Papers

The rapid growth of LLM-generated code increases software complexity and the maintenance burden on engineers. While LLMs offer a potential automated alternative, this structural complexity hinders their ability to manage codebases directly. We introduce the Provable Representation Of Original Functionality (PROOF), which manages codebases indirectly via structured specifications. To enable full-lifecycle codebase management strictly through these specifications, PROOF abstracts codebase topology into a hierarchical natural-language representation. To establish absolute trust, the system proves semantic equivalence by reconstructing source code exclusively from this specification. This verified foundation drives maintenance requests, executing code modifications while synchronously updating itself to prevent semantic drift. Experiments on real-world repositories confirm the effectiveness of these specifications.

Cross-lingual alignment (CLA) aims to align the representations of large language models (LLMs) across languages, enabling cross-lingual transfer to improve multilingual capabilities. Previous CLA methods often ignore language-specific information encoded in representations and only consider sentence-level alignment, which may lead to suboptimal performance and input-output language mismatch. We propose CAROT (Cross-Lingual Alignment of Representations in a Language-Agnostic Space via Optimal Transport), which consists of two steps: identifying language-specific representations in LLMs' internal states and aligning language-agnostic representations across languages at the token level by optimal transport, while explicitly preserving language-specific representations. Inference-time steering experiments show that the representations computed by CAROT are effective alignment targets, improving multilingual performance by up to 11.2 points in accuracy while maintaining input-output language consistency. We further use the representations obtained by CAROT as training targets, internalizing the aligned representations. The trained models outperform existing CLA methods in 11 of 18 evaluation settings (3 models $\times$ 3 tasks $\times$ ID/OOD languages). Our work provides insights into what constitutes effective alignment targets for CLA in LLMs. Code is available at https://github.com/ynklab/CAROT

A query-oblivious coreset for a softmax-attention head is a subset of the key-value pairs whose attention output is within $\varepsilon$ of the full one for every query in a ball. Liberty, Andoni and Kleiner proved that unweighted coresets of size $O(\sqrt d e^{\rho+\frac12\log\rho+o(\log\log\rho)}/\varepsilon)$ exist, $\rho$ the query radius times the centred key radius, against a lower bound $\Omega(\sqrt d e^{\rho}/\varepsilon)$, and conjectured that closing the gap needs new techniques. It does not: a spherical lift of both balls into one exponential-kernel instance lets the Bozzai-Rothvoss chaining bound apply, and Chevet's inequality splits key from value dimension, giving coresets of size $O(e^{\rho}(\sqrt{d_v}+\sqrt{d_k\log(1+\rho)})/\varepsilon)$ in randomised polynomial time, the first constructive whole-ball guarantee within $\sqrt{\log(1+\rho)}$ of the lower bound. A sampling cap $O(e^{2\rho}/\varepsilon^{2})$ completes the envelope; in fixed dimension Tai's diameter-free bound removes the logarithm, settling the Gaussian-restriction case of a Bozzai-Rothvoss question for the kernels. We give theLiberty-Andoni-Kleiner lower boud transfer the one-waycommunication bounds of Chen et r is the price of one signing forall queries. A census of every head of Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct and Llama-3-8B-Instruct finds $\rho$ at least 23.877, so everyactor $e^{\rho}/\varepsilon$prescribes a coreset larger than the cache: the algorithmic contribution is asymptotic on these models.

Can a diffusion language model generate a coherent token block in one forward pass? Masked models already predict every position at once, but each prediction is the marginal distribution given the visible context, so the tokens can be mutually inconsistent and later steps revise those already committed. We introduce CONDOR (Coupled-Noise Distillation for One-Step Readout), trained from scratch to map different noise samples to different coherent blocks. Initially, random noise is not naturally paired with a target. Winner-take-all supervision lets different samples specialize, and self-distillation trains the one-pass output to match the refined coherent block. TinyStories experiments show diverse, coherent continuations over successive blocks, one forward pass each. Qualitative MNIST experiments show that the same approach can extend to multimodal generation, such as text-to-image and unconditional text-and-image generation.

