LLM 理论进展

Large language models can support writing, but existing tools require users to explicitly articulate prompts-particularly burdensome in creative writing, where intentions are often ambiguous. Proactive support that infers users' needs from writing interactions could alleviate this burden, but raises two challenges: determining what support to provide and when to intervene. This work focuses on the former. We hypothesize that Flower and Hayes' cognitive process theory of writing-which characterizes writing through six cognitive processes-offers an interpretable bridge between observable writing behavior and appropriate support types. Through a formative study and literature review, we identify 14 writing support types associated with these cognitive processes, along with characteristic interaction behaviors linked to each process. We then instantiate this framework in AToM CoWriter, which infers support needs from writing interactions and document context. Two within-subjects studies (N = 21) provide initial evidence that this approach improves expressiveness and idea exploration, and that cognitive process inference increases engagement with proactive suggestions. These findings suggest that cognitive processes can provide a promising basis for support selection in proactive writing systems.

Brazilian Portuguese remains under-served by open language models, and the few that exist are difficult to reproduce and are often compared without measures of uncertainty. We release Manacá-1B, an open decoder-only model of 1.72 billion parameters trained from scratch for Brazilian Portuguese with a fully containerized, reproducible pipeline. The pretraining is stable, with zero skipped or NaN steps and self-recovering loss spikes, and we release its full log and dynamics. We evaluate the model against nine open baselines on four Portuguese benchmarks under a single harness. Every comparison reports a standard error and a paired significance test, and the harness is validated against previously published numbers. On last-word prediction Manacá-1B is the strongest model below the 7B scale, exceeding both Tucano-1b1 and Tucano-2b4 on LAMBADA-PT with large paired margins; it is competitive on commonsense completion and near chance on multiple-choice reasoning, as are all small base models. Along the way we document a concrete evaluation pitfall: converting a SentencePiece tokenizer with case-folding normalization to the HuggingFace fast format silently drops the normalizer, routing every capitalized token to byte-fallback and depressing scores in a way that is invisible in aggregate metrics. The uncorrected tokenizer lowered LAMBADA-PT accuracy from 45.3 to 25.0; we quantify the effect and provide a one-line fix that reproduces the training tokenizer exactly. Code, raw training and evaluation logs, per-example prediction vectors, the model weights, and the corrected tokenizer are released so that every number in this paper can be recomputed.

Generating multiple diverse and high-quality solutions is valuable for many applications, such as code-test generation and drug discovery. However, Large Language Models (LLMs) tend to converge on a single high-confidence solution during inference, limiting exploration of alternative valid solution paths. Existing test-time methods promote diversity through tree-like search and prune semantically similar branches using response-level semantic embeddings. However, we find that such embeddings are easily confounded by linguistic and stylistic similarities, making it difficult to distinguish genuinely distinct solution paths. To address this, we introduce Answer Probing, which probes the potential answer an LLM would reach from an intermediate reasoning path. We demonstrate that the hidden states of probed answers more effectively differentiate distinct solution paths than semantic embeddings, and the perplexity of probed answers serves as a practical proxy for reasoning correctness. Based on these findings, we propose Answer Probing-Guided Tree Search (APTS), which guides the tree search by the probed answers' hidden state similarity and perplexity. Experiments on three reasoning tasks across two LLMs show that APTS consistently enhances solution diversity, demonstrating its effectiveness and robustness.

LLM agents need to sustain goal-consistent reasoning across long multi-turn interactions under strict resource constraints. However, as the multi-turn context accumulates, it can destabilize the underlying LLM's internal representation of task-relevant information from earlier turns, blurring the boundary between constructive reasoning and representation drift. We formulate multi-turn reasoning as a hidden-state trajectory of the underlying LLM that is characterized via two complementary signals: temporal curvature that captures the directional consistency of turn-to-turn updates, and variance slope which measures the expansion or contraction of the exploration space. Across four tasks and three underlying LLMs, we observed that these geometric signals distinguish between correct and incorrect episodes prior to completion. We further decompose each episode into three-action chains formed from four actions (Read, Write, Respond, Transfer) and show that separability is action-dependent, with different signals distinguishing various chain patterns. Our experiments demonstrate that trajectory geometry can identify critical turns in the reasoning process, increasing task success rates on $τ$-Bench from 24.1% to 39.6% while reducing token cost by 11.2%.

