每天知道
你的领域
出了什么

Next-token prediction has driven remarkable progress in large language models, yet a growing body of evidence suggests that they can struggle on problems governed by complex global constraints. In this work, we focus on this regime and ask whether some of these limitations arise from the inference interface induced by next-token prediction itself. We study this question through blackboard intelligence: an inference-time perspective in which a model works on a fixed, revisable canvas and searches over candidate solution states rather than committing to a causal, left-to-right trajectory. We instantiate this idea with diffusion language models, whose any-order prediction interface naturally exposes predictions over partially filled solution states. Our key observation is that mean confidence, a simple model-internal quantity available from the standard masked diffusion objective, provides a useful proxy for global coherence and can guide inference-time search and revision. Empirically, across ZebraLogic, Nurse Rostering, and Job-Shop Scheduling, Blackboard consistently improves inference while holding the fine-tuned LLaDA-8B-Instruct checkpoint fixed and substantially outperforms same-scale autoregressive baselines, reaching 90.4% accuracy on ZebraLogic-Hard, 76.4% exact feasibility on Nurse Rostering, and 80.2% optimality on JSSP. Stronger autoregressive search and refinement also fail to close the gap on ZebraLogic-Hard, while Blackboard surpasses tested frontier LLMs there and on JSSP despite their substantially greater scale and strong test-time reasoning. We open-source our codebase at https://github.com/jwoosang1/blackboard-intelligence.

The equirectangular projection (ERP) is widely used for panoramic depth estimation, but its spatially varying distortion makes geometry-consistent feature modeling challenging. We revisit panoramic depth estimation by decoupling contextual modeling in native spherical space from dense ERP prediction. To this end, we propose a Fibonacci Spherical Graph (FSG) as an intermediate reasoning space to lift ERP features onto quasi-uniform Fibonacci nodes on the sphere and capture local and long-range dependencies through complementary spherical neighborhoods. The resulting spherical discretization distributes graph nodes approximately uniformly over the spherical surface, reducing the over-representation of highly stretched regions during relational modeling. Operating on a compact set of Fibonacci nodes also avoids the computational burden of constructing and processing a graph at full ERP resolution. To bridge spherical reasoning and dense prediction, we propose a Spherical Context Conditioning (SCC) module that adaptively modulates dense ERP features with the enhanced spherical representation, allowing spherical context to guide pixel-aligned depth prediction. Extensive experiments on three benchmarks demonstrate that the proposed method consistently achieves superior depth accuracy over existing approaches.

Large language models often solve independent problems in the same conversation. Can computation from earlier problems help them solve new ones? To answer this question, we first conduct preliminary experiments showing that retained history can raise or lower later-turn accuracy, even within the same domain. To understand these effects, we use controlled replay to isolate internal state changes specific to each problem-history pairing. Across different histories, these changes preserve similar relationships among current problems. To improve reasoning under retained history, we introduce STAIR (Stale-Token Attention for Inter-query Reuse). STAIR captures keys and values from earlier response generation in a fixed bank. It learns to redirect current queries when they read this bank during prompt processing. The base model remains frozen; only 12,288 parameters are trained. Across three Qwen models and four benchmarks, STAIR improves average later-turn accuracy by up to 11.67 percentage points over the unmodified model with history.

Multi-path reasoning methods such as self-consistency (SC) sample $K$ reasoning paths and choose the most frequent answer. However, their gains quickly plateau as $K$ increases, and existing methods do not predict when this saturation will occur. We formalize multi-path LLM reasoning as a diversity combining problem from wireless communications: each path is a noisy channel observation, and the pairwise correlation of path correctness caps the design-effect effective sample size of the vote at a finite ceiling. Generalized least squares (GLS) analysis shows that, under exchangeability, the optimal symmetric linear combiner of latent embeddings is uniform, supporting majority vote as the natural default in standard SC while leaving room for weighting or pruning under heterogeneous prompt-template branches. Across 5 models and 12 benchmarks, prompt-template diversity reduces path correlation in $55$ of $57$ valid cells, with the strongest effect on open-ended QA. We derive an Adaptive-K rule that uses a four-path pilot to select $K^*$, retaining $96$--$103%$ of MV@$K{=}32$ accuracy across Math, QA, and NLU.

