Language is typically modelled with discrete sequences. However, the most successful approaches to language modelling, namely neural networks, are continuous and smooth function approximators. In this work, we show that Transformer-based language models implicitly learn to represent sentences as continuous-time functions defined over a continuous input space. This phenomenon occurs in most state-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs), including Llama2, Llama3, Phi3, Gemma, Gemma2, and Mistral, and suggests that LLMs reason about language in ways that fundamentally differ from humans. Our work formally extends Transformers to capture the nuances of time and space continuity in both input and output space. Our results challenge the traditional interpretation of how LLMs understand language, with several linguistic and engineering implications.

Recent interest in Multi-Agent Systems of Large Language Models (MAS LLMs) has led to an increase in frameworks leveraging multiple LLMs to tackle complex tasks. However, much of this literature appropriates the terminology of MAS without engaging with its foundational principles. In this position paper, we highlight critical discrepancies between MAS theory and current MAS LLMs implementations, focusing on four key areas: the social aspect of agency, environment design, coordination and communication protocols, and measuring emergent behaviours. Our position is that many MAS LLMs lack multi-agent characteristics such as autonomy, social interaction, and structured environments, and often rely on oversimplified, LLM-centric architectures. The field may slow down and lose traction by revisiting problems the MAS literature has already addressed. Therefore, we systematically analyse this issue and outline associated research opportunities; we advocate for better integrating established MAS concepts and more precise terminology to avoid mischaracterisation and missed opportunities.

In the context of adversarial robustness, we make three strongly related contributions. First, we prove that while attacking ReLU classifiers is $\mathit{NP}$-hard, ensuring their robustness at training time is $\Sigma^2_P$-hard (even on a single example). This asymmetry provides a rationale for the fact that robust classifications approaches are frequently fooled in the literature. Second, we show that inference-time robustness certificates are not affected by this asymmetry, by introducing a proof-of-concept approach named Counter-Attack (CA). Indeed, CA displays a reversed asymmetry: running the defense is $\mathit{NP}$-hard, while attacking it is $\Sigma_2^P$-hard. Finally, motivated by our previous result, we argue that adversarial attacks can be used in the context of robustness certification, and provide an empirical evaluation of their effectiveness. As a byproduct of this process, we also release UG100, a benchmark dataset for adversarial attacks.