Daily Papers

Decision models support routing, guardrails, and output verification in LLM systems. However, item accuracy alone cannot establish whether models make correct decisions across controlled variations or assign reliable confidence to their predictions. We introduce DecisionPivot, a diagnostic benchmark comprising 48 tasks and 40,033 items across seven decision roles. Its core track contains 7,800 items from 13 generated task families, organized into contrast groups with computed answers verified by independently implemented solvers. The complementary reference track contains 32,233 items from 35 public test sets, preserving their original evaluation metrics. We evaluate 40 decision models and 14 general models using documented, model-specific protocols, assessing item and contrast-group accuracy, probability ordering, calibration, and empirical selective coverage. Our results reveal substantial differences obscured by aggregate scores: two 27B models separated by only 2.6 points on the reference track achieve contrast-group accuracies of 70.1% and 44.2%. Across 2,400 binary contrast pairs, Perplexity Decider correctly ranks the positive member above the negative member in 92.3% of pairs but answers both members correctly in only 74.1%, exposing a gap between probability ordering and decision correctness. Models with similar item accuracy also differ in the reliability of their high-confidence predictions. On a separate 1,296-item subset, GLM-5.3 achieves 93.5\% contrast-group accuracy at a higher reasoning setting, compared with 81.5% at its lowest effort. By linking errors to pivotal details and difficulty levels, DecisionPivot provides fine-grained diagnostics of decision failures that aggregate evaluation alone cannot reveal.

Evaluating model uncertainty on real-world data is challenging because each instance provides only a single observed label, leaving true conditional class probabilities unknown. To address this, we introduce ProbabilityBench, a benchmark that provides exact, instance-level class probabilities across three simulated text-based domains: peer review, covert information transfer, and credit risk. By explicitly defining the full data-generating process for each environment, we analytically compute both exact class probabilities and Bayes error. Furthermore, we provide a theoretical guarantee that rendering these cases into natural-language memos strictly preserves their underlying generative probabilities. This exactness enables direct measurement of reported probability quality via KL divergence. Across 16 evaluated models, most models on the observed cost-quality Pareto frontiers are decision models, including Jev and Perplexity Decider. Finally, ProbabilityBench serves as a meta-evaluation framework, leveraging known ground-truth values to benchmark the accuracy of standard calibration metrics and Bayes-error estimators themselves.

Reinforcement Learning (RL) has enabled LLMs to excel in objective reasoning tasks such as mathematics and code generation. However, applying RL to open-ended tasks, such as creative writing, remains challenging because LLM-as-a-judge reward models often exhibit stylistic biases and positional inconsistencies, leading to unstable supervision. To address this, we propose OPERA (Objective Perplexity-based Reflective Alignment), which replaces unreliable external judges with intrinsic rewards derived from perplexity dynamics. Specifically, we derive an intrinsic reward signal from perplexity dynamics, quantifying uncertainty reduction at critical reflective states. During the cold-start phase, we introduce a data synthesis method that leverages carefully designed guiding words to generate diverse reasoning traces, along with perplexity-prioritized rollouts that utilize internal log-probabilities to identify logically consistent reasoning branches. This pipeline yields a large-scale dataset comprising 20,000 high-quality reasoning trajectories. Empirical evaluations consistently demonstrate the scalability and efficacy of our approach in alignment for open-ended tasks. Implementing OPERA on Qwen3-8B establishes a new state-of-the-art among open-source models, achieving parity with or surpassing proprietary models like Gemini2.5 and MiniMax-M2.5 in some open-ended tasks. The code is available at https://github.com/pangpang-xuan/OPERA.

As the probability (and thus perplexity) of a text is calculated based on the product of the probabilities of individual tokens, it may happen that one unlikely token significantly reduces the probability (i.e., increase the perplexity) of some otherwise highly probable input, while potentially representing a simple typographical error. Also, given that perplexity is a scalar value that refers to the entire input, information about the probability distribution within it is lost in the calculation (a relatively good text that has one unlikely token and another text in which each token is equally likely they can have the same perplexity value), especially for longer texts. As an alternative to scalar perplexity this research proposes a simple algorithm used to calculate vector values based on n-gram perplexities within the input. Such representations consider the previously mentioned aspects, and instead of a unique value, the relative perplexity of each text token is calculated, and these values are combined into a single vector representing the input.

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable reasoning capabilities. However, single-shot inference often yields unreliable results for complex reasoning tasks, leading researchers to explore multiple reasoning paths through methods such as perplexity and self-consistency. In this paper, we present the first theoretical error decomposition analysis of these techniques, breaking down their error into estimation error and model error. Our analysis reveals a fundamental trade-off: perplexity methods suffer from substantial model error due to the absence of a proper consistency function, while self-consistency exhibits high estimation error due to a slow error convergence rate. To overcome these limitations, we propose Reasoning-Pruning Perplexity Consistency (RPC). This approach combines Perplexity Consistency, which seamlessly integrates LLM perplexity with self-consistency, and Reasoning Pruning, which eliminates low-probability reasoning paths to effectively prevent the degeneration of estimation error reduction. Theoretical analysis demonstrates that RPC not only accelerates the convergence rate of estimation error to an exponential level but also holds strong potential for further reducing model error. Extensive empirical evaluations on seven benchmark datasets confirm that RPC can significantly improve reasoning performance, sample efficiency, and confidence reliability.

Expert pruning reduces the memory and serving cost of Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) models by removing low-importance experts identified by the router, assuming router probabilities provide a reliable importance signal. We observe that this assumption breaks down under over-dispersed routing, a regime associated with aggressive load-balancing during training, in which tokens are distributed nearly uniformly across experts and importance signals collapse. In this regime, perplexity does not predict downstream task accuracy: on gpt-oss-20B, the lowest-perplexity pruning configuration yields the worst mathematical reasoning, while the highest-perplexity configuration preserves it. This does not occur under standard routing (e.g., Mixtral-8x7B-Instruct), where perplexity and accuracy degrade together. Pruning under over-dispersed routing also exposes a capability trade-off in which no single scoring metric dominates: activation-aware scoring preserves mathematical reasoning but severely degrades knowledge-intensive science (an 18-point gap on GPQA), whereas frequency-based scoring exhibits the reverse. We propose Minimax Expert Score Allocation (MESA), a domain-aware method that iteratively boosts importance scores for experts serving whichever domain is currently worst-affected, minimizing worst-case domain degradation rather than average accuracy. At 25% expert pruning MESA achieves the smallest worst-case degradation across domains, outperforming activation-aware baselines on 7 of 11 benchmarks at a correspondingly reduced memory footprint, and it generalizes to gpt-oss-120B, Gemma-4-26B-A4B, and OLMoE-1B-7B. Our results indicate that over-dispersed routing is a qualitatively distinct pruning regime in which standard assumptions fail, and that recognizing it is a prerequisite for principled expert pruning of load-balanced MoE models.

Mixed-precision quantization (MPQ) has become a key technique for deploying large language models under stringent memory and compute constraints. We first identify a phenomenon that we term the Perplexity Illusion: layers ranked as important by perplexity-based sensitivity show little rank correlation with those that are most influential for complex reasoning performance, with Kendall τapprox 0 in our analysis. We further reveal an Alignment-Diversity Tradeoff: using only target-task calibration data can degrade post-quantization performance, whereas incorporating general-domain data stabilizes sensitivity estimation and improves robustness across tasks. Based on these observations, we propose TASA (Task-Aware Sensitivity Analysis), a two-level framework that jointly optimizes calibration-data composition and mixed-precision bit allocation. Specifically, TASA searches for a calibration-data mixture using a training-free gradient-trace alignment criterion, and then aggregates perplexity and reasoning-oriented sensitivity signals to guide both inter-layer and intra-layer bit allocation. Experiments on LLaMA-3-8B and Qwen2.5-7B reveal a precision inversion: appropriately allocated 3.5-bit models can match or surpass less task-aware 4-bit baselines. At an average precision of 3.5 bits, TASA matches or outperforms several competitive 4-bit uniform baselines in aggregate accuracy, and improves over the strongest W3 baseline on GSM8K by more than 20 absolute points on LLaMA-3-8B. These results show that calibration-data composition substantially affects task-sensitive quantization, a factor underexplored in prior work.

Detecting abnormal events in real-world customer service dialogues is highly challenging due to the complexity of business data and the dynamic nature of customer interactions. Moreover, models must demonstrate strong out-of-domain (OOD) generalization to enable rapid adaptation across different business scenarios and maximize commercial value. In this work, we propose a novel Adaptive Perplexity-Aware Reinforcement Learning (APARL) framework that leverages the advanced reasoning capabilities of large language models for abnormal event detection. APARL introduces a dual-loop dynamic curriculum learning architecture, enabling the model to progressively focus on more challenging samples as its proficiency increases. This design effectively addresses performance bottlenecks and significantly enhances OOD transferability. Extensive evaluations on food delivery dialogue tasks show that our model achieves significantly enhanced adaptability and robustness, attaining the highest F1 score with an average improvement of 17.19\%, and an average improvement of 9.59\% in OOD transfer tests. This method provides a superior solution for industrial deployment of anomaly detection models, contributing to improved operational efficiency and commercial benefits.

Test-time scaling seeks to improve the reasoning performance of large language models (LLMs) by adding computational resources. A prevalent approach within the field is sampling-based test-time scaling methods, which enhance reasoning by generating multiple reasoning paths for a given input during inference. However, despite its practical success, the theoretical foundations remain underexplored. In this paper, we provide the first theoretical framework for analyzing sampling-based test-time scaling methods, grounded in the perspective of confidence estimation. Based on the framework, we analyze two dominant paradigms: self-consistency and perplexity, and reveal key limitations: self-consistency suffers from high estimation error while perplexity exhibits substantial modeling error and possible degradation of the estimation error convergence. To address these limitations, we introduce RPC, a hybrid method that leverages our theoretical insights through two key components: Perplexity Consistency and Reasoning Pruning. Perplexity Consistency combines the strengths of self-consistency and perplexity, boosting the convergence rate of estimation error from linear to exponential while preserving model error. Reasoning Pruning prevents degradation by eliminating low-probability reasoning paths. Both theoretical analysis and empirical results across seven benchmark datasets demonstrate that RPC has a strong potential for reducing reasoning error. Notably, RPC achieves reasoning performance comparable to self-consistency while not only enhancing confidence reliability but also reducing sampling costs by 50%. The code and resources are available at https://wnjxyk.github.io/RPC.

We release the Tajik Web Corpus (319k docs, 1.11B chars) and benchmark generative LLMs on prompt continuation in Tajik, a low-resource Cyrillic-script language. Seventeen configurations across nine architectures are evaluated under three fine-tuning strategies: full fine-tuning, LoRA, and QLoRA (ranks 8 and 16). Because perplexity is not directly comparable across model families with different tokenizers, generation quality is assessed through perplexity interpreted within each family, complemented by qualitative analysis performed by a native Tajik speaker. Computational cost is measured via GPU memory and training time. The best quality-cost trade-off is achieved by Mistral 7B with QLoRA rank 8: perplexity 5.11 (within its tokenizer family), coherent Tajik output confirmed by the native speaker, 14.21 GB GPU memory, and approximately 33 minutes of training. Increasing the rank to 16 yields a negligible improvement for Mistral (perplexity 5.03, pairwise p > 0.05) while consuming about 1 GB more memory. Full fine-tuning of small GPT-2 models obtains lower numeric perplexity but leads to catastrophic forgetting (English or gibberish output); in contrast, QLoRA preserves multilingual pretrained knowledge and generates meaningful Tajik text. Encoder-only models perform worst (perplexity approximately 59), confirming their unsuitability for autoregressive generation. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic PEFT benchmark for Tajik text generation. Practical recommendations include using Mistral 7B with QLoRA r=8, avoiding full fine-tuning of small GPT-2 models, and adopting the released corpus and benchmark.

