Differentiable Modal Logic for Multi-Agent Diagnosis, Orchestration and Communication

As multi-agent AI systems evolve from simple chatbots to autonomous swarms, debugging semantic failures requires reasoning about knowledge, belief, causality, and obligation, precisely what modal logic was designed to formalize. However, traditional modal logic requires manual specification of relationship structures that are unknown or dynamic in real systems. This tutorial demonstrates differentiable modal logic (DML), implemented via Modal Logical Neural Networks (MLNNs), enabling systems to learn trust networks, causal chains, and regulatory boundaries from behavioral data alone. We present a unified neurosymbolic debugging framework through four modalities: epistemic (who to trust), temporal (when events cause failures), deontic (what actions are permitted), and doxastic (how to interpret agent confidence). Each modality is demonstrated on concrete multi-agent scenarios, from discovering deceptive alliances in diplomacy games to detecting LLM hallucinations, with complete implementations showing how logical contradictions become learnable optimization objectives. Key contributions for the neurosymbolic community: (1) interpretable learned structures where trust and causality are explicit parameters, not opaque embeddings; (2) knowledge injection via differentiable axioms that guide learning with sparse data (3) compositional multi-modal reasoning that combines epistemic, temporal, and deontic constraints; and (4) practical deployment patterns for monitoring, active control and communication of multi-agent systems. All code provided as executable Jupyter notebooks.

Don't Shoot The Breeze: Topic Continuity Model Using Nonlinear Naive Bayes With Attention

Utilizing Large Language Models (LLM) as chatbots in diverse business scenarios often presents the challenge of maintaining topic continuity. Abrupt shifts in topics can lead to poor user experiences and inefficient utilization of computational resources. In this paper, we present a topic continuity model aimed at assessing whether a response aligns with the initial conversation topic. Our model is built upon the expansion of the corresponding natural language understanding (NLU) model into quantifiable terms using a Naive Bayes approach. Subsequently, we have introduced an attention mechanism and logarithmic nonlinearity to enhance its capability to capture topic continuity. This approach allows us to convert the NLU model into an interpretable analytical formula. In contrast to many NLU models constrained by token limits, our proposed model can seamlessly handle conversations of any length with linear time complexity. Furthermore, the attention mechanism significantly improves the model's ability to identify topic continuity in complex conversations. According to our experiments, our model consistently outperforms traditional methods, particularly in handling lengthy and intricate conversations. This unique capability offers us an opportunity to ensure the responsible and interpretable use of LLMs.

Self-Regulated Reading with AI Support: An Eight-Week Study with Students

College students increasingly use AI chatbots to support academic reading, yet we lack granular understanding of how these interactions shape their reading experience and cognitive engagement. We conducted an eight-week longitudinal study with 15 undergraduates who used AI to support assigned readings in a course. We collected 838 prompts across 239 reading sessions and developed a coding schema categorizing prompts into four cognitive themes: Decoding, Comprehension, Reasoning, and Metacognition. Comprehension prompts dominated (59.6%), with Reasoning (29.8%), Metacognition (8.5%), and Decoding (2.1%) less frequent. Most sessions (72%) contained exactly three prompts, the required minimum of the reading assignment. Within sessions, students showed natural cognitive progression from comprehension toward reasoning, but this progression was truncated. Across eight weeks, students' engagement patterns remained stable, with substantial individual differences persisting throughout. Qualitative analysis revealed an intention-behavior gap: students recognized that effective prompting required effort but rarely applied this knowledge, with efficiency emerging as the primary driver. Students also strategically triaged their engagement based on interest and academic pressures, exhibiting a novel pattern of reading through AI rather than with it: using AI-generated summaries as primary material to filter which sections merited deeper attention. We discuss design implications for AI reading systems that scaffold sustained cognitive engagement.

Understanding Risk and Dependency in AI Chatbot Use from User Discourse

Generative AI systems are increasingly embedded in everyday life, yet empirical understanding of how psychological risk associated with AI use emerges, is experienced, and is regulated by users remains limited. We present a large-scale computational thematic analysis of posts collected between 2023 and 2025 from two Reddit communities, r/AIDangers and r/ChatbotAddiction, explicitly focused on AI-related harm and distress. Using a multi-agent, LLM-assisted thematic analysis grounded in Braun and Clarke's reflexive framework, we identify 14 recurring thematic categories and synthesize them into five higher-order experiential dimensions. To further characterize affective patterns, we apply emotion labeling using a BERT-based classifier and visualize emotional profiles across dimensions. Our findings reveal five empirically derived experiential dimensions of AI-related psychological risk grounded in real-world user discourse, with self-regulation difficulties emerging as the most prevalent and fear concentrated in concerns related to autonomy, control, and technical risk. These results provide early empirical evidence from lived user experience of how AI safety is perceived and emotionally experienced outside laboratory or speculative contexts, offering a foundation for future AI safety research, evaluation, and responsible governance.

How2Everything: Mining the Web for How-To Procedures to Evaluate and Improve LLMs

Generating step-by-step "how-to" procedures is a key LLM capability: how-to advice is commonly requested in chatbots, and step-by-step planning is critical for reasoning over complex tasks. Yet, measuring and improving procedural validity at scale on real-world tasks remains challenging and understudied. To address this, we introduce How2Everything, a scalable framework to evaluate and improve goal-conditioned procedure generation. Our framework includes How2Mine, which mines 351K procedures from 980K web pages across 14 topics and readily scales to larger corpora. From this pool we build How2Bench, a 7K-example evaluation set balanced across topics. To reliably score model outputs, we develop How2Score, an evaluation protocol that uses an LLM judge to detect whether a generation contains any critical failure that would prevent achieving the goal. For low-cost, reproducible evaluation, we distill a frontier model into an open 8B model, achieving 80.5% agreement with human annotators. How2Bench reveals clear scaling trends across model sizes and training stages, providing signal early in pretraining. Finally, RL using How2Score as a reward improves performance on How2Bench by >10 points across three models without systematic regressions on standard benchmarks, with gains robust to superficial source-document memorization or format compliance. Taken together, How2Everything shows how pretraining web data can support a closed loop of capability evaluation and improvement at scale.

