novel selection relevance score, a retraining-free metric that quantifies how useful a set of examples is for explaining a model's output. We validate this score through fine-tuning experiments, confirming that it can predict whether a set of examples supports or undermines the model's predictions. Using this metric, we further show that common selection strategies often underperform random selection. Motivated by this finding, we propose a strategy that balances influence and representativeness, enabling better use of selection budgets than naively selecting the highest-ranking examples.

Ranking schemes drive many real-world decisions, like, where to study, whom to hire, what to buy, etc. Many of these decisions often come with high consequences. For example, a university can be deemed less prestigious if not featured in a top-k list, and consumers might not even explore products that do not get recommended to buyers. At the heart of most of these decisions are opaque ranking schemes, which dictate the ordering of data entities, but their internal logic is inaccessible or proprietary. Drawing inferences about the ranking differences is like a guessing game to the stakeholders, like, the rankees (i.e., the entities who are ranked, like product companies) and the decision-makers (i.e., who use the rankings, like buyers). In this paper, we aim to enable transparency in ranking interpretation by using algorithmic rankers that learn from available data and by enabling human reasoning about the learned ranking differences using explainable AI (XAI) methods. To realize this aim, we leverage the exploration-explanation paradigm of human-data interaction to let human stakeholders explore subsets and groupings of complex multi-attribute ranking data using visual explanations of model fit and attribute influence on rankings. We realize this explanation paradigm for transparent ranking interpretation in TRIVEA, a visual analytic system that is fueled by: i) visualizations of model fit derived from algorithmic rankers that learn the associations between attributes and rankings from available data and ii) visual explanations derived from XAI methods that help abstract important patterns, like, the relative influence of attributes in different ranking ranges. Using TRIVEA, end users not trained in data science have the agency to transparently reason about the global and local behavior of the rankings without the need to open black-box ranking models and develop confidence in the resulting attribute-based inferences. We demonstrate the efficacy of TRIVEA using multiple usage scenarios and subjective feedback from researchers with diverse domain expertise. Keywords: Visual Analytics, Learning-to-Rank, Explainable ML, Ranking

The current literature on AI-advised decision making -- involving explainable AI systems advising human decision makers -- presents a series of inconclusive and confounding results. To synthesize these findings, we propose a simple theory that elucidates the frequent failure of AI explanations to engender appropriate reliance and complementary decision making performance. We argue explanations are only useful to the extent that they allow a human decision maker to verify the correctness of an AI's prediction, in contrast to other desiderata, e.g., interpretability or spelling out the AI's reasoning process. Prior studies find in many decision making contexts AI explanations do not facilitate such verification. Moreover, most tasks fundamentally do not allow easy verification, regardless of explanation method, limiting the potential benefit of any type of explanation. We also compare the objective of complementary performance with that of appropriate reliance, decomposing the latter into the notions of outcome-graded and strategy-graded reliance.

Recent studies have shown that large language models (LLMs) can assess relevance and support information retrieval (IR) tasks such as document ranking and relevance judgment generation. However, the internal mechanisms by which off-the-shelf LLMs understand and operationalize relevance remain largely unexplored. In this paper, we systematically investigate how different LLM modules contribute to relevance judgment through the lens of mechanistic interpretability. Using activation patching techniques, we analyze the roles of various model components and identify a multi-stage, progressive process in generating either pointwise or pairwise relevance judgment. Specifically, LLMs first extract query and document information in the early layers, then process relevance information according to instructions in the middle layers, and finally utilize specific attention heads in the later layers to generate relevance judgments in the required format. Our findings provide insights into the mechanisms underlying relevance assessment in LLMs, offering valuable implications for future research on leveraging LLMs for IR tasks.

Machine learning models routinely automate decisions in applications like lending and hiring. In such settings, consumer protection rules require companies that deploy models to explain predictions to decision subjects. These rules are motivated, in part, by the belief that explanations can promote recourse by revealing information that individuals can use to contest or improve their outcomes. In practice, many companies comply with these rules by providing individuals with a list of the most important features for their prediction, which they identify based on feature importance scores from feature attribution methods such as SHAP or LIME. In this work, we show how these practices can undermine consumers by highlighting features that would not lead to an improved outcome and by explaining predictions that cannot be changed. We propose to address these issues by highlighting features based on their responsiveness score -- i.e., the probability that an individual can attain a target prediction by changing a specific feature. We develop efficient methods to compute responsiveness scores for any model and any dataset. We conduct an extensive empirical study on the responsiveness of explanations in lending. Our results show that standard practices in consumer finance can backfire by presenting consumers with reasons without recourse, and demonstrate how our approach improves consumer protection by highlighting responsive features and identifying fixed predictions.

Countless decisions shape our daily lives, and it is paramount to understand the how and why behind these choices. In this paper, we introduce a new LLM decision-making framework called STRUX, which enhances LLM decision-making by providing structured explanations. These include favorable and adverse facts related to the decision, along with their respective strengths. STRUX begins by distilling lengthy information into a concise table of key facts. It then employs a series of self-reflection steps to determine which of these facts are pivotal, categorizing them as either favorable or adverse in relation to a specific decision. Lastly, we fine-tune an LLM to identify and prioritize these key facts to optimize decision-making. STRUX has been evaluated on the challenging task of forecasting stock investment decisions based on earnings call transcripts and demonstrated superior performance against strong baselines. It enhances decision transparency by allowing users to understand the impact of different factors, representing a meaningful step towards practical decision-making with LLMs.

General decision models, such as Jev, have recently emerged as efficient alternatives to LLMs for structured judgment and selection. But what kinds of decisions can these models reliably make, and how does their behavior change when individual decisions are composed into larger systems? To study this, we introduce JEVal, a bilingual benchmark comprising 11,257 instances from 36 datasets across 10 application domains, and evaluate 25 model configurations spanning general decision models and generative LLMs. Our results show that (1) general decision models are most competitive when decisions can be resolved from available evidence, but weaken when they require specialist knowledge or faithful uncertainty estimation: they can often identify the most likely outcome while substantially overstating its probability. (2) In more dynamic and realistic systems involving long-horizon, multi-step interactions, the advantages of fast local decision making are offset by reliability failures at the system level. on τ-bench, faster local decisions reduce median episode time but lower task success as decision errors accumulate over long trajectories. (3) In large-scale social simulation, decision models approach strong generative LLMs on individual response prediction at substantially lower inference cost, yet remain weaker in user profiling and exhibit larger aggregate estimation errors and systematic bias. Finally, we propose InnerJev-4B and InnerJev-27B, which internalize an open-weight LLM's own reasoning into a single-pass first-token decision through Reasoning-to-Readout Self-Distillation, with InnerJev-27B performing on par with Jev on JEVal while answering a typical query in about 0.1 s.

Effective decision-making in Large Language Models (LLMs) is essential for handling intricate tasks. However, existing approaches prioritize performance but often overlook the balance between effectiveness and computational cost. To address this, we first introduce the 3E Criteria to systematically assess the cost-effectiveness of search strategies, revealing that existing methods often trade significant efficiency for marginal performance gains. To improve LLM decision-making while maintaining efficiency, we propose the Speculative Reward Model (SRM), a plug-and-play framework that seamlessly integrates with existing search strategies. Specifically, SRM employs an external reward assigner to predict optimal actions, reducing reliance on LLMs' internal self-evaluation. And a speculative verification mechanism is used to prune suboptimal choices and guide the search toward more promising steps. We evaluate SRM on several complex decision-making tasks including mathematical reasoning, planning and numerical reasoning in specialized domains. Experimental results show that SRM reduces costs to 1/10 of the original search framework on average while maintaining effectiveness.

In the information retrieval (IR) domain, evaluation plays a crucial role in optimizing search experiences and supporting diverse user intents. In the recent LLM era, research has been conducted to automate document relevance labels, as these labels have traditionally been assigned by crowd-sourced workers - a process that is both time and consuming and costly. This study focuses on LLM-generated usefulness labels, a crucial evaluation metric that considers the user's search intents and task objectives, an aspect where relevance falls short. Our experiment utilizes task-level, query-level, and document-level features along with user search behavior signals, which are essential in defining the usefulness of a document. Our research finds that (i) pre-trained LLMs can generate moderate usefulness labels by understanding the comprehensive search task session, (ii) pre-trained LLMs perform better judgement in short search sessions when provided with search session contexts. Additionally, we investigated whether LLMs can capture the unique divergence between relevance and usefulness, along with conducting an ablation study to identify the most critical metrics for accurate usefulness label generation. In conclusion, this work explores LLM-generated usefulness labels by evaluating critical metrics and optimizing for practicality in real-world settings.

As AI systems progress, we rely more on them to make decisions with us and for us. To ensure that such decisions are aligned with human values, it is imperative for us to understand not only what decisions they make but also how they come to those decisions. Reasoning language models, which provide both final responses and (partially transparent) intermediate thinking traces, present a timely opportunity to study AI procedural reasoning. Unlike math and code problems which often have objectively correct answers, moral dilemmas are an excellent testbed for process-focused evaluation because they allow for multiple defensible conclusions. To do so, we present MoReBench: 1,000 moral scenarios, each paired with a set of rubric criteria that experts consider essential to include (or avoid) when reasoning about the scenarios. MoReBench contains over 23 thousand criteria including identifying moral considerations, weighing trade-offs, and giving actionable recommendations to cover cases on AI advising humans moral decisions as well as making moral decisions autonomously. Separately, we curate MoReBench-Theory: 150 examples to test whether AI can reason under five major frameworks in normative ethics. Our results show that scaling laws and existing benchmarks on math, code, and scientific reasoning tasks fail to predict models' abilities to perform moral reasoning. Models also show partiality towards specific moral frameworks (e.g., Benthamite Act Utilitarianism and Kantian Deontology), which might be side effects of popular training paradigms. Together, these benchmarks advance process-focused reasoning evaluation towards safer and more transparent AI.

An ordinary-looking background detail can turn a correct model decision into a confident mistake. We demonstrate this fragility in four decision systems, including Jev, across seven datasets covering knowledge, reasoning, and tool routing. Within 64 accepted target evaluations per decision, we uncover short context additions that redirect 61.4%-73.2% of each system's initially correct decisions toward a wrong option fixed in advance. The additions supply background or procedural information rather than explicit answer-selection instructions, leaving the original question and choices intact. We construct them through probability-guided context optimization, which uses shifts in the option distribution to refine surrounding text under naturalness and answer-preservation constraints. Redirection affects initially confident decisions, often produces high-confidence wrong choices, and transfers across models. In blinded human evaluation, 91.6% of 250 sampled successful contexts are judged natural, answer-preserving, and free of decisive answer-changing evidence by a majority of three independent annotators. These findings expose a weakness in current decision models: context that looks entirely compatible with an input can redirect the choices that agents, routers, and evaluators rely on.

