Reinforcement learning (RL) yields substantial improvements in large language models' (LLMs) downstream task performance and alignment with human values. Surprisingly, such large gains result from updating only a small subnetwork comprising just 5%-30% of the parameters, with the rest effectively unchanged. We refer to this phenomenon as parameter update sparsity induced by RL. It is observed across all 7 widely-used RL algorithms (e.g., PPO, GRPO, DPO) and all 10 LLMs from different families in our experiments. This sparsity occurs without any explicit sparsity-promoting regularizations or architectural constraints.

Programming assistants powered by large language models have improved dramatically, yet existing benchmarks still evaluate them in narrow code-generation settings. Recent efforts such as InfiBench and StackEval rely on Stack Overflow questions and remain limited to single-turn interactions, manually curated data, and isolated snippets rather than full project environments. We introduce CodeAssistBench (CAB), the first benchmark for evaluating multi-turn, project-grounded programming assistance at scale. CAB automatically constructs datasets from GitHub issues tagged as questions, using an LLM-driven pipeline that filters noise, extracts runnable contexts, builds executable containers, and verifies environment correctness. This enables continuous, automated expansion across diverse repositories without manual intervention. Using CAB, we create a testbed of 3,286 real-world issues across 214 repositories, spanning seven languages. Evaluating state-of-theart models reveals a substantial gap: while models achieve 70-83% accuracy on Stack Overflow-style questions, they solve only 7.22-16.49% of CAB issues from post-training-cutoff repositories. These results highlight a fundamental challenge: current LLMs struggle to provide assistance in realistic, project-specific contexts despite strong performance on traditional Q&A benchmarks. CAB provides a scalable, reproducible framework for advancing research in multi-turn, codebasegrounded programming agents.

Robotic task planning in real-world environments requires reasoning over implicit constraints from language and vision.

Text-to-Visualization (Text2VIS) enables users to create visualizations from natural language queries, making data insights more accessible. However, Text2VIS faces challenges in interpreting ambiguous queries, as users often express their visualization needs in imprecise language. To address this challenge, we introduce nvBench 2.0, a new benchmark designed to evaluate Text2VIS systems in scenarios involving ambiguous queries.

Multimodal hallucination in multimodal large language models (MLLMs) restricts the correctness of MLLMs. However, multimodal hallucinations are multi-sourced and arise from diverse causes. Existing benchmarks fail to adequately distinguish between perception-induced hallucinations and reasoning-induced hallucinations. This failure constitutes a significant issue and hinders the diagnosis of multimodal reasoning failures within MLLMs. To address this, we propose the MIRAGE benchmark, which isolates reasoning hallucinations by constructing questions where input images are correctly perceived by MLLMs yet reasoning errors persist. MIRAGE introduces multi-granular evaluation metrics: accuracy, factuality, and LLMs hallucination score for hallucination quantification. Our analysis reveals that (1) the model scale, data scale, and training stages significantly affect the degree of logical, fabrication, and factual hallucinations; (2) current MLLMs show no effective improvement on spatial hallucinations caused by misinterpreted spatial relationships, indicating their limited visual reasoning capabilities; and (3) question types correlate with distinct hallucination patterns, highlighting targeted challenges and potential mitigation strategies. To address these challenges, we propose Logos, a method that combines curriculum reinforcement fine-tuning to encourage models to generate logic-consistent reasoning chains by stepwise reducing learning difficulty, and collaborative hint inference to reduce reasoning complexity. Logos establishes a baseline on MIRAGE, and reduces the logical hallucinations in original base models.

