In addition to Lightcap's new role, OpenAI CMO Kate Rouch will be stepping away from the company to focus on cancer recovery, with a plan to return when her health allows.

Anthropic has purchased the stealth biotech AI startup Coefficient Bio in a $400 million stock deal, according to The Information and Eric Newcomer.

With the midterms right around the corner, the new group is positioned to back candidates who support the AI company's policy agenda.

Meta, Microsoft, and Google are all betting big on new natural gas power plants to run their AI data centers. They may regret it.

A new poll shows that the debate over data centers is far from settled.

Moonbounce has raised $12 million to grow its AI control engine that converts content moderation policies into consistent, predictable AI behavior.

arXiv:2604.01235v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Structured LLM routing is often treated as a prompt-engineering problem. We argue that it is, more fundamentally, a systems-level burden-allocation problem. As large language models (LLMs) become core control components in agentic AI systems, reliable structured routing must balance correctness, latency, and implementation cost under real deployment constraints. We show that this balance is shaped not only by prompts or schemas, but also by how structural work is allocated across the generation stack: whether output structure is emitted directly by the model, compressed during transport, or reconstructed locally after generation. We evaluate this formulation through a comprehensive full-factorial benchmark covering 48 deployment configurations and 15,552 requests across OpenAI, Gemini, and Llama backends. Our central finding is consequential: there is no universal best routing mode. Instead, backend-specific interaction effects dominate performance. Modes that remain highly reliable on Gemini and OpenAI can suffer substantial correctness degradation on Llama, while efficiency gains from compressed realization are strongly backend-dependent. Rather than presenting another isolated model comparison, this work contributes a deployable framework for reasoning about structured routing under heterogeneous backend conditions. We provide a cross-backend evaluation methodology and practical deployment guidance for navigating the correctness-cost-latency frontier in production-grade agentic expert systems.

arXiv:2604.01325v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The fundamental problem of causal inference - that the counterfactual outcome for any individual is never observed - has shaped the entire methodology of the field. Every existing approach substitutes assumptions for missing data: ignorability, parallel trends, exclusion restrictions. None produces the counterfactual itself. This paper proposes the Digital Twin Counterfactual Framework (DTCF): rather than estimating the counterfactual statistically, we simulate it using a digital twin and subject the simulation to a hierarchical validation regime. We formalize the digital twin simulator as a stochastic mapping within the potential outcomes framework and introduce a hierarchy of twin fidelity assumptions - from marginal fidelity through joint fidelity to structural fidelity - each unlocking a progressively richer class of estimands. The central contribution is threefold. First, a five-level validation architecture converts the unfalsifiable claim that the simulator produces correct counterfactuals into falsifiable tests against observable data. Second, a formal decomposition separates causal quantities into those that are marginally validated (ATE, CATE, QTE - testable through observable-arm comparison) and those that are copula-dependent (the ITE distribution, probability of benefit/harm, variance of treatment effects - permanently reliant on the unobservable within-individual dependence structure). Third, bounding, sensitivity, and uncertainty quantification tools make the copula dependence explicit. The DTCF does not resolve the fundamental problem of causal inference. What it provides is a framework in which marginal causal claims become increasingly testable, joint causal claims become explicitly assumption-indexed, and the gap between the two is formally characterized.

arXiv:2604.01344v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Competency question (CQ) elicitation represents a critical but resource-intensive bottleneck in ontology engineering. This foundational phase is often hampered by the communication gap between domain experts, who possess the necessary knowledge, and ontology engineers, who formalise it. This paper introduces IDEA2, a novel, semi-automated workflow that integrates Large Language Models (LLMs) within a collaborative, expert-in-the-loop process to address this challenge. The methodology is characterised by a core iterative loop: an initial LLM-based extraction of CQs from requirement documents, a co-creational review and feedback phase by domain experts on an accessible collaborative platform, and an iterative, feedback-driven reformulation of rejected CQs by an LLM until consensus is achieved. To ensure transparency and reproducibility, the entire lifecycle of each CQ is tracked using a provenance model that captures the full lineage of edits, anonymised feedback, and generation parameters. The workflow was validated in 2 real-world scenarios (scientific data, cultural heritage), demonstrating that IDEA2 can accelerate the requirements engineering process, improve the acceptance and relevance of the resulting CQs, and exhibit high usability and effectiveness among domain experts. We release all code and experiments at https://github.com/KE-UniLiv/IDEA2

