Selective QA over Conflicting Multi-Source Personal Memory: A Diagnostic Testbed and Method Comparison

Emerging personal AI agents are moving toward persistent, multi-source memory. This creates an evaluation problem: systems must decide how to use conflicting or incomplete evidence; they cannot just retrieve facts from one clean history. Existing benchmarks rarely show whether an error came from the evidence given to a method or from the method's conflict-resolution step. We study this as selective QA over conflicting multi-source personal memory: systems answer based on conflicting, sometimes incomplete sources, or abstain when evidence is insufficient. We develop a benchmark containing 18 question templates across 8 reasoning types, 480 personas, 4 random seeds, and 34,560 instances, with controlled source distortions and deterministic ground truth. We evaluate the performance of baselines without access to any source, access to a single source, structured fusion methods, and frontier LLMs. The best trained fusion resolver reaches 80.3% accuracy, while the strongest prompt-only LLM baseline reaches 70.0%. With abstention, the same resolver reaches 85.3% selective accuracy at 78.3% coverage and the best LLM reaches 71.0% selective accuracy at 95.4% coverage. Different models have different strengths across reasoning types. We release the data, code, cached model outputs, and data-generating process for reuse.

On-Policy Consistency Training Improves LLM Safety with Minimal Capability Degradation

Aligned models can misbehave in several ways: they are often sycophantic, fall victim to jailbreaks, or fail to include appropriate safety warnings. Consistency training is a promising new alignment paradigm to mitigate such failures by training invariants into the model using contrastive input pairs. Existing consistency training procedures generate the supervision signal once, offline, and use supervised fine-tuning (SFT) to update the model. Unfortunately, the resulting models tend to merely memorize the surface forms of the training distribution and thus generalize poorly and regress in their capabilities. We introduce On-Policy Consistency Training (OPCT), a new consistency training approach where the objective is computed over the model's own responses to prompts, supervised by itself conditioned on corresponding contrastive prompts. We evaluate OPCT on three safety axes: sycophancy, jailbreaking, and safety awareness. Across three model families, OPCT outperforms its SFT counterpart on all safety desiderata. It nearly halves the sycophancy rate relative to baseline (8.1% vs. 15.4%, compared to 11.2% for SFT). Under an adaptive per-target attacker, OPCT holds jailbreak defense success near 99% on held-out jailbreak behaviors, whereas SFT achieves 87% on average. On safety awareness, OPCT outperforms SFT in two out of three models, and matches it on the other. OPCT also largely avoids the capability regressions that SFT induces, such as a 28-point drop on MATH-500. Our results suggest that consistency training is best implemented as OPCT rather than as SFT, especially when generalization beyond the training distribution is desired.

Medical Model Synthesis Architectures: A Case Study

Medicine is rife with high-stakes uncertainty. Doctors routinely make clinical judgments and decisions that juggle many fundamental unknowns, like predictions about what might be causing a patients' symptoms or decisions about what treatment to try next. Despite increasing interest in developing AI systems that aid or even replace doctors in clinical settings, current systems struggle with calibrated reasoning under uncertainty, and are often deeply opaque about their reasoning. We propose a framework for AI systems that can make practically useful but formally transparent clinical predictions under uncertainty. Given a clinical situation, our framework (MedMSA) uses language models to retrieve relevant prior knowledge, but constructs a formal probabilistic model to support calibrated and verifiable inferences under uncertainty. We show how an initial proof-of-concept of this framework can be used for differential diagnosis, producing an uncertainty-weighted list of potential diagnoses that could explain a patients' symptoms, and discuss future applications and directions for applying this framework more generally for safe clinical collaborations.

Improving the Efficiency of Language Agent Teams with Adaptive Task Graphs

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in teams, yet existing coordination approaches often occupy two extremes. Highly structured methods rely on fixed roles, pipelines, or task decompositions assigned a priori. In contrast, fully unstructured teams enable adaptability and exploration but suffer from inefficiencies such as error propagation, inter-agent conflicts, and wasted resources (measured in time, tokens, or file operations). We introduce Language Agent Teams for Task Evolution (LATTE), a framework for coordinating LLM teams inspired by distributed systems, where processors must operate under partial observability and communication constraints. In LATTE, a team of agents collaboratively construct and maintain a shared, evolving coordination graph which encodes sub-task dependencies, individual agent assignment, and the current state of sub-task progress. This protocol maintains consistency while empowering agents to dynamically allocate work, adapt coordination, and discover new tasks. Across multiple collaborative tasks and a variety of base models, we demonstrate how LATTE reduces token usage, wall-clock time, communication, and coordination failures (e.g. file conflicts and redundant outputs) while matching or exceeding the accuracy of standard designs including MetaGPT, decentralized teams, top-down Leader-Worker hierarchies, and static decompositions.