As large language models (LLMs) are pretrained on massive web corpora, careful selection of data becomes essential to ensure effective and efficient learning. While perplexity (PPL)-based filtering has shown strong performance, it suffers from drawbacks: substantial time costs and inherent unreliability of the model when handling noisy or out-of-distribution samples. In this work, we propose a simple yet powerful alternative: a prior-based data filtering method that estimates token priors using corpus-level term frequency statistics, inspired by linguistic insights on word roles and lexical density. Our approach filters documents based on the mean and standard deviation of token priors, serving as a fast proxy to PPL while requiring no model inference. Despite its simplicity, the prior-based filter achieves the highest average performance across 20 downstream benchmarks, while reducing time cost by over 1000x compared to PPL-based filtering. We further demonstrate its applicability to symbolic languages such as code and math, and its dynamic adaptability to multilingual corpora without supervision

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) is highly effective for enhancing LLM reasoning, yet recent evidence shows models like Qwen 2.5 achieve significant gains even with spurious or incorrect rewards. We investigate this phenomenon and identify a "Perplexity Paradox": spurious RLVR triggers a divergence where answer-token perplexity drops while prompt-side coherence degrades, suggesting the model is bypassing reasoning in favor of memorization. Using Path Patching, Logit Lens, JSD analysis, and Neural Differential Equations, we uncover a hidden Anchor-Adapter circuit that facilitates this shortcut. We localize a Functional Anchor in the middle layers (L18-20) that triggers the retrieval of memorized solutions, followed by Structural Adapters in later layers (L21+) that transform representations to accommodate the shortcut signal. Finally, we demonstrate that scaling specific MLP keys within this circuit allows for bidirectional causal steering-artificially amplifying or suppressing contamination-driven performance. Our results provide a mechanistic roadmap for identifying and mitigating data contamination in RLVR-tuned models. Code is available at https://github.com/idwts/How-RLVR-Activates-Memorization-Shortcuts.

Inference-time scaling via repeated sampling has shown promise in reasoning tasks, but its effectiveness in multilingual generation remains underexplored. We evaluate this approach using perplexity- and reward-based verifiers on two multilingual benchmarks: the Aya Evaluation Suite and m-ArenaHard. Our results show consistent quality improvements, with gains exceeding 35% in some cases. While perplexity-based scoring is effective for open-ended prompts, only reward-based verifiers improve performance on tasks requiring reasoning (e.g., math, code). Our results demonstrate the broader utility of repeated sampling for multilingual text generation and underscore the importance of selecting right verifiers for the task.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable reasoning capabilities through test-time scaling approaches, particularly when fine-tuned with chain-of-thought (CoT) data distilled from more powerful large reasoning models (LRMs). However, these reasoning chains often contain verbose elements that mirror human problem-solving, categorized as progressive reasoning (the essential solution development path) and functional elements (verification processes, alternative solution approaches, and error corrections). While progressive reasoning is crucial, the functional elements significantly increase computational demands during test-time inference. We introduce PIR (Perplexity-based Importance Refinement), a principled framework that quantitatively evaluates the importance of each reasoning step based on its impact on answer prediction confidence. PIR systematically identifies and selectively prunes only low-importance functional steps while preserving progressive reasoning components, creating optimized training data that maintains the integrity of the core solution path while reducing verbosity. Models fine-tuned on PIR-optimized data exhibit superior test-time scaling properties, generating more concise reasoning chains while achieving improved accuracy (+0.9\% to +6.6\%) with significantly reduced token usage (-3\% to -41\%) across challenging reasoning benchmarks (AIME, AMC, and GPQA Diamond). Our approach demonstrates strong generalizability across different model sizes, data sources, and token budgets, offering a practical solution for deploying reasoning-capable LLMs in scenarios where efficient test-time scaling, response time, and computational efficiency are valuable constraints.

Masked diffusion models (MDMs) generate text by iteratively selecting positions to unmask and then predicting tokens at those positions. Yet MDMs lack proper likelihood evaluation: the evidence lower bound (ELBO) is not only a loose bound on log-likelihood, but, as we show, is also computed under the training distribution rather than the test-time distribution. We resolve this within our DUEL framework, which unifies leading MDM sampling strategies that employ deterministic position selection. We prove that DUEL samplers admit exact likelihood computation under the test-time distribution -- giving MDMs proper likelihood, and hence proper perplexity, for the first time. This proper perplexity is the natural analogue of autoregressive perplexity and lets us revisit key questions about MDMs. MDMs are substantially better than previously thought: the MDM-autoregressive perplexity gap shrinks by up to 32% on in-domain data and 82% on zero-shot benchmarks. DUEL enables the first principled comparison of fast,parallel samplers across compute budgets -- an analysis impossible with the ELBO and unreliable with generative perplexity -- identifying a strong default method. Finally, oracle search over position orderings reveals MDMs can far surpass autoregressive models -- achieving 36.47 vs. 52.11 perplexity on AG News -- demonstrating the ceiling of MDM performance has not yet been reached.

System one models enable direct, low-latency decision-making. Yet recent practice of predicting an answer from serialized text does not, by itself, respect the structure of a decision problem. We argue that current designs underemphasize four important structural requirements. (i) null-aware: Models should distinguish answer absence from uncertainty among candidates; (ii) permutation-invariant: Reordering alternatives should not change the decision; (iii) option-scalable: Growing candidate sets should not require redefining the output space; (iv) cacheable: Request-independent computation over recurring alternatives should be reusable across requests. We introduce Jeva, a decision-native architecture that addresses these requirements jointly. A shared encoder independently represents the request and each option, while a compact decision stack refines only the request state against immutable option memory. Symmetric aggregation yields permutation-equivariant probabilities; shared scoring accommodates variable-size candidate sets. A separate coverage estimate distinguishes answer absence from candidate competition, enabling explicit null outcomes. Request-independent option representations and layer projections support reuse across newly assembled sets. These mechanisms unify Choice, Noul, and Score outputs. Across evaluations, Jeva combines strong typed-decision performance with near-perfect null detection and no decision flips under any tested permutations. It scales to thousands of candidates and substantially reduces latency through cross-request reuse without changing decisions.

The ability of language models in RAG systems to selectively refuse to answer based on flawed context is critical for safety, yet remains a significant failure point. Our large-scale study reveals that even frontier models struggle in this setting, with refusal accuracy dropping below 50% on multi-document tasks, while exhibiting either dangerous overconfidence or overcaution. Static benchmarks fail to reliably evaluate this capability, as models exploit dataset-specific artifacts and memorize test instances. We introduce RefusalBench, a generative methodology that programmatically creates diagnostic test cases through controlled linguistic perturbation. Our framework employs 176 distinct perturbation strategies across six categories of informational uncertainty and three intensity levels. Evaluation of over 30 models uncovers systematic failure patterns: refusal comprises separable detection and categorization skills, and neither scale nor extended reasoning improves performance. We find that selective refusal is a trainable, alignment-sensitive capability, offering a clear path for improvement. We release two benchmarks -- RefusalBench-NQ (single document) and RefusalBench-GaRAGe (multi-document) -- and our complete generation framework to enable continued, dynamic evaluation of this critical capability.

Multi-constraint instruction following requires verifying whether a response satisfies multiple individual requirements, yet LLM judges are often assessed only through overall-response judgments. We introduce MCJudgeBench, a benchmark for constraint-level judge evaluation in multi-constraint instruction following. Each instance includes an instruction, a candidate response, an explicit constraint list, per-constraint gold labels in {yes, partial, no}, and controlled response-side perturbations. The evaluation protocol further includes evaluation prompt variants to test judge stability. We evaluate proprietary and open-source LLM judges using both correctness and inconsistency metrics, distinguishing intrinsic inconsistency under stochastic decoding from procedural inconsistency under prompt and response perturbations. Our results show that judge reliability has multiple dimensions: strong overall performance does not guarantee equally reliable detection across label categories, especially for rarer partial and no cases. Judges with higher correctness do not always have lower inconsistency. Evaluation with reasoning improves correctness but does not uniformly improve stability. These findings motivate evaluating LLM judges at the constraint level to study these failure modes.

We present Meena, a multi-turn open-domain chatbot trained end-to-end on data mined and filtered from public domain social media conversations. This 2.6B parameter neural network is simply trained to minimize perplexity of the next token. We also propose a human evaluation metric called Sensibleness and Specificity Average (SSA), which captures key elements of a human-like multi-turn conversation. Our experiments show strong correlation between perplexity and SSA. The fact that the best perplexity end-to-end trained Meena scores high on SSA (72% on multi-turn evaluation) suggests that a human-level SSA of 86% is potentially within reach if we can better optimize perplexity. Additionally, the full version of Meena (with a filtering mechanism and tuned decoding) scores 79% SSA, 23% higher in absolute SSA than the existing chatbots we evaluated.

If machine learning models were to achieve superhuman abilities at various reasoning or decision-making tasks, how would we go about evaluating such models, given that humans would necessarily be poor proxies for ground truth? In this paper, we propose a framework for evaluating superhuman models via consistency checks. Our premise is that while the correctness of superhuman decisions may be impossible to evaluate, we can still surface mistakes if the model's decisions fail to satisfy certain logical, human-interpretable rules. We instantiate our framework on three tasks where correctness of decisions is hard to evaluate due to either superhuman model abilities, or to otherwise missing ground truth: evaluating chess positions, forecasting future events, and making legal judgments. We show that regardless of a model's (possibly superhuman) performance on these tasks, we can discover logical inconsistencies in decision making. For example: a chess engine assigning opposing valuations to semantically identical boards; GPT-4 forecasting that sports records will evolve non-monotonically over time; or an AI judge assigning bail to a defendant only after we add a felony to their criminal record.

Although model editing has shown promise in revising knowledge in Large Language Models (LLMs), its impact on the inherent capabilities of LLMs is often overlooked. In this work, we reveal a critical phenomenon: even a single edit can trigger model collapse, manifesting as significant performance degradation in various benchmark tasks. However, benchmarking LLMs after each edit, while necessary to prevent such collapses, is impractically time-consuming and resource-intensive. To mitigate this, we propose using perplexity as a surrogate metric, validated by extensive experiments demonstrating changes in an edited model's perplexity are strongly correlated with its downstream task performances. We further conduct an in-depth study on sequential editing, a practical setting for real-world scenarios, across various editing methods and LLMs, focusing on hard cases from our previous single edit studies. The results indicate that nearly all examined editing methods result in model collapse after only few edits. To facilitate further research, we have utilized GPT-3.5 to develop a new dataset, HardEdit, based on those hard cases. This dataset aims to establish the foundation for pioneering research in reliable model editing and the mechanisms underlying editing-induced model collapse. We hope this work can draw the community's attention to the potential risks inherent in model editing practices.

