PaperMentor: A Human-Centered Multi-Agent Writing Tutor for AI Research Papers on Overleaf

Expert writing feedback from experienced researchers is critical for early-career scholars to improve their manuscripts, yet high-quality feedback often remains scarce because reviewing research papers is labor-intensive. Emerging AI-powered writing assistants largely focus on grammar fixes or simulating peer review with final scores, yet they fall short of providing concrete, actionable suggestions that help students improve their papers during drafting. We present PaperMentor, a human-centered writing assistant system that delivers actionable suggestions as Overleaf-native inline comments while leaving the actual writing entirely to human authors. PaperMentor integrates an expert skill library carefully curated from established researchers' writing advice with 12 specialized agents covering different aspects of paper writing, such as formatting compliance, phrasing accuracy, and terminology consistency. In a user study (n=14), 90.6% of the generated comments were rated actionable and 67.5% were rated valid, significantly outperforming a GPT-5.2 baseline uswithout the skill library. We release PaperMentor as open source for public use. Our code is publicly available under the AGPL-3.0 license at https://github.com/jiarui-liu/overleaf

STRIDE: Training Data Attribution via Sparse Recovery from Subset Perturbations

Training Data Attribution (TDA) seeks to trace a model's predictions back to its training data. The gold standard for TDA relies on causal interventions, observing how a model changes when data is added or removed, but repeated retraining is computationally challenging for Large Language Models (LLMs). Consequently, most approaches approximate this effect in the parameter space using gradients. However, tracking gradients across billions of parameters is not only prohibitively expensive but relies on local approximations. In this work, we propose a shift: rather than estimating parameter changes, we model the functional effect of training data in the activation space. We introduce STRIDE (Steering-based Training Data Influence Decomposition), a framework that formulates TDA as a sparse recovery problem in the spirit of compressive sensing. STRIDE learns lightweight "steering operators" that mimic the behavioral shift caused by training on data subsets. By measuring how these operators perturb test predictions, we recover individual training example influences via sparse linear decomposition. STRIDE achieves state-of-the-art for LLM pre-training attribution while being an order of magnitude ($13\times$) faster than previous art. We further validate its practical utility through downstream applications including data selection, data contamination, and qualitative analysis.

Decomposing and Measuring Evaluation Awareness

Frontier language models sometimes recognize that they are being evaluated and adjust their behavior, undermining validity of benchmark results. Yet the field studies it without a shared foundation, conflating properties of the evaluation with properties of the model, and detection with behavioral response. We ground evaluation awareness in social psychology, decomposing it into an environment component (how recognizable the task is) and a model component that separates recognition from propensity to act on it. We operationalize the environment component through eight categorized trigger factors, such as placeholder entities and grading-style output formats, and study recognition and behavior through chain-of-thought monitoring. Across nine frontier models and four benchmarks, recognition rates depend on the specific pairing of model and benchmark rather than on either in isolation. Recognition rarely leads to behavioral change, and when it does, the direction depends on the type of evaluation perceived. Models are also more sensitive to safety than capability evaluations, placing safety benchmark validity at greater risk. To study which factors each model is sensitive to and how they interact, we propose \textbf{EvalAwareBench}, a factor-controlled benchmark of 100 paired safety-capability tasks where each of the eight factors can be independently toggled, varying evaluative signals while holding the underlying request fixed. Through EvalAwareBench, we find that no single factor uniformly affects all models, but stacking factors progressively raises evaluation awareness across all of them. Our framework and EvalAwareBench provide the tools to measure, attribute, and mitigate evaluation awareness, pointing to behavioral consistency under recognition as a promising path forward.

Trustworthy AI Suffers from Invariance Conflicts and Causality is The Solution

As artificial intelligence (AI), including machine learning (ML) models and foundation models (FMs), is increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains, ensuring their trustworthiness has become a central challenge. However, the core trustworthy AI objectives, such as fairness, robustness, privacy, and explainability, are hard to achieve simultaneously, especially while preserving utility. This position paper argues that causality is necessary to understand and balance trade-offs in performance and multiple objectives of trustworthy AI. We ground our arguments in re-interpreting trustworthy AI trade-offs as incompatible invariance requirements under different changes to the data-generating process. We then illustrate that causality provides a unifying framework for understanding how trade-offs in trustworthy AI arise, and how they can be softened or resolved through selective invariance. This perspective applies to both classical ML models and large-scale FMs. Our paper discusses how causal assumptions may be applied explicitly or implicitly in modern large-scale systems. Finally, we outline open challenges and opportunities for using causality to build more trustworthy AI.

CoopEval: Benchmarking Cooperation-Sustaining Mechanisms and LLM Agents in Social Dilemmas

It is increasingly important that LLM agents interact effectively and safely with other goal-pursuing agents, yet, recent works report the opposite trend: LLMs with stronger reasoning capabilities behave _less_ cooperatively in mixed-motive games such as the prisoner's dilemma and public goods settings. Indeed, our experiments show that recent models -- with or without reasoning enabled -- consistently defect in single-shot social dilemmas. To tackle this safety concern, we present the first comparative study of game-theoretic mechanisms that are designed to enable cooperative outcomes between rational agents _in equilibrium_. Across four social dilemmas testing distinct components of robust cooperation, we evaluate the following mechanisms: (1) repeating the game for many rounds, (2) reputation systems, (3) third-party mediators to delegate decision making to, and (4) contract agreements for outcome-conditional payments between players. Among our findings, we establish that contracting and mediation are most effective in achieving cooperative outcomes between capable LLM models, and that repetition-induced cooperation deteriorates drastically when co-players vary. Moreover, we demonstrate that these cooperation mechanisms become _more effective_ under evolutionary pressures to maximize individual payoffs.

