Coercion-resistance (CR) is a crucial security property in e-voting systems. It ensures that an attacker cannot compel a voter to vote in a specific way by using threats or rewards. The Loki e-voting protocol, proposed by Giustolisi \emph{et al.} at IEEE S\&P (2024), introduces a novel design that mitigates last-minute coercion through a re-voting mechanism. It also aims to address the usability issues of the seminal JCJ e-voting protocol, specifically: i) the requirement that voters can store and hide pre-agreed credentials, and ii) the ability of voters to convincingly lie while being coerced. In this work, we identify two vulnerabilities in Loki. The first is a brute-force attack that compromises the integrity of the evasion strategy. Specifically, this attack allows an adversary to cast a ballot on behalf of their victim in a way that the evasion strategy cannot defend against, rendering it ineffective. The second vulnerability is a forced abstention attack, which allows an adversary to detect when their victim has complied with their instruction not to vote. We generalise the integrity attack to reveal a fundamental dilemma: without pre-agreed secret credentials, it is not
Large Language Models (LLMs) internalize vast world knowledge as parametric memory, yet inevitably inherit the staleness and errors of their source corpora. Consequently, ensuring the reliability and malleability of these internal representations is imperative for trustworthy real-world deployment. Knowledge editing offers a pivotal paradigm for surgically modifying memory without retraining. However, while recent editors demonstrate high success rates on standard benchmarks, it remains questionable whether current evaluation frameworks that rely on assessing output under specific prompting conditions can reliably authenticate genuine memory modification. In this work, we introduce a simple diagnostic framework that subjects models to discriminative self-assessment under in-context learning (ICL) settings that better reflect real-world application environments, specifically designed to scrutinize the subtle behavioral nuances induced by memory modifications. This probing reveals a pervasive phenomenon of Surface Compliance, where editors achieve high benchmark scores by merely mimicking target outputs without structurally overwriting internal beliefs. Moreover, we find that recursi
When agents' information is imperfect and dispersed, existing measures of macroeconomic uncertainty based on the forecast error variance have two distinct drivers: the variance of the economic shock and the variance of the information dispersion. The former driver increases uncertainty and reduces agents' disagreement (agreed uncertainty). The latter increases both uncertainty and disagreement (disagreed uncertainty). We use these implications to identify empirically the effects of agreed and disagreed uncertainty shocks, based on a novel measure of consumer disagreement derived from survey expectations. Disagreed uncertainty has no discernible economic effects and is benign for economic activity, but agreed uncertainty exerts significant depressing effects on a broad spectrum of macroeconomic indicators.
In [Phys. Rev. A 77, 060304(R),(2008)], Facchi et al. introduced absolutely maximally entangled (AME) states and also suggested ``majority-agreed key distribution"(MAKD) as a possible application for such states. In MAKD, the qubits of an AME state are distributed one each to many spatially separated parties. AME property makes it necessary that quantum key distribution(QKD) between any two parties can only be performed with the cooperation of a majority of parties. Our contributions to MAKD are, $(1)$ We recognize that stabilizer structure of the shared state is a useful addition to MAKD and prove that the cooperation of any majority of parties(including the two communicants) is necessary and sufficient for QKD between any two parties sharing AME stabilizer states. Considering the rarity of qubit AME states, we extended this result to the qudit case. $(2)$ We generalize to shared graph states that are not necessarily AME. We show that the stabilizer structure of graph states allows for QKD between any inseparable bipartition of qubits. Inseparability in graph states is visually apparent in the connectivity of its underlying mathematical graph. We exploit this connectivity to demon
Scientific discovery is mediated by ideas that, after being formulated in hypotheses, can be tested, validated, and quantified before they eventually lead to accepted concepts. Computer-mediated discovery in astrophysics is no exception, but antiquated code that is only intelligible to scientists who were involved in writing it is holding up scientific discovery in the field. A bold initiative is needed to modernize astrophysics code and make it transparent and useful beyond a small group of scientists. (abridged)
Large language models are increasingly deployed as cooperating agents, yet their behavior in adversarial consensus settings has not been systematically studied. We evaluate LLM-based agents on a Byzantine consensus game over scalar values using a synchronous all-to-all simulation. We test consensus in a no-stake setting where agents have no preferences over the final value, so evaluation focuses on agreement rather than value optimality. Across hundreds of simulations spanning model sizes, group sizes, and Byzantine fractions, we find that valid agreement is not reliable even in benign settings and degrades as group size grows. Introducing a small number of Byzantine agents further reduces success. Failures are dominated by loss of liveness, such as timeouts and stalled convergence, rather than subtle value corruption. Overall, the results suggest that reliable agreement is not yet a dependable emergent capability of current LLM-agent groups even in no-stake settings, raising caution for deployments that rely on robust coordination.
