Daily Papers

Diffusion Transformers have become a powerful backbone for text-to-image generation, but their layered and cross-modal generation process makes safety control fundamentally different from prompt-level filtering or output-level detection. Harmful semantics may be weakly expressed in text representations, progressively bound to visual latents, and finally entangled with rendering dynamics. As a result, safety steering at a fixed layer can be unstable, and a steering mechanism learned from known risks may not transfer reliably to a shifted target risk domain. We propose SafeDIG, a safety steering framework that formulates DiT safety adaptation as position-aware sparse feature transfer. SafeDIG first constructs Sparse Autoencoders over functionally distinct DiT intervention positions and uses robustness-aware pre-training routing to prioritize intervention sites that are expected to remain stable under source-target risk shift. It then separates transferable safety features from domain-specific activation geometry by freezing the SAE encoder as a reusable sparse safety dictionary and adapting only the decoder to the target-domain activation manifold. During inference, SafeDIG combines Blend and Repel operations to steer unsafe activations toward transferred safety manifolds or away from harmful sparse directions. Experiments on FLUX.1 Dev and Stable Diffusion 3.5 Large show that SafeDIG consistently reduces target-domain and overall unsafe generation rates while preserving source-domain safety and image quality.

Patient world models are increasingly proposed as simulators of clinical trials, and recent surveys rank their capabilities on a ladder from temporal prediction to counterfactual rollouts. Position on that ladder is currently assigned by reading papers rather than by measurement. We turn the counterfactual rung into a measured quantity. From 30,119 completed phase 2/3 trials with results posted to ClinicalTrials.gov we construct 9,996 audited within-trial contrasts from 7,207 trials, and we score a simulator on how much of its accuracy depends on knowing which intervention was tested. The instrument is an intervention-blind reference: the same model, trained on the same trials, with every intervention-identifying field withheld. Interventional skill is the error the full model removes relative to that reference. On a temporal split (878 test contrasts from 655 trials) a registry-trained gradient-boosting simulator removes a fifth of the error of a trivial baseline, but its interventional skill is -0.12 (95% CI -0.21 to -0.05): withholding the intervention makes it better, and no alternative featurisation, stratum, temporal cut or same-molecule retrieval yields an interval above zero. A frontier language model reading only the registered protocol has interventional skill 0.20 [0.08, 0.31]; smaller and open-weight models sit at the limit of detection. Perturbation tests show the large model uses the intervention as such: swapping the arms reverses the sign of its prediction in 86% of contrasts. The blind reference is itself not drug-blind (a language model recovers the withheld drug class 45% of the time from the blind prompt), so interventional skill is a conservative lower bound. A reliability layer shows that ranking by predicted error lowers it but that calibrated error control does not transfer under temporal shift. Benchmark, code, prompts and per-call model outputs are released.

Many localized large language model (LLM) unlearning methods select a small parameter subset from a localization signal and keep it fixed during optimization. The parameters most associated with a target, however, need not be the best ones to update, and candidate interventions can change value as optimization proceeds. In a controlled experiment, a storage-localization score reaches an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.981, yet storage identity agrees with the better intervention on only 17/36 targets, while low-rank adaptation (LoRA) wins 35/36. We introduce Intervention Score, which ranks editable groups by the predicted effect of the actual unlearning update while accounting for collateral damage, and use it to form the static intervention-value baseline (Static-IV). We then introduce selective dynamic intervention re-ranking (DIR-R), which revisits that subset only when a calibrated probe justifies the comparison. On the Natural-TOFU dataset, our method has positive descriptive margins in 19/20 comparisons between methods and objectives, although several are near zero. On the LACUNA localization-precision benchmark, our mean terminal utility is higher in all six negative preference optimization (NPO) and SimNPO comparisons: NPO margins range from +0.431 to +0.848, and SimNPO margins range from +0.503 to +0.571. The gradient-difference (GradDiff) objective reveals substantial field dependence. Relative to Static-IV, the primary four-field GradDiff evaluation has six wins, six ties, and no losses, with mean and median paired gains of +0.165 and +0.0025. The evidence supports separating localization, initial intervention selection, and checkpoint-dependent support revision.

Most frameworks for teams of large language model (LLM) agents fix the team's shape inside the software: who talks to whom, how much is passed along, and what a human can do once a run has started. Human-team research has long asked those questions: where team phenomena live (in members or in their interaction), how team-level properties arise, and what separates what a team does from how a team is. I propose using that theory as the organizing lens for configuring, observing and intervening in LLM-agent teams, without assuming its findings transfer. I introduce teamknitt, a framework and open reference implementation in which a user configures a team of 1-16 AI agents for task completion, solution generation, achieving a goal or a research mission; selects one of fourteen deterministic routing topologies or a custom directed graph; chooses a sharing profile that limits what may travel along permitted routes; and binds sources, representations, work dependencies, handoffs and an expertise directory. The recorded process can be observed through non-system views (member reports and behavior) and system views (distributed problem-solving, differentiated transactive memory, interactive coordination, team dynamics). Interventions are explicit and human-led: reviewed reconfiguration between runs, planned disturbances, and private feedback, pause, resume or stop applied at dependency-wave boundaries, with "queued", "applied", "assembled", "understood" and "improved" kept as separate claims. Emergent states such as trust and shared understanding are declared unmeasured. This is an idea and system-description paper with falsifiable hypotheses on topology, information flow and intervention timing, including whether the fractal scaling of communication output between members, and between members on different models, relates to task and team performance. No comparative result is reported.