Large language models are trained to follow instructions while refusing harmful requests. Jailbreaks exploit this balance to elicit content a model would ordinarily reject. Roleplay jailbreaks are especially concerning: the harmful request can remain visible inside a roleplay wrapper made of a persona, scenario, and task, yet the model may comply. We use mechanistic interpretability to determine how this context reverses refusal and which elements contribute to the reversal. Across two benchmarks, three model families, and four authored wrappers, we compare matched harmful and benign requests with and without this wrapper. We trace hidden-state contrasts from the request to the final prompt state, isolate wrapper operations through controlled counterfactuals, intervene on their activation directions in held-out evaluation requests, and decompose effective directions geometrically. Our analysis yields three findings. (1) Successful attacks retain the measured harmful-versus-benign distinction at the request, while its refusal-associated expression weakens where the answer begins, a pattern we call safety-relay attenuation. (2) Constructing the complete roleplay around the request and framing it within the scenario contribute causally: removing the associated activation changes restores refusal. (3) These effects largely share internal structure, and most repair is reproduced by components aligned with the model's ordinary refusal of harmful requests without roleplay; scenario framing retains a smaller, model-dependent component. Together, these findings explain how roleplay can produce compliance despite retained evidence of harm and identify a concrete target for future safeguards: maintaining the connection from harm recognition to refusal.

This paper presents Murano, an open source framework for designing, running, and reproducing mechanistic interpretability studies of large language models, intended for researchers across disciplines. These studies often combine loading, recording, attribution, intervention, and evaluation, while existing libraries tend to focus on different parts of this workflow. As a result, researchers using several libraries may need to adapt outputs from one for use by another. To bridge this gap, Murano represents operations from these five areas as composable steps. Steps exchange named result artifacts and declare the inputs they require and the outputs they produce. A pipeline executes its steps in the order supplied, and Murano uses canonical addresses when component identities pass between operations. Murano builds on existing interpretability and machine learning libraries. We demonstrate Murano through two reproductions of established interpretability studies and one illustrative sparse autoencoder case study.

Large language models (LLMs) are used as post hoc explainers of sequential decision-making policies, producing natural-language explanations of why an action was chosen. However, LLMs often generate plausible but incorrect statements, and no existing approach systematically tests whether such explanations are faithful to the underlying environment. Two classic software testing challenges stand in the way: there is no oracle for the correctness of an explanation, and the test inputs, natural language queries about a policy's behavior, lack the structure needed for systematic test case generation. We address both. Probabilistic model checking provides the test oracle, computing exact reference results against which LLM answers are graded automatically. A taxonomy of post hoc query categories structures the input space around the environment-level facts from which policy explanations are composed; test cases generated from it are prioritized by question-specific diagnostic difficulty scores. Across seven MDP environments, the testing separates three open-weight LLMs: a reasoning model passes 85% of test cases, a mid-size model 70%, and a 1B model falls below the random baseline, while prioritization surfaces significantly harder cases than random selection. Our results indicate how trustworthy LLM-generated explanations are in model-free settings, where the same LLMs are used but no oracle exists to verify them.

Logical reasoning with large language models (LLMs) is a critical capability, as it reflects a system's ability to correctly deduce hypotheses from a given context using faithful deductive processes. However, LLM reasoning has often been shown to be sensitive to small surface-level variations in problem formulation, raising questions about whether models truly follow the underlying logical structure. Studying this behavior is challenging because the symbolic components of logical problems, such as operators and predicates, are difficult to systematically manipulate in natural language. We introduce a tool-driven framework for generating controlled, label-preserving edits to logical reasoning problems. Our method operates on symbolic representations of first-order logic and constraint satisfaction problem tasks, enabling targeted modifications to logical operators and other structural components before translating them back into natural language. Using this framework, we evaluate various LLMs under cumulative and individual operator edits and analyze their behavior in response to these changes. Our quantitative and qualitative analyses show that LLM reasoning behavior under controlled operator edits is inconsistent, regardless of model size or family: models sometimes adapt correctly to structural changes but often fail to track their logical consequences. The results from this automated stress test enable an evaluation of language models across different dimensions and help measure the reliability of their reasoning.