Graphical user interface (GUI) agents have shown promise in automating mobile tasks but still struggle with input redundancy and decision ambiguity. In this paper, we present RecAgent, an uncertainty-aware agent that addresses these issues through adaptive perception. We distinguish two types of uncertainty in GUI navigation: (1) perceptual uncertainty, caused by input redundancy and noise from comprehensive screen information, and (2) decision uncertainty, arising from ambiguous tasks and complex reasoning. To reduce perceptual uncertainty, RecAgent employs a component recommendation mechanism that identifies and focuses on the most relevant UI elements. For decision uncertainty, it uses an interactive module to request user feedback in ambiguous situations, enabling intent-aware decisions. These components are integrated into a unified framework that proactively reduces input complexity and reacts to high-uncertainty cases via human-in-the-loop refinement. Additionally, we propose a dataset called ComplexAction to evaluate the success rate of GUI agents in executing specified single-step actions within complex scenarios. Extensive experiments validate the effectiveness of our approach. The dataset and code will be available at https://github.com/Fanye12/RecAgent.

LLMs' decision-making process is opaque, prompting the need for explanation techniques like Chain-of-Thought. To investigate the relationship between answer and reasoning, we design a novel evaluation framework, MATCHA. In domains like education and healthcare, reasoning is key for model trustworthiness. MATCHA reveals that LLMs under input perturbations can give inconsistent or nonsensical reasoning. Additionally, we use LLM judges to assess reasoning robustness across models. Our results show that LLMs exhibit greater vulnerability to input perturbations for multi-step and commonsense tasks than compared to logical tasks. Also, we show non-trivial transfer rates of our successful examples to black-box models. Our evaluation framework helps to better understand LLM reasoning mechanisms and guides future models toward more robust and reasoning-driven architectures, enforcing answer-reasoning consistency.

The performance emergence of large language models (LLMs) driven by data scaling laws makes the selection of pre-training data increasingly important. However, existing methods rely on limited heuristics and human intuition, lacking comprehensive and clear guidelines. To address this, we are inspired by ``reverse thinking'' -- prompting LLMs to self-identify which criteria benefit its performance. As its pre-training capabilities are related to perplexity (PPL), we derive 14 quality criteria from the causes of text perplexity anomalies and introduce 15 common application domains to support domain mixing. In this paper, we train a Data Manager (DataMan) to learn quality ratings and domain recognition from pointwise rating, and use it to annotate a 447B token pre-training corpus with 14 quality ratings and domain type. Our experiments validate our approach, using DataMan to select 30B tokens to train a 1.3B-parameter language model, demonstrating significant improvements in in-context learning (ICL), perplexity, and instruction-following ability over the state-of-the-art baseline. The best-performing model, based on the Overall Score l=5 surpasses a model trained with 50% more data using uniform sampling. We continue pre-training with high-rated, domain-specific data annotated by DataMan to enhance domain-specific ICL performance and thus verify DataMan's domain mixing ability. Our findings emphasize the importance of quality ranking, the complementary nature of quality criteria, and their low correlation with perplexity, analyzing misalignment between PPL and ICL performance. We also thoroughly analyzed our pre-training dataset, examining its composition, the distribution of quality ratings, and the original document sources.

When agents are acting together, they may need a simple mechanism to decide on joint actions. One possibility is to have the agents express their preferences in the form of a ballot and use a voting rule to decide the winning action(s). Unfortunately, agents may try to manipulate such an election by misreporting their preferences. Fortunately, it has been shown that it is NP-hard to compute how to manipulate a number of different voting rules. However, NP-hardness only bounds the worst-case complexity. Recent theoretical results suggest that manipulation may often be easy in practice. To address this issue, I suggest studying empirically if computational complexity is in practice a barrier to manipulation. The basic tool used in my investigations is the identification of computational "phase transitions". Such an approach has been fruitful in identifying hard instances of propositional satisfiability and other NP-hard problems. I show that phase transition behaviour gives insight into the hardness of manipulating voting rules, increasing concern that computational complexity is indeed any sort of barrier. Finally, I look at the problem of computing manipulation of other, related problems like stable marriage and tournament problems.

Combining the answers a large language model (LLM) samples for a question into one decision is a test-time information fusion problem, usually solved by majority voting. Voting is unreliable on difficult questions, where the sampled answers share correlated errors, so the wrong answer can win and drawing more samples makes the decision worse. Selecting a candidate by reading a correctness signal from the model's hidden states is a promising alternative, but its accuracy varies across models and tasks, and no measure indicates when it can be trusted. In this paper, we propose CASE (Correctness-Axis SElection), a dynamic selection combiner that trains a linear gate on the answer-token hidden state and selects the highest-scoring candidate. Its main contribution is decodability, a leakage-free measure of how well the gate ranks a question's correct candidates above its incorrect ones, which predicts whether hidden-state selection will outperform voting. A conventional probe appears accurate only because of question-identity leakage, which vanishes under question-grouped evaluation. On held-out data, decodability predicts the accuracy gain of selection over voting with a Pearson correlation r=0.75 and a decision threshold near AUC=0.60. Across general and medical LLMs, CASE improves over voting by up to 19 points on medium-difficulty questions and 16.8 points on hard questions. Decodability depends on the aligned knowledge a model must recall, not on its scale, and its prediction transfers to an unseen scientific domain within 3.8 points. It thus provides a practical criterion, measurable in advance for a given model and task, for choosing between learned selection and majority voting.

As LLM-based judges become integral to industry applications, obtaining well-calibrated uncertainty estimates efficiently has become critical for production deployment. However, existing techniques, such as verbalized confidence and multi-generation methods, are often either poorly calibrated or computationally expensive. We introduce linear probes trained with a Brier score-based loss to provide calibrated uncertainty estimates from reasoning judges' hidden states, requiring no additional model training. We evaluate our approach on both objective tasks (reasoning, mathematics, factuality, coding) and subjective human preference judgments. Our results demonstrate that probes achieve superior calibration compared to existing methods with approx10x computational savings, generalize robustly to unseen evaluation domains, and deliver higher accuracy on high-confidence predictions. However, probes produce conservative estimates that underperform on easier datasets but may benefit safety-critical deployments prioritizing low false-positive rates. Overall, our work demonstrates that interpretability-based uncertainty estimation provides a practical and scalable plug-and-play solution for LLM judges in production.

Decision models such as Jev answer questions with probabilities, which are only useful if they are calibrated. Open-source reproductions rely on supervised fine-tuning plus temperature scaling, while reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards (RLVR) makes reasoning models overconfident. We present a working implementation of reinforcement learning for calibrated decisions (RLCD) for reasoning models: the model samples a rationale, and we score the answer distribution it commits to afterwards with a strictly proper scoring rule. A variance identity shows that scoring the mixture of several samples rewards disagreeing rationales, and that RLVR is exactly this mixture objective without its diversity term. Optimized naively, the per-rationale objective either switches reasoning off or is drowned out by policy-gradient noise, which leads to a two-stage recipe: calibrate, then reinforce. With Qwen3-1.7B on two reasoning tasks (3 seeds, paired tests), RLCD matches or beats SFT, RFT/STaR and GRPO (each temperature-scaled) in accuracy and beats all of them in selective prediction; on GSM8K answer verification a single query decides \gvTwoCovFive\% of the items at le5\% error, versus \gvGrpoCovFive\% for GRPO. When uncertainty comes from annotator disagreement, RLCD provably cannot beat cross-entropy. Code and results: https://github.com/ZimmyGao/openjev-rlcd.

A decision model can give probabilities that sum to one for every question yet disagree with itself when the same decision is broken into smaller steps. We study this form of probabilistic coherence in Jev and the English Laya checkpoint, using 2,500 matched examples per system across TREC, CLINC150, and MASSIVE. Across 72,000 classification questions, we compare direct fine-label predictions with broad-category probabilities and predictions reconstructed through those categories. Both systems show substantial disagreement: mean category-level total variation ranges from 0.219 to 0.349 for Jev and from 0.424 to 0.689 for Laya, on a scale where zero means exact agreement. The consequences differ sharply. On CLINC150, reconstruction reduces Jev's accuracy by 22.9 percentage points (paired 95% bootstrap interval: [-24.9, -20.9]) and improves Laya's by 21.3 points ([18.0, 24.5]). The same directions hold across all three datasets, with all six unadjusted accuracy-change intervals excluding zero. Improved accuracy can also accompany less reliable confidence: on MASSIVE, Laya gains 9.2 accuracy points while its expected calibration error rises from 0.046 to 0.124. Error analysis identifies both broad-category mistakes and within-category confusions. These findings show why decision systems need joint evaluation of accuracy, confidence calibration, and probability coherence in the workflow used by an application.

Automated evaluation leveraging large language models (LLMs), commonly referred to as LLM evaluators or LLM-as-a-judge, has been widely used in measuring the performance of dialogue systems. However, the self-preference bias in LLMs has posed significant risks, including promoting specific styles or policies intrinsic to the LLMs. Despite the importance of this issue, there is a lack of established methods to measure the self-preference bias quantitatively, and its underlying causes are poorly understood. In this paper, we introduce a novel quantitative metric to measure the self-preference bias. Our experimental results demonstrate that GPT-4 exhibits a significant degree of self-preference bias. To explore the causes, we hypothesize that LLMs may favor outputs that are more familiar to them, as indicated by lower perplexity. We analyze the relationship between LLM evaluations and the perplexities of outputs. Our findings reveal that LLMs assign significantly higher evaluations to outputs with lower perplexity than human evaluators, regardless of whether the outputs were self-generated. This suggests that the essence of the bias lies in perplexity and that the self-preference bias exists because LLMs prefer texts more familiar to them.

The rapid proliferation of large language models (LLMs) has created an urgent need for robust and generalizable detectors of machine-generated text. Existing benchmarks typically evaluate a single detector on a single dataset under ideal conditions, leaving open questions about cross-domain transfer, cross-LLM generalization, and adversarial robustness. We present a comprehensive benchmark evaluating diverse detection approaches across two corpora: HC3 (23,363 human-ChatGPT pairs) and ELI5 (15,000 human-Mistral-7B pairs). Methods include classical classifiers, fine-tuned transformer encoders (BERT, RoBERTa, ELECTRA, DistilBERT, DeBERTa-v3), a CNN, an XGBoost stylometric model, perplexity-based detectors, and LLM-as-detector prompting. Results show that transformer models achieve near-perfect in-distribution performance but degrade under domain shift. The XGBoost stylometric model matches performance while remaining interpretable. LLM-based detectors underperform and are affected by generator-detector identity bias. Perplexity-based methods exhibit polarity inversion, with modern LLM outputs showing lower perplexity than human text, but remain effective when corrected. No method generalizes robustly across domains and LLM sources.

