JigShape: Evaluating Visual-Geometric Reasoning in VLMs through Jigsaw Puzzles

Jigsaw puzzle solving requires jointly reasoning about visual content and geometric constraints, yet existing benchmarks use rectangular cuts that create ambiguous ground truth in texture-repeated regions. We introduce \textit{\ours{}}, a benchmark with tab-and-blank interlocking pieces where geometric constraints provide strong local compatibility requirements that, combined with visual content, yield unambiguous ground truth. Across 95K instances at four grid densities (4$\times$4 to 16$\times$16), we find that \textbf{zero-shot VLMs largely lack geometric reasoning}: only one of five frontier models (GPT-5.5) exceeds random baseline on 4$\times$4 puzzles, while all others perform at chance level. While supervised fine-tuning achieves $>$97\% on 4$\times$4, \textbf{all models collapse on larger grids}: GPT-5.5 drops from 70\% to near-random on 8$\times$8, and even fine-tuned models fall below 5\% on 12$\times$12. This ``scaling cliff'' suggests current architectures cannot maintain consistent constraint satisfaction as the number of pieces increases. \ours{} establishes scalable geometric reasoning as an open challenge for vision-language models.

RaMem: Contextual Reinstatement for Long-term Agentic Memory

Long-term memory has become increasingly important for LLM agents that operate across extended interactions and evolving task contexts. Recent memory systems have made past experiences more persistent, compact, and retrievable, but retrieval alone does not ensure that a memory provides valid evidence for the current query. When experiences are compressed into reusable fragments, memories from different situations may appear equally relevant if they involve recurring entities or user states. We refer to this failure as context collapse: memories lose the surrounding context needed to judge whether they provide valid evidence for the current query. To address this problem, we propose Contextual Reinstatement for Agentic Memory (RaMem), a framework that turns retrieved memory fragments into contextually verifiable evidence. RaMem operates through four coordinated stages: (i) evidence anchoring grounds each memory in its original episodic conditions, especially event time, mention time, session span, and participants; (ii) recall condition induction derives the evidence conditions implied by the query; (iii) validity-aware retrieval uses these conditions to prioritize context-compatible memories while retaining content-relevant candidates as fallback evidence; and (iv) context-preserved synthesis keeps the selected memories' structured context available to the generator. Experiments on long-term memory benchmarks show that RaMem consistently improves performance over strong memory baselines, with average F1 gains of more than 10% across several backbones.

Memory Retrieval for Changing Preferences

Long-context dialogue systems must decide both when to access memory and which parts of the interaction history are relevant. Existing approaches typically rely on heuristic retrieval signals or always-on memory usage, failing to account for the changing and potentially inconsistent nature of user preferences. In this work, we propose a unified framework for memory access and selection based on changing preferences. We formulate personalized memory retrieval as identifying which historical turns provide evidence about a user's latent preference state, rather than relying on surface-level semantic similarity. To this end, we quantify the utility of each memory turn using a Bayes factor, defined as the improvement in the model's likelihood of the reference response when the turn is included in context. This provides a principled measure of evidence strength and a unified signal for both memory access and selection. By framing memory retrieval as utility estimation, the model learns to identify salient turns and regulate memory usage based on expected utility. Experiments on four heterogeneous memory benchmarks show that our approach outperforms existing embedding-based retrieval on long-context, preference-intensive tasks where modeling changing preferences is essential, while remaining competitive in low-density regimes where semantic similarity suffices.

Can Subgraph Explanations Be Weaponized to Steal Graph Neural Networks?

Graph Machine Learning as a Service (GMLaaS) platforms increasingly implement explainability interfaces to meet regulatory transparency requirements. However, this transparency creates exploitable vulnerabilities for model extraction attacks. We present the first model extraction attack specifically designed for graph classification under strict black-box constraints where the attacker observes only discrete class labels and binary explanation masks (no probability scores, gradients, or confidence values). Our method (1) uses model explanation outputs to guide Monte Carlo edge sensitivity estimation toward decision boundaries, with Hoeffding concentration guarantees on estimation accuracy and (2) exploits explanation subgraphs to efficiently narrow the boundary search space. Extensive experiments on benchmark graph datasets across multiple domains demonstrate our method's superiority over comparable baselines. These findings demonstrate that such explainability interfaces create exploitable attack surfaces, informing both defensive mechanisms and policy frameworks for explainable AI mandates. The implementation code is provided in https://github.com/LabRAI/XSTEAL/.