Recommender Systems (RSs) can be evaluated for many aspects, two of them being recommendation relevance and fairness. These two aspects can be evaluated either in isolation, using a measure for each aspect; or jointly with a single`relevance-aware' fairness measure that quantifies fairness with respect to relevance. Yet, neither approach provides a simultaneous evaluation of both relevance and fairness: the first approach may result in two different rankings of models, each corresponding to an evaluation aspect; the second approach often provides an imbalanced evaluation of the two aspects. To address this gap, we propose Distance to Pareto Frontier (DPFR), a new approach to jointly evaluate RS fairness and relevance. DPFR is based on a Pareto frontier of relevance and fairness scores from existing measures. The frontier is generated from user-item interaction data and represents various Pareto-optimal trade-offs between the two aspects. Thus, the distance from a point in the frontier provides a joint score of fairness and relevance. As DPFR can be used with existing measures, it is modular and intuitive. Our experiments with 4 recommenders and 3 fairness-aware re-rankers on 6 real-world datasets reveal inconsistent associations between existing measures and DPFR, showing that they are not reliable proxies for evaluations based on Pareto optimality. We further examine the robustness of DPFR as a joint evaluation approach for fairness and relevance by conducting experiments with artificial recommendations and with various fairness-relevance trade-offs, as well as by analysing DPFR's agreement to simple measures of fairness and relevance. These analyses show that DPFR is more robust than existing joint evaluation approaches. Finally, we provide guidelines for evaluating fairness and relevance jointly with DPFR. Our code: https://github.com/theresiavr/robustness-DPFR-recsys-evaluation.

Many modern AI question-answering systems convert text into vectors and retrieve the closest matches to a user question. While effective for topical similarity, similarity scores alone do not explain why some retrieved text can serve as evidence while other equally similar text cannot. When many candidates receive similar scores, systems may select sentences that are redundant, incomplete, or address different conditions than the question requires. This paper presents a deterministic evidence selection framework for retrieval-augmented question answering. The approach introduces Meaning-Utility Estimation (MUE) and Diversity-Utility Estimation (DUE), fixed scoring and redundancy-control procedures that determine evidence admissibility prior to answer generation. Each sentence or record is evaluated independently using explicit signals for semantic relatedness, term coverage, conceptual distinctiveness, and redundancy. No training or fine-tuning is required. In the prototype, a unit is accepted only if it explicitly states the fact, rule, or condition required by the task. Units are not merged or expanded. If no unit independently satisfies the requirement, the system returns no answer. This deterministic gating produces compact, auditable evidence sets and establishes a clear boundary between relevant text and usable evidence.

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into judicial decision making -- particularly in pretrial, sentencing, and parole contexts -- has generated a substantial and rapidly growing literature. Across computer science, economics, law, criminology, and psychology, researchers have examined the reliability, fairness, and real-world effects of AI-assisted decision making. Yet this literature remains fragmented, and differences in assumptions, concepts, and research priorities make it difficult to assess what is actually known. Using criminal justice risk assessment as a focal case, this article makes two contributions. First, we develop a conceptual framework that distinguishes and relates three central questions: (1) the predictive validity of automated risk assessment tools; (2) how algorithmic risk assessments compare with human predictions (AI-versus-Human); and (3) how algorithmic recommendations affect judges' decisions (AI-plus-Human). Second, we use this framework to synthesize the empirical evidence addressing each of these questions. Our review identifies important limitations in existing research on predictive validity, as well as substantial gaps in understanding how judges respond to AI advice and how those responses vary across individuals and decision-making environments. The available evidence suggests that AI decision aids have, so far, had at most modest effects on pretrial and sentencing decisions. We conclude that further research is needed to understand how judges make decisions in noisy informational environments and under what conditions AI tools can produce meaningful improvements in judicial decision making.

Modern retrieval pipelines increasingly serve downstream consumers like retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) and autonomous agents that need more than a scalar relevance score. A reranker that only tells the caller "how relevant" forces the agent to dump entire documents into the language-model context, wasting tokens on tangential passages and boilerplate. We introduce Prism-Reranker, a family of reranker models built on Qwen3.5 at four sizes (0.8B, 2B, 4B, 9B) that goes beyond scalar scoring. In addition to the standard yes/no relevance judgement, whenever the verdict is yes the model emits (i) a contribution statement summarizing how the document helps the query, and (ii) an evidence passage: a self-contained rewrite that preserves every query-relevant signal while discarding noise. Prism-Reranker is trained with a hybrid objective combining point-wise distillation from a strong commercial reranker API with supervised fine-tuning on contribution and evidence targets. We curate training data from KaLM-Embedding's open-source aggregation, augmented with real web documents retrieved via commercial search APIs for open-domain queries and LLM-synthesized variants, and rewrite a portion of queries into keyword-style reformulations to adapt the model to agent-issued traffic. To reconcile inconsistent labels across open corpora and obtain crisp binary supervision, we relabel data with an LLM-as-Judge ensemble aggregating votes from five frontier LLMs. On a QA subset of BEIR and on an LLM-judged evaluation of contribution and evidence quality, Prism-Reranker attains solid results across all four sizes. We further show that the same recipe extends existing LLM-based rerankers, augmenting Qwen3-Reranker-4B with contribution and evidence capabilities while improving its average BEIR-QA NDCG@10 by +1.54 over the base model. Model weights, training recipe, and evaluation suite are released.

Predicting case outcomes is useful but still an extremely hard task for attorneys and other Law professionals. It is not easy to search case information to extract valuable information as this requires dealing with huge data sets and their complexity. For instance, the complexity of Brazil legal system along with the high litigation rates makes this problem even harder. This paper introduces an approach for predicting Brazilian court decisions which is also able to predict whether the decision will be unanimous. We developed a working prototype which performs 79% of accuracy (F1-score) on a data set composed of 4,043 cases from a Brazilian court. To our knowledge, this is the first study to forecast judge decisions in Brazil.

AI explanations are often mentioned as a way to improve human-AI decision-making, but empirical studies have not found consistent evidence of explanations' effectiveness and, on the contrary, suggest that they can increase overreliance when the AI system is wrong. While many factors may affect reliance on AI support, one important factor is how decision-makers reconcile their own intuition -- beliefs or heuristics, based on prior knowledge, experience, or pattern recognition, used to make judgments -- with the information provided by the AI system to determine when to override AI predictions. We conduct a think-aloud, mixed-methods study with two explanation types (feature- and example-based) for two prediction tasks to explore how decision-makers' intuition affects their use of AI predictions and explanations, and ultimately their choice of when to rely on AI. Our results identify three types of intuition involved in reasoning about AI predictions and explanations: intuition about the task outcome, features, and AI limitations. Building on these, we summarize three observed pathways for decision-makers to apply their own intuition and override AI predictions. We use these pathways to explain why (1) the feature-based explanations we used did not improve participants' decision outcomes and increased their overreliance on AI, and (2) the example-based explanations we used improved decision-makers' performance over feature-based explanations and helped achieve complementary human-AI performance. Overall, our work identifies directions for further development of AI decision-support systems and explanation methods that help decision-makers effectively apply their intuition to achieve appropriate reliance on AI.

Information elicitation is an open-ended information-seeking problem in which an interaction can unfold in many potentially valuable directions, requiring an elicitor to continually determine which information to pursue as new information emerges. In agentic elicitation, these decisions may be delegated to a foundation model, yet how model choice shapes the resulting information-seeking behavior remains understudied. We study how judgments about information value vary across LLMs and how these differences shape sequential information seeking. We first examine these judgments across 11 LLMs spanning multiple model families and parameter scales, using a shared set of information and elicitation objectives. We then develop a controlled elicitation simulation in which different models encounter the same information space and use the same selection rule, isolating these judgments from question generation and respondent behavior. Using this setting, we characterize the breadth-depth behavior that emerges from model-specific information-seeking preferences over the course of elicitation. We further examine how interaction history changes the evaluation and subsequent selection of prospective information. We test the robustness and boundaries of these findings through sensitivity analyses and ablations over the opportunities available to the elicitor, the response labels used to operationalize information-seeking preferences, the presence of interaction history, and whether redundancy is explicitly relevant to the assessment. The project code, data, and trajectory files are available at https://github.com/infosenselab/open-elicitation.

We argue that enabling human-AI dialogue, purposed to support joint reasoning (i.e., 'inquiry'), is important for ensuring that AI decision making is aligned with human values and preferences. In particular, we point to logic-based models of argumentation and dialogue, and suggest that the traditional focus on persuasion dialogues be replaced by a focus on inquiry dialogues, and the distinct challenges that joint inquiry raises. Given recent dramatic advances in the performance of large language models (LLMs), and the anticipated increase in their use for decision making, we provide a roadmap for research into inquiry dialogues for supporting joint human-LLM reasoning tasks that are ethically salient, and that thereby require that decisions are value aligned.

Jev has attracted considerable attention for its rapid, generalizable decision-making, yet its medical reliability remains underexplored. To address this gap, our study compares various types of system-one decision models across 15 medical datasets comprising 8,742 instances under a unified protocol. Beyond accuracy, we assess decision stability and the ability to recognize unreliable decisions. Our results show that Jev rivals leading models on primarily text-driven tasks but is less effective on numerically driven tasks, revealing a distinct capability boundary. Under question-format variations, Jev maintains strong decision consistency and small accuracy fluctuations. StartLux-27B exhibits comparable consistency, while D3-27B achieves higher overall accuracy and a lower mean decision reversal rate. But these strengths do not extend to reliable abstention awareness: most evaluated models show limitations in both recognizing missing correct answers and using optional abstention. Moreover, we find that Jev's probability-based answer selection can be improved by changing how decisions are scored: normalizing option-wise binary scores yields higher retained accuracy than choice scoring. Taken together, our findings provide early guidance for improving and applying decision models in medicine.