External text can override conflicting image evidence in multimodal large language models, a failure we call multimodal contextual sycophancy. We introduce a 998-case diagnostic that independently varies visual evidence, commonsense priors, and external text, and probe when this failure arises by moving the information boundary around a context-blind visual witness. On abnormal images paired with Gemini-generated false text, GPT-5.1 scores 7.9% under joint conditioning, 49.7% when the context-blind witness report is scored directly, 63.7% under a matched two-call witness-arbiter pipeline that exposes the witness to the text, and 84.2% under System-2 Visual Arbitration (S2VA), which withholds the text from the witness. Across six models, S2VA improves over the direct witness report by 19.7 to 44.1 points, with all paired 95% confidence intervals excluding zero. The best information boundary is not uniform: textual context scaffolds some models, and a GPT-4o-regenerated subset changes the relative ordering of joint conditioning, Witness-Only, and S2VA. Contextual sycophancy is therefore sensitive to when text is introduced, as well as to the model and context source.

Developing high-performance CUDA kernels demands specialized knowledge in algorithm implementation, correctness validation, and hardware-aware parallel optimization, creating a substantial expertise barrier and making generating CUDA kernels directly from natural language (Text2CUDA) essential. Meanwhile, the general-purpose code generation capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) prompts a series of works exploring LLM-based CUDA kernel generation. They mainly focus on transpilation from high-level frameworks such as PyTorch to CUDA (Torch2CUDA) rather than Text2CUDA, where models must understand the high-level input semantics and handle low-level kernel implementation and validation. Additionally, these methods are vulnerable to reward hacking due to reliance on predefined test inputs. In this paper, we propose CUDA-Harness, a framework for harnessing agentic CUDA kernel generation and optimization from natural language. Specifically, we introduce Intermediate-Structured Generation to connect high-level semantic understanding with low-level kernel generation. To dilute reward hacking in Text2CUDA, we construct Synthesis-Based Verification to provide isolated test data and progressive validation. Furthermore, we propose Feedback-Adaptive Evolution, a kernel evolution strategy that prioritizes correctness while optimizing performance. Finally, through extensive experiments, we demonstrate the effectiveness of CUDA-Harness, with further evaluations illustrating generalization across LLMs, hardware platforms, and to C-to-CUDA transpilation.

Post-training quantization (PTQ) is essential for deploying large language models (LLMs) under strict resource constraints. State-of-the-art PTQ methods quantize each layer with a single closed-form second-order solver: to remain analytically tractable, they heavily approximate the global loss (dropping cross-channel coupling, pooling output rows into groups), and they then freeze the resulting Hessian across the entire layer, with no way to refresh it as the loss landscape shifts column by column--a phenomenon we call information misalignment. We propose REAL-Q (Real-time E2E-loss Aligned LLM Quantization), a novel PTQ paradigm that breaks this compromise: instead of diluting the objective for the sake of analytic tractability, REAL-Q targets an end-to-end-aligned surrogate of the global loss and refines it via fine-grained, dynamic Block-wise Gradient Descent applied after every column block (128 columns). By coupling this fine-grained correction with a sliding window mechanism for smooth cross-layer transitions, REAL-Q effectively mitigates error propagation across the network. On LLaMA-3.1 (8B and 70B) and Qwen3 (0.6B-32B) at W4A16, REAL-Q reduces end-to-end KL divergence by up to ~49% relative to state-of-the-art globally-guided methods.

The growing use of large language models (LLMs) for search and information retrieval underscores the need to evaluate their reliability in high-stakes domains such as healthcare. Although LLMs can effectively answer questions about diseases, symptoms, and treatments, their ability to accurately assess causal relationships and ground their conclusions in verified scientific evidence remains unclear. Here, we present a preliminary, small-scale study that investigates the accuracy of LLMs in evaluating causal medical claims and supporting them with peer-reviewed research. We propose an evaluation framework for causal hypothesis verification that can be used to systematically track the performance of existing and future LLMs. We assess the performance of eight LLMs on 17 medical causal hypotheses to evaluate whether they can reliably verify these hypotheses using scientific evidence from the literature. We systematically annotate the scientific evidence they provide according to six criteria (a total of 1,067 annotation points) and assess them with nine evaluation metrics. Our analysis shows that while LLMs exhibit strong recall, they often perform poorly at providing valid scientific articles and evidence for support and at rejecting unsupported hypotheses. These findings highlight a critical limitation of current LLMs, as they cannot yet be trusted fully to verify causal relationships from the biomedical literature. This work underscores the need for rigorous evaluation before using LLMs for search and retrieval in healthcare settings.