arXiv:2604.01359v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We introduce world-centered multi-agent systems (WMAS) as an alternative to traditional agent-centered architectures, arguing that structured domains such as enterprises and institutional systems require a shared, explicit world representation to ensure semantic consistency, explainability, and long-term stability. We classify worlds along dimensions including ontological explicitness, normativity, etc. In WMAS, learning and coordination operate over a shared world model rather than isolated agent-local representations, enabling global consistency and verifiable system behavior. We propose semantic models as a mathematical formalism for representing such worlds. Finally, we present the Ontobox platform as a realization of WMAS.

arXiv:2604.01363v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We propose that AI automation is a continuum between: (i) crashing waves where AI capabilities surge abruptly over small sets of tasks, and (ii) rising tides where the increase in AI capabilities is more continuous and broad-based. We test for these effects in preliminary evidence from an ongoing evaluation of AI capabilities across over 3,000 broad-based tasks derived from the U.S. Department of Labor O*NET categorization that are text-based and thus LLM-addressable. Based on more than 17,000 evaluations by workers from these jobs, we find little evidence of crashing waves (in contrast to recent work by METR), but substantial evidence that rising tides are the primary form of AI automation. AI performance is high and improving rapidly across a wide range of tasks. We estimate that, in 2024-Q2, AI models successfully complete tasks that take humans approximately 3-4 hours with about a 50% success rate, increasing to about 65% by 2025-Q3. If recent trends in AI capability growth persist, this pace of AI improvement implies that LLMs will be able to complete most text-related tasks with success rates of, on average, 80%-95% by 2029 at a minimally sufficient quality level. Achieving near-perfect success rates at this quality level or comparable success rates at superior quality would require several additional years. These AI capability improvements would impact the economy and labor market as organizations adopt AI, which could have a substantially longer timeline.

arXiv:2604.01366v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes decision-making contexts. While prior work has shown that LLMs exhibit cognitive biases behaviorally, whether these biases correspond to identifiable internal representations and can be mitigated through targeted intervention remains an open question. We define LLM cognitive bias as systematic, reproducible deviations from correct answers in tasks with computable ground-truth baselines, and introduce LLM CogBias, a benchmark organized around four families of cognitive biases: Judgment, Information Processing, Social, and Response. We evaluate three LLMs and find that cognitive biases emerge systematically across all four families, with magnitudes and debiasing responses that are strongly family-dependent: prompt-level debiasing substantially reduces Response biases but backfires for Judgment biases. Using linear probes under a contrastive design, we show that these biases are encoded as linearly separable directions in model activation space. Finally, we apply activation steering to modulate biased behavior, achieving 26--32\% reduction in bias score (fraction of biased responses) while preserving downstream capability on 25 benchmarks (Llama: negligible degradation; Qwen: up to $-$19.0pp for Judgment biases). Despite near-orthogonal bias representations across models (mean cosine similarity 0.01), steering reduces bias at similar rates across architectures ($r(246)$=.621, $p$

arXiv:2604.01375v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Rubric-based evaluation is widely used in LLM benchmarks and training pipelines for open-ended, less verifiable tasks. While prior work has demonstrated the effectiveness of rubrics using downstream signals such as reinforcement learning outcomes, there remains no principled way to diagnose rubric quality issues from such aggregated or downstream signals alone. To address this gap, we introduce RIFT: RubrIc Failure mode Taxonomy, a taxonomy for systematically characterizing failure modes in rubric composition and design. RIFT consists of eight failure modes organized into three high-level categories: Reliability Failures, Content Validity Failures, and Consequential Validity Failures. RIFT is developed using grounded theory by iteratively annotating rubrics drawn from five diverse benchmarks spanning general instruction following, code generation, creative writing, and expert-level deep research, until no new failure modes are identified. We evaluate the consistency of the taxonomy by measuring agreement among independent human annotators, observing fair agreement overall (87% pairwise agreement and 0.64 average Cohen's kappa). Finally, to support scalable diagnosis, we propose automated rubric quality metrics and show that they align with human failure-mode annotations, achieving up to 0.86 F1.

