TrustFlow: Topic-Aware Vector Reputation Propagation for Multi-Agent Ecosystems

We introduce TrustFlow, a reputation propagation algorithm that assigns each software agent a multi-dimensional reputation vector rather than a scalar score. Reputation is propagated through an interaction graph via topic-gated transfer operators that modulate each edge by its content embedding, with convergence to a unique fixed point guaranteed by the contraction mapping theorem. We develop a family of Lipschitz-1 transfer operators and composable information-theoretic gates that achieve up to 98% multi-label Precision@5 on dense graphs and 78% on sparse ones. On a benchmark of 50 agents across 8 domains, TrustFlow resists sybil attacks, reputation laundering, and vote rings with at most 4 percentage-point precision impact. Unlike PageRank and Topic-Sensitive PageRank, TrustFlow produces vector reputation that is directly queryable by dot product in the same embedding space as user queries.

From Topic to Transition Structure: Unsupervised Concept Discovery at Corpus Scale via Predictive Associative Memory

Embedding models group text by semantic content, what text is about. We show that temporal co-occurrence within texts discovers a different kind of structure: recurrent transition-structure concepts or what text does. We train a 29.4M-parameter contrastive model on 373 million co-occurrence pairs from 9,766 Project Gutenberg texts (24.96 million passages), mapping pre-trained embeddings into an association space where passages with similar transition structure cluster together. Under capacity constraint (42.75% accuracy), the model must compress across recurring patterns rather than memorise individual co-occurrences. Clustering at six granularities (k=50 to k=2,000) produces a multi-resolution concept map; from broad modes like "direct confrontation" and "lyrical meditation" to precise registers and scene templates like "sailor dialect" and "courtroom cross-examination." At k=100, clusters average 4,508 books each (of 9,766), confirming corpus-wide patterns. Direct comparison with embedding-similarity clustering shows that raw embeddings group by topic while association-space clusters group by function, register, and literary tradition. Unseen novels are assigned to existing clusters without retraining; the association model concentrates each novel into a selective subset of coherent clusters, while raw embedding assignment saturates nearly all clusters. Validation controls address positional, length, and book-concentration confounds. The method extends Predictive Associative Memory (PAM, arXiv:2602.11322) from episodic recall to concept formation: where PAM recalls specific associations, multi-epoch contrastive training under compression extracts structural patterns that transfer to unseen texts, the same framework producing qualitatively different behaviour in a different regime.

Auditing Preferences for Brands and Cultures in LLMs

Large language models (LLMs) based AI systems increasingly mediate what billions of people see, choose and buy. This creates an urgent need to quantify the systemic risks of LLM-driven market intermediation, including its implications for market fairness, competition, and the diversity of information exposure. This paper introduces ChoiceEval, a reproducible framework for auditing preferences for brands and cultures in large language models (LLMs) under realistic usage conditions. ChoiceEval addresses two core technical challenges: (i) generating realistic, persona-diverse evaluation queries and (ii) converting free-form outputs into comparable choice sets and quantitative preference metrics. For a given topic (e.g. running shoes, hotel chains, travel destinations), the framework segments users into psychographic profiles (e.g., budget-conscious, wellness-focused, convenience), and then derives diverse prompts that reflect real-world advice-seeking and decision-making behaviour. LLM responses are converted into normalised top-k choice sets. Preference and geographic bias are then quantified using comparable metrics across topics and personas. Thus, ChoiceEval provides a scalable audit pipeline for researchers, platforms, and regulators, linking model behaviour to real-world economic outcomes. Applied to Gemini, GPT, and DeepSeek across 10 topics spanning commerce and culture and more than 2,000 questions, ChoiceEval reveals consistent preferences: U.S.-developed models Gemini and GPT show marked favouritism toward American entities, while China-developed DeepSeek exhibits more balanced yet still detectable geographic preferences. These patterns persist across user personas, suggesting systematic rather than incidental effects.