While deep research systems address interactive information-seeking needs impressively, their real-world deployments face latency and resource-consumption challenges. We present FrankenReport, an interface for long-form knowledge-seeking report generation that supports adaptive early exiting per section: it evaluates intermediate outputs during generation and predicts whether further targeted computation will yield significant quality gains. In a simulation study, FrankenReport outperforms random allocation baselines by a large margin (up to 4x) under low budgets and smoothly recovers full-pipeline quality as the budget grows, showing that future quality gains are predictable from intermediate drafts. Through experiments and user studies, we further show that despite varying preferences across users and topics, FrankenReport adapts to simple, natural user feedback as efficiently as methods requiring much costlier supervision such as generated drafts and explicit rationales.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used or proposed for educational scoring, but single-model and single-run evaluations provide limited evidence for assessment use. Short-answer scoring requires evidence about reliability, validity, severity, diagnostic value, and failure cases. This study evaluated repeated multi-model OCG-PRES guided LLM scoring for short-answer assessment. The analysis used 996 SciEntsBank responses. GPT, DeepSeek, and Qianwen each scored every response across three independent runs using five OCG-PRES dimensions: concept coverage, relation accuracy, reasoning completeness, contradiction control, and domain relevance. Scores were evaluated against official binary and five-category labels and compared with non-LLM baselines based on answer length, Jaccard keyword overlap, TF-IDF cosine similarity, and a combined traditional logistic model. Repeated-run reliability was high for all models, with ICC(3,k) = .977 for GPT, .992 for DeepSeek, and .981 for Qianwen. DeepSeek was the most stable across runs. GPT showed the strongest official-label alignment by AUC (.909), while Qianwen was stricter, with higher precision but lower recall under the fixed threshold = 3.0 rule. OCG-PRES scores followed expected diagnostic patterns across five official categories and outperformed all non-LLM baselines in AUC and F1. Repeated multi-model OCG-PRES scoring provides reliability, validity, and diagnostic evidence for LLM-assisted short-answer scoring. The findings support cautious, evidence-based use as a scoring support tool rather than a replacement for human judgement.

This paper treats prompt engineering as a discipline for turning informal human intent into structured AI work specifications. It develops the practice as a sequence of reusable design moves: define the work, construct only the context the answer depends on, choose a role, or a moderated panel of roles, as an attention lens, and state affirmative quality targets, reserving prohibitions for hard boundaries. To keep prompts lean, it adapts two classical principles, Occam's razor and Chekhov's gun, so that every instruction earns its place. For consequential tasks, it adds structured critique through steelmanning and premortems, followed by verification and, where tools or multi-step actions are involved, agentic operating loops with explicit boundaries and escalation. Aimed at a general readership, this tutorial is not a benchmarking study; it offers a practical, technically grounded path from casual prompting to disciplined AI workflow design, illustrated by a worked example that carries one task from a weak prompt to a strong specification. The framework is presented as principles and checklists that remain useful as models and tools change. The strongest prompt is rarely the longest prompt; it is the one that makes desired behaviour, required sources and checks, and success criteria unmistakable.

Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs) are essential for evidence-based research but remain time-consuming, requiring researchers to manage large volumes of publications across planning, screening, analysis, and reporting. Large language models (LLMs) can now produce fluent, well-structured review text, which makes it difficult to distinguish synthesis that was verified by a researcher from synthesis that merely appears authoritative. This raises the risk that unverified AI-generated synthesis enters the scholarly record carrying the credibility of a systematic review. We present CoSLR, a Human-AI collaborative multi-agent system that supports the SLR workflow through a modular three-phase pipeline using large language models and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), and that places explicit, mandatory human checkpoints on the path between generated output and its acceptance. In a survey-based study with 63 participants, the system was received positively: 27 of 63 participants (42.9 percent) rated its usability highly, indicating that the mandatory checkpoints did not come at the cost of a workable interface. However, a checkpoint safeguards the review only if researchers use it to verify: 22 of 63 participants (34.9 percent) reported that they would trust AI-generated summaries and reports without additional human checking after only a short interaction with the system. These findings indicate that Human-AI collaboration can support literature review work, but that the effectiveness of human oversight depends on whether users are willing to exercise it. This is a calibration problem that interface design must address directly, not assume.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to forecast real-world events by retrieving and reasoning over news. We show that this dependence on an open, crawlable news corpus creates a new attack surface: an adversary who can merely publish articles–without access to the retriever, the model, or the user's queries–can systematically move the forecaster's output probabilities. We formalize news-corpus poisoning of probabilistic forecasters, a threat model distinct from prior RAG poisoning, which targets factual answers or opinion polarity rather than calibrated probabilities. We evaluate the attack on 500 resolved ForecastBench questions against a 17.4M-article Common Crawl News corpus with a strict crawl-date cutoff, using three retrieval-augmented forecasters built on open 7-8B models. A single LLM-written article per question flips 56% of forecasts across the 0.5 boundary; five articles flip 69-73% and shift probabilities by +0.13 to +0.22 net of a neutral-article placebo, degrading the Brier score from 0.18 to 0.37. The effect is monotone in the number, retrieval rank, query similarity, and context share of injected articles, transfers across model families, and is unaffected by the claimed publisher. We then evaluate three natural defenses–source allow-lists, isolate-then-aggregate forecasting, and perplexity filtering–and show that each has a cheap bypass: spoofed publishers, majority poisoning, and higher-temperature generation, respectively. Our results indicate that probabilistic LLM judgments inherit the full fragility of the information supply chain they consume.

