The Deterministic Horizon: When Extended Reasoning Fails and Tool Delegation Becomes Necessary

Extended chain-of-thought reasoning can degrade performance on deterministic state-tracking tasks, not due to preference biases, but limits rooted in the information-theoretic capacity of decoder-only attention. We establish: (1) an Attention Bottleneck Theorem with a complementary achievability construction, bounding state-tracking capacity as $O(H \cdot \log(L/H) \cdot \sqrt{d_h})$; (2) a context-dependent error model yielding super-exponential accuracy decay; (3) the State-Space Jaccard metric distinguishing capability from preference failures; (4) a Deterministic Horizon $d^* \in [19, 31]$ beyond which tool delegation becomes necessary. Across 12 models and 8 task domains (including SWE-Bench, WebArena, and SQL-Multi), tool-integrated reasoning consistently outperforms neural chain-of-thought; on the primary model suite it reaches 86-94% accuracy versus 24-42% for neural chain-of-thought. Fine-tuning on optimal-length traces yields $<$5% improvement, confirming an architectural ceiling, and high cross-model correlation ($r = 0.81$-$0.91$) indicates these failures are architectural rather than training-specific. Our results provide principled guidance for when pure neural reasoning should yield to hybrid approaches in agentic systems.

Sparse Autoencoders Map Brain-LLM Alignment onto Cortical Semantic Topography

Intermediate layers of large language models (LLMs) best predict human brain responses to language, one of the most robust findings in computational neurolinguistics, yet why remains mechanistically unexplained. We address this gap by bridging sparse autoencoders (SAEs) from mechanistic interpretability with neural encoding models, decomposing GPT-2 XL and Llama-3.1-8B into 16K-32K interpretable features per layer. A human-validated taxonomy ($κ\geq 0.74$) reveals that semantic features alone recover 94% of peak encoding performance ($r=0.285$), substantially exceeding variance-matched baselines ($p<0.001$, $d=1.31$). Beyond this aggregate dominance, we test a novel cortical topography prediction: five semantic subcategories derived a priori from three independent neuroscience programs should map onto distinct brain regions. A formal convergence test confirms this alignment (Spearman $ρ=0.72$, $p<0.001$; hypergeometric $p=0.007$), demonstrating that SAE-discovered features recapitulate known cortical semantic organization at a granularity inaccessible to prior methods. SAE features further predict human reading times beyond lexical controls ($Δ\mathrm{logLik}=38.4$, $p<0.001$), and an exploratory prediction-error analysis provides preliminary evidence that the brain additionally encodes unexpected semantic content. Results generalize across English, Chinese, and French.

Model Collapse as Cultural Evolution

Model collapse, the progressive degradation of LLMs trained on their own outputs, has been characterized statistically but lacks a linguistic explanation for which structures degrade, in what order, and why. We show that iterated learning theory from cultural evolution fills this gap. We derive five falsifiable predictions, distinguish those uniquely discriminative for the theory from confirmatory ones, and test them by self-training LLaMA-2-7B and Mistral-7B over 10 generations in English, German, and Turkish. The critical discriminative finding: compositionality follows a non-monotonic trajectory (initially rising, then falling) under unfiltered self-training. This signature persists with maximally regular seed data (ruling out noise removal) and is sustained only by task-grounded filtering, not random filtering, providing the first LLM-scale evidence for the compression-communication tradeoff. All predictions are confirmed with large effect sizes (Hedges' $g > 1.6$; $\mathrm{BF}_{10} > 100$), and LLM regularization gradients closely match human behavioral data ($R^2 = 0.94$). These results reframe model collapse as a cultural transmission phenomenon and yield concrete principles for self-training pipeline design.

Do Language Models Know What Not to Say? Causal Evidence for Statistical Preemption in LLMs

How do learners acquire knowledge of what is unacceptable without negative evidence? Construction Grammar proposes statistical preemption: exposure to a conventional form (e.g., "donated the books to the library") preempts structurally possible but unattested alternatives ("*donated the library the books"). We present a computational study that, for the first time, directly dissociates statistical preemption from the competing entrenchment hypothesis in large language models within a single converging design. Across four experiments spanning 120 English verb-construction pairings (dative, causative, locative), we show that (1) LLM surprisal patterns correlate strongly with human acceptability judgments ($r = 0.79$), validated against three independent behavioral datasets; (2) these patterns are driven by competing-form frequency rather than overall verb frequency, confirmed by non-circular partial correlations; (3) preemption sensitivity scales as a power law with model size; and (4) a controlled fine-tuning intervention causally demonstrates that manipulating competing-form frequencies shifts preemption behavior in the predicted direction, with reverse-direction controls ruling out frequency-sensitivity confounds. These results provide converging evidence that neural language models acquire negative linguistic knowledge through distributional competition, the core mechanism posited by Construction Grammar.