LLM judges have become central infrastructure for model evaluations, online grading, and reward modeling. Judges are typically validated by accuracy on golden data, but accuracy says little about whether they are stable under re-prompting, challenge, or sustained pushback. We introduce the Wiggle Framework, a unified stress test for epistemic stability in LLM judges. The framework decomposes judge robustness along three dimensions: Mechanical Consistency (stability under re-prompting and reframing), Single-turn Conviction (stability under a single challenge), and Multi-turn Persistence (stability under sustained or adaptive pressure). We use the framework to study 9 frontier models across 14 judging tasks spanning safety, toxicity, AI writing detection, and political-response evaluation. Every model exhibits substantial wiggle as a judge --- flipping verdicts 25--71\% of the time under static pushback, and 62--91\% with an adversarial LLM persuader. Critically, we find that pressure that succeeds in changing a judge's verdict is almost always net-corrupting with respect to ground truth. Beyond the framework itself, we identify baseline jury majority strength as the most effective single-shot signal for anticipating which items wiggle. Taken together, this is the first apples-to-apples cross-dataset comparison of mechanical, conformity, and persuadability tests in a judging context.

In hybrid human-machine deferral frameworks, a classifier can defer uncertain cases to human decision-makers (who are often themselves fallible). Prior work on simultaneous training of such classifier and deferral models has typically assumed access to an oracle during training to obtain true class labels for training samples, but in practice there often is no such oracle. In contrast, we consider a "closed" decision-making pipeline in which the same fallible human decision-makers used in deferral also provide training labels. How can imperfect and biased human expert labels be used to train a fair and accurate deferral framework? Our key insight is that by exploiting weak prior information, we can match experts to input examples to ensure fairness and accuracy of the resulting deferral framework, even when imperfect and biased experts are used in place of ground truth labels. The efficacy of our approach is shown both by theoretical analysis and by evaluation on two tasks.

Pre-training large language models is dominated by the memory cost of storing full-rank weights, gradients, and optimizer states. Low-rank pre-training has emerged to address this, and the space of methods has grown rapidly. A central question remains open: do low-rank methods produce models that generalize comparably to full-rank training, or does the rank constraint fundamentally alter the solutions reached? Existing comparisons rely almost entirely on validation perplexity from single-seed runs, often carried forward from prior literature. Yet perplexity is a poor proxy for solution quality; two methods can match on perplexity while converging to different loss landscape regions and internal representations. We close this gap by characterizing the solutions found by five low-rank pre-training methods, GaLore and Fira (memory-efficient optimizers), CoLA and SLTrain (architecture reparameterizations), and ReLoRA (adapter-style updates with periodic resets), against full-rank training at three model scales (60M, 130M, 350M). We evaluate each along 16 metrics across four dimensions: 1-D loss landscape along random/top-K PCA directions, 1-D interpolation between checkpoints, spectral structure of the weights and learned updates, and activation similarity to full-rank training. We show that low-rank methods are not equivalent to full-rank training, nor to one another, even when validation perplexity is close. Full-rank training settles into a sharper basin than low-rank methods along random directions, while the reverse holds for the top-1 PCA direction. Each method converges to a geometrically distinct basin. Low-rank activations diverge from full-rank in later layers as training progresses, with GaLore tracking full-rank most closely. Further, validation perplexity does not translate to downstream performance at every scale. Adding geometric and spectral metrics improves the prediction.

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has catalyzed significant advances in the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, effectively managing the exploration and exploitation trade-off remains a critical challenge. In this paper, we fully analyze the exploration and exploitation dilemma of extremely hard and easy samples during the training and propose a new fine-grained trade-off mechanism. Concretely, we introduce a perplexity space disentangling strategy that divides the sample space into distinct exploration (high perplexity) and exploitation (low perplexity) subspaces, thereby mining fine-grained samples requiring exploration-exploitation trade-off. Subsequently, we propose a bidirectional reward allocation mechanism with a minimum impact on verification rewards to implement perplexity-guided exploration and exploitation, enabling more stable policy optimization. Finally, we have evaluated our method on two mainstream tasks: mathematical reasoning and function calling, and experimental results demonstrate the superiority of the proposed method, confirming its effectiveness in enhancing LLM performance by fine-grained exploration-exploitation trade-off.

Recent progress in multi-turn reinforcement learning (RL) has significantly improved reasoning LLMs' performances on complex interactive tasks. Despite advances in stabilization techniques such as fine-grained credit assignment and trajectory filtering, instability remains pervasive and often leads to training collapse. We argue that this instability stems from inefficient exploration in multi-turn settings, where policies continue to generate low-information actions that neither reduce uncertainty nor advance task progress. To address this issue, we propose Token- and Turn-level Policy Optimization (T^2PO), an uncertainty-aware framework that explicitly controls exploration at fine-grained levels. At the token level, T^2PO monitors uncertainty dynamics and triggers a thinking intervention once the marginal uncertainty change falls below a threshold. At the turn level, T^2PO identifies interactions with negligible exploration progress and dynamically resamples such turns to avoid wasted rollouts. We evaluate T^2PO in diverse environments, including WebShop, ALFWorld, and Search QA, demonstrating substantial gains in training stability and performance improvements with better exploration efficiency. Code is available at: https://github.com/WillDreamer/T2PO.

When a large language model fails a reasoning task, it is often assumed to lack the underlying capability. However, this conflates a genuine absence of reasoning with a late-stage output bottleneck. We observe a consistent readout gap across diverse reasoning benchmarks: hidden-state probes successfully decode correct answers even when native sequence scoring completely collapses due to structural biases. To test whether instance-specific logic survives this collapse, we introduce a diagnostic protocol using a minimal, target-label-free additive correction. Fitting just two parameters on as few as 25 unlabeled examples recovers 9--34 accuracy points for Qwen3.5 models, transferring successfully to OLMo-2-1B and Llama-3.1-8B. Crucially, these recovered decisions persist on hard instances unresolved by simple lexical overlap and significantly exceed count-preserving permutation baselines. Our results show that many apparent zero-shot reasoning deficits are expression failures masking intact internal logic, urging a narrower interpretation of benchmark evaluations.

Large language models (LLMs), while transformative for NLP, come with significant computational demands, underlining the need for efficient, training-free compression. Notably, the reliability of perplexity as a benchmark for compressed model efficacy is in question, as our tests using LLaMA-7B and OPT-6.7b reveal a significant performance drop in several realistic downstream tasks, underscoring the disparity between perplexity as a performance indicator and real-world performance. Investigation into the trade-off between resource-intensive post-compression re-training highlights the prospect of prompt-driven recovery as a lightweight adaption tool. However, existing studies, confined mainly to perplexity evaluations and simple tasks, fail to offer unequivocal confidence in the scalability and generalizability of prompting. We tackle this uncertainty in two key ways. First, we uncover the vulnerability of naive prompts in LLM compression as an over-reliance on a singular prompt per input. In response, we propose inference-time dynamic prompting (IDP), a mechanism that autonomously chooses from a set of curated prompts based on the context of each individual input. Second, we delve into a scientific understanding of why ``prompting might be all you need post-LLM compression". Our findings suggest that compression doesn't irretrievably erase LLM model knowledge but displace it, necessitating a new inference path. IDP effectively redirects this path, enabling the model to tap into its inherent yet displaced knowledge and thereby recover performance. Empirical tests affirm the value of IDP, demonstrating an average performance improvement of 1.24% across nine varied tasks spanning multiple knowledge domains.

Scalable oversight protocols aim to enable humans to accurately supervise superhuman AI. In this paper we study debate, where two AI's compete to convince a judge; consultancy, where a single AI tries to convince a judge that asks questions; and compare to a baseline of direct question-answering, where the judge just answers outright without the AI. We use large language models (LLMs) as both AI agents and as stand-ins for human judges, taking the judge models to be weaker than agent models. We benchmark on a diverse range of asymmetries between judges and agents, extending previous work on a single extractive QA task with information asymmetry, to also include mathematics, coding, logic and multimodal reasoning asymmetries. We find that debate outperforms consultancy across all tasks when the consultant is randomly assigned to argue for the correct/incorrect answer. Comparing debate to direct question answering, the results depend on the type of task: in extractive QA tasks with information asymmetry debate outperforms direct question answering, but in other tasks without information asymmetry the results are mixed. Previous work assigned debaters/consultants an answer to argue for. When we allow them to instead choose which answer to argue for, we find judges are less frequently convinced by the wrong answer in debate than in consultancy. Further, we find that stronger debater models increase judge accuracy, though more modestly than in previous studies.

Practitioners accept a compressed language model once it clears a stack of data-cheap quality guards: perplexity within a small factor of the original, downstream accuracy (for example MMLU) inside a confidence interval, and data-free output-fidelity signals that compare the compressed and original network's internal representations under random probe inputs. This stack has a blind spot. Across three model families, gently-compressed models clear every guard and then invent procedure steps that were never in the instructions when they run a standard operating procedure (SOP) as an agent. The effect is operator-specific: coherent low-rank (SVD) truncation induces it, and magnitude pruning matched to the same perplexity does not. One dissociation isolates the cause. The same compressed weights that CI-win a paired output-fidelity test CI-fail the invented-step canary. The governing axis is the coherence of the compression error times its rate; the magnitude of the damage does not predict it. The data-free fidelity probe is a fidelity oracle by construction, so it cannot see this axis. We characterize the blindspot and dissociation with paired confidence intervals on a pre-registered, powered canary across three architectures. Operator-specificity replicates on all three, and the perplexity-guard evasion appears where the model admits in-guard low-rank headroom. We then give a data-free screen: a two-axis statistic of the compression error (coherent-fraction and error-rate) that flags the failing builds with fixed thresholds across architectures and matches the coherence-times-rate mechanism. Perplexity, MMLU, and fidelity acceptance do not certify agent safety. Screen gently-compressed low-rank builds before agentic deployment

LLMs are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains such as medical triage and legal assistance, often as document-grounded QA systems in which a user provides a description, relevant sources are retrieved, and an LLM generates a prediction. In practice, initial user queries are often underspecified, and a single retrieval pass is insufficient for reliable decision-making, leading to incorrect and overly confident answers. While follow-up questioning can elicit missing information, existing methods typically depend on implicit, unstructured confidence signals from the LLM, making it difficult to determine what remains unknown, what information matters most, and when to stop asking questions. We propose InfoGatherer, a framework that gathers missing information from two complementary sources: retrieved domain documents and targeted follow-up questions to the user. InfoGatherer models uncertainty using Dempster-Shafer belief assignments over a structured evidential network, enabling principled fusion of incomplete and potentially contradictory evidence from both sources without prematurely collapsing to a definitive answer. Across legal and medical tasks, InfoGatherer outperforms strong baselines while requiring fewer turns. By grounding uncertainty in formal evidential theory rather than heuristic LLM signals, InfoGatherer moves towards trustworthy, interpretable decision support in domains where reliability is critical.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate impressive capabilities, they still struggle with generating factually incorrect content (i.e., hallucinations). A promising approach to mitigate this issue is enabling models to express uncertainty when unsure. Previous research on uncertainty modeling has primarily focused on short-form QA, but realworld applications often require much longer responses. In this work, we introduce the task of Long-form Generation with Uncertainty(LoGU). We identify two key challenges: Uncertainty Suppression, where models hesitate to express uncertainty, and Uncertainty Misalignment, where models convey uncertainty inaccurately. To tackle these challenges, we propose a refinement-based data collection framework and a two-stage training pipeline. Our framework adopts a divide-and-conquer strategy, refining uncertainty based on atomic claims. The collected data are then used in training through supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and direct preference optimization (DPO) to enhance uncertainty expression. Extensive experiments on three long-form instruction following datasets show that our method significantly improves accuracy, reduces hallucinations, and maintains the comprehensiveness of responses.