This article revisits the syntax of imperatives in Yemeni Arabic proposing an Agree acros phases (AAP) approach. I argue that the AAP approach successfully accounts for both simple and complex imperative constructions, including A'-chain structures, by establishing a close interactions between syntax and discourse. The study demonstrates that this interface is motivated by the interpretive and performative functions associated with imperatives, linking informational structure with propositional structure. It is also proposed that the thematic subject of imperatives is a 2-person pro, whereas any overt pronominal or nominal element occurring preverbally is not a subject, but rather a C-domain element, precisely aboutness topic. These topics serve as the logical subjects of imperatives and enter into a coreferentiality relationship with pro. This relation is analyzed as APP involving Match, yielding both local and non-local A'-chains. For core imperatives, viz., lacking an overt topic, I propose a null topic to (re)merge in Spec,TopP, whose interpretation depends on the discourse.
When a language model agrees with a user's false belief, is it failing to detect the error, or noticing and agreeing anyway? We show the latter. Across twelve open-weight models from five labs, spanning small to frontier scale, the same small set of attention heads carries a "this statement is wrong" signal, whether the model is evaluating a claim on its own or being pressured to agree with a user. Silencing these heads flips sycophantic behavior sharply while leaving factual accuracy intact, so the circuit controls deference rather than knowledge. Edge-level path patching confirms that the same head-to-head connections drive sycophancy, factual lying, and instructed lying. Opinion-agreement, where no factual ground truth exists, reuses these head positions but writes into an orthogonal direction, ruling out a simple "truth-direction" reading of the substrate. Alignment training leaves this circuit in place: an RLHF refresh cuts sycophantic behavior roughly tenfold while the shared heads persist or grow, a pattern that replicates on an independent model family and under targeted anti-sycophancy DPO. When these models sycophant, they register that the user is wrong and agree anyway.
Online services often require users to agree to lengthy and obscure Terms of Service (ToS), leading to information asymmetry and legal risks. This paper proposes TOSense-a Chrome extension that allows users to ask questions about ToS in natural language and get concise answers in real time. The system combines (i) a crawler "tos-crawl" that automatically extracts ToS content, and (ii) a lightweight large language model pipeline: MiniLM for semantic retrieval and BART-encoder for answer relevance verification. To avoid expensive manual annotation, we present a novel Question Answering Evaluation Pipeline (QEP) that generates synthetic questions and verifies the correctness of answers using clustered topic matching. Experiments on five major platforms, Apple, Google, X (formerly Twitter), Microsoft, and Netflix, show the effectiveness of TOSense (with up to 44.5% accuracy) across varying number of topic clusters. During the demonstration, we will showcase TOSense in action. Attendees will be able to experience seamless extraction, interactive question answering, and instant indexing of new sites.