IndicSafe: A Benchmark for Evaluating Multilingual LLM Safety in South Asia

As large language models (LLMs) are deployed in multilingual settings, their safety behavior in culturally diverse, low-resource languages remains poorly understood. We present the first systematic evaluation of LLM safety across 12 Indic languages, spoken by over 1.2 billion people but underrepresented in LLM training data. Using a dataset of 6,000 culturally grounded prompts spanning caste, religion, gender, health, and politics, we assess 10 leading LLMs on translated variants of the prompt. Our analysis reveals significant safety drift: cross-language agreement is just 12.8\%, and \texttt{SAFE} rate variance exceeds 17\% across languages. Some models over-refuse benign prompts in low-resource scripts, overflag politically sensitive topics, while others fail to flag unsafe generations. We quantify these failures using prompt-level entropy, category bias scores, and multilingual consistency indices. Our findings highlight critical safety generalization gaps in multilingual LLMs and show that safety alignment does not transfer evenly across languages. We release \textsc{IndicSafe}, the first benchmark to enable culturally informed safety evaluation for Indic deployments, and advocate for language-aware alignment strategies grounded in regional harms.

How LLMs Distort Our Written Language

Large language models (LLMs) are used by over a billion people globally, most often to assist with writing. In this work, we demonstrate that LLMs not only alter the voice and tone of human writing, but also consistently alter the intended meaning. First, we conduct a human user study to understand how people actually interact with LLMs when using them for writing. Our findings reveal that extensive LLM use led to a nearly 70% increase in essays that remained neutral in answering the topic question. Significantly more heavy LLM users reported that the writing was less creative and not in their voice. Next, using a dataset of human-written essays that was collected in 2021 before the widespread release of LLMs, we study how asking an LLM to revise the essay based on the human-written feedback in the dataset induces large changes in the resulting content and meaning. We find that even when LLMs are prompted with expert feedback and asked to only make grammar edits, they still change the text in a way that significantly alters its semantic meaning. We then examine LLM-generated text in the wild, specifically focusing on the 21% of AI-generated scientific peer reviews at a recent top AI conference. We find that LLM-generated reviews place significantly less weight on clarity and significance of the research, and assign scores that, on average, are a full point higher.These findings highlight a misalignment between the perceived benefit of AI use and an implicit, consistent effect on the semantics of human writing, motivating future work on how widespread AI writing will affect our cultural and scientific institutions.

VeriGrey: Greybox Agent Validation

Agentic AI has been a topic of great interest recently. A Large Language Model (LLM) agent involves one or more LLMs in the back-end. In the front end, it conducts autonomous decision-making by combining the LLM outputs with results obtained by invoking several external tools. The autonomous interactions with the external environment introduce critical security risks. In this paper, we present a grey-box approach to explore diverse behaviors and uncover security risks in LLM agents. Our approach VeriGrey uses the sequence of tools invoked as a feedback function to drive the testing process. This helps uncover infrequent but dangerous tool invocations that cause unexpected agent behavior. As mutation operators in the testing process, we mutate prompts to design pernicious injection prompts. This is carefully accomplished by linking the task of the agent to an injection task, so that the injection task becomes a necessary step of completing the agent functionality. Comparing our approach with a black-box baseline on the well-known AgentDojo benchmark, VeriGrey achieves 33% additional efficacy in finding indirect prompt injection vulnerabilities with a GPT-4.1 back-end. We also conduct real-world case studies with the widely used coding agent Gemini CLI, and the well-known OpenClaw personal assistant. VeriGrey finds prompts inducing several attack scenarios that could not be identified by black-box approaches. In OpenClaw, by constructing a conversation agent which employs mutational fuzz testing as needed, VeriGrey is able to discover malicious skill variants from 10 malicious skills (with 10/10= 100% success rate on the Kimi-K2.5 LLM backend, and 9/10= 90% success rate on Opus 4.6 LLM backend). This demonstrates the value of a dynamic approach like VeriGrey to test agents, and to eventually lead to an agent assurance framework.