Large language models can arrive at the same answer through reasoning paths that are unstable, contradictory, or difficult to rank consistently -- a failure mode especially prevalent in multi-step deductive reasoning. Existing methods assess reliability primarily through output dispersion -- measuring how much sampled answers differ -- but this discards a complementary signal: whether the model can consistently rank competing reasoning candidates. We propose structural uncertainty, a consistency-aware framework derived from the stability of self-preference-induced rankings over sampled reasoning solutions. Given a query, we generate multiple candidate solutions and ask the model to judge pairwise preferences among its own outputs. We aggregate self-preferences into ranking distributions via Bradley-Terry modeling with PageRank, and decompose the signal into two entropy-based components: across-trial ranking instability and within-trial candidate ambiguity. Across five LLMs and eight benchmarks, structural signals provide information complementary to answer dispersion: on logical and mathematical reasoning tasks, the combination improves identification of unreliable instances, while on factual retrieval the structural signal collapses toward uniformity, diagnosing a regime boundary where reasoning-level consistency evaluation is uninformative. The two components relate differently to accuracy: within-trial ambiguity correlates positively with correctness -- consistent with settings where multiple plausible solution paths remain competitive -- while across-trial instability correlates negatively, signaling unreliable reasoning. Structural uncertainty is best understood not as a universal confidence estimator, but as a regime-sensitive evaluator of logical reasoning consistency.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) achieve strong performance on complex reasoning tasks by generating long, multi-step reasoning trajectories, but inference-time scaling incurs substantial deployment cost. A key challenge is that generation difficulty varies within a single output, whereas existing efficiency-oriented approaches either ignore this intra-generation variation or rely on supervised token-level routing with high system complexity. We present RelayGen, a training-free, segment-level runtime model switching framework that exploits difficulty variation in long-form reasoning. Through offline analysis of generation uncertainty using token probability margins, we show that coarse-grained segment-level control is sufficient to capture difficulty transitions within a reasoning trajectory. RelayGen identifies model-specific switch cues that signal transitions to lower-difficulty segments and dynamically delegates their continuation to a smaller model, while preserving high-difficulty reasoning on the large model. Across multiple reasoning benchmarks, RelayGen substantially reduces inference latency while preserving most of the accuracy of large models. When combined with speculative decoding, RelayGen achieves up to 2.2times end-to-end speedup with less than 2\% accuracy degradation, without requiring additional training or learned routing components.

In real-world scenarios, typical visual recognition systems could fail under two major causes, i.e., the misclassification between known classes and the excusable misbehavior on unknown-class images. To tackle these deficiencies, flexible visual recognition should dynamically predict multiple classes when they are unconfident between choices and reject making predictions when the input is entirely out of the training distribution. Two challenges emerge along with this novel task. First, prediction uncertainty should be separately quantified as confusion depicting inter-class uncertainties and ignorance identifying out-of-distribution samples. Second, both confusion and ignorance should be comparable between samples to enable effective decision-making. In this paper, we propose to model these two sources of uncertainty explicitly with the theory of Subjective Logic. Regarding recognition as an evidence-collecting process, confusion is then defined as conflicting evidence, while ignorance is the absence of evidence. By predicting Dirichlet concentration parameters for singletons, comprehensive subjective opinions, including confusion and ignorance, could be achieved via further evidence combinations. Through a series of experiments on synthetic data analysis, visual recognition, and open-set detection, we demonstrate the effectiveness of our methods in quantifying two sources of uncertainties and dealing with flexible recognition.

Large language models (LLMs) continue to struggle with mathematical reasoning, and common post-training pipelines often reduce each generated solution to a binary outcome: correct or incorrect. This perspective is limiting in practice, as failures in chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning are frequently structured; solutions may appear convincing while containing subtle logical, algebraic, or numerical flaws. Meanwhile, reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) variants that rely on large reward models or LLM-as-a-judge signals are often expensive, difficult to scale, and unstable to iterate. We propose a lightweight and pragmatic post-training pipeline that targets such structured errors under realistic compute budgets. Starting from supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on MetaMathQA-style CoT data, we introduce a compact MathVerifier that decomposes a candidate solution into a six-dimensional error profile and aggregates it into interpretable wrongness and absurdity scores. These verifier signals serve two roles: (i) mining hard negatives that are near-correct yet structurally flawed, and (ii) defining per-sample importance weights that emphasize the most informative preference pairs. We integrate both into an offline Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) objective via a verifier-guided weighted formulation. Experiments on a 1.5B-parameter Qwen2.5 model show that verifier-guided, weighted DPO yields more targeted improvements than vanilla SFT and unweighted DPO, particularly on problems where solutions are numerically close to correct but logically inconsistent, while avoiding the overhead of training large reward models or relying on external judges.

Current artificial intelligence systems exhibit a fundamental architectural limitation: they resolve ambiguity prematurely. This premature semantic collapse--collapsing multiple valid interpretations into single outputs--stems from classical identity assumptions in neural architectures. We propose Non-Resolution Reasoning (NRR), a framework treating ambiguity retention as a valid reasoning mode. NRR introduces three principles: (1) Non-Identity (A neq A)--the same symbol refers to different entities across contexts; (2) Approximate Identity (A approx A)--entities share partial structural overlap without being identical; (3) Non-Resolution--conflicting interpretations coexist without forced convergence. We formalize these through Multi-Vector Embeddings for context-dependent representation, Non-Collapsing Attention for parallel interpretation retention, and Contextual Identity Tracking (CIT) for maintaining A neq A across inference. We illustrate NRR through case studies in paradox handling, creative generation, and context-dependent reasoning. Functional verification in a synthetic two-turn disambiguation task shows NRR-lite maintains high entropy (H = 0.91 bits, near-maximum 1.0) at ambiguous turns while standard architectures collapse early (H = 0.15 bits), preserving interpretive flexibility until context arrives. NRR challenges the assumption that meaning must collapse to be useful. The question is not whether AI should resolve ambiguity, but when, how, and under whose control.

The current literature on AI-advised decision making -- involving explainable AI systems advising human decision makers -- presents a series of inconclusive and confounding results. To synthesize these findings, we propose a simple theory that elucidates the frequent failure of AI explanations to engender appropriate reliance and complementary decision making performance. We argue explanations are only useful to the extent that they allow a human decision maker to verify the correctness of an AI's prediction, in contrast to other desiderata, e.g., interpretability or spelling out the AI's reasoning process. Prior studies find in many decision making contexts AI explanations do not facilitate such verification. Moreover, most tasks fundamentally do not allow easy verification, regardless of explanation method, limiting the potential benefit of any type of explanation. We also compare the objective of complementary performance with that of appropriate reliance, decomposing the latter into the notions of outcome-graded and strategy-graded reliance.

Language models (LMs) commonly report perplexity on monolithic data held out from training. Implicitly or explicitly, this data is composed of domainsx2013varying distributions of language. Rather than assuming perplexity on one distribution extrapolates to others, Perplexity Analysis for Language Model Assessment (Paloma), measures LM fit to 585 text domains, ranging from nytimes.com to r/depression on Reddit. We invite submissions to our benchmark and organize results by comparability based on compliance with guidelines such as removal of benchmark contamination from pretraining. Submissions can also record parameter and training token count to make comparisons of Pareto efficiency for performance as a function of these measures of cost. We populate our benchmark with results from 6 baselines pretrained on popular corpora. In case studies, we demonstrate analyses that are possible with Paloma, such as finding that pretraining without data beyond Common Crawl leads to inconsistent fit to many domains.

Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) predict through human-interpretable concepts, but they typically output point concept probabilities that conflate epistemic uncertainty (reducible model underspecification) with aleatoric uncertainty (irreducible input ambiguity). This makes concept-level uncertainty hard to interpret and, more importantly, hard to act upon. We introduce CREDENCE (Credal Ensemble Concept Estimation), a CBM framework that decomposes concept uncertainty by construction. CREDENCE represents each concept as a credal prediction (a probability interval), derives epistemic uncertainty from disagreement across diverse concept heads, and estimates aleatoric uncertainty via a dedicated ambiguity output trained to match annotator disagreement when available. The resulting signals support prescriptive decisions: automate low-uncertainty cases, prioritize data collection for high-epistemic cases, route high-aleatoric cases to human review, and abstain when both are high. Across several tasks, we show that epistemic uncertainty is positively associated with prediction errors, whereas aleatoric uncertainty closely tracks annotator disagreement, providing guidance beyond error correlation. Our implementation is available at the following link: https://github.com/Tankiit/Credal_Sets/tree/ensemble-credal-cbm

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have shown remarkable reasoning capabilities, yet they often suffer from overthinking, expending redundant computational steps on simple problems, or underthinking, failing to explore sufficient reasoning paths despite inherent capabilities. These issues lead to inefficiencies and potential inaccuracies, limiting practical deployment in resource-constrained settings. Existing methods to mitigate overthinking, such as suppressing reflective keywords or adjusting reasoning length, may inadvertently induce underthinking, compromising accuracy. Therefore, we propose ReBalance, a training-free framework that achieves efficient reasoning with balanced thinking. ReBalance leverages confidence as a continuous indicator of reasoning dynamics, identifying overthinking through high confidence variance and underthinking via consistent overconfidence. By aggregating hidden states from a small-scale dataset into reasoning mode prototypes, we compute a steering vector to guide LRMs' reasoning trajectories. A dynamic control function modulates this vector's strength and direction based on real-time confidence, pruning redundancy during overthinking, and promoting exploration during underthinking. Extensive experiments conducted on four models ranging from 0.5B to 32B, and across nine benchmarks in math reasoning, general question answering, and coding tasks demonstrate that ReBalance effectively reduces output redundancy while improving accuracy, offering a general, training-free, and plug-and-play strategy for efficient and robust LRM deployment. Code is available at https://github.com/yu-lin-li/ReBalance .

FOLD-RM is an explainable machine learning classification algorithm that uses training data to create a set of classification rules. In this paper we introduce CON-FOLD which extends FOLD-RM in several ways. CON-FOLD assigns probability-based confidence scores to rules learned for a classification task. This allows users to know how confident they should be in a prediction made by the model. We present a confidence-based pruning algorithm that uses the unique structure of FOLD-RM rules to efficiently prune rules and prevent overfitting. Furthermore, CON-FOLD enables the user to provide pre-existing knowledge in the form of logic program rules that are either (fixed) background knowledge or (modifiable) initial rule candidates. The paper describes our method in detail and reports on practical experiments. We demonstrate the performance of the algorithm on benchmark datasets from the UCI Machine Learning Repository. For that, we introduce a new metric, Inverse Brier Score, to evaluate the accuracy of the produced confidence scores. Finally we apply this extension to a real world example that requires explainability: marking of student responses to a short answer question from the Australian Physics Olympiad.