Brain-LLM Alignment Tracks Training Data, Not Typology

Brain-LLM alignment is well established in English, yet the brain's language network is neuroanatomically universal across languages. Does alignment also generalize cross-linguistically, and what governs the variation? We test this using fMRI data from 112 participants across English, Chinese, and French (the Le Petit Prince corpus) and seven LLMs spanning English-dominant, Chinese-dominant, and multilingual architectures. Our central finding is that training-language dominance, not an inherent property of English, drives the alignment pattern: a Chinese-dominant model (Baichuan2-7B), architecture-matched to LLaMA-2-7B, reverses the gradient entirely, aligning best with Chinese brains and worst with English. Beyond training dominance, formal typological distance independently covaries with alignment degradation, syntax-associated brain regions (IFG) show $2.3\times$ steeper typological gradients than lexico-semantic regions (PTL), and tokenization fertility accounts for $\sim$60% of a cross-linguistic shift in optimal encoding layer. These results reveal that the apparent "English advantage" in brain-LLM alignment is an artifact of training data composition, while the remaining variation reflects genuine typological structure concentrated in syntactic processing.

Parameter-Efficient Neuroevolution for Diverse LLM Generation: Quality-Diversity Optimization via Prompt Embedding Evolution

Large Language Models exhibit mode collapse, producing homogeneous outputs that fail to explore valid solution spaces. We present QD-LLM, a framework for parameter-efficient neuroevolution that evolves prompt embeddings, compact neural interfaces (~32K parameters) that steer generation in frozen LLMs (70B+ parameters), within a Quality-Diversity (QD) optimization framework. Our contributions: (1) evolved prompt embeddings via gradient-free optimization enabling behavioral steering without model fine-tuning; (2) hybrid behavior characterization combining semantic and explicit features with formal coverage bounds (Theorem 1) under validated near-independence (NMI $= 0.08 \pm 0.02$); (3) co-evolutionary variation operators including targeted behavioral mutation via finite-difference gradient estimation. On HumanEval (164 problems), MBPP, and creative writing benchmarks, QD-LLM achieves 46.4% higher coverage and 41.4% higher QD-Score than QDAIF ($p<0.001$, 30 runs, Vargha-Delaney $A=0.94$). We demonstrate downstream utility: diverse archives improve test generation (34% more edge cases) and fine-tuning data quality (8.3% accuracy gain). We validate across open-source LLMs (Llama-3-70B, Mistral-Large) with full embedding access, establishing prompt embedding evolution as an effective paradigm bridging neuroevolution and modern LLMs.

EvoPref: Multi-Objective Evolutionary Optimization Discovers Diverse LLM Alignments Beyond Gradient Descent

Gradient-based preference optimization methods for large language model (LLM) alignment suffer from preference collapse, converging to narrow behavioral modes while neglecting preference diversity. We introduce EvoPref, a multi-objective evolutionary algorithm that maintains populations of Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) adapters optimized across helpfulness, harmlessness, and honesty objectives using Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA-II) selection with archive-based diversity preservation. Our primary contribution is demonstrating that population-based methods discover substantially more diverse alignments than gradient descent. On standard benchmarks, EvoPref improves preference coverage by 18% (median 82.5% vs. 70.0% for ORPO, $p<0.001$, Wilcoxon, $n=30$) and reduces collapse rates by 47% (11.0% vs. 20.6%, $p<0.001$), while achieving competitive alignment quality (median 75.5% RewardBench vs. 75.0% for ORPO, $p<0.05$). We provide theoretical motivation extending recent multi-objective evolutionary algorithm (MOEA) runtime analysis (Dang et al., 2025) suggesting why archive-based methods escape collapse more effectively than single-trajectory optimization. Comprehensive comparisons against MOEA/D, SMS-EMOA, CMA-ES, and gradient baselines (DPO, IPO, KTO, ORPO) with rigorous statistical testing (Friedman with Holm correction, Vargha-Delaney effect sizes, median with IQR) confirm that multi-objective selection with diversity preservation is essential. This work establishes evolutionary optimization as a principled paradigm for diverse LLM alignment.