Kissan-Dost: Bridging the Last Mile in Smallholder Precision Agriculture with Conversational IoT

We present Kissan-Dost, a multilingual, sensor-grounded conversational system that turns live on-farm measurements and weather into plain-language guidance delivered over WhatsApp text or voice. The system couples commodity soil and climate sensors with retrieval-augmented generation, then enforces grounding, traceability, and proactive alerts through a modular pipeline. In a 90-day, two-site pilot with five participants, we ran three phases (baseline, dashboard only, chatbot only). Dashboard engagement was sporadic and faded, while the chatbot was used nearly daily and informed concrete actions. Controlled tests on 99 sensor-grounded crop queries achieved over 90 percent correctness with subsecond end-to-end latency, alongside high-quality translation outputs. Results show that careful last-mile integration, not novel circuitry, unlocks the latent value of existing Agri-IoT for smallholders.

Agent-Supported Foresight for AI Systemic Risks: AI Agents for Breadth, Experts for Judgment

AI impact assessments often stress near-term risks because human judgment degrades over longer horizons, exemplifying the Collingridge dilemma: foresight is most needed when knowledge is scarcest. To address long-term systemic risks, we introduce a scalable approach that simulates in-silico agents using the strategic foresight method of the Futures Wheel. We applied it to four AI uses spanning Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs): Chatbot Companion (TRL 9, mature), AI Toy (TRL 7, medium), Griefbot (TRL 5, low), and Death App (TRL 2, conceptual). Across 30 agent runs per use, agents produced 86-110 consequences, condensed into 27-47 unique risks. To benchmark the agent outputs against human perspectives, we collected evaluations from 290 domain experts and 7 leaders, and conducted Futures Wheel sessions with 42 experts and 42 laypeople. Agents generated many systemic consequences across runs. Compared with these outputs, experts identified fewer risks, typically less systemic but judged more likely, whereas laypeople surfaced more emotionally salient concerns that were generally less systemic. We propose a hybrid foresight workflow, wherein agents broaden systemic coverage, and humans provide contextual grounding. Our dataset is available at: https://social-dynamics.net/ai-risks/foresight.

Belief Offloading in Human-AI Interaction

What happens when people's beliefs are derived from information provided by an LLM? People's use of LLM chatbots as thought partners can contribute to cognitive offloading, which can have adverse effects on cognitive skills in cases of over-reliance. This paper defines and investigates a particular kind of cognitive offloading in human-AI interaction, "belief offloading," in which people's processes of forming and upholding beliefs are offloaded onto an AI system with downstream consequences on their behavior and the nature of their system of beliefs. Drawing on philosophy, psychology, and computer science research, we clarify the boundary conditions under which belief offloading occurs and provide a descriptive taxonomy of belief offloading and its normative implications. We close with directions for future work to assess the potential for and consequences of belief offloading in human-AI interaction.

Why do we Trust Chatbots? From Normative Principles to Behavioral Drivers

As chatbots increasingly blur the boundary between automated systems and human conversation, the foundations of trust in these systems warrant closer examination. While regulatory and policy frameworks tend to define trust in normative terms, the trust users place in chatbots often emerges from behavioral mechanisms. In many cases, this trust is not earned through demonstrated trustworthiness but is instead shaped by interactional design choices that leverage cognitive biases to influence user behavior. Based on this observation, we propose reframing chatbots not as companions or assistants, but as highly skilled salespeople whose objectives are determined by the deploying organization. We argue that the coexistence of competing notions of "trust" under a shared term obscures important distinctions between psychological trust formation and normative trustworthiness. Addressing this gap requires further research and stronger support mechanisms to help users appropriately calibrate trust in conversational AI systems.

SEMA: Simple yet Effective Learning for Multi-Turn Jailbreak Attacks

Multi-turn jailbreaks capture the real threat model for safety-aligned chatbots, where single-turn attacks are merely a special case. Yet existing approaches break under exploration complexity and intent drift. We propose SEMA, a simple yet effective framework that trains a multi-turn attacker without relying on any existing strategies or external data. SEMA comprises two stages. Prefilling self-tuning enables usable rollouts by fine-tuning on non-refusal, well-structured, multi-turn adversarial prompts that are self-generated with a minimal prefix, thereby stabilizing subsequent learning. Reinforcement learning with intent-drift-aware reward trains the attacker to elicit valid multi-turn adversarial prompts while maintaining the same harmful objective. We anchor harmful intent in multi-turn jailbreaks via an intent-drift-aware reward that combines intent alignment, compliance risk, and level of detail. Our open-loop attack regime avoids dependence on victim feedback, unifies single- and multi-turn settings, and reduces exploration complexity. Across multiple datasets, victim models, and jailbreak judges, our method achieves state-of-the-art (SOTA) attack success rates (ASR), outperforming all single-turn baselines, manually scripted and template-driven multi-turn baselines, as well as our SFT (Supervised Fine-Tuning) and DPO (Direct Preference Optimization) variants. For instance, SEMA performs an average $80.1\%$ ASR@1 across three closed-source and open-source victim models on AdvBench, 33.9% over SOTA. The approach is compact, reproducible, and transfers across targets, providing a stronger and more realistic stress test for large language model (LLM) safety and enabling automatic redteaming to expose and localize failure modes. Our code is available at: https://github.com/fmmarkmq/SEMA.