Large language models can produce fluent explanations for chess moves, but plausible language does not necessarily reflect the reasoning behind a decision. We study this question in chess, where the board state is fully observable, legal actions can be enumerated, and move quality can be evaluated independently. Across 200 Lichess endgame puzzles, we test explanations using move recoverability, decoder-side controls, and token-level scoring of legal candidate moves. Unmasked explanations make generated moves easy to recover, but this advantage drops sharply after explicit move hints are removed. Under strict masking, explanations provide only small and decoder-dependent gains over the board state alone. Token-level scoring shows that explanations can nevertheless alter move preferences: random but plausible explanations from other puzzles reduce the probability of the correct move, indicating that irrelevant reasoning text is not simply ignored. We also find that recognizable endgame motifs can make generated moves easier to recover without reliably improving move correctness. Together, these results show that linguistic plausibility, consistency with a generated action, and solution correctness are distinct properties. Fluent chess explanations can influence action preferences and support a coherent move narrative while providing only limited evidence of faithful reasoning.

Input-conditioned neural interventions raise a runtime question: what persists when one behavioral specification admits multiple actions whose validity depends on execution state? We introduce replay-gated neural execution, separating five objects: a persistent behavioral predicate, its state-indexed certified realization set, a transient action witness, a budget-limited finder, and execution authorization. Candidates undergo isolated FP32/BF16 replay of the frozen model; commitment additionally requires a valid run audit. Experiments on Qwen3-0.6B and SmolLM2-360M-Instruct establish distinct failure modes for these objects. Independent initializations yield distinct certified actions in all 24 tested fixed-state cells. Unchanged SmolLM2 witnesses remain certified in all 128 native states but only 66 of 384 off-diagonal transfers. All 767 archived Qwen witnesses replay successfully, yet a budget-limited finder misses one known-realizable cell in all three prespecified runs. Of 1,141 replay-submitted candidates, 174 fail item certification. A frozen three-tier cascade uses these boundaries to reject uncertified proposals and escalate audit-valid search misses. On 256 previously sealed Qwen Fresh requests, 221 first certify at the lowest-cost tier and all 256 receive audited authorization, with no observed bypass. Relative to frozen full search, the median singleton search-and-certification cost ratio is 0.1055 and P95 is 1.3485, including failed tiers. Within the studied behavioral family on two small models, these results support state-indexed, set-valued execution semantics: specifications persist, search proposes witnesses, and replay certification plus run audit grants execution authority.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) often struggle with hallucinations, thus hindering their reliable practical applications. Existing attention-based mitigation methods mainly rely on indirect signals (e.g., attention weights) that fail to accurately reflect the actual information shift underlying hallucination generation. In this paper, we propose HEAL, Head-lEvel information disentAnglement and caLibration for identifying and mitigating hallucinations. HEAL first employs causal noise intervention on multi-head outputs to filter out causally redundant heads. Subsequently, it disentangles information distribution within the remaining heads via the counterfactual Difference-in-Differences, categorizing heads into four types. Through analysis, we observe: hallucinations happen when information distribution drifts away from a healthy equilibrium in synergy heads, not strongly correlated with the quantity or strength of modality-specific heads. Motivated by this insight, HEAL injects dynamic information calibration factors into the value vectors of synergy heads and actively regulates visual-language dependencies, steering the output distribution towards factual evidence. Extensive experiments demonstrate that HEAL effectively reduces hallucinations across multiple MLLMs, offering a simple and interpretable pathway to enhance model trustworthiness.