In-context learning (ICL) lets large language models adapt to new tasks from demonstrations, and fine-tuning can erode this behaviour. Many preservation diagnostics inspect attention: if attention changes when demonstrations change, the model is treated as context-sensitive. This paper asks how far that proxy can be trusted once it is optimised. We formalise In-Context Sensitivity (ICS), the average row distance between last-token attention on matched and mismatched demonstration prefixes, and pair it with ICL-GAP, the behavioural accuracy gap between the same prefixes. In a controlled four-arm ablation on Llama-2-7B, an ICS-maximising regulariser ($\armKL$) drives ICS to $1.413$, within $0.5%$ of its geometric ceiling. The behavioural readout tells a different story: ICL-GAP stays near zero and MMLU accuracy moves from $0.371$ to $0.279$, a Goodhart dissociation of the bounded attention proxy. Endpoint statistics locate the mechanism: attention grows sharp and near-disjoint across prefixes yet routes to formatting and demonstration-body tokens rather than labels. A random-label protocol confirms that the behavioural probe family retains dynamic range at the same checkpoints. In a constructive sweep, behaviour gating partially mitigates the effect, while objectives anchored to pretrained computation hold the high-MMLU, moderate-ICS region that divergence maximisers leave. The main lesson is diagnostic: attention-level ICL proxies earn their place as training targets only after validation against behavioural gaps.

Despite extensive alignment efforts, Large Language Models (LLMs) remain vulnerable to generating unsafe content under adversarial prompting, yet the internal mechanisms by which safety behaviors are implemented remain poorly understood. We study LLM safety from a mechanistic interpretability perspective and characterize a multi-stage *safety circuit* that organizes refusal behavior, consisting of (i) $Harmful Detection Heads$ that respond to harmful inputs, (ii) $Safety Neurons$ that mediate and stabilize safety signals in the residual stream, and (iii) $Refusal Heads$ that translate these signals into safe response generation. Using targeted attention-head and neuron-level interventions, we provide causal evidence consistent with this circuit organization, showing that suppressing upstream Harmful Detection Heads disrupts downstream refusal behavior and that safety neurons mediate this interaction. We validate that this decomposition recurs across multiple LLM architectures and adversarial attack settings, and use simple, architecture-preserving weight scaling as a mechanistic probe to test its functional relevance. Across six LLMs, circuit-guided scaling improves safety rates under attacks by 26.5%, while incurring only a 1.7% accuracy drop across four standard benchmarks. Overall, our results support a circuit-level interpretation of LLM safety and suggest that mechanistic abstractions can reveal stable and transferable patterns underlying aligned behavior.

Visual aliasing, also known as the doppelganger problem, remains a key challenge for structure-from-motion (SfM): visually similar but physically distinct surfaces can produce incorrect image matches and degrade reconstruction quality. Previous work mitigates this issue with geometry-aware foundation-model features, but places a heavy transformer classifier on top of the backbone, making large-scale disambiguation expensive. We introduce XDG, an efficient visual disambiguation model designed for scalable SfM. Our key observation is that a 3D foundation model already performs the cross-view geometric reasoning necessary for visual disambiguation, so doppelganger classification should adapt the backbone representation directly rather than relearn pair reasoning in a separate heavy decoder. XDG fine-tunes Depth Anything 3 with lightweight LoRA adapters and repurposes its camera tokens as compact pair-level classification tokens. A compact MLP head predicts whether a candidate image pair observes the same 3D surface. Extensive experiments show that XDG provides a favorable accuracy-efficiency tradeoff: it remains competitive with the state-of-the-art disambiguation method across pairwise and reconstruction benchmarks and delivers more than a 3x inference speedup. On individual LaMAR scenes containing thousands of images, XDG saves more than 10 hours of visual disambiguation processing. Code is available at https://github.com/xtcpete/xdg.

The rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs) has made AI-generated text detection increasingly critical. Existing zero-shot detectors assume that more token-level evidence leads to more reliable detection. However, our empirical study challenges this consensus: fewer tokens sometimes work better, retaining only 40% can yield optimal performance, yet this benefit is not universal. Using the Entropy Gap Score (EGS), we introduce top-$k$ cumulative probability filtering as a diagnostic probe. Across three representative settings, filtering exhibits strikingly different behaviors. We analyze EGS via typical set theory and quantify its dynamics through entropy calibration and distribution analysis. We find that filtering helps for weak source LMs, where low-entropy tokens are harmful, but fails for strong source LMs, where they are not notably harmful. Our work provides the first systematic analysis showing that some tokens are not merely uninformative but systematically harmful due to entropy miscalibration, revealing a two-sided trade-off in token-level detection.

Safety alignment of large language models (LLMs) degrades across languages, yet the internal mechanism driving this asymmetry remains poorly understood. Our work, therefore, presents a systematic mechanistic analysis of multilingual safety using sparse autoencoder (SAE) features, sparse interpretable directions in the residual stream associated with harmful and harmless model behavior across three instruction-tuned LLMs, eight languages, and all model layers. We observe that safety-relevant features are architecture-dependent in terms of where they are located and how they are distributed across layers. Additionally, they are geometrically entangled with language identity and exhibit cross-lingual sharing patterns, i.e., languages share safety features to varying degrees across model depths and architectures. This safety-language entanglement has direct consequences such that ablating safety features impacts not only harmful response rates but also target language, with the degree of intervention predicted by the relationship between safety and language features. Our findings qualify the language-universality of safety alignment as architecture-dependent and offer a mechanistic account of multilingual safety interventions.

Modern systems in artificial intelligence (AI) somehow excel in domains for which they seem poorly suited. Intelligence has traditionally been modeled as operating over structured combinations of symbols, such as logical formulas. However, the strongest modern AI systems are based on neural networks, which instead represent information in continuous vectors. Vectors seem inadequate for capturing the structure of language, logic, and other cognitive domains, yet neural networks achieve impressive performance in these areas. How do they do it? In this work, we propose a potential answer: Despite appearances, perhaps the internal representations of neural networks implicitly realize symbolic structure. In support of this hypothesis, we show that the vector representations of a variety of neural networks can be closely approximated with symbolic structures: we can replace the network's entire representation-generating process with a closed-form equation instantiating a symbolic structure, and the network's behavior remains largely unchanged. This finding holds for both small-scale neural networks trained to manipulate lists as well as large language models (LLMs) operating in four domains that are central in symbolic traditions: arithmetic, logic, computer code, and language. Further, our symbolic approximation allows us to modify an LLM's behavior in targeted ways via precise interventions on its internal representations, showing that the LLM's behavior is reliant on the symbolic structures we have identified. This work provides a potential way to reconcile longstanding symbolic conceptions of intelligence with the vector-based nature of modern AI.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as proxies for human participants in social simulations, yet whether they update their beliefs in response to persuasive arguments, as humans do, remains poorly understood. We conduct a systematic comparison using a naturally occurring online persuasion corpus in which original posters explicitly verify whether a reply changed their view. Our results show that LLMs achieve only slight agreement with humans (Cohen's kappa ranging from 0.079 to 0.178). Content-level analyses show that humans and LLMs agree on the strongest persuasion cues but diverge on finer ones: humans are more swayed by novel content and assertive language, whereas LLMs favor topical similarity and surface-level formatting. At the level of persuasion strategy, LLMs underweight emotional appeals and overweight credibility signals relative to humans, while the type of proposition under debate exerts no measurable effect on the degree of divergence. Furthermore, switching from first-person role-playing to third-person observation shifts all models toward greater resistance to persuasion, with the effect varying across persuasion strategies and textual features. These findings highlight the risk of treating LLM judgments as faithful proxies for human belief updating and point to structural differences in how LLMs and humans process persuasive discourse. Our code is available at https://github.com/tsinghua-fib-lab/LLM-belief-update-cmv.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as essay graders in learning analytics, evaluated almost exclusively with agreement statistics. Educational measurement warns that raters also differ in severity, show halo, and drift as instruments. We treat LLM judges as raters and run a pre-registered rater-effects battery (many-facet Rasch severity, residual halo, generalizability/decision studies, cross-version shifts, differential functioning) on public corpora in two languages (ENEM/Essay-BR; ASAP): 2,377 essays, 12 judges, 4 providers, 5 version contrasts, replicated cells, released as a score tensor. Judge severity spans 219 points on ENEM's 0-1000 scale; on ASAP the panel spread is 15-33% of the score range against a between-trained-human gap near 1%. Judge-human correlations sit in an undiscriminating .47-.56 band. All five version contrasts shift severity beyond a family-wise permutation null (up to 133 points), and one judge was deprecated mid-study, caught by identity canaries. Two pre-registered tests returned honest nulls: severity-adjusted leaderboard reversals did not survive a permutation null, and "silent drift" was refuted: agreement moved with severity in four of five contrasts. Replication yields self-consistency (phi>=.80 at k<=2) but not human-level accuracy, and a same-instrument check overturned our own halo comparison: matched on instrument and calibration, we find no credible evidence that judge halo exceeds the trained-human range.