Learning from human preferences is central to large language model (LLM) alignment, but human preference annotation is costly. Active preference learning reduces this cost by selecting informative comparisons, and LLM judges can provide additional scalable feedback. However, the preferences of the judges may deviate from those of the target human population. Even after calibration on trusted reference data, active acquisition can shift the comparison distribution and expose residual judge bias. We therefore incorporate judge deviations into the acquisition design rather than relying on a separate calibration stage. Under joint estimation, comparisons that appear highly informative about the reward may also reflect judge bias and therefore provide less information about human preferences. To address this issue, we propose Nuisance-Adjusted Optimal Design (NAOD), a comparison-selection strategy that prioritizes policy-relevant target information after nuisance adjustment and uses the Frank-Wolfe algorithm for optimization. Theoretically, we establish a sharp conditional local asymptotic minimax lower bound on policy risk and construct an estimator that attains it. We further characterize the finite-sample cost of learning the nuisance representation and show that representation error can reverse an oracle design advantage. Finally, we validate these predictions experimentally and evaluate NAOD on Chatbot Arena data across 17 judges, 15 budget configurations, and 15 random cluster-level splits. NAOD reduces the mean regret of proxy policy by 29.1% relative to a matched target-information design, outperforms existing methods, and improves human-preference prediction on held-out data.

Test-time reasoning systems often respond to failure by restarting or revising the latest step, even when an earlier decision caused the error. We introduce CORE, a search controller that requests a certified conflict core from a verifier, backjumps to the latest decision in that core, and caches the conflict to avoid repeating it. Under sound verification, finite branching and depth, and exhaustive proposals, the uncapped search is complete and never prunes a valid solution. On 2,000 planted graph-coloring instances with matched proposals and an exact verifier, CORE reduces median verifier calls by 39.8% at 30 variables and 35.0% at 36 variables relative to chronological repair; caching further improves on backjumping alone. Across five reasoning tasks, CORE achieves 75.9% mean success with Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct and 84.2% with Qwen3-8B, compared with 72.5% and 81.8% for Tree of Thoughts. It also uses fewer verifier calls and generated tokens on both backbones. These results show the value of using certified failure explanations to direct language-model search.

Value steering should change an LLM's normative priorities while preserving the scenario, facts, and task constraints underlying its answer. Conventional activation edits often change both. We introduce an editable semantic-value interface on frozen residual states, with a one-way semantic-to-value pathway that grounds value recognition in context. Stop-gradient blocks feedback through this pathway; swap consistency, topic de-confounding, and decorrelation encourage selective codes. At inference, editing the value code produces a residual delta while holding the semantic code fixed. On two instruction-tuned backbones, this interface improves semantic preservation and reduces benign refusals at comparable value alignment. A matched mixing-by-gating ablation separates representation learning from selective edit activation, and dimension-matched probes establish improved code selectivity. Against validation-selected prompting on LLaMA-3.1-8B, the method achieves comparable alignment (0.750 vs. 0.748), higher BERTScore (0.938 vs. 0.923), and fewer contradictions (5.1% vs. 7.6%). Human ratings and cross-taxonomy controls provide complementary evidence for low-damage value steering.

Machine unlearning has emerged as a crucial mechanism for removing hazardous knowledge and enforcing safety alignment in Large Language Models (LLMs). However, recent studies reveal a persistent security risk: unlearned models remain highly vulnerable to retraining attacks, where suppressed malicious behaviors rapidly resurface after benign fine-tuning. In this work, we investigate the optimization dynamics of unlearning and identify that this vulnerability stems from shallow alignment. Rather than effectively erasing target knowledge, models often exploit a shortcut by activating previously dormant parameters to act as spurious suppressors, forming a fragile inhibitory shell over intact malicious representations. To address this issue and enforce authentic memory deletion, we propose FDCU, a novel dual-constrained subspace projection framework. FDCU restricts parameter updates through a highly scalable, element-wise dual-masking rule: it preserves general knowledge manifolds via Fisher Information and strictly prohibits the abnormal activation of spurious suppressors via the Principle of Minimal Functional Intervention (PMFI). By reliably blocking the model's ability to superficially hide knowledge, FDCU promotes the authentic dismantling of target representations. Extensive experiments across specific knowledge erasure and safe output control tasks demonstrate that FDCU achieves state-of-the-art robustness against retraining attacks while maintaining near-lossless general utility, ensuring durable safety for LLMs.