Handshape and orientation are geometric components of sign language, yet many sign encoders learn from appearance alone. We introduce SignDEG (DINO Eats Geometry), a temporal sign encoder that uses articulated hand geometry as a pre-training target and requires only video at inference. Frozen DINOv3 features of tracked hands and faces feed per-stream temporal Transformers. Geometric latent prediction (GLP) supervises an intermediate block with WiLoR latents, MANO articulation, and 3D joints, including at masked frames. Geometric relation transfer (GRT) matches cross-video frame-similarity distributions at the final block. Both objectives are learned jointly with temporal self-distillation; WiLoR and the geometry heads are then discarded. Under the SHuBERT public-data evaluation protocol, SignDEG reaches 17.9/24.5 BLEU-4 on How2Sign/OpenASL, compared with 16.2/23.2 for SHuBERT. Rank-1 adaptation improves ASL Citizen and Sem-Lex recognition by 0.02 Recall@1 each, and phonological classification improves across 16 attributes. Removing GRT while retaining GLP reduces How2Sign BLEU-4 by 1.4 and ASL Citizen Recall@1 by 0.034. The results support transferring articulated structure into an appearance encoder without running a hand reconstruction model at deployment.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in alignment-sensitive contexts, activation steering has emerged as a lightweight, inference-time alternative to fine-tuning methods (e.g., RLHF, DPO) for behavioral control. However, existing work typically validates steering on isolated behaviors, leaving it unclear whether steering vectors encode coherent semantic structure or merely exploit behavior-specific shortcuts. We investigate whether the latent geometry of LLM steering vectors reflects theory-specified structure in human values and morality. Using Schwartz's Theory of Basic Human Values as our primary fine-grained framework, we introduce a 26K-sample benchmark covering 20 human values and analyze distribution-driven methods (e.g., CAA, SphericalSteer, ODESteer) and behavior-centric approaches (e.g., COLD-Steer, BiPO) across diverse model families and sizes. We find that distribution-driven methods recover human value topologies aligned with theoretical predictions (Spearman $\rho$ up to 0.51, $p < 10^{-13}$). In contrast, behavior-centric methods achieve comparable steering performance but show little correlation with the expected value geometry. Geometric fidelity improves with model scale but drops after instruction tuning. Finally, better geometric alignment also leads to more human-consistent transfer across values: steering one value correctly lifts compatible values and suppresses opposing ones. Code and data are available at: https://github.com/DeepRCL/Steering_Geometry.

Medieval documentary sources remain inadequately served by existing natural language processing tools. None of the five readily available Latin treebank models attains usable performance on a collection of 160 inventories compiled in Marseille between 1258 and 1446. The best labelled attachment score is 0.62 and the best morphology-aware score is 0.24. Performance does not correlate with either genre or period proximity. To address this shortfall, in-domain training data was generated as a by-product of using these inadequate models. In each of nine iterations, a model pre-annotated 200 sentences; an expert corrected the annotations; and the corrected sentences were used to train the subsequent model, with batches sampled independently of model state, without active-learning selection. Thirty-three hours of annotation effort over 1,804 sentences increased universal part-of-speech accuracy from 0.80 to 0.98 and labelled attachment from 0.48 to 0.92, outperforming all baselines on the reported metrics while using 97% less training data than the largest one of them. Annotator effort declined from 54% of tokens to a plateau of 14-18%, an operational progress metric that requires no separate gold standard and can serve as a stopping criterion.