FinGround: Detecting and Grounding Financial Hallucinations via Atomic Claim Verification

Financial AI systems must produce answers grounded in specific regulatory filings, yet current LLMs fabricate metrics, invent citations, and miscalculate derived quantities. These errors carry direct regulatory consequences as the EU AI Act's high-risk enforcement deadline approaches (August 2026). Existing hallucination detectors treat all claims uniformly, missing 43% of computational errors that require arithmetic re-verification against structured tables. We present FinGround, a three-stage verify-then-ground pipeline for financial document QA. Stage 1 performs finance-aware hybrid retrieval over text and tables. Stage 2 decomposes answers into atomic claims classified by a six-type financial taxonomy and verified with type-routed strategies including formula reconstruction. Stage 3 rewrites unsupported claims with paragraph- and table-cell-level citations. To cleanly isolate verification value from retrieval quality, we propose retrieval-equalized evaluation as standard methodology for RAG verification research: when all systems receive identical retrieval, FinGround still reduces hallucination rates by 68% over the strongest baseline ($p < 0.01$). The full pipeline achieves a 78% reduction relative to GPT-4o. An 8B distilled detector retains 91.4% F1 at 18x lower per-claim latency, enabling $0.003/query deployment, supported by qualitative signals from a four-week analyst pilot.

AgentEval: DAG-Structured Step-Level Evaluation for Agentic Workflows with Error Propagation Tracking

Agentic systems that chain reasoning, tool use, and synthesis into multi-step workflows are entering production, yet prevailing evaluation practices like end-to-end outcome checks and ad-hoc trace inspection systematically mask the intermediate failures that dominate real-world error budgets. We present AgentEval, a framework that formalizes agent executions as evaluation directed acyclic graphs (DAGs), where each node carries typed quality metrics assessed by a calibrated LLM judge (GPT-4o), classified through a hierarchical failure taxonomy (3 levels, 21 subcategories), and linked to upstream dependencies for automated root cause attribution. An ablation study isolates the impact of DAG-based dependency modeling: it alone contributes +22 percentage points to failure detection recall and +34 pp to root cause accuracy over flat step-level evaluation with identical judges and rubrics. Across three production workflows (450 test cases, two agent model families, predominantly sequential architectures with a 12% non-DAG trace rate), AgentEval achieves 2.17x higher failure detection recall than end-to-end evaluation (0.89 vs. 0.41), Cohen's kappa = 0.84 agreement with human experts, and 72% root cause accuracy against an 81% human ceiling. Cross-system evaluation on tau-bench and SWE-bench traces confirms transferability (failure detection recall >= 0.78) without taxonomy or rubric modification. A 4-month pilot with 18 engineers detected 23 pre-release regressions through CI/CD-integrated regression testing, reducing median root-cause identification time from 4.2 hours to 22 minutes and driving measurable failure rate reductions in two workflows.

ComplianceNLP: Knowledge-Graph-Augmented RAG for Multi-Framework Regulatory Gap Detection

Financial institutions must track over 60,000 regulatory events annually, overwhelming manual compliance teams; the industry has paid over USD 300 billion in fines and settlements since the 2008 financial crisis. We present ComplianceNLP, an end-to-end system that automatically monitors regulatory changes, extracts structured obligations, and identifies compliance gaps against institutional policies. The system integrates three components: (1) a knowledge-graph-augmented RAG pipeline grounding generations in a regulatory knowledge graph of 12,847 provisions across SEC, MiFID II, and Basel III; (2) multi-task obligation extraction combining NER, deontic classification, and cross-reference resolution over a shared LEGAL-BERT encoder; and (3) compliance gap analysis that maps obligations to internal policies with severity-aware scoring. On our benchmark, ComplianceNLP achieves 87.7 F1 on gap detection, outperforming GPT-4o+RAG by +3.5 F1, with 94.2% grounding accuracy ($r=0.83$ vs. human judgments) and 83.4 F1 under realistic end-to-end error propagation. Ablations show that knowledge-graph re-ranking contributes the largest marginal gain (+4.6 F1), confirming that structural regulatory knowledge is critical for cross-reference-heavy tasks. Domain-specific knowledge distillation (70B $\to$ 8B) combined with Medusa speculative decoding yields $2.8\times$ inference speedup; regulatory text's low entropy ($H=2.31$ bits vs. $3.87$ general text) produces 91.3% draft-token acceptance rates. In four months of parallel-run deployment processing 9,847 updates at a financial institution, the system achieved 96.0% estimated recall and 90.7% precision, with a $3.1\times$ sustained analyst efficiency gain. We report deployment lessons on trust calibration, GRC integration, and distributional shift monitoring for regulated-domain NLP.