arXiv:2604.01434v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Partially observable Markov decision processes (POMDPs) offer a principled formalism for planning under state and transition uncertainty. Despite advances made towards solving large POMDPs, obtaining performant policies under limited planning time remains a major challenge due to the curse of dimensionality and the curse of history. For many POMDP problems, the value of information (VOI) - the expected performance gain from reasoning about observations - varies over the belief space. We introduce a dynamic programming framework that exploits this structure by conditionally processing observations based on the value of information at each belief. Building on this framework, we propose Value of Information Monte Carlo planning (VOIMCP), a Monte Carlo Tree Search algorithm that allocates computational effort more efficiently by selectively disregarding observation information when the VOI is low, avoiding unnecessary branching of observations. We provide theoretical guarantees on the near-optimality of our VOI reasoning framework and derive non-asymptotic convergence bounds for VOIMCP. Simulation evaluations demonstrate that VOIMCP outperforms baselines on several POMDP benchmarks.

arXiv:2604.01438v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Personal AI agents like OpenClaw run with elevated privileges on users' local machines, where a single successful prompt injection can leak credentials, redirect financial transactions, or destroy files. This threat goes well beyond conventional text-level jailbreaks, yet existing safety evaluations fall short: most test models in isolated chat settings, rely on synthetic environments, and do not account for how the agent framework itself shapes safety outcomes. We introduce CLAWSAFETY, a benchmark of 120 adversarial test scenarios organized along three dimensions (harm domain, attack vector, and harmful action type) and grounded in realistic, high-privilege professional workspaces spanning software engineering, finance, healthcare, law, and DevOps. Each test case embeds adversarial content in one of three channels the agent encounters during normal work: workspace skill files, emails from trusted senders, and web pages. We evaluate five frontier LLMs as agent backbones, running 2,520 sandboxed trials across all configurations. Attack success rates (ASR) range from 40\% to 75\% across models and vary sharply by injection vector, with skill instructions (highest trust) consistently more dangerous than email or web content. Action-trace analysis reveals that the strongest model maintains hard boundaries against credential forwarding and destructive actions, while weaker models permit both. Cross-scaffold experiments on three agent frameworks further demonstrate that safety is not determined by the backbone model alone but depends on the full deployment stack, calling for safety evaluation that treats model and framework as joint variables.

arXiv:2604.01449v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly integrated into healthcare and pharmacy workflows, supporting tasks such as medication recommendations, dosage determination, and drug interaction detection. While these systems often demonstrate strong performance under standard evaluation metrics, their reliability in real-world decision-making remains insufficiently understood. In high-risk domains such as medication management, even a single incorrect recommendation can result in severe patient harm. This paper examines the reliability of AI-assisted medication systems by focusing on system failures and their potential clinical consequences. Rather than evaluating performance solely through aggregate metrics, this work shifts attention towards how errors occur and what happens when AI systems produce incorrect outputs. Through a series of controlled, simulated scenarios involving drug interactions and dosage decisions, we analyse different types of system failures, including missed interactions, incorrect risk flagging, and inappropriate dosage recommendations. The findings highlight that AI errors in medication-related contexts can lead to adverse drug reactions, ineffective treatment, or delayed care, particularly when systems are used without sufficient human oversight. Furthermore, the paper discusses the risks of over-reliance on AI recommendations and the challenges posed by limited transparency in decision-making processes. This work contributes a reliability-focused perspective on AI evaluation in healthcare, emphasising the importance of understanding failure behavior and real-world impact. It highlights the need to complement traditional performance metrics with risk-aware evaluation approaches, particularly in safety-critical domains such as pharmacy practice.