Moderation APIs are built to flag policy-violating content, not to measure graded clinical risk. But a platform's duty does not end at detection: the response owed to passive distress differs sharply from the response owed to active planning with means access, and emerging regulation (e.g., California Senate Bill 243) is turning that distinction into a compliance requirement. We therefore ask how well deployed safety signals recover clinically meaningful severity. We release a benchmark of 516 r/SuicideWatch posts rated by a licensed psychiatrist on a four-level ordinal schema (Indicator, Ideation, Behavior, Attempt) grounded in the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale, and evaluate moderation APIs, prompted LLMs, and supervised baselines under seven ordinal-aware metrics. Three findings. Vendor moderation APIs separate low- from high-severity posts well (0.860 high-risk F1) but measure severity poorly (0.395 macro F1), systematically over-predicting the most severe category. Clinically grounded zero-shot prompting recovers much of that gap (0.562 macro F1), and expert-authored framing (not fine-tuning, added reasoning, or naive multi-agent aggregation) is the effective lever. The value of reasoning depends on register: it hurts on long, noisy Reddit posts and helps on short, clinician-authored statements. We argue graded severity, not a binary flag, is what a proportionate duty of care requires, and release our evaluation framework to support that measurement.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) perform strongly on general visual understanding tasks such as visual question answering, yet they often struggle with a basic comparative skill: identifying what has changed between two similar images. We introduce VDiff-Bench, a challenging multiple-choice benchmark for fine-grained Image Difference Identification. VDiff-Bench contains 1,756 four-way questions over image pairs and covers 10 change categories: position, motion, regional image color, overall image color, appearance/disappearance, noise/resolution, texture, substitution/size, OCR/text, and illumination. Each question corresponds to two image inputs with 4 choices: the true difference, two hard negative descriptions, and a "no difference" distractor. To make the task challenging, we specifically curate ground-truth-conditioned negatives that require models to distinguish the actual change from nearby semantic alternatives. Experiments with 11 state-of-the-art open- and closed-source MLLMs show that fine-grained visual comparison remains brittle: models exhibit uneven performance across sources and change categories, with persistent failures on subtle low-level changes like noises and textures. For instance, three 7-8B-scale open-source MLLMs score 52.5-70.6% on semantic changes but only 8.7-33.3% on low-level changes like noise and texture, falsely assuming no changes between two image inputs. Surprisingly, despite strong performance of other closed-source commercial models, Grok 4.3 demonstrate remarkable performance drop on identifying noise and texture differences between images, falling significantly behind large open-source models like Kimi K2.5 and K3. Overall, VDiff-Bench provides a targeted diagnostic for evaluating comparative visual understanding in MLLMs, exposing failures that are not captured by standard single-image vision-language tasks.

LLMs have achieved remarkable capabilities in generating language teaching slides. However, a critical mismatch persists between visual polish and actual instructional effectiveness. To address this gap, we introduce SLATE (Slide-based Learning Assessment for Teaching Effectiveness), the first benchmark that evaluates AI-generated language teaching slides through instructional effectiveness and learner knowledge acquisition. SLATE transforms linguistics olympiad puzzles from low-resource languages with negligible web presence into 90 standardized instructional units comprising 1,133 assessable items, paired with a structured course outline and matched near- and far-transfer test sets. This pretest-posttest design eliminates pretrained knowledge leakage, ensuring gains reflect learning rather than prior recall. Using VLMs as scalable learner proxies and directionally supported by a three-system human pilot, our results show that content validity exhibits a weak association with learning gain, while pedagogical design exhibits a robust positive association. Moreover, most systems show a significant gap between near- and far-transfer accuracy, and even frontier models can produce negative learning gains. SLATE reveals a dissociation between artifact quality and instructional effectiveness, calling for a paradigm shift in how generative teaching systems are built, evaluated, and deployed.

Ask a language model the same question about the same document twenty times, and it sometimes returns two different answers. We built Probity, a benchmark of 60 tasks and 470 items from real venture-financing filings, to measure how often this happens. Then we audited our own corpus and found a defect any excerpt-built benchmark can carry: items whose evidence is missing from the window of text the model is shown. The audit flags 36 items and separates two failures a single flag would conflate: evidence genuinely absent from the window and answers that must be computed from numbers the window does supply. Flagged items change their answers far more often, wobbling at 0.255 against 0.087 on the 427 clean items, and excluding them cuts apparent cross-model agreement by about a fifth. Before testing whether the missing evidence explains the instability, we registered a prediction: re-cut each window to hold its evidence, and instability should fall below a set threshold. It failed: the repair moved wobble by 0.058, with an interval containing zero. We report the association as correlational. Almost all measurements sit where instability cannot show, which bounds what a corpus built for accuracy can say about stability. We release the corpus, all 112,800 raw responses, and the audit as a runnable check for any document benchmark.