As we increasingly seek guidance from LLMs for decision-making in daily life, many of these decisions are not clear-cut and depend significantly on the personal values and ethical standards of the users. We present DailyDilemmas, a dataset of 1,360 moral dilemmas encountered in everyday life. Each dilemma includes two possible actions and with each action, the affected parties and human values invoked. Based on these dilemmas, we consolidated a set of human values across everyday topics e.g., interpersonal relationships, workplace, and environmental issues. We evaluated LLMs on these dilemmas to determine what action they will take and the values represented by these actions. Then, we analyzed these values through the lens of five popular theories inspired by sociology, psychology and philosophy. These theories are: World Value Survey, Moral Foundation Theory, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, Aristotle's Virtues, and Plutchik Wheel of Emotion. We find that LLMs are most aligned with the self-expression over survival values in terms of World Value Survey, care over loyalty in Moral Foundation Theory. Interestingly, we find large preferences differences in models for some core values such as truthfulness e.g., Mixtral-8x7B model tends to neglect it by 9.7% while GPT-4-turbo model tends to select it by 9.4%. We also study the recent guidance released by OpenAI (ModelSpec), and Anthropic (Constitutional AI) to understand how their released principles reflect their actual value prioritization when facing nuanced moral reasoning in daily-life settings. We find that end users cannot effectively steer such prioritization using system prompts.

The same arguments often need to be evaluated under different external regimes. An agent with influence over the regime has a strategic lever that standard formalisms do not directly capture. We introduce context-dependent argumentation frameworks (CDAFs), an extension of Dung's theory in which a defeat function determines, per context, which attacks succeed. A perspective-labeled specialisation derives the defeat function from a relevance set ρ and a priority π. The relevance set is the agent's action space. In a small worked example, the agent's target argument is rejected under every full-relevance injective priority, yet accepted under partial activations, one of which no VAF audience can mirror. We define the corresponding decision problem, ACTIVATION-MANIPULATION, and record baseline complexity bounds. Tight bounds and multi-agent variants are left open.

Reranking algorithms have made progress in improving document retrieval quality by efficiently aggregating relevance judgments generated by large language models (LLMs). However, identifying relevant documents for queries that require in-depth reasoning remains a major challenge. Reasoning-intensive queries often exhibit multifaceted information needs and nuanced interpretations, rendering document relevance inherently context dependent. To address this, we propose contextual relevance, which we define as the probability that a document is relevant to a given query, marginalized over the distribution of different reranking contexts it may appear in (i.e., the set of candidate documents it is ranked alongside and the order in which the documents are presented to a reranking model). While prior works have studied methods to mitigate the positional bias LLMs exhibit by accounting for the ordering of documents, we empirically find that the compositions of these batches also plays an important role in reranking performance. To efficiently estimate contextual relevance, we propose TS-SetRank, a sampling-based, uncertainty-aware reranking algorithm. Empirically, TS-SetRank improves nDCG@10 over retrieval and reranking baselines by 15-25% on BRIGHT and 6-21% on BEIR, highlighting the importance of modeling relevance as context-dependent.

As practitioners increasingly deploy machine learning models in critical domains such as health care, finance, and policy, it becomes vital to ensure that domain experts function effectively alongside these models. Explainability is one way to bridge the gap between human decision-makers and machine learning models. However, most of the existing work on explainability focuses on one-off, static explanations like feature importances or rule lists. These sorts of explanations may not be sufficient for many use cases that require dynamic, continuous discovery from stakeholders. In the literature, few works ask decision-makers about the utility of existing explanations and other desiderata they would like to see in an explanation going forward. In this work, we address this gap and carry out a study where we interview doctors, healthcare professionals, and policymakers about their needs and desires for explanations. Our study indicates that decision-makers would strongly prefer interactive explanations in the form of natural language dialogues. Domain experts wish to treat machine learning models as "another colleague", i.e., one who can be held accountable by asking why they made a particular decision through expressive and accessible natural language interactions. Considering these needs, we outline a set of five principles researchers should follow when designing interactive explanations as a starting place for future work. Further, we show why natural language dialogues satisfy these principles and are a desirable way to build interactive explanations. Next, we provide a design of a dialogue system for explainability and discuss the risks, trade-offs, and research opportunities of building these systems. Overall, we hope our work serves as a starting place for researchers and engineers to design interactive explainability systems.

As machine learning and algorithmic decision making systems are increasingly being leveraged in high-stakes human-in-the-loop settings, there is a pressing need to understand the rationale of their predictions. Researchers have responded to this need with explainable AI (XAI), but often proclaim interpretability axiomatically without evaluation. When these systems are evaluated, they are often tested through offline simulations with proxy metrics of interpretability (such as model complexity). We empirically evaluate the veracity of three common interpretability assumptions through a large scale human-subjects experiment with a simple "placebo explanation" control. We find that feature attribution explanations provide marginal utility in our task for a human decision maker and in certain cases result in worse decisions due to cognitive and contextual confounders. This result challenges the assumed universal benefit of applying these methods and we hope this work will underscore the importance of human evaluation in XAI research. Supplemental materials -- including anonymized data from the experiment, code to replicate the study, an interactive demo of the experiment, and the models used in the analysis -- can be found at: https://doi.pizza/challenging-xai.

AI research often requires decisions before future evidence exists: which bottleneck to attack, which direction to pursue, or where a project should be positioned. We introduce ForeSci, a temporally controlled benchmark for evaluating whether LLM agents can make such forward-looking research judgements from historical evidence. ForeSci contains 500 tasks across four fast-moving AI domains and four decision families. Each task is paired with a cutoff-aligned offline knowledge base; post-cutoff papers are hidden during generation and used only for validation. To avoid random future-event prediction, tasks are derived from pre-cutoff taxonomy branches and evidence signals, and answer-generation backbones are selected to precede the task cutoffs. We evaluate native LLMs, Hybrid RAG, and three research-agent adaptations across four backbones. Results show that explicit evidence organization improves traceability and factual support, but gains depend strongly on the decision family. Diagnostics reveal a recurring evidence-decision decoupling: agents may cite relevant evidence while forecasting the wrong research object. ForeSci turns forward-looking AI research judgement into a controlled benchmark for evaluating research agents as decision-making systems.

We introduce StartLux-Decision, decision models from 0.8B to 27B parameters that combine efficient single-pass prediction with adaptive, confidence-guided reasoning. The Instant models use bidirectional attention in full-attention layers to improve decision accuracy while keeping single-pass inference. The AutoThink models invoke explicit reasoning for uncertain decisions and answer confident cases directly. A three-stage training pipeline establishes shared decision capabilities, specializes the two variants, and equips AutoThink with reasoning through reasoning supervision and reinforcement learning. We introduce Reinforcement Learning for Calibrated Deliberative Decisions (RLCD^2), which uses a frozen model and proper scoring rules to reward improvements in decision probability quality and applies a soft penalty to overlong reasoning traces. RLCD^2 raises the share of reasoning traces that terminate within the generation limit by up to 48 percentage points and cuts average reasoning length by up to 65%, while largely preserving decision accuracy. On the public subset of Decision Index 0.3, the Instant models outperform the strongest evaluated comparable-scale open-weight decision models by 7.4-16.9 points, and the 27B AutoThink model reaches 73.4. We also introduce DecisionPivot, a programmatically verifiable benchmark of computational decisions built from contrast pairs that differ in a single answer-changing detail. On DecisionPivot, AutoThink outperforms its Instant counterparts by 11.5-18.4 points in pair accuracy and leads among evaluated systems. The models run on vLLM, llama.cpp and MLX, with quantized variants for lower memory use.

Every fiscal quarter, companies hold earnings calls in which company executives respond to questions from analysts. After these calls, analysts often change their price target recommendations, which are used in equity research reports to help investors make decisions. In this paper, we examine analysts' decision making behavior as it pertains to the language content of earnings calls. We identify a set of 20 pragmatic features of analysts' questions which we correlate with analysts' pre-call investor recommendations. We also analyze the degree to which semantic and pragmatic features from an earnings call complement market data in predicting analysts' post-call changes in price targets. Our results show that earnings calls are moderately predictive of analysts' decisions even though these decisions are influenced by a number of other factors including private communication with company executives and market conditions. A breakdown of model errors indicates disparate performance on calls from different market sectors.

One of the most critical tasks for startups is to validate their business model. Therefore, entrepreneurs try to collect information such as feedback from other actors to assess the validity of their assumptions and make decisions. However, previous work on decisional guidance for business model validation provides no solution for the highly uncertain and complex context of earlystage startups. The purpose of this paper is, thus, to develop design principles for a Hybrid Intelligence decision support system (HI-DSS) that combines the complementary capabilities of human and machine intelligence. We follow a design science research approach to design a prototype artifact and a set of design principles. Our study provides prescriptive knowledge for HI-DSS and contributes to previous work on decision support for business models, the applications of complementary strengths of humans and machines for making decisions, and support systems for extremely uncertain decision-making problems.

Do research agents have taste, the judgment of which experiments are worth running before their outcomes are known? We give six frontier models seven recent NLP papers. Each model, working as a research agent alone or as a team, proposes minimum viable experiments (MVEs), forecasts whether each will pass a threshold it sets and ranks them. A separate executor then attempts every MVE, including those ranked last, and three model auditors judge the results. Of 415 MVEs, 194 are judged sound, valuable and new, but fewer than half of these (73) are also judged beyond the seed paper and non obvious. The agents' first choices match the auditors' most valued experiment more often than a random pick, but are not shown to improve on choosing the experiment written first. Their forecasts beat a base rate but are not measurably more accurate than those of a fresh instance of the same model given only the paper and registrations. Teams cost more without a clear overall improvement in proposal quality. The agents produce many worthwhile experiments, but the evidence that their rankings improve the choice of which to run remains limited. The evaluation harness and a dataset of all 415 MVEs, with their forecasts and audited outcomes, are available at https://github.com/ArtKanke/rTaste.

A semantic decision engine such as Jev can return a valid answer and still miss a network deadline, select an infeasible action or leave the service unverified. We systematize 139 paper families by decision interface, execution path and check ownership. Fifty families claim that their engine fits a control loop or time budget, but only four support the claim with matched measurement. Across all 139, four report deadline attainment. The gap concentrates where the decision has no deterministic computation step. Those 72 families make 22 of the claims, none supported, and name a coverage owner in only two. Bounded tests under one event model show that each gap can reverse an admission verdict. A decision that meets a 10 s budget for every isolated request meets it for none once decisions queue ahead of replayed execution times. The same engine passes one coverage check and fails another. We derive a minimum reporting record, design rules and a research agenda for admitting decision engines to control loops.