arXiv:2604.01452v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Scientific discovery is slowed by fragmented literature that requires excessive human effort to gather, analyze, and understand. AI tools, including autonomous summarization and question answering, have been developed to aid in understanding scientific literature. However, these tools lack the structured, multi-step approach necessary for extracting deep insights from scientific literature. Large Language Models (LLMs) offer new possibilities for literature analysis, but remain unreliable due to hallucinations and incomplete extraction. We introduce Elhuyar, a multi-agent, human-in-the-loop system that integrates LLMs, structured AI, and human scientists to extract, analyze, and iteratively refine insights from scientific literature. The framework distributes tasks among specialized agents for filtering papers, extracting data, fitting models, and summarizing findings, with human oversight ensuring reliability. The system generates structured reports with extracted data, visualizations, model equations, and text summaries, enabling deeper inquiry through iterative refinement. Deployed in materials science, it analyzed literature on tungsten under helium-ion irradiation, showing experimentally correlated exponential helium bubble growth with irradiation dose and temperature, offering insight for plasma-facing materials (PFMs) in fusion reactors. This demonstrates how AI-assisted literature review can uncover scientific patterns and accelerate discovery.

arXiv:2604.01455v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly explored for NP-hard combinatorial optimization problems, but most existing methods emphasize feasible-instance solution generation and do not explicitly address infeasibility detection. We propose an infeasibility-aware framework that combines certifiable dataset construction, supervised fine-tuning, and LLM-assisted downstream search. For the minor-embedding problem, we introduce a new mathematical programming formulation together with provable zero-phase infeasibility screening, which enables scalable construction of training instances labeled either as feasible with structured certificates or as certifiably infeasible. Using training data generated through this exact optimization pipeline, we show that an 8B-parameter LLM can be fine-tuned to jointly perform solution generation and infeasibility detection. We further utilize LLM outputs as warm starts for downstream local search, providing a practical way to accelerate optimization even when the LLM outputs are imperfect. Experiments show that our fine-tuned model improves overall accuracy by up to 30\% over GPT-5.2; meanwhile LLM-guided warm starts provide up to $2\times$ speedup compared with starting from scratch in downstream local search.

arXiv:2604.01461v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reducing hallucinations in Large Language Models (LLMs) is essential for improving the accuracy of data extraction from large text corpora. Current methods, like prompt engineering and chain-of-thought prompting, focus on individual documents but fail to consider relationships across a corpus. This paper introduces Peer Context Outlier Detection (P-COD), a novel approach that uses the relationships between documents to improve extraction accuracy. Our application domain is in scientific literature summarization, where papers with similar experiment settings should draw similar conclusions. By comparing extracted data to validated peer information within the corpus, we adjust confidence scores and flag low-confidence results for expert review. High-confidence results, supported by peer validation, are considered reliable. Our experiments demonstrate up to 98% precision in outlier detection across 6 domains of science, demonstrating that our design reduces hallucinations, enhances trust in automated systems, and allows researchers to focus on ambiguous cases, streamlining the data extraction workflows.

arXiv:2604.01480v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Metasurface inverse design has become central to realizing complex optical functionality, yet translating target responses into executable, solver-compatible workflows still demands specialized expertise in computational electromagnetics and solver-specific software engineering. Recent large language models (LLMs) offer a complementary route to reducing this workflow-construction burden, but existing language-driven systems remain largely session-bounded and do not preserve reusable workflow knowledge across inverse-design tasks. We present an agentic framework for metasurface inverse design that addresses this limitation through context-level skill evolution. The framework couples a coding agent, evolving skill artifacts, and a deterministic evaluator grounded in physical simulation so that solver-specific strategies can be iteratively refined across tasks without modifying model weights or the underlying physics solver. We evaluate the framework on a benchmark spanning multiple metasurface inverse-design task types, with separate training-aligned and held-out task families. Evolved skills raise in-distribution task success from 38% to 74%, increase criteria pass fraction from 0.510 to 0.870, and reduce average attempts from 4.10 to 2.30. On held-out task families, binary success changes only marginally, but improvements in best margin together with shifts in error composition and agent behavior indicate partial transfer of workflow knowledge. These results suggest that the main value of skill evolution lies in accumulating reusable solver-specific expertise around reliable computational engines, thereby offering a practical path toward more autonomous and accessible metasurface inverse-design workflows.