Agents that talk across organizations exchange long messages billed by the token. A shorter notation therefore looks like a saving that costs nothing but an agreement to use it. Recent work reports the saving is conditional. Compressed notation can instead raise total tokens by 8% to 11% over a JSON baseline, when parsing failures force extra model calls. That is measured for one payer. Between two organizations neither side can install a decoder at the other end, and each pays under its own tokenizer, price, and cache state. We measure both sides. A preregistered token-level study covered 198 content-matched item pairs across six vendors, for 2,376 native-usage cells. We then overlay an English baseline, runtime schema negotiation followed by compression, and injected-schema compression on a two-party procurement bargain with an exactly enumerated feasible set. The overlay covers 1,053 completed dialogues of a 1,215-cell grid across 3 model pairs, plus a 405-dialogue rerun of the negotiated condition. Compression amplifies cross-vendor cost dispersion by a factor of 1.078, with a 95% CI of [1.066, 1.091], and two vendor pairs reverse which endpoint is cheaper. Runtime negotiation succeeds as a protocol and fails as a bargain. The parties agree a schema in 121 of 135 headline dialogues, none of them the schema we would have supplied. They settle the task in only 9 of those dialogues, and they reach impasse in 106 of them. The negotiated sessions average 10.8 turns against 17.6, and cost 52% of the English total because sessions end sooner, not because the handshake is repaid. Break-even horizons run from 20 to 70 turns, the low end only under the conditional accounting, and all of them lie above every observed English session. On one cross-vendor pair both parties keep about half their cost. On the other the receiving party pays more at a high cache-hit rate.

Stock market analysis inherently requires composite reasoning over historical records and future projections, yet existing benchmarks remain fragmented across isolated tasks. We introduce STQA (Stock-focused Tabular Question Answering), an end-to-end benchmark designed to systematically evaluate natural-language question answering over historical data, numerical forecasts, and forecast-based reasoning. Built on a large-scale financial dataset, STQA covers 4,417 stocks and contains 31,400 question-answer pairs derived from expert-crafted templates, accompanied by fine-grained intent and slot annotations. To operationalize this benchmark, we present SQFRS (Stock Query-Forecast-Reasoning System), an agent-based unified framework that orchestrates SQL retrieval and time-series forecasting tools. Experiments demonstrate that while current large language models perform well on historical queries, forecast-based reasoning poses a substantial challenge, revealing critical bottlenecks in tool coordination and reasoning under uncertainty. The dataset and code are available at https://github.com/xuxubaobaoan/STQA_Project. STQA thus serves as a rigorous testbed for future research on trustworthy, tool-augmented financial agents.

Target-Stance Extraction (TSE) is the task of predicting both the target (or topic) of an author's writing and the author's stance toward it. Existing approaches to TSE use a sequential pipeline of two separate neural models: one to identify the target and another to determine the stance. We present a one-pass, joint architecture that predicts both in a single forward pass, reducing trainable parameters by nearly 50% with only a 4-7 F1 point tradeoff in performance. We further demonstrate that standard target-scrubbing practices artificially suppress target prediction accuracy. Retaining explicit target mentions, as in real-world deployments, improves F1 by at least 6 points across both target classification and target generation settings. These improvements allow for significantly easier integration of TSE in downstream applications such as public opinion tracking.

Data policies for reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) determine which rollouts are used, how strongly they are weighted, and which domains contribute to subsequent training batches. We introduce DataFlex-RL, an evaluation platform for comparing these choices under a common GRPO recipe. Our primary experiment evaluates 13 configurations across 12 matched seeds using Qwen2.5-7B-Base and 12 mathematics, logic, and science benchmarks. Uniform GRPO improves the domain-balanced average accuracy by 7.76 percentage points over the untrained checkpoint. None of the eight rollout-selection or reweighting methods achieves a paired 95% confidence interval that excludes zero relative to uniform sampling, and none of the three adaptive mixtures outperforms a fixed equal mixture at the same level of precision. A corrected 12-seed extension on Llama-3.1-8B-Base places the additional methods on the same score scale as the original controls, but does not reveal a consistent winner in terms of observed mean performance. We also quantify evaluation sensitivity by rescoring nine Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct runs using a math-heavy six-benchmark summary, consisting of five mathematics benchmarks and GPQA-Diamond but no logic benchmark, and comparing it with the domain-balanced 12-benchmark summary. The resulting rankings are negatively correlated, with a correlation coefficient of -0.33, whereas summaries that retain all 12 benchmarks largely agree. Across the controlled settings studied here, changing the data policy measurably changes the training process but does not produce a reproducible improvement over uniform training.