Recent work on hallucination detection in large language models has shown that, for a fixed pre-trained model and reasoning task, it is possible to estimate the model's confidence in the correctness of its outputs. Such uncertainty estimates have primarily been used to improve truthfulness by detecting or filtering confabulations. In this work, we ask whether these signals can instead be used more proactively to directly improve the accuracy of model-generated answers. We propose USteer, a simple, training-free steering mechanism that adjusts a model's layer-wise activations during inference using the gradient of a confidence measure with respect to the activations. This procedure nudges generation toward outputs with lower uncertainty at inference time, without modifying model parameters or requiring additional supervision. We show that this approach consistently reduces hallucination across a range of tasks, demonstrating that confidence signals can be leveraged not only for detection, but also for effective inference-time control of model behavior.

Does a language model merely predict tokens, or does it understand what it says? We make this question measurable by defining "understanding" through the lens of no-arbitrage. A model understands a vocabulary to a certain degree if a computationally bounded trader cannot extract guaranteed profit by betting against the model's probabilities on logically related claims (a "Dutch book"). We establish three theoretical results: first, because full logical coherence is computationally intractable, understanding is inherently graded, not absolute. Second, we prove that the exact optimum of standard next-token prediction is inherently incoherent across different question formats; the flaw lies in the training objective, not the architecture. Third, we show that uncertainty accumulates predictably along reasoning chains, making unjustified overconfidence an arbitrage opportunity in itself. To address this, we introduce Arbitr, a training framework where an adversarial trader penalizes the model for logical inconsistencies, paired with a calibration anchor to prevent uninformative collapse. Across five pre-registered experiments on Qwen2.5 and Phi-3.5 models, we demonstrate that standard models are highly exploitable across different phrasings. Arbitr reduces this exploitability by orders of magnitude without sacrificing task accuracy, and the effect successfully transfers to unseen logical patterns and new model families. Crucially, we uncover a scaling illusion: at 7B parameters, near-zero measured incoherence often coincides with extreme, unjustified confidence. We conclude that while Arbitr enforces rigorous logical consistency, coherence is a necessary condition for knowledge, but not a sufficient one

We test whether large language models solve formally matched kinship problems equally well when relations are expressed in familiar vocabulary or by explicitly defined nonce predicates. Across 500 paired graphs, concrete accuracy exceeds arbitrary accuracy by 35.6 percentage points in local Qwen3.8-27B, 26.6 in Gemma 4 26B-A4B, 12.0 in Gemma 4 31B, and 5.4 in Qwen3.8-Max. All four paired gaps are statistically resolved. Reasoning budgets and prompt-language interventions can substantially reduce the difference, showing that it is modifiable rather than a fixed incapacity. The minimal conclusion is behavioral: on these tasks, the models' manifested relational competence is not indifferent to presentation. Explicit definitions provide the formal relations but do not make nonce predicates as usable as familiar vocabulary embedded in learned linguistic associations.