Transferring LLMs into System One decision models typically replaces the language modeling head with a decision head while retaining the full backbone, making every decision pay for all layers. Yet it remains unclear how much depth such decisions require. We find that decision information is concentrated in intermediate layers, with early layers building essential features and the final six layers removable without loss, while independently trained smaller models largely mimic the full model rather than developing specialized decision capabilities. These findings suggest that efficiency requires not simply smaller backbones, but shared computation across different depths. Building on this, we propose , which jointly trains a full model with prefix sub-models that share its final layers and decision head through self-distillation. A lightweight gate reads the hidden state at each exit to determine whether additional computation is needed, allowing one model to operate at multiple layers. Across seven decision benchmarks, our approach matches or outperforms independently trained models at every depth, while achieving better accuracy-efficiency trade-offs through adaptive computation.

With the recent addition of Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), the scope and importance of Information Retrieval (IR) has expanded. As a result, the importance of a deeper understanding of IR models also increases. However, interpretability in IR remains under-explored, especially when it comes to the models' inner mechanisms. In this paper, we explore the possibility of adapting Integrated Gradient-based methods in an IR context to identify the role of individual neurons within the model. In particular, we provide new insights into the role of what we call "relevance" neurons, as well as how they deal with unseen data. Finally, we carry out an in-depth pruning study to validate our findings.

System one models enable direct, low-latency decision-making. Yet recent practice of predicting an answer from serialized text does not, by itself, respect the structure of a decision problem. We argue that current designs underemphasize four important structural requirements. (i) null-aware: Models should distinguish answer absence from uncertainty among candidates; (ii) permutation-invariant: Reordering alternatives should not change the decision; (iii) option-scalable: Growing candidate sets should not require redefining the output space; (iv) cacheable: Request-independent computation over recurring alternatives should be reusable across requests. We introduce Jeva, a decision-native architecture that addresses these requirements jointly. A shared encoder independently represents the request and each option, while a compact decision stack refines only the request state against immutable option memory. Symmetric aggregation yields permutation-equivariant probabilities; shared scoring accommodates variable-size candidate sets. A separate coverage estimate distinguishes answer absence from candidate competition, enabling explicit null outcomes. Request-independent option representations and layer projections support reuse across newly assembled sets. These mechanisms unify Choice, Noul, and Score outputs. Across evaluations, Jeva combines strong typed-decision performance with near-perfect null detection and no decision flips under any tested permutations. It scales to thousands of candidates and substantially reduces latency through cross-request reuse without changing decisions.

Fairness and relevance are two important aspects of recommender systems (RSs). Typically, they are evaluated either (i) separately by individual measures of fairness and relevance, or (ii) jointly using a single measure that accounts for fairness with respect to relevance. However, approach (i) often does not provide a reliable joint estimate of the goodness of the models, as it has two different best models: one for fairness and another for relevance. Approach (ii) is also problematic because these measures tend to be ad-hoc and do not relate well to traditional relevance measures, like NDCG. Motivated by this, we present a new approach for jointly evaluating fairness and relevance in RSs: Distance to Pareto Frontier (DPFR). Given some user-item interaction data, we compute their Pareto frontier for a pair of existing relevance and fairness measures, and then use the distance from the frontier as a measure of the jointly achievable fairness and relevance. Our approach is modular and intuitive as it can be computed with existing measures. Experiments with 4 RS models, 3 re-ranking strategies, and 6 datasets show that existing metrics have inconsistent associations with our Pareto-optimal solution, making DPFR a more robust and theoretically well-founded joint measure for assessing fairness and relevance. Our code: https://github.com/theresiavr/DPFR-recsys-evaluation

With the growing success of reasoning models across complex natural language tasks, researchers in the Information Retrieval (IR) community have begun exploring how similar reasoning capabilities can be integrated into passage rerankers built on Large Language Models (LLMs). These methods typically employ an LLM to produce an explicit, step-by-step reasoning process before arriving at a final relevance prediction. But, does reasoning actually improve reranking accuracy? In this paper, we dive deeper into this question, studying the impact of the reasoning process by comparing reasoning-based pointwise rerankers (ReasonRR) to standard, non-reasoning pointwise rerankers (StandardRR) under identical training conditions, and observe that StandardRR generally outperforms ReasonRR. Building on this observation, we then study the importance of reasoning to ReasonRR by disabling its reasoning process (ReasonRR-NoReason), and find that ReasonRR-NoReason is surprisingly more effective than ReasonRR. Examining the cause of this result, our findings reveal that reasoning-based rerankers are limited by the LLM's reasoning process, which pushes it toward polarized relevance scores and thus fails to consider the partial relevance of passages, a key factor for the accuracy of pointwise rerankers.

Language models often solve complex tasks by generating long reasoning chains, consisting of many steps with varying importance. While some steps are crucial for generating the final answer, others are removable. Determining which steps matter most, and why, remains an open question central to understanding how models process reasoning. We investigate if this question is best approached through model internals or through tokens of the reasoning chain itself. We find that model activations contain more information than tokens for identifying important reasoning steps. Crucially, by training probes on model activations to predict importance, we show that models encode an internal representation of step importance, even prior to the generation of subsequent steps. The internal representations of importance in different models yield high agreement on which steps are important. The representation is distributed across layers, and does not correlate with surface-level features, such as a step's relative position or its length. Our findings suggest that analyzing activations can reveal aspects of reasoning that surface-level approaches fundamentally miss, indicating that reasoning analyses should look into model internals.

This graduate textbook on machine learning tells a story of how patterns in data support predictions and consequential actions. Starting with the foundations of decision making, we cover representation, optimization, and generalization as the constituents of supervised learning. A chapter on datasets as benchmarks examines their histories and scientific bases. Self-contained introductions to causality, the practice of causal inference, sequential decision making, and reinforcement learning equip the reader with concepts and tools to reason about actions and their consequences. Throughout, the text discusses historical context and societal impact. We invite readers from all backgrounds; some experience with probability, calculus, and linear algebra suffices.

Decision models support routing, guardrails, and output verification in LLM systems. However, item accuracy alone cannot establish whether models make correct decisions across controlled variations or assign reliable confidence to their predictions. We introduce DecisionPivot, a diagnostic benchmark comprising 48 tasks and 40,033 items across seven decision roles. Its core track contains 7,800 items from 13 generated task families, organized into contrast groups with computed answers verified by independently implemented solvers. The complementary reference track contains 32,233 items from 35 public test sets, preserving their original evaluation metrics. We evaluate 40 decision models and 14 general models using documented, model-specific protocols, assessing item and contrast-group accuracy, probability ordering, calibration, and empirical selective coverage. Our results reveal substantial differences obscured by aggregate scores: two 27B models separated by only 2.6 points on the reference track achieve contrast-group accuracies of 70.1% and 44.2%. Across 2,400 binary contrast pairs, Perplexity Decider correctly ranks the positive member above the negative member in 92.3% of pairs but answers both members correctly in only 74.1%, exposing a gap between probability ordering and decision correctness. Models with similar item accuracy also differ in the reliability of their high-confidence predictions. On a separate 1,296-item subset, GLM-5.3 achieves 93.5\% contrast-group accuracy at a higher reasoning setting, compared with 81.5% at its lowest effort. By linking errors to pivotal details and difficulty levels, DecisionPivot provides fine-grained diagnostics of decision failures that aggregate evaluation alone cannot reveal.

Search-augmented language agents should retrieve external information only when necessary and ground their answers in retrieved evidence. Yet terminal correctness assigns equal credit to direct answers from parametric knowledge, evidence-grounded answers, and answers recalled after redundant search. Process supervision and LLM judges provide richer feedback but can require high-cost annotation or inference; low-cost, non-contrastive policy confidence signals do not directly identify whether retrieved evidence changes an answer. We propose Search-G1, a reward framework that couples retrieval necessity with evidence reliance through two intervention-calibrated hidden-state readouts for selective grounded search. A prompt readout predicts closed-book sufficiency, whose complement proxies policy-relative retrieval necessity; an answer-commit readout predicts evidence reliance as sensitivity to evidence deletion conditional on the realized reasoning prefix. A correctness-first reward gates evidence-reliance credit by retrieval necessity, rewards sufficient direct answers, and penalizes repeated search. After calibration, scoring needs neither process annotations nor LLM-judge inference. As policy-relative targets, trajectory distributions, and representations may drift, Search-G1 periodically regenerates targets and refits its readouts. Across four QA benchmarks and two scales, Search-G1 achieves competitive task accuracy, with stronger counterfactual evidence dependence and fewer searches in the main comparisons, complemented by independent human audits of answer support.

Explaining Artificial Intelligence (AI) decisions is a major challenge nowadays in AI, in particular when applied to sensitive scenarios like medicine and law. However, the need to explain the rationale behind decisions is a main issue also for human-based deliberation as it is important to justify why a certain decision has been taken. Resident medical doctors for instance are required not only to provide a (possibly correct) diagnosis, but also to explain how they reached a certain conclusion. Developing new tools to aid residents to train their explanation skills is therefore a central objective of AI in education. In this paper, we follow this direction, and we present, to the best of our knowledge, the first multilingual dataset for Medical Question Answering where correct and incorrect diagnoses for a clinical case are enriched with a natural language explanation written by doctors. These explanations have been manually annotated with argument components (i.e., premise, claim) and argument relations (i.e., attack, support), resulting in the Multilingual CasiMedicos-Arg dataset which consists of 558 clinical cases in four languages (English, Spanish, French, Italian) with explanations, where we annotated 5021 claims, 2313 premises, 2431 support relations, and 1106 attack relations. We conclude by showing how competitive baselines perform over this challenging dataset for the argument mining task.

Much of the success of multi-agent debates depends on carefully choosing the right parameters. The decision-making protocol stands out as it can highly impact final model answers, depending on how decisions are reached. Systematic comparison of decision protocols is difficult because many studies alter multiple discussion parameters beyond the protocol. So far, it has been largely unknown how decision-making influences different tasks. This work systematically evaluates the impact of seven decision protocols (e.g., majority voting, unanimity consensus). We change only one variable at a time - the decision protocol - to analyze how different methods affect the collaboration between agents and measure differences in knowledge and reasoning tasks. Our results show that voting protocols improve performance by 13.2% in reasoning tasks and consensus protocols by 2.8% in knowledge tasks compared to other decision protocols. Increasing the number of agents improves performance, while more discussion rounds before voting reduce it. To improve decision-making by increasing answer diversity, we propose two new methods, All-Agents Drafting (AAD) and Collective Improvement (CI). Our methods improve task performance by up to 3.3% with AAD and up to 7.4% with CI. This work demonstrates the importance of decision-making in multi-agent debates beyond scaling.