Verifiable rewards improve language models through reliable task-level feedback, but methods based on Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) apply a sequence-level advantage uniformly across all tokens. This coarse credit assignment reinforces or penalizes entire responses without identifying which local decisions to preserve, reinforce, or revise. Conversely, evidence-conditioned self-distillation provides denser token-level supervision, yet teacher imitation can transfer stylistic artifacts and miscalibrated confidence that destabilize training when misaligned with task success. We introduce VERPO, which converts evidence-conditioned guidance into reward-aligned token-level credit assignment while retaining the outcome objective. VERPO decomposes teacher guidance into an evidence-free reference term and signed, evidence-induced corrections at each token. A stopped controller combines selective acceptance, token-wise localization, and cost-aware scaling by balancing alignment with the local GRPO update direction against Fisher movement cost. Furthermore, we introduce Fisher Evidence Contrast (FEC), which attenuates nuisance shifts along an estimated evidence-presence direction through a regularized projection. Across five scientific reasoning and tool-use tasks, VERPO prevents optimization collapse and consistently achieves the highest multi-task average across model backbones, yielding marked improvements particularly on smaller models over strong baselines. Qualitative diagnostics confirm that token acceptance selectively targets reasoning bottlenecks consistent with local reward alignment and Fisher movement cost.

Parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) of mixture-of-experts (MoE) models commonly attaches a separate low-rank adapter to each expert. This expert-wise design fragments adaptation in three ways: capacity is split across narrow low-rank updates, gradient supervision becomes sparse and imbalanced under sparse routing, and execution is decomposed into many small GEMMs. We find that such expert-wise separation is often unnecessary, as subsets of LoRA adapters become functionally similar during fine-tuning, revealing redundancy among expert-specific adapters. Based on this redundancy, we propose ACE (Adapter Consolidation across Experts), which groups redundant experts and replaces their expert-specific adapters with group-shared higher-rank LoRA modules under the same PEFT budget. ACE further introduces grouped adapter execution, which consolidates fragmented expert-wise adapter computations into fewer, larger group-level GEMMs. Across evaluations covering 12 datasets and four MoE backbones, ACE achieves the highest observed mean accuracy among the parameter-matched PEFT methods on the three backbones with complete baseline coverage, while providing $1.31\times$ to $1.48\times$ wall-clock training speedup over expert-wise LoRA without increasing peak memory. Our code is available at https://github.com/UbiquitousAILab/ACE.

This paper presents Dependency-Phrase Hierarchy Parser (DPH Parser), a grammar-driven bottom-up unsupervized parsing framework inspired by Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar (GPSG) and Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG). The parser incrementally constructs constituency structures using a compact inventory of feature-based syntactic rules while deriving dependency relations through explicit head annotations. The system combines probabilistic POS tagging, recursive phrase projection, and weighted parse hypotheses to process realistic and partially noisy text input. Unlike purely neural and data-driven parsers, the resulting syntactic derivations remain explicitly interpretable. We evaluated parser performance on English corpora from the Universal Dependencies (UD) project using Unlabeled Attachment Score (UAS) as the main parsing metric, comparing the outcomes against Stanza and spaCy parsers. For a small inventory of syntactic rules, DPH parser achieved UAS values of 53.32% & 52.58% (UD Devset/Testset respectively). For the same data, Stanza achieved 89.12% & 88.67% while spaCy achieved 56.91% and 58.59%. Although the current system does not yet approach the accuracy of modern neural parsers, the results demonstrate the feasibility of applying transparent rule-based bottom-up parsing to realistic treebank data while jointly producing constituency and dependency structures.