When Simulation Lies: A Sim-to-Real Benchmark and Domain-Randomized RL Recipe for Tool-Use Agents

Tool-use language agents are evaluated on benchmarks that assume clean inputs, unambiguous tool registries, and reliable APIs. Real deployments violate all these assumptions: user typos propagate into hallucinated tool names, a misconfigured request timeout can stall an agent indefinitely, and duplicate tool names across servers can freeze an SDK. We study these failures as a sim-to-real gap in the tool-use partially observable Markov decision process (POMDP), where deployment noise enters through the observation, action space, reward-relevant metadata, or transition dynamics. We introduce RobustBench-TC, a benchmark with 22 perturbation types organized by these four POMDP components, each grounded in a verified GitHub issue or documented tool-calling failure. Across 21 models from 1.5B to 32B parameters (including the closed-source o4-mini), the robustness profile is sharply uneven: observation perturbations reduce accuracy by less than 5%, while reward-relevant and transition perturbations reduce accuracy by roughly 40% and 30%, respectively; scale alone does not close these gaps. We then propose ToolRL-DR, a domain-randomization reinforcement learning (RL) recipe that trains a tool-use agent on perturbation-augmented trajectories spanning the three statically encodable POMDP components. On a 3B backbone, ToolRL-DR-Full retains roughly three-quarters of clean accuracy and reaches an aggregate perturbed accuracy comparable to open-source 14B function-calling baselines while substantially narrowing the gap to o4-mini. It closes approximately 27% of the Transition gap despite never seeing transition perturbations in training, suggesting that RL on adversarial static tool-use inputs induces a more persistent retry policy that transfers to unseen runtime failures. The dataset, code and benchmark leaderboard are publicly available.

Geometry over Density: Few-Shot Cross-Domain OOD Detection

Out-of-distribution (OOD) detection identifies test samples that fall outside a model's training distribution, a capability critical for safe deployment in high-stakes applications. Standard OOD detectors are trained on a specific in-distribution (ID) dataset and detect deviations from that single domain. In contrast, we study few-shot cross-domain OOD detection: given a \emph{single} pre-trained model, can we perform OOD detection on \emph{arbitrary} new ID-OOD task pairs using only a handful of ID samples at inference time, with no additional training? We propose \textbf{UFCOD}, a unified framework that achieves this goal through information-geometric analysis of diffusion trajectories. Our key insight is that diffusion noise predictions are score functions (gradients of log-density), and we extract two energy features: \emph{Path Energy} (integrated score magnitude) and \emph{Dynamics Energy} (score smoothness), that form a discrete Sobolev norm capturing how samples interact with the learned diffusion process. The central contribution is a \textbf{train-once, deploy-anywhere} paradigm: a diffusion model trained on a single dataset (e.g., CelebA) serves as a universal feature extractor for OOD detection across semantically unrelated domains (e.g., CIFAR-10, SVHN, Textures). At deployment, each new task requires only $\sim$100 unlabeled ID samples for inference: no retraining, no fine-tuning, no task-specific adaptation. Using 100 ID samples per task, UFCOD achieves 93.7\% average AUROC across 12 cross-domain benchmarks, competitive with methods trained on 50k--163k samples, demonstrating $\sim$500$\times$ improvement in sample efficiency. See our code in https://github.com/lili0415/UFCOD.

The Blind Spot of Agent Safety: How Benign User Instructions Expose Critical Vulnerabilities in Computer-Use Agents

Computer-use agents (CUAs) can now autonomously complete complex tasks in real digital environments, but when misled, they can also be used to automate harmful actions programmatically. Existing safety evaluations largely target explicit threats such as misuse and prompt injection, but overlook a subtle yet critical setting where user instructions are entirely benign and harm arises from the task context or execution outcome. We introduce OS-BLIND, a benchmark that evaluates CUAs under unintended attack conditions, comprising 300 human-crafted tasks across 12 categories, 8 applications, and 2 threat clusters: environment-embedded threats and agent-initiated harms. Our evaluation on frontier models and agentic frameworks reveals that most CUAs exceed 90% attack success rate (ASR), and even the safety-aligned Claude 4.5 Sonnet reaches 73.0% ASR. More interestingly, this vulnerability becomes even more severe, with ASR rising from 73.0% to 92.7% when Claude 4.5 Sonnet is deployed in multi-agent systems. Our analysis further shows that existing safety defenses provide limited protection when user instructions are benign. Safety alignment primarily activates within the first few steps and rarely re-engages during subsequent execution. In multi-agent systems, decomposed subtasks obscure the harmful intent from the model, causing safety-aligned models to fail. We will release our OS-BLIND to encourage the broader research community to further investigate and address these safety challenges.