This document describes a possible approach that can be used to check the relevance of a summary / definition of an entity with respect to its name. This classifier focuses on the relevancy of an entity's name to its summary / definition, in other words, it is a name relevance check. The percentage score obtained from this approach can be used either on its own or used to supplement scores obtained from other metrics to arrive upon a final classification; at the end of the document, potential improvements have also been outlined. The dataset that this document focuses on achieving an objective score is a list of package names and their respective summaries (sourced from pypi.org).

What is appropriateness? Humans navigate a multi-scale mosaic of interlocking notions of what is appropriate for different situations. We act one way with our friends, another with our family, and yet another in the office. Likewise for AI, appropriate behavior for a comedy-writing assistant is not the same as appropriate behavior for a customer-service representative. What determines which actions are appropriate in which contexts? And what causes these standards to change over time? Since all judgments of AI appropriateness are ultimately made by humans, we need to understand how appropriateness guides human decision making in order to properly evaluate AI decision making and improve it. This paper presents a theory of appropriateness: how it functions in human society, how it may be implemented in the brain, and what it means for responsible deployment of generative AI technology.

This paper proposes a research direction to advance AI which draws inspiration from cognitive theories of human decision making. The premise is that if we gain insights about the causes of some human capabilities that are still lacking in AI (for instance, adaptability, generalizability, common sense, and causal reasoning), we may obtain similar capabilities in an AI system by embedding these causal components. We hope that the high-level description of our vision included in this paper, as well as the several research questions that we propose to consider, can stimulate the AI research community to define, try and evaluate new methodologies, frameworks, and evaluation metrics, in the spirit of achieving a better understanding of both human and machine intelligence.

Machine learning shows promise in predicting the outcome of legal cases, but most research has concentrated on civil law cases rather than case law systems. We identified two unique challenges in making legal case outcome predictions with case law. First, it is crucial to identify relevant precedent cases that serve as fundamental evidence for judges during decision-making. Second, it is necessary to consider the evolution of legal principles over time, as early cases may adhere to different legal contexts. In this paper, we proposed a new framework named PILOT (PredictIng Legal case OuTcome) for case outcome prediction. It comprises two modules for relevant case retrieval and temporal pattern handling, respectively. To benchmark the performance of existing legal case outcome prediction models, we curated a dataset from a large-scale case law database. We demonstrate the importance of accurately identifying precedent cases and mitigating the temporal shift when making predictions for case law, as our method shows a significant improvement over the prior methods that focus on civil law case outcome predictions.

AI agents must decide when another search is worth its cost. Answer-success probabilities capture question difficulty, while this decision requires estimating the additional benefit of search. We introduce SearchHorizonBench, a benchmark for learning and evaluating search value from execution experience. Paired continuations and repeated executions separate expected search gain from generation noise and connect prediction quality to decision utility. The resource contains 45,632 executions across 3,168 questions. On 1,632 held-out questions, historical calibration reduces Brier error by 16.2%, with the improvement concentrated in success-level information. Search gains have a standard deviation of 21.4 percentage points, and tested historical estimators explain less than 2% of this variance in point estimates. Matched-configuration learning curves probe this distinction across training scales. At the reference token price, free selection observations yield a 2.49-point utility opportunity over the best constant action, driven primarily by gain information. Reusable histories, frozen splits, strong baselines and scoring tools provide a common foundation for developing and evaluating value-aware search agents.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly utilized in autonomous decision-making, where they sample options from vast action spaces. However, the heuristics that guide this sampling process remain under-explored. We study this sampling behavior and show that this underlying heuristics resembles that of human decision-making: comprising a descriptive component (reflecting statistical norm) and a prescriptive component (implicit ideal encoded in the LLM) of a concept. We show that this deviation of a sample from the statistical norm towards a prescriptive component consistently appears in concepts across diverse real-world domains like public health, and economic trends. To further illustrate the theory, we demonstrate that concept prototypes in LLMs are affected by prescriptive norms, similar to the concept of normality in humans. Through case studies and comparison with human studies, we illustrate that in real-world applications, the shift of samples toward an ideal value in LLMs' outputs can result in significantly biased decision-making, raising ethical concerns.

There is increasing interest in using LLMs as decision-making "agents." Doing so includes many degrees of freedom: which model should be used; how should it be prompted; should it be asked to introspect, conduct chain-of-thought reasoning, etc? Settling these questions -- and more broadly, determining whether an LLM agent is reliable enough to be trusted -- requires a methodology for assessing such an agent's economic rationality. In this paper, we provide one. We begin by surveying the economic literature on rational decision making, taxonomizing a large set of fine-grained "elements" that an agent should exhibit, along with dependencies between them. We then propose a benchmark distribution that quantitatively scores an LLMs performance on these elements and, combined with a user-provided rubric, produces a "STEER report card." Finally, we describe the results of a large-scale empirical experiment with 14 different LLMs, characterizing the both current state of the art and the impact of different model sizes on models' ability to exhibit rational behavior.

Medical systematic reviews typically require assessing all the documents retrieved by a search. The reason is two-fold: the task aims for ``total recall''; and documents retrieved using Boolean search are an unordered set, and thus it is unclear how an assessor could examine only a subset. Screening prioritisation is the process of ranking the (unordered) set of retrieved documents, allowing assessors to begin the downstream processes of the systematic review creation earlier, leading to earlier completion of the review, or even avoiding screening documents ranked least relevant. Screening prioritisation requires highly effective ranking methods. Pre-trained language models are state-of-the-art on many IR tasks but have yet to be applied to systematic review screening prioritisation. In this paper, we apply several pre-trained language models to the systematic review document ranking task, both directly and fine-tuned. An empirical analysis compares how effective neural methods compare to traditional methods for this task. We also investigate different types of document representations for neural methods and their impact on ranking performance. Our results show that BERT-based rankers outperform the current state-of-the-art screening prioritisation methods. However, BERT rankers and existing methods can actually be complementary, and thus, further improvements may be achieved if used in conjunction.

Equipping large language models (LLMs) with search engines via reinforcement learning (RL) has emerged as an effective approach for building search agents. However, overreliance on search introduces unnecessary cost and risks exposure to noisy or malicious content, while relying solely on parametric knowledge risks hallucination. The central challenge is to develop agents that adaptively balance parametric knowledge with external search, invoking search only when necessary. Prior work mitigates search overuse by shaping rewards around the number of tool calls. However, these penalties require substantial reward engineering, provide ambiguous credit assignment, and can be exploited by agents that superficially reduce calls. Moreover, evaluating performance solely through call counts conflates necessary and unnecessary search, obscuring the measurement of true adaptive behavior. To address these limitations, we first quantify the self-knowledge awareness of existing search agents via an F1-based decision metric, revealing that methods such as Search-R1 often overlook readily available parametric knowledge. Motivated by these findings, we propose AdaSearch, a simple two-stage, outcome-driven RL framework that disentangles problem solving from the decision of whether to invoke search, and makes this decision process explicit and interpretable. This transparency is crucial for high-stakes domains such as finance and medical question answering, yet is largely neglected by prior approaches. Experiments across multiple model families and sizes demonstrate that AdaSearch substantially improves knowledge-boundary awareness, reduces unnecessary search calls, preserves strong task performance, and offers more transparent, interpretable decision behaviors.

Human experts often struggle to select the best option from a large set of items with multiple competing objectives, a process bottlenecked by the difficulty of formalizing complex, implicit preferences. To address this, we introduce LISTEN, a framework that leverages a Large Language Model (LLM) as a zero-shot preference oracle, guided only by an expert's high-level priorities in natural language. To operate within LLM constraints like context windows and inference costs, we propose two iterative algorithms: LISTEN-U, which uses the LLM to refine a parametric utility function, and LISTEN-T, a non-parametric method that performs tournament-style selections over small batches of solutions. Evaluated on diverse tasks including flight booking, shopping, and exam scheduling, our results show LISTEN-U excels when preferences are parametrically aligned (a property we measure with a novel concordance metric), while LISTEN-T offers more robust performance. This work explores a promising direction for steering complex multi-objective decisions directly with natural language, reducing the cognitive burden of traditional preference elicitation.

Making the relevance judgments for a TREC-style test collection can be complex and expensive. A typical TREC track usually involves a team of six contractors working for 2-4 weeks. Those contractors need to be trained and monitored. Software has to be written to support recording relevance judgments correctly and efficiently. The recent advent of large language models that produce astoundingly human-like flowing text output in response to a natural language prompt has inspired IR researchers to wonder how those models might be used in the relevance judgment collection process. At the ACM SIGIR 2024 conference, a workshop ``LLM4Eval'' provided a venue for this work, and featured a data challenge activity where participants reproduced TREC deep learning track judgments, as was done by Thomas et al (arXiv:2408.08896, arXiv:2309.10621). I was asked to give a keynote at the workshop, and this paper presents that keynote in article form. The bottom-line-up-front message is, don't use LLMs to create relevance judgments for TREC-style evaluations.

Coding agents can destroy data, leak secrets and message the wrong person faster than a human can review. Could a decision model catch these risks at runtime? We evaluated 22 hosted decision models and two prompted general models as classifiers for a multi-rule policy engine. A synthetic dataset of 2,643 tool calls was labeled blind against 28 rules, with a sealed holdout. With a single shared preamble in both conditions, explicit boundaries written as examples and counterexamples raised recall by 5.5-26.1 percentage points on all 23 available models and reduced false positives on 21. Jev 1.14's recall rose from 89.3% to 98.2%, while unnecessary interruptions fell from 30.6% to 4.8% of 252 clean actions. With examples, its median latency was 120 ms at $0.46 per thousand requests. Strong models retained the recall gains when concrete names were replaced by generic descriptions; three largely retained them when the same boundaries were written as prose. On 16 new scenarios written after the initial studies, a follow-up improved recall on 22 of 23 models and reduced unnecessary interruptions on 21. We release the dataset, rule texts and harness.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is typically optimized for topical relevance, yet its success ultimately depends on whether retrieved passages are useful for a large language model (LLM) to generate correct and complete answers. We argue that such utility is often LLM-specific rather than universal, due to differences in models' knowledge, reasoning, and ability to leverage evidence. We formalize LLM-specific utility as the performance improvement of a target LLM when a passage is provided, compared to answering without evidence. To systematically study LLM-specific utility, we construct a benchmark of LLM-specific gold utilitarian passages for four LLMs (Qwen3-8B/14B/32B and Llama3.1-8B) on three QA datasets (Natural Questions, TriviaQA, and MS MARCO-FQA). Our analysis shows that utilitarian passages are model-dependent and non-transferable: each LLM performs best with its own utilitarian evidence, while evidence optimized for other LLMs is consistently suboptimal. Human-annotated evidence remains a strong general baseline but does not fully match individual LLM utility needs. We further introduce the LLM-specific utility judgment task and find that existing utility-aware selection and scoring methods largely capture model-agnostic usefulness and struggle to reliably estimate LLM-specific utility. Overall, our findings highlight the limitations of current utility-aware retrieval and motivate generator-tailored evidence selection for improving RAG.