Automated evaluation of free-form outputs from large language models (LLMs) is challenging because many distinct answers can be equally valid. A common practice is to use LLMs themselves as judges, but the theoretical properties of this approach are not yet well understood. We show that a geometric framework that represents both judges and candidates as points on a probability simplex can provide helpful insight on what is or is not identifiable using LLM judges. Our theoretical analysis uncovers a "phase transition" in ranking identifiability: for binary scoring systems, true rankings are identifiable even with weak judges under mild assumptions, while rankings become non-identifiable for three or more scoring levels even with infinite data, absent additional prior knowledge. This non-identifiability highlights how uncertainty in rankings stems from not only aleatoric uncertainty (i.e., inherent stochasticity in the data) but also epistemic uncertainty regarding which assumptions hold, an aspect that has received limited attention until now. To integrate both types of uncertainty, we use Bayesian inference to encode assumptions as priors and conduct sensitivity analysis of ranking estimates and credible intervals. Empirical evaluations across multiple benchmarks demonstrate that Bayesian inference yields more accurate rankings and substantially improves coverage rates. These results underscore the importance of taking a more holistic approach to uncertainty quantification when using LLMs as judges.

Understanding uncertainty in chain-of-thought reasoning is critical for reliable deployment of large language models. In this work, we propose a simple yet effective diagnostic approach based on trajectory shape rather than scalar magnitude. We show that this signal is practical, interpretable, and inexpensive to obtain in black-box settings, while remaining robust across models and datasets. Through extensive ablations and cross-domain replications, we demonstrate its utility for selective prediction and triage. Our findings offer a generalizable insight into uncertainty dynamics in reasoning tasks, with particular focus on numeric and discrete-answer settings.

In this work, we investigate whether small language models can determine high-quality subsets of large-scale text datasets that improve the performance of larger language models. While existing work has shown that pruning based on the perplexity of a larger model can yield high-quality data, we investigate whether smaller models can be used for perplexity-based pruning and how pruning is affected by the domain composition of the data being pruned. We demonstrate that for multiple dataset compositions, perplexity-based pruning of pretraining data can significantly improve downstream task performance: pruning based on perplexities computed with a 125 million parameter model improves the average performance on downstream tasks of a 3 billion parameter model by up to 2.04 and achieves up to a 1.45times reduction in pretraining steps to reach commensurate baseline performance. Furthermore, we demonstrate that such perplexity-based data pruning also yields downstream performance gains in the over-trained and data-constrained regimes.

Weight pruning is widely advocated for deploying Large Language Models on resource-constrained IoT and edge devices, yet its impact on model fairness remains poorly understood. We conduct a controlled empirical study of three instruction-tuned models (Gemma-2-9b-it, Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.3, Phi-3.5-mini-instruct) across three pruning methods (Random, Magnitude, Wanda) at four sparsity levels (10-70%) on 12,148 BBQ bias benchmark items with 5 random seeds, totaling 2,368,860 inference records. Our results reveal a Smart Pruning Paradox: activation-aware pruning (Wanda) preserves perplexity nearly perfectly (just 3.5% increase at 50% sparsity for Mistral-7B), yet produces the highest bias amplification, with Stereotype Reliance Score increasing 83.7% and 47-59% of previously unbiased items developing new stereotypical behaviors at 70% sparsity. Random pruning destroys language capability entirely (perplexity exceeding 10^4 and reaching 10^8) but produces only random-chance bias. We further show that unstructured pruning provides zero storage savings and zero inference latency reduction on real edge hardware, undermining the primary motivation for its use in IoT deployment. Of 180 dense-vs-pruned comparisons, 141 (78.3%) are significant (p < 0.05) with mean |h| = 0.305. Published quantization studies report up to 21% of responses flipping between biased and unbiased states; our pruning results show transition rates nearly three times higher (47-59%), suggesting pruning poses a categorically greater risk to alignment than quantization. These findings demonstrate that perplexity-based evaluation provides false assurance of behavioral equivalence, and that IoT deployment pipelines require bias-aware validation before deploying pruned models at the edge.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely documented to be sensitive to minor prompt perturbations and prone to sycophantic alignment with user biases, their robustness in consequential, rule-bound decision-making remains under-explored. In this work, we uncover a striking "Paradox of Robustness": despite their known lexical brittleness, instruction-tuned LLMs exhibit a behavioral and near-total invariance to emotional framing effects. Using a novel controlled perturbation framework across three high-stakes domains (healthcare, law, and finance), we quantify a robustness gap where LLMs demonstrate 110-300 times greater resistance to narrative manipulation than human subjects. Specifically, we find a near-zero effect size for models (Cohen's h = 0.003) compared to the substantial biases observed in humans (Cohen's h in [0.3, 0.8]). This result is highly counterintuitive and suggests the mechanisms driving sycophancy and prompt sensitivity do not necessarily translate to a failure in logical constraint satisfaction. We show that this invariance persists across models with diverse training paradigms. Our findings show that while LLMs may be "brittle" to how a query is formatted, they are remarkably "stable" against why a decision should be biased. Our findings establish that instruction-tuned models can decouple logical rule-adherence from persuasive narratives, offering a source of decision stability that complements, and even potentially de-biases, human judgment in institutional contexts. We release the 162-scenario benchmark, code, and data to facilitate the rigorous evaluation of narrative-induced bias and robustness on GitHub.com.

Safe deployment of large language models (LLMs) may benefit from a reliable method for assessing their generated content to determine when to abstain or to selectively generate. While likelihood-based metrics such as perplexity are widely employed, recent research has demonstrated the limitations of using sequence-level probability estimates given by LLMs as reliable indicators of generation quality. Conversely, LLMs have demonstrated strong calibration at the token level, particularly when it comes to choosing correct answers in multiple-choice questions or evaluating true/false statements. In this work, we reformulate open-ended generation tasks into token-level prediction tasks, and leverage LLMs' superior calibration at the token level. We instruct an LLM to self-evaluate its answers, employing either a multi-way comparison or a point-wise evaluation approach, with the option to include a ``None of the above'' option to express the model's uncertainty explicitly. We benchmark a range of scoring methods based on self-evaluation and evaluate their performance in selective generation using TruthfulQA and TL;DR. Through experiments with PaLM-2 and GPT-3, we demonstrate that self-evaluation based scores not only improve accuracy, but also correlate better with the overall quality of generated content.

Recent advances in reasoning-centric models promise improved robustness through mechanisms such as chain-of-thought prompting and test-time scaling. However, their ability to withstand misleading user input remains underexplored. In this paper, we conduct a systematic evaluation of three state-of-the-art reasoning models, i.e., OpenAI's o4-mini, Claude-3.7-Sonnet and Gemini-2.5-Flash, across three multimodal benchmarks: MMMU, MathVista, and CharXiv. Our evaluation reveals significant accuracy drops (25-29% on average) following gaslighting negation prompts, indicating that even top-tier reasoning models struggle to preserve correct answers under manipulative user feedback. Built upon the insights of the evaluation and to further probe this vulnerability, we introduce GaslightingBench-R, a new diagnostic benchmark specifically designed to evaluate reasoning models' susceptibility to defend their belief under gaslighting negation prompt. Constructed by filtering and curating 1,025 challenging samples from the existing benchmarks, GaslightingBench-R induces even more dramatic failures, with accuracy drops exceeding 53% on average. Our findings reveal fundamental limitations in the robustness of reasoning models, highlighting the gap between step-by-step reasoning and belief persistence.

Knowing when to answer or refuse is crucial for safe and reliable decision-making language agents. Although prior work has introduced refusal strategies to boost LMs' reliability, how these models adapt their decisions to different risk levels remains underexplored. We formalize the task of risk-aware decision-making, expose critical weaknesses in existing LMs, and propose skill-decomposition solutions to mitigate them. Our findings show that even cutting-edge LMs--both regular and reasoning models--still require explicit prompt chaining to handle the task effectively, revealing the challenges that must be overcome to achieve truly autonomous decision-making agents.

Although Long Reasoning Models (LRMs) have achieved superior performance on various reasoning scenarios, they often suffer from increased computational costs and inference latency caused by overthinking. To address these limitations, we propose Adaptive Dual Reasoner, which supports two reasoning modes: fast thinking and slow thinking. ADR dynamically alternates between these modes based on the contextual complexity during reasoning. ADR is trained in two stages: (1) A cold-start stage using supervised fine-tuning (SFT) to equip the model with the ability to integrate both fast and slow reasoning modes, in which we construct a hybrid reasoning dataset through a dedicated pipeline to provide large-scale supervision. (2) A reinforcement learning stage for optimizing reasoning effort, where we introduce Entropy-guided Hybrid Policy Optimization EHPO, an RL training framework employing an entropy-guided dynamic rollout strategy for branching at high-entropy units and a difficulty-aware penalty to balance fast and slow reasoning. Across challenging mathematical reasoning benchmarks, ADR achieves an effective balance between reasoning performance and efficiency among state-of-the-art approaches. Specifically, ADR yields a performance gain of up to 6.1%, while reducing the reasoning output length by 49.5% to 59.3%.

General decision models, such as Jev, have recently emerged as efficient alternatives to LLMs for structured judgment and selection. But what kinds of decisions can these models reliably make, and how does their behavior change when individual decisions are composed into larger systems? To study this, we introduce JEVal, a bilingual benchmark comprising 11,257 instances from 36 datasets across 10 application domains, and evaluate 25 model configurations spanning general decision models and generative LLMs. Our results show that (1) general decision models are most competitive when decisions can be resolved from available evidence, but weaken when they require specialist knowledge or faithful uncertainty estimation: they can often identify the most likely outcome while substantially overstating its probability. (2) In more dynamic and realistic systems involving long-horizon, multi-step interactions, the advantages of fast local decision making are offset by reliability failures at the system level. on τ-bench, faster local decisions reduce median episode time but lower task success as decision errors accumulate over long trajectories. (3) In large-scale social simulation, decision models approach strong generative LLMs on individual response prediction at substantially lower inference cost, yet remain weaker in user profiling and exhibit larger aggregate estimation errors and systematic bias. Finally, we propose InnerJev-4B and InnerJev-27B, which internalize an open-weight LLM's own reasoning into a single-pass first-token decision through Reasoning-to-Readout Self-Distillation, with InnerJev-27B performing on par with Jev on JEVal while answering a typical query in about 0.1 s.

LLM-as-a-Judge uses a large language model (LLM) to select the best response from a set of candidates for a given question. LLM-as-a-Judge has many applications such as LLM-powered search, reinforcement learning with AI feedback (RLAIF), and tool selection. In this work, we propose JudgeDeceiver, an optimization-based prompt injection attack to LLM-as-a-Judge. JudgeDeceiver injects a carefully crafted sequence into an attacker-controlled candidate response such that LLM-as-a-Judge selects the candidate response for an attacker-chosen question no matter what other candidate responses are. Specifically, we formulate finding such sequence as an optimization problem and propose a gradient based method to approximately solve it. Our extensive evaluation shows that JudgeDeceive is highly effective, and is much more effective than existing prompt injection attacks that manually craft the injected sequences and jailbreak attacks when extended to our problem. We also show the effectiveness of JudgeDeceiver in three case studies, i.e., LLM-powered search, RLAIF, and tool selection. Moreover, we consider defenses including known-answer detection, perplexity detection, and perplexity windowed detection. Our results show these defenses are insufficient, highlighting the urgent need for developing new defense strategies. Our implementation is available at this repository: https://github.com/ShiJiawenwen/JudgeDeceiver.