The Validity Gap in Health AI Evaluation: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Benchmark Composition

Background: Clinical trials rely on transparent inclusion criteria to ensure generalizability. In contrast, benchmarks validating health-related large language models (LLMs) rarely characterize the "patient" or "query" populations they contain. Without defined composition, aggregate performance metrics may misrepresent model readiness for clinical use. Methods: We analyzed 18,707 consumer health queries across six public benchmarks using LLMs as automated coding instruments to apply a standardized 16-field taxonomy profiling context, topic, and intent. Results: We identified a structural "validity gap." While benchmarks have evolved from static retrieval to interactive dialogue, clinical composition remains misaligned with real-world needs. Although 42% of the corpus referenced objective data, this was polarized toward wellness-focused wearable signals (17.7%); complex diagnostic inputs remained rare, including laboratory values (5.2%), imaging (3.8%), and raw medical records (0.6%). Safety-critical scenarios were effectively absent: suicide/self-harm queries comprised <0.7% of the corpus and chronic disease management only 5.5%. Benchmarks also neglected vulnerable populations (pediatrics/older adults <11%) and global health needs. Conclusions: Evaluation benchmarks remain misaligned with real-world clinical needs, lacking raw clinical artifacts, adequate representation of vulnerable populations, and longitudinal chronic care scenarios. The field must adopt standardized query profiling--analogous to clinical trial reporting--to align evaluation with the full complexity of clinical practice.

Sensi: Learn One Thing at a Time -- Curriculum-Based Test-Time Learning for LLM Game Agents

Large language model (LLM) agents deployed in unknown environments must learn task structure at test time, but current approaches require thousands of interactions to form useful hypotheses. We present Sensi, an LLM agent architecture for the ARC-AGI-3 game-playing challenge that introduces structured test-time learning through three mechanisms: (1) a two-player architecture separating perception from action, (2) a curriculum-based learning system managed by an external state machine, and (3) a database-as-control-plane that makes the agents context window programmatically steerable. We further introduce an LLM-as-judge component with dynamically generated evaluation rubrics to determine when the agent has learned enough about one topic to advance to the next. We report results across two iterations: Sensi v1 solves 2 game levels using the two-player architecture alone, while Sensi v2 adds curriculum learning and solves 0 levels - but completes its entire learning curriculum in approximately 32 action attempts, achieving 50-94x greater sample efficiency than comparable systems that require 1600-3000 attempts. We precisely diagnose the failure mode as a self-consistent hallucination cascade originating in the perception layer, demonstrating that the architectural bottleneck has shifted from learning efficiency to perceptual grounding - a more tractable problem.

AI-Assisted Goal Setting Improves Goal Progress Through Social Accountability

Helping people identify and pursue personally meaningful career goals at scale remains a key challenge in applied psychology. Career coaching can improve goal quality and attainment, but its cost and limited availability restrict access. Large language model (LLM)-based chatbots offer a scalable alternative, yet the psychological mechanisms by which they might support goal pursuit remain untested. Here we report a preregistered three-arm randomised controlled trial (N = 517) comparing an AI career coach ("Leon," powered by Claude Sonnet), a matched structured written questionnaire covering closely matched reflective topics, and a no-support control on goal progress at a two-week follow-up. The AI chatbot produced significantly higher goal progress than the control (d = 0.33, p = .016). Compared with the written-reflection condition, the AI did not significantly improve overall goal progress, but it increased perceived social accountability. In the preregistered mediation model, perceived accountability mediated the AI-over-questionnaire effect on goal progress (indirect effect = 0.15, 95% CI [0.04, 0.31]), whereas self-concordance did not. These findings suggest that AI-assisted goal setting can improve short-term goal progress, and that its clearest added value over structured self-reflection lies in increasing felt accountability.

Modeling Changing Scientific Concepts with Complex Networks: A Case Study on the Chemical Revolution

While context embeddings produced by LLMs can be used to estimate conceptual change, these representations are often not interpretable nor time-aware. Moreover, bias augmentation in historical data poses a non-trivial risk to researchers in the Digital Humanities. Hence, to model reliable concept trajectories in evolving scholarship, in this work we develop a framework that represents prototypical concepts through complex networks based on topics. Utilizing the Royal Society Corpus, we analyzed two competing theories from the Chemical Revolution (phlogiston vs. oxygen) as a case study to show that onomasiological change is linked to higher entropy and topological density, indicating increased diversity of ideas and connectivity effort.