Autoregressive approaches with large language models, such as long chain-of-thought reasoning, have become the default for new AI applications because they reach higher accuracy on a wide range of tasks. In production, however, they give inconsistent answers, require parsing of outputs, and add cost and latency. Decision models address this: given a question and a set of options supplied by the user, they return a probability distribution over the options without autoregressive decoding. We present Drex, a family of four open decision models with 8B (DLM), 9B (v1.5), 35B with 3B active (v2.0), and 27B (Max) parameters. Each request consists of a state (a document, record, or agent context, optionally with images) and questions about it, each asking for a choice among options, a yes/no judgment, or a score on an ordered scale. Training combines supervised fine-tuning with reinforcement learning from adjusted feedback (RLAF), plus vision tuning for Max. Ablations show that RLAF improves accuracy and that consistency losses improve robustness to option order. On Decision Index 0.4.1, Max sets a new state of the art among the decision models we compare (67.52 on the public suite vs. 60.70 for Jev 1.14.0). On Decision Bench v4, it is statistically tied with d3-turbo and GPT-6 Sol and trails Claude Opus 5.5 by 1.6 points, and it has the highest accuracy among decision models on DecideBench. Max answers a typical request in 183 ms, against about 2.0 s for GPT-6 Sol and 3.5 s for Claude Opus 5.5, and its outputs are stable under option reordering. All four models are open source: https://github.com/nace-ai/drex-decision-models

Public-service recommendations require evidence that matches the requested service, scope, and date. Yet treating every missing detail as decisive can withhold useful recommendations. We introduce EviGraph, which distinguishes critical decision requirements from information that can remain unresolved. A language agent links these requirements to evidence in a temporal knowledge graph, while a deterministic checker establishes whether a recommendation is supported. Evaluation on a bilingual Hong Kong public-service benchmark with executable policy references shows that this distinction reduces unnecessary abstention. Additional verification, however, can withdraw supported recommendations without improving decision quality. These findings suggest that reliable evidence-based navigation depends on specifying what must be established for a decision, rather than simply adding more verification.

Many real-world decisions require teams to integrate information distributed across participants. Yet AI agents are still primarily trained and benchmarked in isolation. We introduce TeamGym, an environment for evaluating and training language model-based agents on team decision-making problems constructed from real-world legal, finance, medical, and software engineering corpora. TeamGym introduces a method to identify a minimal set of facts, each element of which is necessary and all of which are collectively sufficient for a correct final decision, which we call pivotal information. This enables TeamGym to both control the distribution of pivotal information and track how well agents identify and integrate pivotal information when making team decisions. Examining 8 language models on 12 source corpora, we find that current AI agents often fail to effectively share information: Distributing pivotal information across participants lowers success rate by 22.9 percentage points on average relative to giving the same information to a single model (a communication gap). We also document that participants do not effectively retrieve decision-relevant information on their own: A team's success rate is lowered by a further 19.9 points when participants must identify and extract pivotal information from source material rather than receiving it directly (a retrieval gap). To help remedy these deficits, we use TeamGym to train policies through reinforcement learning on team decision loss. Across two policy-training experiments, we find that training improves final-decision quality and induces emergent coordination in participation, speaker selection, and communication, even though the reward evaluates only the final decision.

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit a range of human-like decision-making behaviors, but whether these reflect similar underlying mechanisms or surface-level mimicry remains unclear. We evaluate whether LLM context sensitivity aligns with a cognitive economic theory that explains human behavior through problem categorization and attention allocation. Across 12 open-source and commercial LLMs on a novel 140,000-trial product choice benchmark, context induces human-like shifts in choice and problem categorization, but does not reliably reweight attention between features like price and quality. Neither scale nor chain-of-thought reasoning reliably attenuates context sensitivity or generates human-like behavior. These results suggest that LLM decision mechanisms are distinct from human ones.

Interactive agents repeatedly choose among a finite set of actions, labels, or ordinal outcomes. Generating a free-form response for each choice adds latency and complicates the interface between a model and its environment. We present Intern-Decision, a family of 0.8B, 2B, and 4B multimodal decision models that return structured choices and candidate probabilities from text and optional images. Our autoregressive masked language modeling objective places one decision placeholder per field in a complete assistant JSON skeleton. Ground-truth symbols appear only in supervision, while all fields are evaluated in a single causal forward pass using the backbone's native language-model head. The 4B model achieves a 90.02% unweighted average accuracy across seven evaluation suites, compared with 88.74% for Jev v1.13.0. For a fixed 289-token request with three fields on one RTX 4090, mean latency is 44.16 ms for the 4B model and approximately 33--34 ms for the smaller models. On a separate 96-case known-distribution pilot, temperature scaling reduces expected multiclass Brier from 0.628 to 0.550 and expected calibration error from 0.213 to 0.089. A confidence-based handoff study on 111 public Jevbench-Hard items improves accuracy from 82/111 (73.87%) to 97/111 (87.39%) by routing 42 items to Atria-Dawn-Preview. We also describe qualitative game, visual interface, and browser demonstrations. These results support compact decision models as a practical component of larger agent systems.

Large Language Model (LLM) agents deployed for real-world tasks face a fundamental dilemma: user requests are underspecified, yet agents must decide whether to act on incomplete information or interrupt users for clarification. Existing approaches either rely on brittle confidence thresholds that require task-specific tuning, or fail to account for the varying stakes of different decisions. We introduce a decision-theoretic framework that resolves this trade-off through the Value of Information (VoI), enabling agents to dynamically weigh the expected utility gain from asking questions against the cognitive cost imposed on users. Our inference-time method requires no hyperparameter tuning and adapts seamlessly across contexts-from casual games to medical diagnosis. Experiments across four diverse domains (20 Questions, medical diagnosis, flight booking, and e-commerce) show that VoI consistently matches or exceeds the best manually-tuned baselines, achieving up to 1.36 utility points higher in high-cost settings. This work provides a parameter-free framework for adaptive agent communication that explicitly balances task risk, query ambiguity, and user effort.

We have only limited understanding of how and why large language models (LLMs) respond in the ways that they do. Their neural networks have proven challenging to interpret, and we are only beginning to tease out the function of individual neurons and circuits within them. However, another path to understanding these systems is to investigate and develop their capacity to introspect and explain their own functioning. Here, we show that i) contemporary LLMs are capable of providing accurate, quantitative descriptions of their own internal processes during certain kinds of decision-making, ii) that it is possible to improve these capabilities through training, and iii) that this training generalizes to at least some degree. To do so, we fine-tuned GPT-4o and GPT-4o-mini to make decisions in a wide variety of complex contexts (e.g., choosing between condos, loans, vacations, etc.) according to randomly-generated, quantitative preferences about how to weigh different attributes during decision-making (e.g., the relative importance of natural light versus quiet surroundings for condos). We demonstrate that the LLMs can accurately report these preferences (i.e., the weights that they learned to give to different attributes during decision-making). Next, we demonstrate that these LLMs can be fine-tuned to explain their decision-making even more accurately. Finally, we demonstrate that this training generalizes: It improves the ability of the models to accurately explain what they are doing as they make other complex decisions, not just decisions they have learned to make via fine-tuning. This work is a step towards training LLMs to accurately and broadly report on their own internal processes -- a possibility that would yield substantial benefits for interpretability, control, and safety.

The extraction of a small number of relevant insights from vast amounts of data is a crucial component of data-driven decision-making. However, accomplishing this task requires considerable technical skills, domain expertise, and human labor. This study explores the potential of using Large Language Models (LLMs) to automate the discovery of insights in data, leveraging recent advances in reasoning and code generation techniques. We propose a new evaluation methodology based on a "capture the flag" principle, measuring the ability of such models to recognize meaningful and pertinent information (flags) in a dataset. We further propose two proof-of-concept agents, with different inner workings, and compare their ability to capture such flags in a real-world sales dataset. While the work reported here is preliminary, our results are sufficiently interesting to mandate future exploration by the community.

Reasoning-Intensive Retrieval (RIR) targets retrieval settings where relevance is mediated by latent inferential links between a query and supporting evidence, rather than semantic similarity. Motivated by the emergent reasoning abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), recent work integrates these capabilities into the IR field, spanning the entire pipeline from benchmarks to retrievers and rerankers. Despite this progress, the field lacks a systematic framework to organize current efforts and articulate a clear path forward. To provide a clear roadmap for this rapidly growing yet fragmented area, this survey (1) systematizes existing RIR benchmarks by knowledge domains and modalities, providing a detailed analysis of the current landscape; (2) introduces a structured taxonomy that categorizes methods based on where and how reasoning is integrated into the retrieval pipeline, alongside an analysis of their trade-offs and practical applications; and (3) summarizes challenges and future directions to guide research in this evolving field.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise for recommendation reranking, but their use introduces an important tradeoff between recommendation quality and serving efficiency. We investigate whether a decision-oriented model provides a useful alternative when the reranking task is fundamentally a structured choice among predefined candidate items. Specifically, we conduct a controlled empirical study of Jev, described by TypeSafe AI as a ``System One Model,'' for personalized recommendation reranking and compare it with recommendation-specific models and pointwise and listwise Qwen rerankers across multiple Amazon Reviews domains and candidate-set sizes, evaluating both recommendation effectiveness and observed serving latency. Our results show that Jev maintains strong recommendation effectiveness relative to the evaluated baselines while exhibiting substantially more gradual latency growth than the pointwise Qwen rerankers, although its observed serving latency remains substantially higher than that of recommendation-specific models. Together, these characteristics place Jev in a distinct quality--latency operating regime across candidate sizes and domains. These findings motivate further investigation of decision-oriented models for recommendation and other ranking tasks with structured output spaces.

