Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly consulted as sources of historical information, yet their handling of contested events and politically charged narratives remains understudied. We introduce HistoricalMisinfo, a dataset of 500 contested events from 45 countries, each paired with a factual and a documented revisionist reference narrative, instantiated across 11 prompt scenarios reflecting common real-world usage. Using an LLM-as-a-judge protocol, we evaluate multiple model architectures under neutral prompts and robustness prompts that explicitly request revisionist content. Under neutral prompts, models generally align with factual references, though alignment varies by scenario and model. Robustness prompting reveals a consistent and sharp increase in revisionism scores across all models, indicating limited resistance to user-driven revisionist framing. HistoricalMisinfo offers a practical benchmark for evaluating robustness to historical revisionism in AI systems.

Multilingual Large Language Models (LLMs) can process many languages, yet how they internally represent this diversity remains unclear. Do they form shared multilingual representations with language-specific decoding, and if so, why do multilingual performance gaps persist? To address this question, we train models on different multilingual mixtures and analyze their internal mechanisms using Cross-Layer Transcoders (CLTs) and Attribution Graphs. Our results reveal a consistent three-phase structure across models: early layers encode language-specific information, middle layers converge to highly shared multilingual representations, and final layers re-specialize for language-specific decoding.

Training models without English produces the same shared multilingual structures, suggesting that these representations emerge independently of English dominance. We further show that decoding relies on a small set of high-frequency late-layer features that linearly encode language identity from earlier layers, and that intervening on these features allows one language to be suppressed and another substituted. Finally, through a Model-Diffing experiment, we show that non-English failures arise from weak late-layer decoding features, weak middle-layer clusters, and tokenizer fragmentation that forces early layers to specialize in word reassembly. Finetuning strengthens these features and their connections, improving token assembly and language-specific decoding, providing a mechanistic explanation for multilingual performance gaps.

Mechanistic interpretability seeks to understand how Large Language Models (LLMs) represent and process information. Recent approaches based on dictionary learning and transcoders enable representing model computation in terms of sparse, interpretable features and their interactions, giving rise to feature attribution graphs. However, these graphs are often large and redundant, limiting their interpretability in practice. Cross-Layer Transcoders (CLTs) address this issue by sharing features across layers while preserving layer-specific decoding, yielding more compact representations, but remain difficult to train and analyze at scale. We introduce an open-source library for end-to-end training and interpretability of CLTs. Our framework integrates scalable distributed training with model sharding and compressed activation caching, a unified automated interpretability pipeline for feature analysis and explanation, attribution graph computation using Circuit-Tracer, and a flexible visualization interface. This provides a practical and unified solution for scaling CLT-based mechanistic interpretability. Our code is available at https://github.com/LLM-Interp/CLT-Forge.

Game-theoretic interactions between agents with large language models (LLMs) have revealed many emergent capabilities, yet the linguistic diversity of these interactions has not been sufficiently quantified. In this paper, we present the Conversational Robustness Evaluation Score: CORE, a metric to quantify the effectiveness of language use within multi-agent systems across different game-theoretic interactions. CORE integrates measures of cluster entropy, lexical repetition, and semantic similarity, providing a direct lens of dialog quality. We apply CORE to pairwise LLM dialogs across competitive, cooperative, and neutral settings, further grounding our analysis in Zipf’s and Heaps’ Laws to characterize word frequency distributions and vocabulary growth. Our findings show that cooperative settings exhibit both steeper Zipf distributions and higher Heap exponents, indicating more repetition alongside greater vocabulary expansion. In contrast, competitive interactions display lower Zipf and Heaps exponents, reflecting less repetition and more constrained vocabularies. These results provide new insights into how social incentives influence language adaptation, and highlight CORE as a robust diagnostic for measuring linguistic robustness in multi-agent LLM systems.

Post-cutoff performance decay of LLMs has been widely interpreted as a temporal signal for benchmark contamination, where public information released before the training cutoff may have been included into training corpora and inflated model performance by memorization. We critically examine this view and demonstrate that this temporal signal is highly sensitive to how benchmark questions are constructed, even if the underlying source material remains invariant. Specifically, we show that LLM-transformed questions can produce remarkably different temporal patterns compared to fill-in-the-blank (cloze) questions directly retrieved from the very same documents. We validate this effect on prior benchmarks that report clear post-cutoff decay (LiveCodeBench), and show that a simple LLM-driven transformation of the same problems can effectively remove the temporal pattern. We further provide a mechanistic understanding of this phenomenon using influence function analysis. Overall, our results suggest that post-cutoff performance decay is a sensitive contamination signal, motivating more robust contamination probes for reliable LLM evaluation.

Expert writing feedback from experienced researchers is critical for early-career scholars to improve their manuscripts, yet high-quality feedback often remains scarce because reviewing research papers is labor-intensive. Emerging AI-powered writing assistants largely focus on grammar fixes or simulating peer review with final scores, yet they fall short of providing concrete, actionable suggestions that help students improve their papers during drafting. We present PaperMentor, a human-centered writing assistant system that delivers actionable suggestions as Overleaf-native inline comments while leaving the actual writing entirely to human authors. PaperMentor integrates an expert skill library carefully curated from established researchers’ writing advice with 12 specialized agents covering different aspects of paper writing, such as formatting compliance, phrasing accuracy, and terminology consistency. In a user study (n=14), 90.6% of the generated comments were rated actionable and 67.5% were rated valid, significantly outperforming a GPT-5.2 baseline without the skill library. We release PaperMentor as open source for public use.