Failing to Falsify: Evaluating and Mitigating Confirmation Bias in Language Models

Confirmation bias, the tendency to seek evidence that supports rather than challenges one's belief, hinders one's reasoning ability. We examine whether large language models (LLMs) exhibit confirmation bias by adapting the rule-discovery study from human psychology: given a sequence of three numbers (a "triple"), an agent engages in an interactive feedback loop where it (1) proposes a new triple, (2) receives feedback on whether it satisfies the hidden rule, and (3) guesses the rule. Across eleven LLMs of multiple families and scales, we find that LLMs exhibit confirmation bias, often proposing triples to confirm their hypothesis rather than trying to falsify it. This leads to slower and less frequent discovery of the hidden rule. We further explore intervention strategies (e.g., encouraging the agent to consider counter examples) developed for humans. We find prompting LLMs with such instruction consistently decreases confirmation bias in LLMs, improving rule discovery rates from 42% to 56% on average. Lastly, we mitigate confirmation bias by distilling intervention-induced behavior into LLMs, showing promising generalization to a new task, the Blicket test. Our work shows that confirmation bias is a limitation of LLMs in hypothesis exploration, and that it can be mitigated via injecting interventions designed for humans.

Do Large Language Models Mentalize When They Teach?

How do LLMs decide what to teach next: by reasoning about a learner's knowledge, or by using simpler rules of thumb? We test this in a controlled task previously used to study human teaching strategies. On each trial, a teacher LLM sees a hypothetical learner's trajectory through a reward-annotated directed graph and must reveal a single edge so the learner would choose a better path if they replanned. We run a range of LLMs as simulated teachers and fit their trial-by-trial choices with the same cognitive models used for humans: a Bayes-Optimal teacher that infers which transitions the learner is missing (inverse planning), weaker Bayesian variants, heuristic baselines (e.g., reward based), and non-mentalizing utility models. In a baseline experiment matched to the stimuli presented to human subjects, most LLMs perform well, show little change in strategy over trials, and their graph-by-graph performance is similar to that of humans. Model comparison (BIC) shows that Bayes-Optimal teaching best explains most models' choices. When given a scaffolding intervention, models follow auxiliary inference- or reward-focused prompts, but these scaffolds do not reliably improve later teaching on heuristic-incongruent test graphs and can sometimes reduce performance. Overall, cognitive model fits provide insight into LLM tutoring policies and show that prompt compliance does not guarantee better teaching decisions.

Under the Influence: Quantifying Persuasion and Vigilance in Large Language Models

With increasing integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into areas of high-stakes human decision-making, it is important to understand the risks they introduce as advisors. To be useful advisors, LLMs must sift through large amounts of content, written with both benevolent and malicious intent, and then use this information to convince a user to take a specific action. This involves two social capacities: vigilance (the ability to determine which information to use, and which to discard) and persuasion (synthesizing the available evidence to make a convincing argument). While existing work has investigated these capacities in isolation, there has been little prior investigation of how these capacities may be linked. Here, we use a simple multi-turn puzzle-solving game, Sokoban, to study LLMs' abilities to persuade and be rationally vigilant towards other LLM agents. We find that puzzle-solving performance, persuasive capability, and vigilance are dissociable capacities in LLMs. Performing well on the game does not automatically mean a model can detect when it is being misled, even if the possibility of deception is explicitly mentioned. However, LLMs do consistently modulate their token use, using fewer tokens to reason when advice is benevolent and more when it is malicious, even if they are still persuaded to take actions leading them to failure. To our knowledge, our work presents the first investigation of the relationship between persuasion, vigilance, and task performance in LLMs, and suggests that monitoring all three independently will be critical for future work in AI safety.

Why Human Guidance Matters in Collaborative Vibe Coding

Writing code has been one of the most transformative ways for human societies to translate abstract ideas into tangible technologies. Modern AI is transforming this process by enabling experts and non-experts alike to generate code without actually writing code, but instead, through natural language instructions, or "vibe coding". While increasingly popular, the cumulative impact of vibe coding on productivity and collaboration, as well as the role of humans in this process, remains unclear. Here, we introduce a controlled experimental framework for studying collaborative vibe coding and use it to compare human-led, AI-led, and hybrid groups. Across 16 experiments involving 604 human participants, we show that people provide uniquely effective high-level instructions for vibe coding across iterations, whereas AI-provided instructions often result in performance collapse. We further demonstrate that hybrid systems perform best when humans retain directional control (providing the instructions), while evaluation is delegated to AI.

Identifying, Evaluating, and Mitigating Risks of AI Thought Partnerships

Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems have historically been used as tools that execute narrowly defined tasks. Yet recent advances in AI have unlocked possibilities for a new class of models that genuinely collaborate with humans in complex reasoning, from conceptualizing problems to brainstorming solutions. Such AI thought partners enable novel forms of collaboration and extended cognition, yet they also pose major risks-including and beyond risks of typical AI tools and agents. In this commentary, we systematically identify risks of AI thought partners through a novel framework that identifies risks at multiple levels of analysis, including Real-time, Individual, and Societal risks arising from collaborative cognition (RISc). We leverage this framework to propose concrete metrics for risk evaluation, and finally suggest specific mitigation strategies for developers and policymakers. As AI thought partners continue to proliferate, these strategies can help prevent major harms and ensure that humans actively benefit from productive thought partnerships.

Using the Tools of Cognitive Science to Understand Large Language Models at Different Levels of Analysis

Modern artificial intelligence systems, such as large language models, are increasingly powerful but also increasingly hard to understand. Recognizing this problem as analogous to the historical difficulties in understanding the human mind, we argue that methods developed in cognitive science can be useful for understanding large language models. We propose a framework for applying these methods based on Marr's three levels of analysis. By revisiting established cognitive science techniques relevant to each level and illustrating their potential to yield insights into the behavior and internal organization of large language models, we aim to provide a toolkit for making sense of these new kinds of minds.