Retrieval-augmented multi-hop question answering (QA) decomposes a query into sub-questions and decomposes the corpus into smaller retrieval units such as sentences. Both forms of decomposition improve the pipeline, but we show that both share the same vulnerability, the loss of entity information, and that this loss breaks the pipeline at two separate points. The first point is retrieval, where a sub-question loses the entity resolved at the previous hop, leaving the retriever with nothing to match against. The second point is harder to see, because retrieval still appears to succeed. Once a passage is split into sentences, an isolated sentence loses the context that grounds its pronouns, so even with the correct sentence in hand the LLM cannot tell which entity the sentence is about. We isolate this second point as a distinct failure mode that we call lost-in-generation, and a retrieval-controlled experiment shows that it degrades answers even when the gold evidence is fixed in the context. We then propose Dual Entity Recovery RAG (DER-RAG), which keeps the grounding entity explicit from retrieval through to generation with two lightweight components, a two-way query decomposition that carries the resolved entity across sub-questions and a subject entity prefix attached to each sentence at generation time. DER-RAG needs no graph construction, no corpus modification, and no fine-tuning, yet on three multi-hop QA benchmarks it matches or exceeds strong baselines, including graph-based methods that depend on costly offline structures.

As vision-language models (VLMs) become increasingly capable and are deployed in consequential real-world settings, they must evaluate evidence independently rather than defer uncritically to human authority. We introduce GradeTrap, a controlled evaluation that places two social cues in direct conflict: a student answer, which should attract sycophantic agreement, and a conflicting answer attributed to a peer, teacher, or official answer key, which should attract authority-based deference. Models produce free-form answers while being explicitly instructed to solve independently and ignore all student answers, feedback, and grading marks. We test the models on 60 synthetic real-world trade-off scenarios. Five neutral trials establish a stable model-relative preference, followed by three repetitions of six experimental cues including controls. On the 45-item common intersection across Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite, GPT-5.6 Luna, and Claude Haiku 4.5, a generic second-answer control yields 5.4% conflicting-answer selection. Relative to that control, pooled within-item changes show no reliable peer-review effect, a 6.9-point teacher-review effect, and a 19.5-point official-key effect. In contrast, a displayed conflicting student answer alone compared to a displayed student reference answer alone only raises selection from 2.2% to 5.2%. Official-key provenance therefore redirects judgements more than a student answer or the generic second-answer control, despite an explicit ignore instruction and an opposing student answer given along with the official key. Effects vary in magnitude across the three models.

As machine translation (MT) systems continue to improve, standard benchmarks become less informative for exposing remaining weaknesses. Traditional methods for creating challenging test sets rely on expensive manual creation or curation, while automated approaches struggle to produce sets with the necessary translation difficulty and linguistic diversity. We propose a scalable reinforcement-learning-based approach for rewriting existing source texts into instances that are more difficult to translate for MT systems. We fine-tune a large language model with Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), using reward signals based on translation difficulty together with constraints for semantic similarity, grammaticality, and approximate length preservation. On WMT25, our approach substantially reduces average COMET translation quality from 0.63 to 0.48, while preserving grammaticality and readability, whereas the base model remains at 0.64. Evaluations on the unseen WMT19-WMT24 benchmarks confirm that this behavior generalizes beyond the training data, and human evaluation further shows that the rewrites substantially lower translation quality while incurring a moderate drop in naturalness and only a small change in grammaticality. We release our code to support reproducibility.

Given various grammatical options, language users prefer the word order choice that reduces the overall length of syntactic dependencies, a principle known as dependency length minimization (DLM). The origins of this preference remain an open question, particularly whether it originates from constraints on efficient information processing. Computational simulations provide a powerful approach to identifying the factors influencing the emergence of linguistic phenomena. However, previous simulations of DLM have not examined realistic interaction contexts and have produced mixed results. The present study investigates the emergence of DLM in artificial languages using a recently proposed language learning and communication framework based on recurrent neural networks (RNNs). In this framework, agents are trained to speak and interpret artificial languages and then use these languages to communicate. Using this framework, we study the impact of several factors related to processing limitations in a communicative setting, such as noise during listening, limited speaker capacity, and incremental sentence processing. Our results reveal a complex interplay among these factors in shaping word order preferences in neural agents. Specifically, in the full meaning space, agents regularize toward a single dominant word order, while in the half meaning space they show a short-before-long preference that only aligns with DLM in verb-initial languages. A consistent DLM preference emerges only when agents are subject to incremental processing pressure. These findings suggest that limitations in human cognitive processing may indeed play a role in shaping DLM. Our findings provide insights into the conditions under which neural models replicate human-like preferences and highlight the challenges of designing emergent communication models that capture human cognitive biases in language processing.