Recursive reasoning models apply a small shared Transformer block many times to refine a latent state. This gives them large effective depth with few parameters and makes them strong on algorithmic tasks. Such compact solvers are natural candidates for tools that an LLM can call on narrow algorithmic subproblems. However, existing models such as HRM, TRM and URM differ in architecture, gradient propagation and training procedure simultaneously. This makes it hard to tell what drives their performance, and their optimization is still poorly understood and often unstable. In this work we address both of these gaps. First, we study these questions under a unified experimental pipeline spanning six algorithmic domains. Individual controlled ablations are performed on representative domains, while the resulting recipe is evaluated across the full suite. The study reveals a surprisingly simple recipe for stable and generalizable recursive reasoning: an intermediate gradient horizon, large physical batches and controlled updates of the recurrent state. An explicit hierarchical architecture is not needed. Second, we combine these findings into a stable 13.6M-parameter model that achieves the strongest overall performance among the evaluated recursive baselines, with particularly large gains on out-of-distribution generalization. It raises Arithmetic OOD accuracy to 71.2%, from 36.2% for the strongest baseline, while reaching 98.41% on Sudoku and 59.5% pass@2 on ARC-AGI-1. Our results show that, within the recursive architectures studied here, performance depends strongly on how recurrence is optimized and stabilized. More broadly, it shows how AI systems can be improved by optimizing their components one at a time.

Large language models often know the truth and say otherwise: a model that answers correctly when asked neutrally will affirm a user's mistaken belief, or misstate a fact its system prompt wants hidden, once the context rewards it. Such deception is a behavior conditioned on context, not knowledge, yet machine unlearning, the natural tool for removing a behavior from the weights, is built to forget facts that a deceptive model still needs. We propose to unlearn when a model deceives rather than what it knows, with a contrastive forget unit built from the model's own realized deceptions: the same question under a deception-triggering and a neutral context, admitted only where belief holds and behavior flips. Standard objectives on this unit face a dilemma. Suppression objectives such as NPO leave much of the deception in place. Target-based objectives, which distill the model's neutral behavior into the pressured context, remove it but induce context blindness: a target generated without the context teaches the model to stop reading it, eroding benign system-prompt instructions, secret-keeping and the reasoning a monitor inspects, a failure invisible to deception rates and capability benchmarks. We introduce PACT, which trains toward pressure-aware counterfactual targets (the model's own honest response, with a trace that registers the pressure and resists it) while retaining the benign uses of the triggering context. On two 32B reasoning models, PACT reduces held-out deception from over 50% to under 3% while system-prompt adherence, secret-keeping and the reasoning trace stay at the base model's level. On a tug-of-war score of removal against retention, PACT reaches 0.94 and 0.86, against at most 0.77 and 0.60 for any baseline. Like removed knowledge, removed deception is shallow under relearning, and terms that simulate the attacker hold it only at a cost in context use.

Bias has long been studied in social psychology and cognitive science, where decades of research have produced a body of validated interventions that reduce stereotypical thinking and prejudiced responses in humans. We propose Debias It Yourself (DIY), a cognitively grounded framework that translates five such interventions into debiasing procedures for large language models and delivers them through three established paradigms: Show (in-context examples), Train (instruction tuning), and Revise (guided self-revision). Across three models, five bias benchmarks, eleven debiasing baselines, and three reasoning benchmarks, Train+Revise and Revise alone attain the top two average ranks, lead the bias-reasoning tradeoff (mean bias as low as 2% at 90% reasoning accuracy), and reduce bias on unseen dimensions by up to 14.8%. Our code and data are publicly available.

Ownership establishes rights over the use, control, and transfer of objects. Understanding these relations is essential for AI systems to interact appropriately with people and their resources. Yet how large language models (LLMs) attribute ownership under competing claims remains unclear. We introduce the Competing Ownership Attribution Task (COAT), comprising 42 scenarios, and compare ownership allocations from 24 LLM configurations with those of 108 human participants. Overall, human-model similarity is close to human-human similarity, but models show greater homogeneity in their ownership judgments. Within individual answers, models also divide ownership more evenly among claimants than humans do. Pooling responses across model configurations reveals more scenarios with a shared judgment and fewer with distinct viewpoint groups than in humans. When humans form distinct groups, models may converge on one viewpoint or between competing viewpoints. Further comparisons reveal different contextual sensitivities. As material value increases across scenarios, allocations to creators decline less sharply in models than in humans. Across scenarios differing in public recognition of later holders as owners, allocations to these holders increase in models but decrease slightly in humans. Together, these findings suggest that the evaluated LLM responses do not fully capture the diversity of participants' ownership judgments or how those judgments vary across situations. Developing socially capable AI therefore requires moving beyond overall similarity to capture the diversity and context dependence of human judgments.