Large language models are increasingly used to read documents and produce downstream text, creating a provenance problem when the document owner cannot control or inspect the model that performs the generation. We introduce SemTrace, a source-grounded semantic watermark for detecting whether a generated review was influenced by a known protected manuscript copy. Rather than biasing token probabilities or imposing surface-form patterns, SemTrace constructs a document-specific binary signature from factual propositions that are directly supported by the manuscript itself. A protected PDF invisibly carries a content contract that selects one fact from each binary pair and asks an instruction-following reviewer to express those facts in fixed review slots without changing its independent evaluation. A frozen natural language inference model then decodes the resulting semantic evidence with explicit erasures and scores the recovered bits against the codeword assigned to that copy. This design targets model-agnostic, assigned-copy exposure detection while keeping the watermark semantically tied to the source document.

Black-box model attribution is increasingly relevant when large language models (LLMs) are served through relay and reseller APIs. A tempting low-cost signal is the prompt-token count returned by an OpenAI-compatible endpoint: two models that share a tokenizer and chat template may produce the same count sequence up to a fixed offset. Yet the validity of this signal for broader model-family attribution has received little direct holdout testing. We conduct a frozen-threshold study over 24 labeled endpoint pairs, split evenly into a development set and an untouched holdout set, with three temporal repeats and 30 controlled texts per pair. We introduce a validity-gated result contract that distinguishes an observed dissimilarity from an uninformative measurement caused by missing usage data, rate limits, or endpoint policy. The resulting shift-invariant exact-match score perfectly separates the 12 development pairs, yielding a frozen threshold of 0.725. On holdout, however, only 6 of 12 pairs are eligible under the pre-specified three-repeat rule. Among eligible pairs, balanced accuracy is 0.75, sensitivity is 0.50 (95% Wilson interval 0.15--0.85), and specificity is 1.00 (0.342--1.00). Two same-family pairs---Qwen 3.8 and DeepSeek V4 variants---fall below the frozen threshold. Across 4,320 formal API calls, every log is replayable, while holdout contains 189 non-200 responses and 157 successful responses without prompt-token usage. The study therefore validates token-count consistency as a fingerprint of a shared tokenization stack, but rejects its use as a standalone necessary test for model-family lineage.

Large language models are increasingly required to generate responses that satisfy multiple competing objectives. Since optimal trade-offs depend on both user preferences and input prompts, controllable multi-objective generation must dynamically adapt models at inference time without retraining. To address this, we propose Evolutionary Soups, a mixture-of-experts framework for fine-grained generation control, with gating networks trained via an evolutionary algorithm. The per-layer gating networks dynamically produce expert-merging coefficients from hidden-state representations, while the evolutionary algorithm incorporates greedy hypervolume contribution for effective evolution of these gating networks, achieving consistent improvements on large and noisy training datasets and broader coverage of the non-convex Pareto front. Experiments across three tasks demonstrate the effectiveness of Evolutionary Soups over baselines: it achieves the best hypervolume, linear utility, and Tchebyshev utility (~20% improvement) among controllable methods on all tasks.