This research introduces a novel evaluation framework designed to assess large language models' (LLMs) ability to acknowledge uncertainty on 675 fundamentally unsolvable problems. Using a curated dataset of graduate-level grand challenge questions with intentionally unknowable answers, we evaluated twelve state-of-the-art LLMs, including both open and closed-source models, on their propensity to admit ignorance rather than generate plausible but incorrect responses. The best models scored in 62-68% accuracy ranges for admitting the problem solution was unknown in fields ranging from biology to philosophy and mathematics. We observed an inverse relationship between problem difficulty and model accuracy, with GPT-4 demonstrating higher rates of uncertainty acknowledgment on more challenging problems (35.8%) compared to simpler ones (20.0%). This pattern indicates that models may be more prone to generate speculative answers when problems appear more tractable. The study also revealed significant variations across problem categories, with models showing difficulty in acknowledging uncertainty in invention and NP-hard problems while performing relatively better on philosophical and psychological challenges. These results contribute to the growing body of research on artificial general intelligence (AGI) assessment by highlighting the importance of uncertainty recognition as a critical component of future machine intelligence evaluation. This impossibility test thus extends previous theoretical frameworks for universal intelligence testing by providing empirical evidence of current limitations in LLMs' ability to recognize their own knowledge boundaries, suggesting new directions for improving model training architectures and evaluation approaches.

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) offers a robust mechanism for enhancing mathematical reasoning in large models. However, we identify a systematic lack of emphasis on more challenging questions in existing methods from both algorithmic and data perspectives, despite their importance for refining underdeveloped capabilities. Algorithmically, widely used Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) suffers from an implicit imbalance where the magnitude of policy updates is lower for harder questions. Data-wise, augmentation approaches primarily rephrase questions to enhance diversity without systematically increasing intrinsic difficulty. To address these issues, we propose a two-dual MathForge framework to improve mathematical reasoning by targeting harder questions from both perspectives, which comprises a Difficulty-Aware Group Policy Optimization (DGPO) algorithm and a Multi-Aspect Question Reformulation (MQR) strategy. Specifically, DGPO first rectifies the implicit imbalance in GRPO via difficulty-balanced group advantage estimation, and further prioritizes harder questions by difficulty-aware question-level weighting. Meanwhile, MQR reformulates questions across multiple aspects to increase difficulty while maintaining the original gold answer. Overall, MathForge forms a synergistic loop: MQR expands the data frontier, and DGPO effectively learns from the augmented data. Extensive experiments show that MathForge significantly outperforms existing methods on various mathematical reasoning tasks. The code and augmented data are all available at https://github.com/AMAP-ML/MathForge.

Language model heavily depends on high-quality data for optimal performance. Existing approaches rely on manually designed heuristics, the perplexity of existing models, training classifiers, or careful prompt engineering, which require significant expert experience and human annotation effort while introduce biases. We introduce CritiQ, a novel data selection method that automatically mines criteria from human preferences for data quality with only sim30 human-annotated pairs and performs efficient data selection. The main component, CritiQ Flow, employs a manager agent to evolve quality criteria and worker agents to make pairwise judgments. We build a knowledge base that extracts quality criteria from previous work to boost CritiQ Flow. Compared to perplexity- and classifier- based methods, verbal criteria are more interpretable and possess reusable value. After deriving the criteria, we train the CritiQ Scorer to give quality scores and perform efficient data selection. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our method in the code, math, and logic domains, achieving high accuracy on human-annotated test sets. To validate the quality of the selected data, we continually train Llama 3.1 models and observe improved performance on downstream tasks compared to uniform sampling. Ablation studies validate the benefits of the knowledge base and the reflection process. We analyze how criteria evolve and the effectiveness of majority voting.

LLMs are ideal for decision-making thanks to their ability to reason over long contexts. However, challenges arise when processing speech transcripts that describe complex scenarios, as they are verbose and include repetition, hedging, and vagueness. E.g., during a company's earnings call, an executive might project a positive revenue outlook to reassure investors, despite uncertainty regarding future earnings. It is crucial for LLMs to incorporate this uncertainty systematically when making decisions. In this paper, we introduce DeFine, a modular framework that constructs probabilistic factor profiles from complex scenarios. It then integrates these profiles with analogical reasoning, leveraging insights from similar past experiences to guide LLMs in making critical decisions in new situations. Our framework separates the tasks of quantifying uncertainty and incorporating it into LLM decision-making. This approach is particularly useful in areas such as consulting and financial deliberation, where making decisions under uncertainty is vital.

Shojaee et al. (2025) report that Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) exhibit "accuracy collapse" on planning puzzles beyond certain complexity thresholds. We demonstrate that their findings primarily reflect experimental design limitations rather than fundamental reasoning failures. Our analysis reveals three critical issues: (1) Tower of Hanoi experiments systematically exceed model output token limits at reported failure points, with models explicitly acknowledging these constraints in their outputs; (2) The authors' automated evaluation framework fails to distinguish between reasoning failures and practical constraints, leading to misclassification of model capabilities; (3) Most concerningly, their River Crossing benchmarks include mathematically impossible instances for N > 5 due to insufficient boat capacity, yet models are scored as failures for not solving these unsolvable problems. When we control for these experimental artifacts, by requesting generating functions instead of exhaustive move lists, preliminary experiments across multiple models indicate high accuracy on Tower of Hanoi instances previously reported as complete failures. These findings highlight the importance of careful experimental design when evaluating AI reasoning capabilities.

Recent advances in large-scale language models (LLMs) have made multi-agent architectures attractive for challenging reasoning tasks. However, many existing systems rely on stochastic routing or ad-hoc heuristics, making their behavior difficult to reproduce and their decision process hard to interpret. We propose ORCH, a deterministic coordination framework for discrete-choice reasoning that orchestrates heterogeneous LLMs. ORCH follows a ``many analyses, one decision'' paradigm: multiple base models independently produce structured analyses, and a dedicated merge agent outputs the final choice. The framework uses fixed rules for task decomposition and answer aggregation, keeping the pipeline predictable, reproducible, and training-free. Determinism here refers to fixed routing and aggregation rules under a fixed evaluation protocol, rather than strict bit-level reproducibility across deployments. To exploit model complementarity, we optionally introduce an EMA-guided router that updates agent selection using historical accuracy, latency, or cost; since it relies on answer-based feedback, it is mainly intended for benchmarking, controlled evaluation, or delayed-feedback settings. Experiments on MMLU, MMLU-Pro, and GSM8K show that ORCH consistently outperforms single-model baselines and a majority-vote ensemble. On MMLU-Pro, ORCH improves accuracy by over 10 points compared to the strongest baseline, and on GSM8K it yields gains exceeding 50 points; McNemar tests confirm statistical significance. The EMA router provides an additional 0.7--2.0 point accuracy boost, and ablations show that both multi-agent collaboration and routing contribute substantially. Overall, ORCH offers a practical path toward controllable, interpretable, and deployment-ready LLM-based agent systems for discrete-choice reasoning.

Position bias in multiple-choice LLM evaluation is widely cited as a confound in capability comparisons, but published measurements rely on single answer-order shuffles whose results confound the bias signal with content-level noise and sampling stochasticity. I introduce inspect_permute, an open-source extension to the inspect_ai evaluation framework that runs exhaustive answer-order permutations per question and reports the chi-squared / Cramer V signature of position bias with bootstrap confidence intervals. I apply the tool across four vendors (gpt-4o-mini, claude-haiku-4-5, gemini-2.5-flash, grok-3) on five MMLU subjects, 24,000 API calls under temperature-0 generation, with falsifier predictions pre-registered via a public SHA-256 hash before half the data was observed. Position bias turns out to be statistically detectable only within a roughly 60-95% base-accuracy Goldilocks zone. Below it, processing-load dominance swamps subject-specific signal; above it, ceiling effects compress the variance below the chi-squared test resolution. Detectable cells separate into two mechanism types: monotone A-to-D decrease (processing_load, in low-tier models) and non-monotone D-drop (content_ambiguity, in a narrow capability band). Standard MMLU places every frontier-tier model above the detection band, so absence of signal there should be read as not measurable, not unbiased. Together with the ceiling-effect characterisation in arXiv:2606.26185, this work brackets the detectable region of position-bias measurement and makes the field central question askable in a verifiable form. Package, data, preregistration under MIT.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have achieved impressive performance on complex reasoning tasks by generating detailed chain-of-thought (CoT) explanations. However, these responses are often excessively long, containing redundant reasoning steps that inflate inference cost and reduce usability. Controlling the length of generated reasoning without sacrificing accuracy remains an open challenge. Through a systematic empirical analysis, we reveal a consistent positive correlation between model entropy and response length at different reasoning stages across diverse LRMs: the thinking phase exhibits higher entropy, reflecting exploratory behavior of longer responses, while the final answer phase shows lower entropy, indicating a more deterministic solution. This observation suggests that entropy at different reasoning stages can serve as a control knob for balancing conciseness and performance. Based on this insight, this paper introduces Phase Entropy Aware Reward (PEAR), a reward mechanism that incorporating phase-dependent entropy into the reward design. Instead of treating all tokens uniformly, PEAR penalize excessive entropy during the thinking phase and allowing moderate exploration at the final answer phase, which encourages models to generate concise reasoning traces that retain sufficient flexibility to solve the task correctly. This enables adaptive control of response length without relying on explicit length targets or rigid truncation rules. Extensive experiments across four benchmarks demonstrate that PEAR consistently reduces response length while sustaining competitive accuracy across model scales. In addition, PEAR demonstrates strong out-of-distribution (OOD) robustness beyond the training distribution. Our code is available at: https://github.com/iNLP-Lab/PEAR.

A rule-based logic solver resolves every instance in our benchmark in under 50 microseconds with 100% accuracy; the best frontier language model reaches 65% at best and drops to 23.5% under rendering-robust evaluation (worst case over four surface renderings). We introduce DeFAb (Defeasible Abduction Benchmark), a dataset and generation pipeline that converts four decades of publicly funded knowledge bases into formally grounded instances for defeasible abduction: constructing hypotheses that explain anomalies by overriding defaults while preserving unrelated expectations. Because every hypothesis must pass polynomial-time checks for valid derivation, conservativity, and minimality, DeFAb makes logical rigor the instrument for measuring creativity and theoretical reasoning, scoring the disciplined construction of theory revisions rather than fluent but theory-destroying prose. The pipeline pairs taxonomic hierarchies (OpenCyc, YAGO, Wikidata) with behavioral property graphs (ConceptNet, UMLS) to produce 372,648+ instances across 33.75M materialized rules from 18 sources, in three levels with polynomial-time verifiable gold standards. Four frontier models do not reliably internalize defeasible reasoning: rendering-robust Level 2 accuracy is 7.8-23.5%; chain-of-thought variance (~36 pp) exceeds any inter-model gap; and a matched contamination control isolates a +19.4 pp Level 3 gap. We further release DeFAb-Hard (a 235-instance Level 3 difficulty variant; best model 53.3% vs 100% symbolic) and CONJURE (a kernel-verified transformative-creativity variant of 560 Lean 4/Mathlib instances whose gold answers are definitions the proof kernel did not previously contain, judge-free verifier; a pilot finds zero novel concepts). The same verifier doubles as an exact reward for preference optimization (DPO, RLVR/GRPO). Released under MIT at https://huggingface.co/datasets/PatrickAllenCooper/DeFAb.