Post-training quantization (PTQ) has become a widely adopted technique for reducing the memory footprint and inference cost of large language models (LLMs). However, recent studies reveal that when applied to reasoning models, PTQ not only degrades reasoning performance but also exacerbates overthinking, leading to longer reasoning trajectories. These issues may offset the efficiency gains expected from lower-precision inference. Existing approaches mainly rely on complex optimization procedures. More recent lightweight inference strategies instead use predefined overthinking markers, limiting their adaptability across quantized models. To address these issues, we propose Reasoning Analysis and Token-level Inference Optimization (RATIO), a framework that identifies model-specific overthinking tokens and assigns each a tailored penalty. RATIO first introduces Quantization-aware Reasoning Behavior Analysis (QRBA) to identify overthinking tokens by analyzing discrepancies between full-precision and quantized models. It then adopts Token-Specific Penalty Determination (TSPD), which leverages full-precision guidance to derive token-specific penalties without additional training. Extensive experiments show that RATIO achieves a better accuracy-efficiency trade-off than existing token-level interventions. Specifically, RATIO achieves up to 9.8 points accuracy improvement and reduces chain-of-thought (CoT) length by up to 51.3% compared with quantized baselines. The code will be available at https://github.com/steven-bao1/RATIO.

While Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) has historically improved performance on a range of NLP tasks, the benefit---or lack thereof---of AMR augmentation for modern LLMs is thus far unclear. In this paper, we attempt to reproduce recent work that reported substantial downstream gains from AMR augmentation, finding that these are likely due to specific choices in the experimental settings used: using a consistent and unified protocol for hyperparameter selection, we observe that text-only baselines consistently match or exceed the performance of AMR-augmented models. To investigate this null result, we introduce a perplexity-based probe measuring the degree to which AMR provides an LLM with supplemental relational knowledge not already available to the model. We find that AMR augmentation does not help LLMs improve their understanding of relational content in the sentence, indicating that augmenting these models with AMR offers no clear benefit on downstream tasks.

Precise numerical reasoning with Large Language Models (LLMs) is essential for expanding their applicability to complex real-world tasks. However, text-based tokenization often fragments numbers, significantly hindering precise arithmetic reasoning. Meanwhile, numerical embeddings, despite arithmetic precision, rely on context-agnostic substitution that disregards the semantic role of numbers as identifiers. To combine the complementary strengths, we propose ANI (Adaptive Numerical Injection), a hybrid framework that governs the selective injection of numerical features based on the semantic context. By employing a context-aware gating mechanism, we selectively inject numerical embeddings (specifically FoNE) into the latent space, explicitly preserving nominal identifiers while enhancing quantitative operands. Through extensive evaluations across various LLMs, we demonstrate that ANI enhances MATH performance by 9.5 points over the official reference model, while maintaining robust performance on general linguistic benchmarks.

A pool of language models can collaborate and improve collectively by learning from one another's responses. These interactions depend on the instructions used during training. Existing methods typically sample instructions uniformly, even though their usefulness may change as the models improve: an instruction on which models' responses once differed in quality may later be answered equally well, while a previously difficult instruction may begin to provide a useful learning signal. We propose Stackelberg Alignment, a game-theory-inspired leader-follower framework that turns instruction selection into an adaptive curriculum. An EXP3 bandit acts as the leader, allocating a fixed sampling budget across instructions and updating its sampling distribution using a reward that combines instruction difficulty and response discriminability. The language models act as followers: they respond to the selected instructions, evaluate one another's responses, and learn from the resulting preference signals through DPO or GRPO. The framework uses Elo-style reputation-weighted peer judgment and reputation-based opponent matching to support reliable and competitive model interactions. Experiments across three heterogeneous model pools and 12 benchmarks spanning scientific discovery, reasoning, code, instruction following, and knowledge show that Stackelberg Alignment achieves the highest macro-average across three diverse model pools, outperforming the strongest training-time baseline by up to 7.4% and the best static inference baseline by 12-25%. Analysis confirms that the adaptive leader concentrates duels on the most informative instructions, and ablations show that both reputation-weighted judgment and reputation-based matching improve the effectiveness of multi-LLM evolution.