Machine learning models are increasingly used to automate decisions that affect humans - deciding who should receive a loan, a job interview, or a social service. In such applications, a person should have the ability to change the decision of a model. When a person is denied a loan by a credit score, for example, they should be able to alter its input variables in a way that guarantees approval. Otherwise, they will be denied the loan as long as the model is deployed. More importantly, they will lack the ability to influence a decision that affects their livelihood. In this paper, we frame these issues in terms of recourse, which we define as the ability of a person to change the decision of a model by altering actionable input variables (e.g., income vs. age or marital status). We present integer programming tools to ensure recourse in linear classification problems without interfering in model development. We demonstrate how our tools can inform stakeholders through experiments on credit scoring problems. Our results show that recourse can be significantly affected by standard practices in model development, and motivate the need to evaluate recourse in practice.

Deep search agents answer difficult information-seeking questions by iteratively issuing search queries to gather supporting evidence, but it remains unclear whether and how greater search effort leads to better answers. We study these questions through a trajectory-level diagnosis of long-horizon search agents. Using human-annotated document-level relevance judgments, we evaluate the evidence retrieved at each search step and separate two stages of agent behavior: what evidence an agent retrieves and how effectively it uses that evidence. This distinction further allows us to decompose failures into retrieval gaps, where the necessary evidence is never found, and utilization gaps, where relevant evidence is retrieved but not used correctly. With the retrieval model and evaluation harness held fixed, we compare six agents on BrowseComp-Plus and further validate our findings on BrowseComp with an open-web search API. Across settings, we find that search effort and answer quality are only weakly aligned. Answer accuracy is better correlated with the quality of retrieved evidence, especially cumulative retrieval recall, than with the number of searches or the amount of context consumed. Useful evidence often appears early in the trajectory, yet agents tend to continue searching, producing a long tail of low-yield retrieval steps. At the query level, exploratory reformulations remain useful, but the best-performing agents issue far fewer redundant queries. Overall, by systematically characterizing the search behavior and failure modes of long-horizon search agents, this work points to practical directions for building better deep research systems, including stronger query formulation, more effective evidence selection and context management, and stopping criteria based on whether sufficient supporting evidence has been retrieved.

AI agents are poised to become a primary interface to digital products, acting across email, files, payments, and personal data. People without professional software backgrounds need understandable, reusable ways to control actions across services. We examine a mechanism in which a language model maps actions to plain-language consequence categories with user-authored "allow", "ask", or "never" rules. We ask what is gained and lost when decisions are made in advance as reusable rules rather than separately for each action. We analyzed 113 participants without professional software backgrounds across three conditions: per-action human-in-the-loop approval (HITL), automated per-action model review (AUTO), or user-authored consequence policy (POLICY). Participants judged 2 examples in each of 4 consequence categories; POLICY participants then set one rule per category. All supervised an 18-action simulated day, including 7 overreach actions. POLICY blocked less overreach than HITL (-20.1 percentage points, 95% CI [-32.1, -8.1]) and AUTO (-14.5 points, 95% CI [-25.8, -3.2]). POLICY lowered runtime prompts from 18.0 to 10.9, but total intervention time was not reliably lower when rule setup was included. Exploratory analysis showed that participants chose "ask" for 114 of 140 POLICY rules, returning most overreach actions to runtime. Of the 148 overreach actions executed in POLICY, 133 followed human approval and 15 ran automatically under "allow" rules. Across all 7 overreach actions, POLICY had the highest approval rate. Counterintuitively, user-authored rules did not by themselves provide stronger protection: many actions outside users' original requests went through after users approved them. These results reveal a gap between preference and commitment: repeatedly choosing "ask" preserves case-by-case choice but prevents a standing policy from settling decisions in advance.

In order for AI systems to communicate effectively with people, they must understand how we make decisions. However, people's decisions are not always rational, so the implicit internal models of human decision-making in Large Language Models (LLMs) must account for this. Previous empirical evidence seems to suggest that these implicit models are accurate -- LLMs offer believable proxies of human behavior, acting how we expect humans would in everyday interactions. However, by comparing LLM behavior and predictions to a large dataset of human decisions, we find that this is actually not the case: when both simulating and predicting people's choices, a suite of cutting-edge LLMs (GPT-4o & 4-Turbo, Llama-3-8B & 70B, Claude 3 Opus) assume that people are more rational than we really are. Specifically, these models deviate from human behavior and align more closely with a classic model of rational choice -- expected value theory. Interestingly, people also tend to assume that other people are rational when interpreting their behavior. As a consequence, when we compare the inferences that LLMs and people draw from the decisions of others using another psychological dataset, we find that these inferences are highly correlated. Thus, the implicit decision-making models of LLMs appear to be aligned with the human expectation that other people will act rationally, rather than with how people actually act.

Existing reasoning evaluations typically provide task-relevant information to models as available premises, rarely examining concurrently how models discover evidence autonomously and how information presentation within narratives guides or obscures judgment. This paper proposes the WORTH Benchmark: models read original mystery narratives without clue annotations, autonomously select key clue sentences, identify case participants, and explain their reasoning process. The narrative materials are designed by professional authors such that evidence facilitating reasoning coexists with narrative arrangements that delay the revelation of truth. We report a pilot experiment under full-story conditions across two episodes, conducting a total of 70 formal runs on models, of which 67 runs are content-scorable. Scoring separately records hits on author-designated key clue sentences and participant selections; natural language explanations are used for case diagnosis and are not scored independently. The results show that clue hits and participant judgments are not synchronized; across 37 content-scorable runs in Episode 02, 31 runs simultaneously selected the same set of incorrect participants, while adjacent suspicion-oriented and exoneration-oriented sentences were selected 25 times and 0 times, respectively. These phenomena illustrate the diagnostic value of component-wise analysis and suggest that not-fully-cooperative informational relationships may influence evidence selection and judgment. This study only implements full-story conditions for two episodes, and does not establish stable model rankings or infer general mechanisms on this basis; human player records have not yet been cleaned, and this version does not report human-model comparisons.

Information tasks such as writing surveys or analytical reports require complex search and reasoning, and have recently been grouped under the umbrella of deep research -- a term also adopted by recent models targeting these capabilities. Despite growing interest, the scope of the deep research task remains underdefined and its distinction from other reasoning-intensive problems is poorly understood. In this paper, we propose a formal characterization of the deep research (DR) task and introduce a benchmark to evaluate the performance of DR systems. We argue that the core defining feature of deep research is not the production of lengthy report-style outputs, but rather the high fan-out over concepts required during the search process, i.e., broad and reasoning-intensive exploration. To enable objective evaluation, we define DR using an intermediate output representation that encodes key claims uncovered during search-separating the reasoning challenge from surface-level report generation. Based on this formulation, we propose a diverse, challenging benchmark LiveDRBench with 100 challenging tasks over scientific topics (e.g., datasets, materials discovery, prior art search) and public interest events (e.g., flight incidents, movie awards). Across state-of-the-art DR systems, F1 score ranges between 0.02 and 0.72 for any sub-category. OpenAI's model performs the best with an overall F1 score of 0.55. Analysis of reasoning traces reveals the distribution over the number of referenced sources, branching, and backtracking events executed by current DR systems, motivating future directions for improving their search mechanisms and grounding capabilities. The benchmark is available at https://github.com/microsoft/LiveDRBench.

The LLMJudge challenge is organized as part of the LLM4Eval workshop at SIGIR 2024. Test collections are essential for evaluating information retrieval (IR) systems. The evaluation and tuning of a search system is largely based on relevance labels, which indicate whether a document is useful for a specific search and user. However, collecting relevance judgments on a large scale is costly and resource-intensive. Consequently, typical experiments rely on third-party labelers who may not always produce accurate annotations. The LLMJudge challenge aims to explore an alternative approach by using LLMs to generate relevance judgments. Recent studies have shown that LLMs can generate reliable relevance judgments for search systems. However, it remains unclear which LLMs can match the accuracy of human labelers, which prompts are most effective, how fine-tuned open-source LLMs compare to closed-source LLMs like GPT-4, whether there are biases in synthetically generated data, and if data leakage affects the quality of generated labels. This challenge will investigate these questions, and the collected data will be released as a package to support automatic relevance judgment research in information retrieval and search.

People's decision-making abilities often fail to improve or may even erode when they rely on AI for decision-support, even when the AI provides informative explanations. We argue this is partly because people intuitively seek contrastive explanations, which clarify the difference between the AI's decision and their own reasoning, while most AI systems offer "unilateral" explanations that justify the AI's decision but do not account for users' thinking. To align human-AI knowledge on decision tasks, we introduce a framework for generating human-centered contrastive explanations that explain the difference between AI's choice and a predicted, likely human choice about the same task. Results from a large-scale experiment (N = 628) demonstrate that contrastive explanations significantly enhance users' independent decision-making skills compared to unilateral explanations, without sacrificing decision accuracy. Amid rising deskilling concerns, our research demonstrates that incorporating human reasoning into AI design can foster human skill development.

Agent decisions depend on empirical relationships that deployment observations reveal and task descriptions alone may leave unresolved. We introduce Decoupled Predictive Decision Making (DPDM), an architecture that formulates heterogeneous agent decisions as conditional prediction with a shared pretrained learner. Language models provide semantic representations of current and historical records, while a general-purpose conditional predictor predicts task-defined targets from the represented evidence. Pretraining supplies reusable inference capability; deployment evidence instantiates problem-specific predictions without updating either model's neural parameters. Tool judgments, candidate preferences, and reasoning assessments share an evidence-and-query interface, with predictions mapped to choices by a decision rule. This architecture establishes complementary sources of agent capability: semantic knowledge acquired through language pretraining and empirical inference acquired through structured-data pretraining. A single frozen LimiX-2 predictor serves all five task categories. With Qwen3.5-27B as the semantic encoder, DPDM raises mean accuracy across 50 benchmarks from 78.80% with few-shot prompting to 84.92% under their respective evaluated history budgets, and reaches 82.33% with identical histories and queries. On ToolPRMBench's BFCL and ToolSandbox tasks, absolute accuracy gains are 34.26% and 28.87%, respectively, at the methods' respective evaluated history budgets. Accuracy improves as history grows. With identical imbalanced histories, mean balanced accuracy improves by an absolute 14.51% across five reasoning-step assessment tasks and four encoders. DPDM makes learning from experience an independently improvable foundation-model capability, creating a shared route for advances in conditional prediction to improve decisions across agent tasks.