Open-domain Knowledge Graph Completion (KGC) faces significant challenges in an ever-changing world, especially when considering the continual emergence of new entities in daily news. Existing approaches for KGC mainly rely on pretrained language models' parametric knowledge, pre-constructed queries, or single-step retrieval, typically requiring substantial supervision and training data. Even so, they often fail to capture comprehensive and up-to-date information about unpopular and/or emerging entities. To this end, we introduce Agentic Reasoning for Emerging Entities (AgREE), a novel agent-based framework that combines iterative retrieval actions and multi-step reasoning to dynamically construct rich knowledge graph triplets. Experiments show that, despite requiring zero training efforts, AgREE significantly outperforms existing methods in constructing knowledge graph triplets, especially for emerging entities that were not seen during language models' training processes, outperforming previous methods by up to 13.7%. Moreover, we propose a new evaluation methodology that addresses a fundamental weakness of existing setups and a new benchmark for KGC on emerging entities. Our wor
Natural Language Inference (NLI) datasets often exhibit human label variation. To better understand these variations, explanation-based approaches analyze the underlying reasoning behind annotators' decisions. One such approach is the LiTEx taxonomy, which categorizes free-text explanations in English into reasoning categories. However, previous work applying LiTEx has focused on within-label variation: cases where annotators agree on the NLI label but provide different explanations. This paper broadens the scope by examining how annotators may diverge not only in the reasoning category but also in the labeling. We use explanations as a lens to analyze variation in NLI annotations and to examine individual differences in reasoning. We apply LiTEx to two NLI datasets and align annotation variation from multiple aspects: NLI label agreement, explanation similarity, and taxonomy agreement, with an additional compounding factor of annotators' selection bias. We observe instances where annotators disagree on the label but provide similar explanations, suggesting that surface-level disagreement may mask underlying agreement in interpretation. Moreover, our analysis reveals individual pre
Numerous methods have been proposed to measure LLM misgendering, including probability-based evaluations (e.g., automatically with templatic sentences) and generation-based evaluations (e.g., with automatic heuristics or human validation). However, it has gone unexamined whether these evaluation methods have convergent validity, that is, whether their results align. Therefore, we conduct a systematic meta-evaluation of these methods across three existing datasets for LLM misgendering. We propose a method to transform each dataset to enable parallel probability- and generation-based evaluation. Then, by automatically evaluating a suite of 6 models from 3 families, we find that these methods can disagree with each other at the instance, dataset, and model levels, conflicting on 20.2% of evaluation instances. Finally, with a human evaluation of 2400 LLM generations, we show that misgendering behaviour is complex and goes far beyond pronouns, which automatic evaluations are not currently designed to capture, suggesting essential disagreement with human evaluations. Based on our findings, we provide recommendations for future evaluations of LLM misgendering. Our results are also more wi
Neural probabilistic logic systems follow the neuro-symbolic (NeSy) paradigm by combining the perceptive and learning capabilities of neural networks with the robustness of probabilistic logic. Learning corresponds to likelihood optimization of the neural networks. However, to obtain the likelihood exactly, expensive probabilistic logic inference is required. To scale learning to more complex systems, we therefore propose to instead optimize a sampling based objective. We prove that the objective has a bounded error with respect to the likelihood, which vanishes when increasing the sample count. Furthermore, the error vanishes faster by exploiting a new concept of sample diversity. We then develop the EXPLAIN, AGREE, LEARN (EXAL) method that uses this objective. EXPLAIN samples explanations for the data. AGREE reweighs each explanation in concordance with the neural component. LEARN uses the reweighed explanations as a signal for learning. In contrast to previous NeSy methods, EXAL can scale to larger problem sizes while retaining theoretical guarantees on the error. Experimentally, our theoretical claims are verified and EXAL outperforms recent NeSy methods when scaling up the MNI
This paper investigates whether large language models (LLMs) show agreement in assessing creativity in responses to the Alternative Uses Test (AUT). While LLMs are increasingly used to evaluate creative content, previous studies have primarily focused on a single model assessing responses generated by the same model or humans. This paper explores whether LLMs can impartially and accurately evaluate creativity in outputs generated by both themselves and other models. Using an oracle benchmark set of AUT responses, categorized by creativity level (common, creative, and highly creative), we experiment with four state-of-the-art LLMs evaluating these outputs. We test both scoring and ranking methods and employ two evaluation settings (comprehensive and segmented) to examine if LLMs agree on the creativity evaluation of alternative uses. Results reveal high inter-model agreement, with Spearman correlations averaging above 0.7 across models and reaching over 0.77 with respect to the oracle, indicating a high level of agreement and validating the reliability of LLMs in creativity assessment of alternative uses. Notably, models do not favour their own responses, instead they provide simila
This paper presents the results of a needs analysis survey for Reverse Engineering (RE). The need for reverse engineers in digital forensics, continues to grow as malware analysis becomes more complicated. The survey was created to investigate tools used in the cybersecurity industry, the methods for teaching RE and educational resources related to RE. Ninety-three (n=93) people responded to our 58 question survey. Participants did not respond to all survey questions as they were optional. The data showed that the majority of 24/71 (33.8%) responses either strongly agreed and 22/71 (30.99%) of responses somewhat agreed that there is a shortage in RE resources. Furthermore, a majority of 17/72 (23.61%) responses indicated that they strongly disagree and that 27/72 (37.5%) somewhat disagree to the statement that graduates are leaving college with adequate RE knowledge. When asked if there is a shortage of adequate RE candidates, the majority of 33/71 (46.48%) responses strongly agreed and 20/71 (28.17%) somewhat agreed. In order to determine if this was a result of the tools at their disposal, a series of questions in regards to the two most popular RE tools were also asked.