As context lengths scale, attention increasingly becomes a primary computational bottleneck in large language models. Standard Transformers remain powerful but computationally inefficient, as they allocate the same attention budget to every token regardless of its contextual demand. Existing local-global hybrids provide a more efficient alternative by mixing restricted- and full-context attention, but they typically allocate span statically across layers or heads. To address these limitations, we propose LoGo, a token-level dynamic local-global attention mechanism that uses attention span as a direct proxy for attention budget allocation. Each LoGo layer contains coupled local and global branches: all tokens receive efficient local attention over a restricted context window, while a learned gate activates global attention with full-context access only for tokens requiring long-range information. A threshold-based budget controller maintains a target global ratio without auxiliary losses, and a progressive masking schedule stabilizes training before sparse routing takes effect. We further implement query-sparse Triton kernels that convert reduced global-attention computation into practical speedups. Extensive experiments validate LoGo's effectiveness, showing that it preserves the scaling behavior of full-attention Transformers across model sizes. In controlled comparisons, LoGo improves over the full-attention Transformer and matched-budget static local-global hybrids, with clear gains on long-range retrieval. Analysis further shows that LoGo learns interpretable span allocation patterns. These results suggest that learned token-level span allocation is an effective and scalable way to improve the long-context performance-compute trade-off.

Large language models (LLMs) often produce fluent but weakly grounded conclusions when reasoning over non-interactive, long-form narratives. A central failure mode is that unsupported intermediate hypotheses can enter the reasoning trajectory and contaminate subsequent inference, especially when evidence is scattered across distant parts of the story. To address this problem, we propose EVAR, an evidence-validated hypothesis admission framework for budget-aware narrative reasoning. EVAR first compiles the narrative into an immutable evidence store of source-linked atomic claims and assigns an instance-specific inference budget from unresolved gaps and uncertainty signals. During refinement, EVAR directly proposes candidate hypotheses for unresolved gaps, constructs hypothesis-conditioned validation challenges, and verifies each candidate against the locked store before admission: supported hypotheses enter the answer-supporting state, unverifiable ones are quarantined, and contradictory ones are discarded. A sufficiency-based stopping mechanism further avoids unnecessary refinement. Experiments on NarraCrime and multiple public reasoning benchmarks show that EVAR improves both task performance and evidence faithfulness while maintaining controllable inference cost.

Large Language Models (LLMs) often favor Western-associated entities across cultural contexts. Conventional debiasing methods aim for uniform neutrality, but cultural bias mitigation demands context-conditional behavior, preferring culturally appropriate entities when cultural cues are present and remaining neutral when they are absent. We propose CoCoA (Context-Conditional Cultural Alignment), a framework that learns this behavior through dual-context training on the same entity pairs under contexts with and without cultural cues. CoCoA combines a contrastive alignment objective with calibration and drift regularization, optimized through goal-aware gradient reconciliation. We evaluate CoCoA on CAMeL and Camellia, two entity-centric cultural bias benchmarks, across ten language settings and four LLMs. CoCoA reduces the Cultural Bias Score from 43 to 24 on average while maintaining near-neutral preferences at 50.2, with minimal impact on general performance across five standard benchmarks. These findings highlight that effective cultural alignment requires context-conditional modeling rather than uniform debiasing, and establish a new direction for mitigating entity-centric cultural bias in LLMs.

Modern software systems are commonly constructed in multiple, interacting programming languages. This construction leads to additional, often stealthy vulnerabilities buried in complex information flow due to language interactions. Existing static analyzers are impeded by the heterogeneous semantics of different languages, whereas dynamic approaches suffer from the limited coverage of (available and/or generated) test inputs. In this paper, we develop PolyFlow, a neural-symbolic framework for statically reasoning about information flow across language boundaries, combining large language models (LLMs) and static analysis synergistically. Governed by the control-flow representation of a given multi-language system, PolyFlow leverages LLMs to identify implicit flow facts due to challenging language features, hence augmenting the base representation and then propagating data flow through the system. It tackles inherent barriers (e.g., token limit and hallucination) of LLMs by putting them under careful guidance (e.g., static-analysis-guided scoping, context management, and fact checking), along with a multi-LLM expert panel for negotiated validation. Our experiments on real-world Python-C and Java-C systems show that PolyFlow is cost-effective and superior to various kinds of state-of-the-art baselines, revealing previously unknown cross-language vulnerabilities that are missed by all the baselines.

