arXiv:2605.22883v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Current AI energy benchmarks measure consumption at the granularity of a single model invocation or training run. For classical single-turn workloads this unit remains coherent. For agentic systems – where a single user goal may trigger multi-step orchestration, tool calls, retries, and failure-recovery cycles – the invocation count is an implementation artifact rather than a task property, and inference-level normalization misrepresents the energy cost of goal completion. We present A-LEMS (Agentic LLM Energy Measurement System), a cross-layer measurement framework that redefines the unit of AI energy accounting from energy per inference to Energy per Successful Goal (EpG). EpG aggregates total workflow energy across all execution attempts, including failures and retries, normalized by successfully completed goals. A-LEMS formalizes energy attribution through a temporal boundary model, a five-layer observation pipeline mapping RAPL signals to workflow-level energy, and a reproducibility protocol binding every measurement to hardware and runtime configuration. Building on EpG, we define the Orchestration Overhead Index (OOI), isolating the energy cost of orchestration relative to linear execution under identical task criteria.
Across five reasoning and three tool-augmented task families, agentic workflows consume 4.33x higher mean energy per successful goal than linear baselines (888.1 J vs 205.3 J). This overhead is driven by orchestration structure, not inference compute. For tool-augmented tasks, OOI inverts below 1.0x: agentic execution is cheaper than linear, confirming the metric captures orchestration structure rather than a fixed upward bias.
These findings establish that energy-per-inference is insufficient for agentic AI. EpG and OOI provide the measurement foundation for accurate benchmarking, where orchestration structure is the primary determinant of energy cost.

arXiv:2605.21602v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Many safety and alignment failures of large language models (LLMs) occur due to out-of-distribution (OOD) situations: unusual prompt or response patterns that are unforeseen by model developers. We systematically study whether LLM monitoring pipelines can detect these OOD alignment failures by introducing a benchmark called Misalignment Out Of Distribution (MOOD). It is difficult to find failures that are truly OOD for off-the-shelf models trained on vast safety datasets. We sidestep this by including a restricted training set in MOOD that we use to train our own monitors, as well as seven test sets with diverse alignment failures that are outside the training distribution. Using MOOD, we find that guard models (safety classifiers) often fail to generalize OOD. To fix this, we propose combining guard models with OOD detectors. We test four types of OOD detectors and find that a combination of a guard model with Mahalanobis distance and perplexity-based OOD detectors can improve recall from 39% to 45%. We also establish positive scaling trends across model scales for monitors that combine a guard model and OOD detector; we find that incorporating OOD detection into monitoring achieves a higher recall gain than using a guard model with 20 times more parameters. Our work suggests that OOD detection should be a crucial component of LLM monitoring and provides a foundation for further work on this important problem.

arXiv:2605.21622v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Topology optimization can generate efficient structures, but designers often must manually translate qualitative intent, such as desired visual style, product experience, or manufacturability into solver settings that are not directly tied to those preferences. We present TO-Agents, a multi-agent AI framework that connects natural-language design intent with iterative topology optimization. The framework converts a human-provided problem description into validated solver inputs, runs a topology optimization solver, renders the resulting 3D topology, and uses multi-view vision-language reasoning with an independent judge agent to critique each result and revise solver parameters. We evaluate the framework on two long-horizon design tasks: a cantilever beam benchmark and a phone-stand product design. In both tasks, the designer specifies an aesthetic preference for hierarchically branched structures inspired by natural tree morphologies, and the system performs four revision cycles across ten independent replicates. TO-Agents produces at least one preference-aligned design in 60% of trials for each case study, corresponding to up to 6x more successful trials than an ablated pipeline without visual or historical feedback. Judge scores and human evaluations show that the pipeline can identify effective parameter levers, recover from poor revisions, and expand design exploration. A manufacturing agent further post-processes top-ranked designs for additive manufacturing, enabling end-to-end intent-to-prototype design. We also identify failure modes, including overshooting, selective memory, misplaced tools, and incorrect parameter reasoning. These results suggest that agentic topology optimization can shift designers from low-level parameter tuning toward higher-level specification of form and function, while highlighting safeguards needed for reliable autonomous engineering design.

arXiv:2605.21630v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Although LLMs have made substantial progress in reasoning, systematically producing frontier-level reasoning data remains difficult. Existing synthesis methods often have limited visibility into the structural factors that govern problem difficulty, which can result in narrow diversity and unstable difficulty control. In this work, we view the difficulty of a reasoning problem as arising from the accumulation of atomic knowledge-reasoning transformations, which we term thought modes. Building on this perspective, we propose MindLoom, a framework for synthesizing frontier-level reasoning data through compositional thought mode engineering. Given a collection of hard problems with verified solutions, MindLoom first decomposes those solutions into thought mode chains that reveal each problem’s construction logic. It then trains a retrieval model that matches problem states to compatible thought modes, providing guidance on which reasoning challenges to introduce during synthesis. New problems are composed by iteratively applying retrieved thought modes to seed questions, with distribution-aligned sampling to encourage diverse reasoning coverage. Finally, a rollout-based judging stage labels generated questions by difficulty and supplies judged-correct responses for supervised fine-tuning. We evaluate MindLoom on nine benchmarks covering five STEM disciplines and four mathematical reasoning tasks across multiple model families and sizes. Models fine-tuned on MindLoom-generated data achieves favorable performances over base models, distillation, and external-data baselines across the reported benchmarks. Ablation studies indicate the contribution of each component, and further analysis suggests that MindLoom covers a broad range of reasoning patterns while maintaining useful difficulty control. We have open-sourced our implementation at https://github.com/EachSheep/MindLoom.

arXiv:2605.21623v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Researchers in Holocaust studies have often distinguished between two styles of oral survivor testimony: the USC Shoah Foundation’s interviews tend to follow a structured, interviewer-guided format, whereas the Yale Fortunoff Video Archive generally favors a more free-form, open-ended style. This distinction has influenced both scholarly research and the development of later archives. In this study, we critically examine that claim by conducting a large-scale computational analysis of more than 1,600 testimonies from both collections. Leveraging discourse segmentation, topic modeling, and large language model (LLM) based analysis, we quantify the “structuredness” level of testimonies through topic coherence, interviewer-survivor dynamics, and the distribution of question types. Our results generally corroborate the structural differences identified in earlier research, while also revealing significant overlaps between the collections, both within individual interviews and across common narrative patterns. This complicates the simple “structured vs. free-form” dichotomy often applied to these oral histories. Beyond revisiting a foundational claim in Holocaust studies, our work provides a scalable, replicable framework for comparative corpus analysis. As a proof of concept, it suggests broader applications for digital oral history, narrative analysis, and the design of citizen-science annotation platforms.