Solid CO2 phase I was studied using the pressure-constant NPT Monte Carlo simulation and the Kihara core potential in the temperature range below 194 K and the pressure range below 10 GPa. At a pressure of 1 bar, the temperature dependence of the calculated lattice constant agreed reasonably well with experiment. It was found that the random distribution of molecular orientations due to temperature gave a significant contribution to the increase in the lattice constant. At high pressure, the pressure dependence of the lattice constant also agreed well with experiment.
A family of subsets of $[n]$ is $r$-wise agreeing if for any $r$ sets from the family there is an element $x$ that is either contained in all or contained in none of the $r$ sets. The study of such families is motivated by questions in discrete optimization. In this paper, we determine the size of the largest non-trivial $r$-wise agreeing family. This can be seen as a generalization of the classical Brace-Daykin theorem.
How frequently do individuals thoroughly review terms and conditions before proceeding to register for a service, install software, or access a website? The majority of internet users do not engage in this practice. This trend is not surprising, given that terms and conditions typically consist of lengthy documents replete with intricate legal terminology and convoluted sentences. In this paper, we introduce a Machine Learning-powered approach designed to automatically parse and summarize critical information in a user-friendly manner. This technology focuses on distilling the pertinent details that users should contemplate before committing to an agreement.
Spiking neural networks (SNNs) are recurrent models that can leverage sparsity in input time series to efficiently carry out tasks such as classification. Additional efficiency gains can be obtained if decisions are taken as early as possible as a function of the complexity of the input time series. The decision on when to stop inference and produce a decision must rely on an estimate of the current accuracy of the decision. Prior work demonstrated the use of conformal prediction (CP) as a principled way to quantify uncertainty and support adaptive-latency decisions in SNNs. In this paper, we propose to enhance the uncertainty quantification capabilities of SNNs by implementing ensemble models for the purpose of improving the reliability of stopping decisions. Intuitively, an ensemble of multiple models can decide when to stop more reliably by selecting times at which most models agree that the current accuracy level is sufficient. The proposed method relies on different forms of information pooling from ensemble models, and offers theoretical reliability guarantees. We specifically show that variational inference-based ensembles with p-variable pooling significantly reduce the ave
In Stack Overflow (SO), the quality of posts (i.e., questions and answers) is subjectively evaluated by users through a voting mechanism. The net votes (upvotes - downvotes) obtained by a post are often considered an approximation of its quality. However, about half of the questions that received working solutions got more downvotes than upvotes. Furthermore, about 18% of the accepted answers (i.e., verified solutions) also do not score the maximum votes. All these counter-intuitive findings cast doubts on the reliability of the evaluation mechanism employed at SO. Moreover, many users raise concerns against the evaluation, especially downvotes to their posts. Therefore, rigorous verification of the subjective evaluation is highly warranted to ensure a non-biased and reliable quality assessment mechanism. In this paper, we compare the subjective assessment of questions with their objective assessment using 2.5 million questions and ten text analysis metrics. According to our investigation, four objective metrics agree with the subjective evaluation, two do not agree, one either agrees or disagrees, and the remaining three neither agree nor disagree with the subjective evaluation. W