Amir H. Abdi

2papers

2 Papers

8.9CLMay 28
Do Proactive Agents Really Need an LLM to Decide When to Wake and What to Anchor?

Xiaoze Liu, Ruowang Zhang, Amir H. Abdi et al.

Proactive agents read user activity as text and call an LLM on every event to decide whether to act. But user activity is not natively text: it is a structured event stream of (actor, verb, object, timestamp) tuples that the operating system already maintains in graph form. Rendering the structure as text and asking an LLM to recover it is a round-trip the system never had to take. We treat the always-on signal as graph updates rather than text and use a small temporal-graph-learning (TGL) model as the encoder: one forward pass yields a per-event trigger probability and a per-entity routing score, and only the downstream agent (turning a small structured handoff into a fluent user-facing sentence) is an LLM call, invoked only when the trigger fires. TGL improves F1 on each of 14 backbones (mean +16.7, up to +46.0); in trigger-architecture comparisons, one TGL checkpoint gives the strongest trigger AUCs and the most stable deployed threshold. It runs at 11.13 ms per event on a GPU server and 13.99 ms on a consumer laptop, approximately 4--7x and 12--83x faster than every single-forward LLM-as-trigger configuration tested in each regime, with an approximately 220 MiB BF16 resident footprint deployable on-device alongside the privacy-sensitive activity stream it consumes.

6.7CLMay 14, 2025Code
Llama See, Llama Do: A Mechanistic Perspective on Contextual Entrainment and Distraction in LLMs

Jingcheng Niu, Xingdi Yuan, Tong Wang et al. · utoronto

We observe a novel phenomenon, contextual entrainment, across a wide range of language models (LMs) and prompt settings, providing a new mechanistic perspective on how LMs become distracted by ``irrelevant'' contextual information in the input prompt. Specifically, LMs assign significantly higher logits (or probabilities) to any tokens that have previously appeared in the context prompt, even for random tokens. This suggests that contextual entrainment is a mechanistic phenomenon, occurring independently of the relevance or semantic relation of the tokens to the question or the rest of the sentence. We find statistically significant evidence that the magnitude of contextual entrainment is influenced by semantic factors. Counterfactual prompts have a greater effect compared to factual ones, suggesting that while contextual entrainment is a mechanistic phenomenon, it is modulated by semantic factors. We hypothesise that there is a circuit of attention heads -- the entrainment heads -- that corresponds to the contextual entrainment phenomenon. Using a novel entrainment head discovery method based on differentiable masking, we identify these heads across various settings. When we ``turn off'' these heads, i.e., set their outputs to zero, the effect of contextual entrainment is significantly attenuated, causing the model to generate output that capitulates to what it would produce if no distracting context were provided. Our discovery of contextual entrainment, along with our investigation into LM distraction via the entrainment heads, marks a key step towards the mechanistic analysis and mitigation of the distraction problem.