AI systems are increasingly governed by natural language principles, yet a key challenge arising from reliance on language remains underexplored: interpretive ambiguity. As in legal systems, ambiguity arises both from how these principles are written and how they are applied. But while legal systems use institutional safeguards to manage such ambiguity, such as transparent appellate review policing interpretive constraints, AI alignment pipelines offer no comparable protections. Different interpretations of the same rule can lead to inconsistent or unstable model behavior. Drawing on legal theory, we identify key gaps in current alignment pipelines by examining how legal systems constrain ambiguity at both the rule creation and rule application steps. We then propose a computational framework that mirrors two legal mechanisms: (1) a rule refinement pipeline that minimizes interpretive disagreement by revising ambiguous rules (analogous to agency rulemaking or iterative legislative action), and (2) prompt-based interpretive constraints that reduce inconsistency in rule application (analogous to legal canons that guide judicial discretion). We evaluate our framework on a 5,000-scenario subset of the WildChat dataset and show that both interventions significantly improve judgment consistency across a panel of reasonable interpreters. Our approach offers a first step toward systematically managing interpretive ambiguity, an essential step for building more robust, law-following AI systems.

In AI-assisted decision-making, humans often passively review AI's suggestion and decide whether to accept or reject it as a whole. In such a paradigm, humans are found to rarely trigger analytical thinking and face difficulties in communicating the nuances of conflicting opinions to the AI when disagreements occur. To tackle this challenge, we propose Human-AI Deliberation, a novel framework to promote human reflection and discussion on conflicting human-AI opinions in decision-making. Based on theories in human deliberation, this framework engages humans and AI in dimension-level opinion elicitation, deliberative discussion, and decision updates. To empower AI with deliberative capabilities, we designed Deliberative AI, which leverages large language models (LLMs) as a bridge between humans and domain-specific models to enable flexible conversational interactions and faithful information provision. An exploratory evaluation on a graduate admissions task shows that Deliberative AI outperforms conventional explainable AI (XAI) assistants in improving humans' appropriate reliance and task performance. Based on a mixed-methods analysis of participant behavior, perception, user experience, and open-ended feedback, we draw implications for future AI-assisted decision tool design.

The adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) as automated evaluators (LLM-as-a-judge) has revealed critical inconsistencies in current evaluation frameworks. We identify two fundamental types of inconsistencies: (1) Score-Comparison Inconsistency, where lower-rated responses outperform higher-scored ones in pairwise comparisons, and (2) Pairwise Transitivity Inconsistency, manifested through circular preference chains (A>B>C>A) and equivalence contradictions (A=B=C\neq A). We argue that these issues come from information loss in discrete rating systems and ambiguous tie judgments during pairwise evaluation. We propose TrustJudge, a probabilistic framework that addresses these limitations through two key innovations: 1) distribution-sensitive scoring that computes continuous expectations from discrete rating probabilities, preserving information entropy for more precise scoring, and 2) likelihood-aware aggregation that resolves transitivity violations using bidirectional preference probabilities or perplexity. We also formalize the theoretical limitations of current LLM-as-a-judge frameworks and demonstrate how TrustJudge's components overcome them. When evaluated with Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct as judge using our dataset, TrustJudge reduces Score-Comparison inconsistency by 8.43% (from 23.32% to 14.89%) and Pairwise Transitivity inconsistency by 10.82% (from 15.22% to 4.40%), while maintaining higher evaluation accuracy. Our work provides the first systematic analysis of evaluation framework inconsistencies in LLM-as-a-judge paradigms, offering both theoretical insights and practical solutions for reliable automated assessment. The framework demonstrates consistent improvements across various model architectures and scales, enabling more trustworthy LLM evaluation without requiring additional training or human annotations. The codes can be found at https://github.com/TrustJudge/TrustJudge.

This paper examines the role of cognitive biases in the decision-making processes of large language models (LLMs), challenging the conventional goal of eliminating all biases. We show that certain cognitive biases when properly balanced, can enhance decision-making efficiency through rational deviations and heuristic shortcuts. By introducing heuristic moderation and an abstention option, which allows LLMs to withhold responses when uncertain, we reduce error rates, improve decision accuracy, and optimize decision rates. Using the Balance Rigor and Utility (BRU) dataset, developed through expert collaboration, our findings demonstrate that targeted inspection of cognitive biases aligns LLM decisions more closely with human reasoning, enhancing reliability and suggesting strategies for future improvements. This approach offers a novel way to leverage cognitive biases to improve the practical utility of LLMs across various applications.

The Perturbation Discrimination Score (PDS) is increasingly used to evaluate whether predicted perturbation effects remain distinguishable, including in Systema and the Virtual Cell Challenge. However, its behavior in high-dimensional gene-expression settings has not been examined in detail. We show that PDS is highly sensitive to the choice of similarity or distance measure and to the scale of predicted effects. Analysis of observed perturbation responses reveals that ell_1 and ell_2-based PDS behave very differently from cosine-based measures, even after norm matching. We provide geometric insight and discuss implications for future discrimination-based evaluation metrics.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve high performance on standard mathematical benchmarks, their underlying reasoning processes remain highly overfit to standard textual formatting. We propose a perturbation pipeline consisting of 14 techniques to evaluate robustness of LLM reasoning. We apply this pipeline to AIME 2024 dataset and evalute 8 state-of-the-art models on the resulting benchmark. While frontier models exhibit resilience, open weights reasoning models suffer catastrophic collapses (up to 55% average accuracy drops across perturbations and up to 100% on some), exposing structural fragility. To further disentangle mechanical parsing failures from downstream reasoning failures, we strictly isolate the models' working memory capacity by forcing models to solve multiple unperturbed mathematical problems sequentially within a single context window. Our results indicate that open weight models ranging from 7B to 120B parameters and Claude Opus 4.6 exhibit accuracy decay on subsequent problems. This degradation demonstrates that intermediate reasoning steps permanently pollute standard dense attention mechanisms. We argue that to achieve reliable reasoning, future reasoning architectures must integrate explicit contextual resets within a model's own Chain-of-Thought, leading to fundamental open questions regarding the optimal granularity of atomic reasoning tasks.

On-policy reinforcement learning has become the dominant paradigm for reasoning alignment in large language models, yet its sparse, outcome-level rewards make token-level credit assignment notoriously difficult. On-Policy Distillation (OPD) alleviates this by introducing dense, token-level KL supervision from a teacher model, but typically applies this supervision uniformly across all rollouts, ignoring fundamental differences in signal quality. We propose Signal-Calibrated On-Policy Distillation Enhancement (SCOPE), a dual-path adaptive training framework that routes on-policy rollouts by correctness into two complementary supervision paths. For incorrect trajectories, SCOPE performs teacher-perplexity-weighted KL distillation to prioritize instances where the teacher demonstrates genuine corrective capability, while down-weighting unreliable guidance. For correct trajectories, it applies student-perplexity-weighted MLE to concentrate reinforcement on low-confidence samples at the capability boundary rather than over-reinforcing already mastered ones. Both paths employ a group-level normalization to adaptively calibrate weight distributions, accounting for the intrinsic difficulty variance across prompts. Extensive experiments on six reasoning benchmarks show that SCOPE achieves an average relative improvement of 11.42% in Avg@32 and 7.30% in Pass@32 over competitive baselines, demonstrating its consistent effectiveness.

Understanding sources of a model's uncertainty regarding its predictions is crucial for effective human-AI collaboration. Prior work proposes using numerical uncertainty or hedges ("I'm not sure, but ..."), which do not explain uncertainty that arises from conflicting evidence, leaving users unable to resolve disagreements or rely on the output. We introduce CLUE (Conflict-and-Agreement-aware Language-model Uncertainty Explanations), the first framework to generate natural language explanations of model uncertainty by (i) identifying relationships between spans of text that expose claim-evidence or inter-evidence conflicts and agreements that drive the model's predictive uncertainty in an unsupervised way, and (ii) generating explanations via prompting and attention steering that verbalize these critical interactions. Across three language models and two fact-checking datasets, we show that CLUE produces explanations that are more faithful to the model's uncertainty and more consistent with fact-checking decisions than prompting for uncertainty explanations without span-interaction guidance. Human evaluators judge our explanations to be more helpful, more informative, less redundant, and more logically consistent with the input than this baseline. CLUE requires no fine-tuning or architectural changes, making it plug-and-play for any white-box language model. By explicitly linking uncertainty to evidence conflicts, it offers practical support for fact-checking and generalises readily to other tasks that require reasoning over complex information.

LLM-as-a-Judge models generate chain-of-thought (CoT) sequences intended to capture the step-bystep reasoning process that underlies the final evaluation of a response. However, due to the lack of human annotated CoTs for evaluation, the required components and structure of effective reasoning traces remain understudied. Consequently, previous approaches often (1) constrain reasoning traces to hand-designed components, such as a list of criteria, reference answers, or verification questions and (2) structure them such that planning is intertwined with the reasoning for evaluation. In this work, we propose EvalPlanner, a preference optimization algorithm for Thinking-LLM-as-a-Judge that first generates an unconstrained evaluation plan, followed by its execution, and then the final judgment. In a self-training loop, EvalPlanner iteratively optimizes over synthetically constructed evaluation plans and executions, leading to better final verdicts. Our method achieves a new state-of-the-art performance for generative reward models on RewardBench (with a score of 93.9), despite being trained on fewer amount of, and synthetically generated, preference pairs. Additional experiments on other benchmarks like RM-Bench, JudgeBench, and FollowBenchEval further highlight the utility of both planning and reasoning for building robust LLM-as-a-Judge reasoning models.

Learning algorithms are often used in conjunction with expert decision makers in practical scenarios, however this fact is largely ignored when designing these algorithms. In this paper we explore how to learn predictors that can either predict or choose to defer the decision to a downstream expert. Given only samples of the expert's decisions, we give a procedure based on learning a classifier and a rejector and analyze it theoretically. Our approach is based on a novel reduction to cost sensitive learning where we give a consistent surrogate loss for cost sensitive learning that generalizes the cross entropy loss. We show the effectiveness of our approach on a variety of experimental tasks.

This study investigates the reasoning robustness of large language models (LLMs) on mathematical problem-solving tasks under systematically introduced input perturbations. Using the GSM8K dataset as a controlled testbed, we evaluate how well state-of-the-art models maintain logical consistency and correctness when confronted with four categories of prompt perturbations: irrelevant context, pathological instructions, factually relevant but non-essential context, and a combination of the latter two. Our experiments, conducted on thirteen open-source and closed-source LLMs, reveal that introducing irrelevant context within the model's context window significantly degrades performance, suggesting that distinguishing essential from extraneous details remains a pressing challenge. Surprisingly, performance regressions are relatively insensitive to the complexity of the reasoning task, as measured by the number of steps required, and are not strictly correlated with model size. Moreover, we observe that certain perturbations inadvertently trigger chain-of-thought-like reasoning behaviors, even without explicit prompting. Our findings highlight critical vulnerabilities in current LLMs and underscore the need for improved robustness against noisy, misleading, and contextually dense inputs, paving the way for more resilient and reliable reasoning in real-world applications.