Evaluating Cooperation in LLM Social Groups through Elected Leadership

Governing common-pool resources requires agents to develop enduring strategies through cooperation and self-governance to avoid collective failure. While foundation models have shown potential for cooperation in these settings, existing multi-agent research provides little insight into whether structured leadership and election mechanisms can improve collective decision making. The lack of such a critical organizational feature ubiquitous in human society presents a significant shortcoming of the current methods. In this work we aim to directly address whether leadership and elections can support improved social welfare and cooperation through multi-agent simulation with LLMs. We present our open-source framework that simulates leadership through elected personas and candidate-driven agendas and carry out an empirical study of LLMs under controlled governance conditions. Our experiments demonstrate that having elected leadership improves social welfare scores by 55.4% and survival time by 128.6% across a range of high performing LLMs. Through the construction of an agent social graph we compute centrality metrics to assess the social influence of leader personas and also analyze rhetorical and cooperative tendencies revealed through a sentiment analysis on leader utterances. This work lays the foundation for further study of election mechanisms in multi-agent systems toward navigating complex social dilemmas.

CLT-Forge: A Scalable Library for Cross-Layer Transcoders and Attribution Graphs

Mechanistic interpretability seeks to understand how Large Language Models (LLMs) represent and process information. Recent approaches based on dictionary learning and transcoders enable representing model computation in terms of sparse, interpretable features and their interactions, giving rise to feature attribution graphs. However, these graphs are often large and redundant, limiting their interpretability in practice. Cross-Layer Transcoders (CLTs) address this issue by sharing features across layers while preserving layer-specific decoding, yielding more compact representations, but remain difficult to train and analyze at scale. We introduce an open-source library for end-to-end training and interpretability of CLTs. Our framework integrates scalable distributed training with model sharding and compressed activation caching, a unified automated interpretability pipeline for feature analysis and explanation, attribution graph computation using Circuit-Tracer, and a flexible visualization interface. This provides a practical and unified solution for scaling CLT-based mechanistic interpretability. Our code is available at: https://github.com/LLM-Interp/CLT-Forge.

When Do Language Models Endorse Limitations on Human Rights Principles?

As Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly mediate global information access with the potential to shape public discourse, their alignment with universal human rights principles becomes important to ensure that these rights are abided by in high stakes AI-mediated interactions. In this paper, we evaluate how LLMs navigate trade-offs involving the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), leveraging 1,152 synthetically generated scenarios across 24 rights articles and eight languages. Our analysis of eleven major LLMs reveals systematic biases where models: (1) accept limiting Economic, Social, and Cultural rights more often than Political and Civil rights, (2) demonstrate significant cross-linguistic variation with elevated endorsement rates of rights-limiting actions in Chinese and Hindi compared to English or Romanian, (3) show substantial susceptibility to prompt-based steering, and (4) exhibit noticeable differences between Likert and open-ended responses, highlighting critical challenges in LLM preference assessment.

GT-HarmBench: Benchmarking AI Safety Risks Through the Lens of Game Theory

Frontier AI systems are increasingly capable and deployed in high-stakes multi-agent environments. However, existing AI safety benchmarks largely evaluate single agents, leaving multi-agent risks such as coordination failure and conflict poorly understood. We introduce GT-HarmBench, a benchmark of 2,009 high-stakes scenarios spanning game-theoretic structures such as the Prisoner's Dilemma, Stag Hunt and Chicken. Scenarios are drawn from realistic AI risk contexts in the MIT AI Risk Repository. Across 15 frontier models, agents choose socially beneficial actions in only 62% of cases, frequently leading to harmful outcomes. We measure sensitivity to game-theoretic prompt framing and ordering, and analyze reasoning patterns driving failures. We further show that game-theoretic interventions improve socially beneficial outcomes by up to 18%. Our results highlight substantial reliability gaps and provide a broad standardized testbed for studying alignment in multi-agent environments. The benchmark and code are available at https://github.com/causalNLP/gt-harmbench.

IV Co-Scientist: Multi-Agent LLM Framework for Causal Instrumental Variable Discovery

In the presence of confounding between an endogenous variable and the outcome, instrumental variables (IVs) are used to isolate the causal effect of the endogenous variable. Identifying valid instruments requires interdisciplinary knowledge, creativity, and contextual understanding, making it a non-trivial task. In this paper, we investigate whether large language models (LLMs) can aid in this task. We perform a two-stage evaluation framework. First, we test whether LLMs can recover well-established instruments from the literature, assessing their ability to replicate standard reasoning. Second, we evaluate whether LLMs can identify and avoid instruments that have been empirically or theoretically discredited. Building on these results, we introduce IV Co-Scientist, a multi-agent system that proposes, critiques, and refines IVs for a given treatment-outcome pair. We also introduce a statistical test to contextualize consistency in the absence of ground truth. Our results show the potential of LLMs to discover valid instrumental variables from a large observational database.