Large language models have achieved remarkable capabilities across diverse domains, yet their safety alignment remains vulnerable to jailbreak attacks. In this work, we identify a previously underexplored failure mode - safety generalization lag - where alignment trained predominantly on natural language fails to transfer to the code domain. We show that this lag induces a code-completion blind spot, allowing malicious intent embedded within syntactically valid code to evade safety mechanisms. To exploit this vulnerability, we propose CodeMimicry, a fully automated black-box jailbreak framework that generates structured, object-oriented code prompts to induce harmful outputs via code completion. Experiments on 8 state-of-the-art commercial LLMs demonstrate that CodeMimicry achieves a 96.25% attack success rate with 1.51 queries on average, significantly outperforming both template-based and optimization-based baselines. Beyond empirical performance, we provide a mechanistic analysis of code-based jailbreaks through latent space representations, including projection onto refusal-related directions and activation steering. This analysis offers an explanation of how CodeMimicry bypasses safety mechanisms in code-related domains. Our findings reveal a weakness in current safety alignment and highlight the need for robust alignments in structured domains such as code.

Graph agents extend large language models (LLMs) with the ability to actively explore and reason over knowledge graphs through multi-step interactions with graph tools. However, training capable graph agents typically requires large collections of question-answer pairs and reasoning trajectories, whose manual construction is costly and difficult to scale. Moreover, employing proprietary LLMs to generate such supervision further risks exposing sensitive graph data to external services. Therefore, we propose GraphCert to bootstrap agentic graph reasoning with certified evidence rubrics during post-training. Specifically, the Bootstrapped Graph Quizzer guided by generation controls produces graph-grounded QA pairs and marks supporting evidence, which undergo execution certification and semantic curation. The accepted evidence is then canonicalized into certified evidence rubrics that later reward Graph Solver evidence alignment alongside answer correctness during GRPO training. Experiments on five graph reasoning domains in GRBENCH demonstrate that GraphCert consistently outperforms substantially larger LLM agents and post-training method. Furthermore, our analysis demonstrates that the learned policy transfers robustly across heterogeneous graph domains, suggesting that GraphCert acquires reusable graph-reasoning capabilities rather than domain-specific patterns. These results establish executable self-certification as an effective approach to self-training compact graph reasoning agents. Our code will be made publicly available.

Chain-of-thought (CoT) traces often serve as a proxy for how Large Language Models (LLMs) arrive at their answers. However, growing evidence shows that models' CoT often fails to reflect their internal computations and can be changed without affecting their final answers. In this work, we measure and improve the alignment between the reasoning described in an LLM's CoT and what it computes internally. We propose CoT-Interpretability Alignment (CIA), a metric that measures the agreement between a model's CoT traces and its internal reasoning strategies as detected by interpretability tools. We evaluate CIA on three tasks (two-hop question answering, hint intervention, and integer multiplication) across three LLMs, finding that LLMs exhibit limited alignment across all tasks (44.8-75.9%). We then experiment with improving CIA via post-training, setting both the task accuracy and parametric faithfulness signals as a reward. Experiments show that we can substantially improve CoT parametric faithfulness while maintaining or improving the task accuracy. We provide rich analysis, such as their generalization patterns. Our work provides both a framework for auditing CoT parametric faithfulness and a pathway toward making models' explicit reasoning more trustworthy. Code and data are available at https://github.com/yihuaihong/CIA-minimal-repro.