Large language models (LLMs) achieve strong reasoning performance, which depends critically on inference-time decisions. Yet these decisions are commonly handled by static, one-size-fits-all policies, limiting adaptation to diverse tasks and reasoning stages. Recent adaptive methods partially address this limitation, but they primarily adapt either decoding stochasticity (how the model explores) or reasoning compute (how long the model reasons) in isolation, leaving their interaction within a single reasoning trajectory unmodeled. To address this challenge, we shift toward a within-trajectory joint control view, and instantiate it in AutoCRAT, a decoder-side controller for frozen backbones. Using only signals available during decoding, AutoCRAT jointly adjusts sampling stochasticity and reasoning budget during generation. AutoCRAT operates over a discrete action space and updates control decisions only at semantic boundaries, improving stability while remaining responsive to the evolving reasoning process. Comprehensive evaluation across 6 benchmarks demonstrates that AutoCRAT (I) uses 13.8-52.7% fewer inference tokens on average than recommended static configurations, (II) surpasses recommended static and adaptive baselines by 1.5-4.5% in relative accuracy, and (III) enjoys strong cross-backbone transferability.

Large language models often answer complex reasoning questions without revealing intermediate steps, raising whether they reason latently or complete patterns. We propose the Hidden CoT Detection Score (HCDS), a comparative behavioral and mechanistic signal measuring whether neutral-prompt behavior aligns more closely with explicit CoT or explicit no- CoT. Here, hidden CoT operationally denotes this neutral-prompt CoT-like alignment; HCDS does not directly observe or prove an unexposed reasoning trace. On GSM8K, HCDS is significantly positive for both Qwen3-4B variants (Thinking $+1.87$, $p = 1.2 \times 10^{-7}$; Instruct $+1.41$, $p = 1.9 \times 10^{-4}$), replicates across a different inference stack and quantization within $0.08$ ($+1.80$ and $+1.45$), and is not significantly positive in seven of eight length-adjusted calibration-control cells. The unadjusted score produces large positive scores on single-step arithmetic and numeric factual lookup. The variants also respond differently to no-CoT instructions: Instruct complies from the prompt alone, whereas Thinking continues reasoning and requires intervention. These findings show stronger, less prompt-conditional CoT-like behavior in the reasoning-tuned model, consistent with but not proof of latent reasoning. HCDS thus investigates latent reasoning without relying on models' self-reported traces.

Spherical Transformers have emerged as a promising framework for panoramic semantic segmentation (PASS) by operating directly on spherical geometry and alleviating projection-induced distortions. However, existing architectures often assume canonical spherical structure and stable viewpoints, which are frequently violated in real-world imagery due to unconstrained camera motion, introducing contextual and geometric ambiguity. Consequently, they lack adaptive mechanisms to handle such ambiguity, limiting robustness to unseen spherical transformations. In contrast, biological perception is inherently ambiguity-aware, adapting to fluctuations in cue reliability caused by geometric and contextual variations to maintain stable interpretation under complex transformations. Motivated by this, we first systematically analyze existing PASS architectures under various unseen spherical transformations. We then introduce AdapToPASS, a novel bio-inspired Spherical Transformer that adaptively models contextual and geometric ambiguities for robust PASS. At its core, Adaptive Spherical Attention (AdaSpA) blocks dynamically modulate attention according to local contextual ambiguity, mimicking adaptive, context-driven biological perception. To address geometric ambiguity, AdapToPASS employs Bifocal Spherical Representation to balance field of view and spatial resolution, together with boundary supervision inspired by the boundary-sensitive nature of biological vision. Across indoor and outdoor semantic segmentation, AdapToPASS consistently outperforms prior state-of-the-art methods. Under unseen spherical transformations, it surpasses the next-best method by +13.38% relative mIoU on Stanford2D3D and +18.77% on WildPASS. We further introduce AdapToPASS-Swift, a lightweight variant with fewer than 2M parameters, which surpasses compact baselines while retaining robustness to spherical transformations.