Adaptive behavior often requires predicting future events. The theory of reinforcement learning prescribes what kinds of predictive representations are useful and how to compute them. This paper integrates these theoretical ideas with work on cognition and neuroscience. We pay special attention to the successor representation (SR) and its generalizations, which have been widely applied both as engineering tools and models of brain function. This convergence suggests that particular kinds of predictive representations may function as versatile building blocks of intelligence.

Reasoning is a fundamental aspect of human intelligence that plays a crucial role in activities such as problem solving, decision making, and critical thinking. In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have made significant progress in natural language processing, and there is observation that these models may exhibit reasoning abilities when they are sufficiently large. However, it is not yet clear to what extent LLMs are capable of reasoning. This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge on reasoning in LLMs, including techniques for improving and eliciting reasoning in these models, methods and benchmarks for evaluating reasoning abilities, findings and implications of previous research in this field, and suggestions on future directions. Our aim is to provide a detailed and up-to-date review of this topic and stimulate meaningful discussion and future work.

Search agents powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant potential in tackling knowledge-intensive tasks. Reinforcement learning (RL) has emerged as a powerful paradigm for training these agents to perform complex, multi-step reasoning. However, prior RL-based methods often rely on sparse or rule-based rewards, which can lead agents to commit to suboptimal or erroneous reasoning paths without the ability to recover. To address these limitations, we propose ReSeek, a novel self-correcting framework for training search agents. Our framework introduces a self-correction mechanism that empowers the agent to dynamically identify and recover from erroneous search paths during an episode. By invoking a special JUDGE action, the agent can judge the information and re-plan its search strategy. To guide this process, we design a dense, instructive process reward function, which decomposes into a correctness reward for retrieving factual information and a utility reward for finding information genuinely useful for the query. Furthermore, to mitigate the risk of data contamination in existing datasets, we introduce FictionalHot, a new and challenging benchmark with recently curated questions requiring complex reasoning. Being intuitively reasonable and practically simple, extensive experiments show that agents trained with ReSeek significantly outperform SOTA baselines in task success rate and path faithfulness.

When the sources retrieved for a query disagree, the right response depends on why they disagree: a question with several valid answers, a contested topic, stale information and a false source each call for different behaviour. Cattan et al. (2025) showed that telling a generator the conflict type improves its responses by about 24 points, but that predicting the type is hard even for frontier LLMs. We study whether typed decision models, which return probabilities over fixed options in a single forward pass instead of generating text, can do this classification fast and cheaply. Using the CONFLICTS benchmark and the original paper's prompt verbatim, we evaluate all 11 decision models served by one commercial inference gateway, from 7 providers, against Gemini models on identical inputs. Asked directly, the decision models reach 50.0--67.0% accuracy; 10 of the 11 match or exceed Gemini 2.5 Flash, the paper's model (61.3%), at 4--39x lower billed cost (2 were free) and 2.6--6.0x lower latency. The current Gemini 3.8 Flash (70.0%) is significantly more accurate than 8 of them, but sending each decision model's least confident quarter of queries to it gives a cascade statistically tied with it for 8 of the 11, at 25--37% of its cost. End to end, answers generated with the types of 10 of the 11 follow the expected behaviour as often as with the LLM's types. Decomposing the taxonomy into yes/no questions lowers accuracy for every model, and a repair fitted on one model does not transfer. Pre-specified diagnostics show that dates play no measurable role and that sensitivity to source order varies widely between models. Decision models detect a planted false source less reliably than the LLM as hard labels, but their probabilities still separate planted from clean sources. We release code, prompts and all model outputs at https://github.com/Parv17k/decision-models-conflict-typing.

LLM agents increasingly work on long-horizon tasks, and the decisions they make along the way, such as which hypothesis to test or which implementation to build on, determine the outcome of the whole run. Making these decisions well is becoming a key capability for both engineering and research agents. We refer to the ability to make good long-horizon decisions as the taste of an agent. While existing benchmarks measure the end-to-end success of agents on long-horizon tasks, none of them measures the taste of an agent. To address this problem, we build Taste-Bench, a benchmark of taste questions constructed automatically from trajectories that agents produced in engineering and research tasks. Each question presents a decision fork, a point in a trajectory where multiple directions are available and one of them leads to a better outcome, and the evaluated model chooses among these directions without seeing what happens after the fork. We mine these forks automatically from parallel attempts at the same task and from detours inside a single trajectory, without needing human annotation. We evaluate frontier models on Taste-Bench and find that the best model answers only 59.7% of the questions correctly. We further find that forks whose deciding evidence appears later in the trajectory are much harder for every model, and that a larger reasoning budget does not improve the accuracy. Finally, we show that taste can be trained. We distill the judgment of a teacher that has seen the outcome into a student model, and the student makes better decisions on unseen tasks and improves end-to-end success on held-out SWE-bench Pro tasks.

A popular approach to post-training control of large language models (LLMs) is the steering of intermediate latent representations. Namely, identify a well-chosen direction depending on the task at hand and perturbs representations along this direction at inference time. While many propositions exist to pick this direction, considerably less is understood about how to choose the magnitude of the move, whereas its importance is clear: too little and the intended behavior does not emerge, too much and the model's performance degrades beyond repair. In this work, we propose the first theoretical analysis of steering strength. We characterize its effect on next token probability, presence of a concept, and cross-entropy, deriving precise qualitative laws governing these quantities. Our analysis reveals surprising behaviors, including non-monotonic effects of steering strength. We validate our theoretical predictions empirically on eleven language models, ranging from a small GPT architecture to modern models.

Decision-focused learning (DFL) is an emerging paradigm that integrates machine learning (ML) and constrained optimization to enhance decision quality by training ML models in an end-to-end system. This approach shows significant potential to revolutionize combinatorial decision-making in real-world applications that operate under uncertainty, where estimating unknown parameters within decision models is a major challenge. This paper presents a comprehensive review of DFL, providing an in-depth analysis of both gradient-based and gradient-free techniques used to combine ML and constrained optimization. It evaluates the strengths and limitations of these techniques and includes an extensive empirical evaluation of eleven methods across seven problems. The survey also offers insights into recent advancements and future research directions in DFL. Code and benchmark: https://github.com/PredOpt/predopt-benchmarks

Encouraged by decision makers' appetite for future information on topics ranging from elections to pandemics, and enabled by the explosion of data and computational methods, model based forecasts have garnered increasing influence on a breadth of decisions in modern society. Using several classic examples from fisheries management, I demonstrate that selecting the model or models that produce the most accurate and precise forecast (measured by statistical scores) can sometimes lead to worse outcomes (measured by real-world objectives). This can create a forecast trap, in which the outcomes such as fish biomass or economic yield decline while the manager becomes increasingly convinced that these actions are consistent with the best models and data available. The forecast trap is not unique to this example, but a fundamental consequence of non-uniqueness of models. Existing practices promoting a broader set of models are the best way to avoid the trap.

Relevance judgments are crucial for evaluating information retrieval systems, but traditional human-annotated labels are time-consuming and expensive. As a result, many researchers turn to automatic alternatives to accelerate method development. Among these, Large Language Models (LLMs) provide a scalable solution by generating relevance labels directly through prompting. However, prompting an LLM for a relevance label without constraints often results in not only incorrect predictions but also outputs that are difficult for humans to interpret. We propose the Multi-Criteria framework for LLM-based relevance judgments, decomposing the notion of relevance into multiple criteria--such as exactness, coverage, topicality, and contextual fit--to improve the robustness and interpretability of retrieval evaluations compared to direct grading methods. We validate this approach on three datasets: the TREC Deep Learning tracks from 2019 and 2020, as well as LLMJudge (based on TREC DL 2023). Our results demonstrate that Multi-Criteria judgments enhance the system ranking/leaderboard performance. Moreover, we highlight the strengths and limitations of this approach relative to direct grading approaches, offering insights that can guide the development of future automatic evaluation frameworks in information retrieval.

Frontier language models excel at complex tasks yet may prioritize protection over larger physical consequences in simple, urgent decisions. GPT-5.6 Sol, for example, moves a girl playing in shallow water before retrieving a submerged camera. We call this Protection Mode and study it with ProtectionBench: 285 prompts, 34 physical families, and nine models. At lowest effort, at least one of four responses prioritizes the subject on 34.74% of Sol prompts and over 83% of MiniMax M3 and Qwen3.5-27B prompts; none of four independent human raters does so. Controls show that choices usually track physical risk. We elicit both risks before requesting an action. Some models assess risk incorrectly; others state the correct ordering but still choose the subject. Qwen3.5-27B with thinking shows 100% correct risk ordering but 57.81% subject choice among eligible conversations on eight selected scenes. Attention audits find no stable reduction in attention to relevant facts; removing the stated risk direction reduces object-first choice in dots3-note-prev but not detectably in Qwen3.5-27B. Adding a general "people or animals before property" rule increases subject choice by 19-38 percentage points, whereas factual reminders favor the object by 0.7-5.2 points. Removing naturally generated versions of that rule lowers subject choice by 10-15 points. We also examine whether post-training introduces this pattern. Base models already show Protection Mode; post-training changes justifications more than choices.

Portfolio Selection is an important real-world financial task and has attracted extensive attention in artificial intelligence communities. This task, however, has two main difficulties: (i) the non-stationary price series and complex asset correlations make the learning of feature representation very hard; (ii) the practicality principle in financial markets requires controlling both transaction and risk costs. Most existing methods adopt handcraft features and/or consider no constraints for the costs, which may make them perform unsatisfactorily and fail to control both costs in practice. In this paper, we propose a cost-sensitive portfolio selection method with deep reinforcement learning. Specifically, a novel two-stream portfolio policy network is devised to extract both price series patterns and asset correlations, while a new cost-sensitive reward function is developed to maximize the accumulated return and constrain both costs via reinforcement learning. We theoretically analyze the near-optimality of the proposed reward, which shows that the growth rate of the policy regarding this reward function can approach the theoretical optimum. We also empirically evaluate the proposed method on real-world datasets. Promising results demonstrate the effectiveness and superiority of the proposed method in terms of profitability, cost-sensitivity and representation abilities.