Large language models (LLMs) have been rapidly improving in long-context tasks, powered by Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning. However, the internal mechanisms underlying this improvement remain unclear. We investigate these mechanisms through a needle-in-a-haystack (NIAH) counting task, where an LLM is asked to count the number of records dispersed in a long text. Across twelve model comparison groups, Thinking (or reasoning) improves counting accuracy over Non-thinking, with pronounced gains at larger counts. This motivates our mechanistic analysis, which identifies two contrasting mechanisms: (i) broad retrieval, where Non-thinking models broadly attend to multiple needles; (ii) targeted retrieval, where Thinking models use enumeration in CoT traces to successively retrieve needles. Targeted retrieval concentrates attention on individual needles and is accompanied by more compact internal representations. Moreover, causal intervention analysis suggests that Thinking models use the CoT trace to maintain and update an internal counter as needles are successively retrieved, even without explicit numbering. In small controlled experiments, both retrieval mechanisms and counter states emerge under standard autoregressive training. Together, our results connect long-context retrieval with representation geometry of counting, supporting a state-tracking account of CoT reasoning.

Role-playing prompting has become a popular yet simple technique for improving LLM reasoning and output quality. However, whether it consistently boosts performance across diverse domains remains unclear, as systematic validation is lacking. To fill this gap, we run multi-model, cross-domain, and multilingual experiments on MMLU and MMLU-Redux. We find that gains from role-play prompting depend heavily on model capacity, knowledge domain, and prompt language. Drawing on metacognition theory, we propose the persona-related cognitive alignment hypothesis: role-play works only when the LLM correctly grasps the designated persona and its associated knowledge domain. We test this hypothesis through persona information richness ablation, layer-wise entropy divergence analysis, and latent thought-space deflection observation. To reduce persona cognitive bias and stabilize role-play performance, we propose Mixed-Language Concatenate Prediction (MLCP), a simple, training-free, and efficient multilingual prompt concatenation strategy. It aggregates semantically equivalent role prompts to enrich complementary representational cues. Extensive experiments show that MLCP consistently outperforms vanilla role-play prompting across all tested LLMs.

In finance, interpreting machine learning predictions is essential, yet the numerical outputs of explainable AI can be difficult for non-experts to understand. While large language models (LLMs) can translate these outputs into natural language, they may produce errors when inferring numerical changes and feature relations. We propose an LLM narrative framework for cross-sectional stock return prediction that combines temporal Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) evidence with historical regime analogs. Temporal evidence tracks changes in the normalized global SHAP importance of an XGBoost model over six months. Historical analogs are past periods with similar changes in SHAP importance, their model performance and subsequent market returns are provided as comparative context. Using this framework, we conduct a controlled study of progressive reasoning externalization, sequentially providing raw SHAP sequences, deterministic temporal descriptors, and feature relations. Each generated claim is verified against provenance-linked evidence. Across Qwen3, externalizing numerical and relational reasoning improved evidence faithfulness as well as temporal and relational accuracy. Evidence faithfulness increased from 0.696 to 0.996 for Qwen3-32B-Instruct. While historical analogs did not improve structured automatic faithfulness, they received higher human-rated usefulness scores. These results suggest that externalizing verifiable reasoning enhances narrative faithfulness and that historical context adds interpretive value.

We present JoyAI-Voice~2.0, an end-to-end anthropomorphic speech generation model built upon a fully continuous, dual-encoder architecture. Raw speech is encoded into continuous latents and partitioned into patches. Each patch is decomposed by a semantic-acoustic dual encoder into a semantically purified representation and an acoustic representation, which are fused and jointly fed to a causal autoregressive Transformer for planning. The Transformer predicts the conditioning for the next patch, and a local diffusion Transformer renders its full latents for 48\,kHz synthesis. The model is trained with a joint flow-matching and stop-prediction objective, followed by supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning with DiffusionNFT to improve model performance. It achieves the lowest average word error rate of 2.51% on Seed-TTS, a 14.9% relative reduction over the strongest baseline, and state-of-the-art attribute fidelity on InstructTTSEval in both Chinese and English, leading on 5 of 10 perceptual dimensions with the highest overall score of 0.893 on MDVD-Eval.

