The Inference Report

Accurate long-term time series forecasting (LTSF) requires the capture of complex long-range dependencies and dynamic periodic patterns. Recent advances in frequency-domain analysis offer a global perspective for uncovering temporal characteristics. However, real-world time series often exhibit pronounced cross-domain heterogeneity where variables that appear synchronized in the time domain can differ substantially in the frequency domain. Existing frequency-based LTSF methods often rely on implicit assumptions of cross-domain homogeneity, which limits their ability to adapt to such intricate variability. To effectively integrate frequency-domain analysis with temporal dependency learning, we propose AdaMamba, a novel framework that endogenizes adaptive and context-aware frequency analysis within the Mamba state-space update process. Specifically, AdaMamba introduces an interactive patch encoding module to capture inter-variable interaction dynamics. Then, we develop an adaptive frequency-gated state-space module that generates input-dependent frequency bases, and generalizes the conventional temporal forgetting gate into a unified time-frequency forgetting gate. This allows dynamic calibration of state transitions based on learned frequency-domain importance, while preserving Mamba's capability in modeling long-range dependencies. Extensive experiments on seven public LTSF benchmarks and two domain-specific datasets demonstrate that AdaMamba consistently outperforms state-of-the-art methods in forecasting accu racy while maintaining competitive computational efficiency. The code of AdaMamba is available at https://github.com/XDjiang25/AdaMamba.

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has emerged as a simple and effective way to elicit step-by-step solutions from large language models (LLMs). However, CoT reasoning can be unstable across runs on long, multi-step problems, leading to inconsistent answers for unchanged task. Most prior work focuses on improving the forward reasoning chain within a single pass, with less attention to iterative and contrastive correction. To address this gap, we propose CAP-CoT, a Cycle Adversarial Prompt optimization framework designed to improve both CoT reasoning accuracy and stability of a single deployed solver. In each cycle, a forward solver generates candidate reasoning chains, an adversarial challenger constructs plausible but deliberately flawed chains using targeted error strategies, and a feedback agent contrasts the two chains and produces step-aligned structured feedback. This feedback closes the optimization loop in two directions, including updating the solver prompt based on errors exposed by the challenger, and updating the challenger prompt to generate increasingly targeted errors in subsequent cycles. Unlike safety-oriented adversarial prompting such as jailbreak or prompt-injection attacks, our adversarial component is task-semantic and aims to expose logical vulnerabilities in reasoning chains. Experiments across six benchmarks and four LLM backbones demonstrate that within two to three adversarial prompt optimization cycles, CAP-CoT consistently reduces variability across runs while improving reasoning accuracy and robustness to prompt perturbations.

The proliferation of agentic artificial intelligence has outpaced the conceptual tools needed to characterize agency in computational systems. Prevailing definitions mainly rely on autonomy and goal-directedness. Here, we argue for a minimal notion open to principled inspection given three criteria: intentionality as action grounded in beliefs and desires, rationality as normatively coherent action entailed by a world model, and explainability as action causally traceable to internal states; we subsequently instantiate these as a partially observable Markov decision process under a variational framework wherein posterior beliefs, prior preferences, and the minimization of expected free energy jointly constitute an agentic action chain. Using a canonical T-maze paradigm, we evidence how empowerment, formulated as the channel capacity between actions and anticipated observations, serves as an operational metric that distinguishes zero-, intermediate-, and high-agency phenotypes through structural manipulations of the generative model. We conclude by arguing that as agents engage in epistemic foraging to resolve ambiguity, the governance controls that remain effective must shift systematically from external constraints to the internal modulation of prior preferences, offering a principled, variational bridge from computational phenotyping to AI governance strategy

AI agents are now running real transactions, workflows, and sub-agent chains across organizational boundaries without continuous human supervision. This creates a problem no current infrastructure is equipped to solve: how do you identify, verify, and hold accountable an entity with no body, no persistent memory, and no legal standing? We define AI Identity as the continuous relationship between what an AI agent is declared to be and what it is observed to do, bounded by the confidence that those two things correspond at any given moment. Through a structured survey of industry trends, emerging standards, and technical literature, we conduct a gap analysis across the full agent identity lifecycle and make three contributions: (1) a structural comparison of human and AI identity across four dimensions (substrate, persistence, verifiability, and legal standing) showing that the asymmetry is fundamental and that extending human frameworks to agents without structural modification produces systematic failures; (2) an evaluation of current technical and regulatory documents against the identity requirements of autonomous agents, finding that none adequately address the challenge of governing nondeterministic, boundary-crossing entities; and (3) identification of five critical gaps (semantic intent verification, recursive delegation accountability, agent identity integrity, governance opacity and enforcement, and operational sustainability) that no current technology or regulatory instrument resolves. These gaps are structural; more engineering effort alone will not close them. Foundational research on AI identity is the central conclusion of this report.

Existing LLM-based EDA agents are often isolated task-specific systems. This leads to repeated engineering effort and limited reuse of successful design and debugging strategies. We present LEGO, a unified skill-based platform for front-end design generation. It decomposes the digital front-end flow into six independent steps and represents every agent capability as a standardized composable circuit skill within a plug-and-play architecture. To build this skill library, we survey more than 100 papers, select 11 representative open-source projects, and extract 42 executable circuit skills within a six-step finite state machine formulation. Circuit Skill Builder automates skill extraction with linear scalability. Agent Skill RAG achieves submillisecond retrieval without relying on embedding models. Empirical evaluation on a hard subset of 41 VerilogEval v2 problems that gpt-5.2-codex fails to solve under extra-high reasoning effort shows that individual circuit skills constructed within LEGO raise Pass@1 from 0.000 to 0.805. This is an 80.5% gain over the baseline. Cross-project skill compositions also reach 0.805 Pass@1. They outperform hierarchy-verilog by 14.6% and VerilogCoder by 2.5%. They also match MAGE. These results show that modular skill composition supports both effective and flexible RTL design automation. The LEGO platform and all circuit skills are publicly available at GitHub: https://github.com/loujc/LEGO-An-LLM-Skill-Based-Front-End-Design-Generation-Platform

Autonomous multi-agent LLM systems are increasingly deployed to investigate operational incidents and produce structured diagnostic reports. Their trustworthiness hinges on whether each claim is grounded in observed evidence rather than model-internal inference. Existing groundedness evaluators (binary classifiers, LLM-as-judge scalars, self-correction loops) treat supporting evidence as interchangeable and emit a single signal that offers no principled control over downstream action. We present GSAR, a grounding-evaluation and replanning framework that (i) partitions claims into a four-way typology (grounded, ungrounded, contradicted, complementary), giving first-class standing to non-redundant alternative perspectives; (ii) assigns evidence-type-specific weights reflecting epistemic strength; (iii) computes an asymmetric contradiction-penalised weighted groundedness score; and (iv) couples that score to a three-tier decision function (proceed, regenerate, replan) driving a bounded-iteration outer loop under an explicit compute budget. We formalise the algorithm, prove six structural properties, and evaluate five design claims on FEVER with gold Wikipedia evidence under four independently-trained LLM judges (gpt-5.4, claude-sonnet-4-6, claude-opus-4-7, gemini-2.5-pro). Every ablation reproduces in the same direction on every judge: bootstrap 95% CIs on the rho=0 effect exclude 0 on all four; the no-complementary ablation under Opus 4.7 has CI [-96,-68] of 200; at n=1000 three independent judges converge to DeltaS(rho=0)=+0.058. A head-to-head against Vectara HHEM-2.1-Open is included. To our knowledge, GSAR is the first published groundedness framework coupling evidence-typed scoring with tiered recovery under an explicit compute budget.