#01Jul 20, 2026
cs.CV
Simple Domain Generalization for Strong Pixel-Level Image Tampering Detection in Modern VLMs
Yi Tang, Xinyi Shang, Jiacheng Cui and 12 more
Modern vision-language models (VLMs) have significantly improved image generation and editing capabilities, making pixel-level image tampering detection increasingly important yet challenging under cross-model and out-of-distribution shifts. This work studies domain generalization for pixel-level image tampering detection in modern VLMs like ChatGPT, Gemini, Qwen-Image, etc., aiming to learn tampering localization models that remain robust across diverse VLM-generated manipulation distributions. We propose a simple yet effective domain-generalized training framework built on two practical strategies. First, we introduce a balanced minibatch sampling scheme that strategically samples tampered and real images in each minibatch, preventing biased optimization toward either manipulated artifacts or clean-image priors and avoiding training collapse, ensuring that each optimization step receives proper sampled gradient signals. Second, we adopt a simple late-injection strategy, where the detector is first trained on large-scale base data until stable convergence, and then exposed to a small amount of newly selected supporting data from emerging VLM distributions, improving adaptability without overfitting to limited new domains. Together, these components provide a simple yet strong recipe for improving pixel-level tampering localization and OOD robustness across modern VLMs. Despite the conceptual simplicity, our framework outperforms the prior state-of-the-art PIXAR by a large margin of 26.1% and 26.8% relative improvement in average gIoU and cIoU, respectively, across OOD VLMs of GPT-Images-2.0, Gemini-3.1, FLUX.2, and Seedream 4.5. Our code is available at https://github.com/VILA-Lab/PIXAR-DG
#02Jul 20, 2026
cs.CL
It's Not What You Say, It's How You Say It: Evaluating LLM Responses to Expressions of Belief
Kevin Du, Clara Kümpel, Michelle Wastl and 1 more
Users frequently express their beliefs to large language models (LLMs). In some situations, the LLM should accept these contextual beliefs as true. In others, they should stick to their prior knowledge. Notably, users' expressions of belief (EoBs) can take linguistically diverse forms - using presuppositions, evidential and certainty markers, or varied tones - each of which may have a different persuasiveness over the LLMs. We introduce a typology to systematically evaluate how different EoBs affect whether models follow context versus prior knowledge. The typology is grounded in four linguistically motivated dimensions: form, evidentiality, epistemic stance, and tone, spanning 17 fine-grained types. By pairing these EoBs with world knowledge facts, we generate controlled EoB-query pairs that isolate the effect of linguistic variation. Using this benchmark, we evaluate 16 LLMs that differ in architecture (Llama3, Qwen3, Gemma3), scale (1B-30B parameters), and training stages (base vs instruct). We identify meaningful variations in response behavior across these axes, e.g., that bigger models and instruction models tend to be less context-following than smaller models and base models. We further identify specific EoBs that statistically significantly persuade LMs more consistently than others. Our work reveals systematic patterns in how linguistic framing affects LLM context integration, with implications for prompt engineering and model robustness.
#03Jul 20, 2026
cs.SE
TRIM: Reducing AI-Generated CodeSlop via Agent Trajectory Minimization
Alex Mathai, Shobini Iyer, Aleksandr Nogikh and 4 more
Coding agents are increasingly used to accelerate code generation in many downstream tasks, such as fixing bugs, building applications, and prototyping. However, despite their value as coding assistants, agent-generated code tends to be larger and more verbose than the corresponding human-written implementation. In this work, we show that the cause lies in the agent's own search process: while iterating toward a passing solution, an agent accumulates speculative edits, abandoned hypotheses, and temporary changes that persist into the final patch. This may seem harmless for a single patch, but the problem compounds as agents take responsibility for ever-larger portions of a codebase-a codebase that was once minimal and well-maintained slowly accumulates redundancy faster than it can be cleaned up, drifting to a state that is harder to maintain. Given the magnitude of this problem, we take a step towards alleviating this issue. First, we formally define this phenomenon as CodeSlop-the residual and functionally unnecessary edits commonly seen in AI-generated code. We then introduce our algorithm TRIM (Trajectory-guided Redundancy Identification and Minimization). Rather than minimizing CodeSlop directly, TRIM instead minimizes agent trajectories. As we show empirically, this indirect technique of minimizing CodeSlop is highly effective: TRIM cuts CodeSlop by 17.9%-32.9% across agentic scaffolds, with negligible performance regression. TRIM is also highly efficient, requiring roughly half the validation cost of algorithmic baselines such as Delta Debugging.
#04Jul 20, 2026
cs.AI
Judge-dependent safety gains and model-specific helpfulness costs of evidence-sufficiency prompting in clinical LLMs
Koyar Afrasyab
Background: LLM judges increasingly score whether clinical language models give overconfident answers under incomplete evidence, yet whether a measured "safety gain" reflects real behavior change or the judge's calibration is unresolved. Using a structured evidence-sufficiency prompt as a test case, we asked whether it reduces unsafe overconfident answers, how far that effect depends on the scoring judge, and what it costs in helpfulness. Methods: In a retrospective public-data benchmark (Real-POCQi, HealthBench, MedRBench), four models (GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.8, Gemini 3.5 Flash, Grok 4.3) answered a fully paired common panel (1,200 cells) with a standard prompt and the wrapper. The pre-specified endpoint was the paired reduction in unsafe overconfidence scored by the primary judge (GPT-5.4-nano); secondary analyses added a different-family judge (Claude Sonnet 5), a correctness judge, matched scaffold controls, and a blinded three-clinician review. Results: Unsafe overconfidence fell from 49.3% to 24.7%, a paired reduction of 24.7 points (95% CI 21.8-27.7; p<0.001), robust in direction across models and paraphrases. Magnitude was judge-dependent: Sonnet agreed on direction but nearly halved the effect (+13.1 points), with one-directional disagreement. Blinded clinicians characterized the primary judge as a high-sensitivity (1.00), low-specificity (0.55) screen, not a calibrated rate. The gain carried a model-specific helpfulness cost (correct diagnosis 80.3% to 50.3%): near-free for GPT-5.5, near-total for Gemini (-58 points). Matched scaffold controls showed genuine behavior change, not judge circularity. Conclusions: LLM-judged clinical safety effects should be reported as directional and relative, anchored to human review and evaluated jointly with helpfulness, not as calibrated absolute rates. This does not establish clinical deployment readiness.
#05Jul 20, 2026
cs.LG
Generalised Bellman recurrence and three dualities in sequential decision-making
Fernando E. Rosas, David Hyland, Daniel Polani
What gives the Bellman equation its form? We show that the recursive properties of optimal value functions follow from three conditions: that the dynamics decomposes through sufficient statistics, that the return decomposes recursively, and that the aggregation of uncertainty is compatible with both. When all three conditions hold on a common state, the Bellman equation arises from their mutual consistency; when one fails, tractability can often be recovered by augmenting the state or by deforming return or dynamics. The same conditions are shown to give rise to three dualities: one between probability and return, one between return and aggregation, and one between aggregation and probability. Our framework reveals these dualities as arising from a single construction, unifying methods developed separately across reinforcement learning, control, and decision theory.