Auditable Agents

LLM agents call tools, query databases, delegate tasks, and trigger external side effects. Once an agent system can act in the world, the question is no longer only whether harmful actions can be prevented--it is whether those actions remain answerable after deployment. We distinguish accountability (the ability to determine compliance and assign responsibility), auditability (the system property that makes accountability possible), and auditing (the process of reconstructing behavior from trustworthy evidence). Our claim is direct: no agent system can be accountable without auditability. To make this operational, we define five dimensions of agent auditability, i.e., action recoverability, lifecycle coverage, policy checkability, responsibility attribution, and evidence integrity, and identify three mechanism classes (detect, enforce, recover) whose temporal information-and-intervention constraints explain why, in practice, no single approach suffices. We support the position with layered evidence rather than a single benchmark: lower-bound ecosystem measurements suggest that even basic security prerequisites for auditability are widely unmet (617 security findings across six prominent open-source projects); runtime feasibility results show that pre-execution mediation with tamper-evident records adds only 8.3 ms median overhead; and controlled recovery experiments show that responsibility-relevant information can be partially recovered even when conventional logs are missing. We propose an Auditability Card for agent systems and identify six open research problems organized by mechanism class.

No Attacker Needed: Unintentional Cross-User Contamination in Shared-State LLM Agents

LLM-based agents increasingly operate across repeated sessions, maintaining task states to ensure continuity. In many deployments, a single agent serves multiple users within a team or organization, reusing a shared knowledge layer across user identities. This shared persistence expands the failure surface: information that is locally valid for one user can silently degrade another user's outcome when the agent reapplies it without regard for scope. We refer to this failure mode as unintentional cross-user contamination (UCC). Unlike adversarial memory poisoning, UCC requires no attacker; it arises from benign interactions whose scope-bound artifacts persist and are later misapplied. We formalize UCC through a controlled evaluation protocol, introduce a taxonomy of three contamination types, and evaluate the problem in two shared-state mechanisms. Under raw shared state, benign interactions alone produce contamination rates of 57--71%. A write-time sanitization is effective when shared state is conversational, but leaves substantial residual risk when shared state includes executable artifacts, with contamination often manifesting as silent wrong answers. These results indicate that shared-state agents need artifact-level defenses beyond text-level sanitization to prevent silent cross-user failures.

A Systematic Study of Model Extraction Attacks on Graph Foundation Models

Graph machine learning has advanced rapidly in tasks such as link prediction, anomaly detection, and node classification. As models scale up, pretrained graph models have become valuable intellectual assets because they encode extensive computation and domain expertise. Building on these advances, Graph Foundation Models (GFMs) mark a major step forward by jointly pretraining graph and text encoders on massive and diverse data. This unifies structural and semantic understanding, enables zero-shot inference, and supports applications such as fraud detection and biomedical analysis. However, the high pretraining cost and broad cross-domain knowledge in GFMs also make them attractive targets for model extraction attacks (MEAs). Prior work has focused only on small graph neural networks trained on a single graph, leaving the security implications for large-scale and multimodal GFMs largely unexplored. This paper presents the first systematic study of MEAs against GFMs. We formalize a black-box threat model and define six practical attack scenarios covering domain-level and graph-specific extraction goals, architectural mismatch, limited query budgets, partial node access, and training data discrepancies. To instantiate these attacks, we introduce a lightweight extraction method that trains an attacker encoder using supervised regression of graph embeddings. Even without contrastive pretraining data, this method learns an encoder that stays aligned with the victim text encoder and preserves its zero-shot inference ability on unseen graphs. Experiments on seven datasets show that the attacker can approximate the victim model using only a tiny fraction of its original training cost, with almost no loss in accuracy. These findings reveal that GFMs greatly expand the MEA surface and highlight the need for deployment-aware security defenses in large-scale graph learning systems.