As GUI-based mobile agents rapidly progress, rigorous safety evaluation of their autonomous decision-making in realistic app interfaces becomes increasingly critical. Existing benchmarks mainly focus on execution-level anomalies using task success or hijack rates, but fail to capture the in-task goal deviation risk in multi-candidate selection tasks, where the decision may be steered toward an attacker-specified target, even in violation of instruction-implied constraints (e.g., cheapest/highest-rated), without any overt execution anomalies. We present DIBench, a decision integrity benchmark for measuring this risk in mobile agents. DIBench covers 7 commercial and 3 simulated apps with 5 task types. Under a threat model restricted to non-privileged UI content, we construct 8 deceptive injection probe instantiations that can steer critical selections without overt anomalies. The benchmark includes 1,000 clean and 36,672 injected instances, with a unified protocol and integrity metrics for comparison. Experiments spanning 4 agent frameworks and 7 base models show that completion-based evaluation can overestimate agent trustworthiness and miss decision-integrity risks: deceptive injections steer selections and shift early action policies, inflating completion rates and creating a misleading illusion of safety. Common defenses, including detection, image preprocessing, and prompt reminders, yield inconsistent integrity gains. Overall, DIBench provides a unified, reproducible benchmark to quantify the risk of in-task goal deviation in mobile agents and enable comparable evaluations of safety defenses.

We propose a fine-tuning method for flow-matching diffusion models aimed at realistic artificial light modeling without the need for a large training dataset. We address the task of controllable interior image editing, where the goal is to turn artificial light sources on or off while preserving the scene geometry, object placement, materials, and visual identity of the original image. To achieve this, we decompose the task into two independent formulations. We introduce the LoRA Direction Training Method, which extracts the pure direction of the LoRA adapter effect in the diffusion model flow field, and we also introduce specialized loss functions to ensure the realism of the inverse transformation. Additionally, the resulting increment map is used for more precise adjustment of the lighting color and temperature.

Multi-agent LLM systems pair a sender with broad context and an executor with a limited local view. We study when a short message improves the executor's next decision, when raw context is preferable, and when a stronger sender helps. Our framework, receiver-relative bounded coordination, expresses message utility as receiver gain minus protocol tax. Compression beats raw context when tax savings exceed losses from omitted information and decoder mismatch. Even Bayes-sufficient compression can fail when a bounded executor cannot use its surface form. A three-stage decomposition separates externalization, absorption, and action closure, explaining how errors remain after the correct content reaches the receiver. Under a single-crossing condition, sender upgrades help above a receiver-burden threshold. Across six benchmarks, the same Qwen protocol raises ContextBench joint accuracy from $0.633$ to $0.775$ but lowers ToolSandbox from $0.889$ to $0.653$. Fixed-message replay reveals closure failures despite correct artifact recovery. These results guide an inference-time selector that improves the accuracy-cost frontier on the evaluated communication regimes.

Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architectures allow frontier language models to scale to trillions of parameters, but their deployment is constrained by massive memory footprints and memory-bandwidth limitations. Although modern accelerators provide Sparse Tensor Cores (SpTCs) that reduce weight storage and increase throughput through low-precision semi-structured sparsity, exploiting them for MoEs remains challenging because of substantial model-quality degradation and the lack of grouped sparse GEMM primitives. We present an end-to-end hardware-software co-design framework that compresses expert weights into hardware-native, low-precision sparse representations and accelerates their execution on SpTCs. Algorithmically, our framework relaxes discrete semi-structured support selection through continuous reparameterization, enabling differentiable joint optimization with quantized weights under a router-weighted reconstruction objective and scalable expert-parallel compression. Systemically, we develop a custom grouped sparse GEMM kernel tailored to low-precision sparse MoE inference on SpTCs. Across MoE models ranging from 30 billion to one trillion parameters, our framework improves state-of-the-art joint sparse-quantization accuracy by up to 4.35 percentage points while preserving 96.09% of the original model's performance. On NVIDIA B200 GPUs, our kernel outperforms the vendor baseline by up to $1.65\times$, increasing serving throughput by $1.18\times$ and reducing end-to-end latency by up to $4.03\times$. These results establish hardware-software co-design as a practical path toward scalable and efficient MoE deployment.