Recent breakthroughs in the analysis of multi-objective evolutionary algorithms (MOEAs) are mathematical runtime analyses of those algorithms which are intensively used in practice. So far, most of these results show the same performance as previously known for simpler algorithms like the GSEMO. The few results indicating advantages of the popular MOEAs share the same shortages: They only consider the problem of computing the full Pareto front, sometimes of algorithms enriched with newly invented mechanisms, and this on newly designed benchmarks. In this work, we overcome these shortcomings by analyzing how existing popular MOEAs approximate the Pareto front of the established LARGEFRONT benchmark. We prove that several popular MOEAs, including NSGA-II (with current crowding distance), NSGA-III, SMS-EMOA, and SPEA2, only need an expected time of O(n2 logn) fitness evaluations to compute an additive ω-approximation of the Pareto front of the LARGEFRONT benchmark. This contrasts with the already proven exponential runtime (with high probability) of the GSEMO on the same task. Our result is the first mathematical runtime analysis showing and explaining the superiority of popular MOEAs over simple ones like the GSEMO for the central task of computing good approximations to the Pareto front.

Knowledge distillation from Large Language Models (LLMs) to locally hosted Small Language Models (SLMs) provides advantages for Data Analysis Code Generation (DACG) such as privacy protection. However, achieving effective distillation without resource-intensive training is challenging. This paper investigates whether LLMs can distill knowledge to SLMs through In-Context Learning (ICL), a training-free method for rapid task adaptation. We present the DARGO: Distillation and Adaptive Reasoning-Guided Orchestration framework, which facilitates automatic knowledge distillation from LLMs to SLMs. DARGO consists of three phases: exploration through an Model Orchestration Interface (MOI), Memory Collection of successful trajectories, and Knoweldge-driven Inference. We evaluate DARGO on three challenging DACG benchmarks (WIKITQ, TABMWP, and BIRD-SQL), each with in-domain training sets that enable detailed analysis of knowledge distillation effectiveness. DARGO demonstrates a substantial relative performance improvement of 27.5% on average for the student SLMs. To further observe generalization capabilities, we evaluate the DARGO across different teacher-student model combinations, knowledge transfer scenarios, and unified memory approaches for more advanced, test-only data analysis tasks. Our findings contribute a novel perspective on distillation methods that enhance performance for SLMs while avoiding intensive fine-tuning.

A multi-agent system (MAS) enhances its capacity to solve complex natural language processing (NLP) tasks through collaboration among multiple agents, where consensus-seeking serves as a fundamental mechanism. However, existing consensus-seeking approaches typically rely on voting mechanisms to judge consensus, overlooking contradictions in system-internal beliefs that destabilize the consensus. Moreover, these methods often involve agents updating their results through indiscriminate collaboration with every other agent. Such uniform interaction fails to identify the optimal collaborators for each agent, hindering the emergence of a stable consensus. To address these challenges, we provide a theoretical framework for selecting optimal collaborators that maximize consensus stability. Based on the theorems, we propose the Belief-Calibrated Consensus Seeking (BCCS) framework to facilitate stable consensus via selecting optimal collaborators and calibrating the consensus judgment by system-internal beliefs. Experimental results on the MATH and MMLU benchmark datasets demonstrate that the proposed BCCS framework outperforms the best existing results by 2.23% and 3.95% of accuracy on challenging tasks, respectively.

Large language models (LLMs) typically require fine-tuning for domain-specific tasks, and LoRA offers a computationally efficient approach by training lowrank adapters. LoRA is also communication-efficient for federated LLMs when multiple users collaboratively fine-tune a global LLM model without sharing their proprietary raw data.

Despite their strengths, large language models (LLMs) often fail to communicate their confidence accurately, making it difficult to assess when they might be wrong and limiting their reliability. In this work, we demonstrate that reasoning models that engage in extended chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning exhibit superior performance not only in problem-solving but also in accurately expressing their confidence. Specifically, we benchmark six reasoning models across six datasets and find that they achieve strictly better confidence calibration than their non-reasoning counterparts in 33 out of the 36 settings. Our detailed analysis reveals that these gains in calibration stem from the slow thinking behaviors of reasoning models (e.g., exploring alternative approaches and backtracking) which enable them to adjust their confidence dynamically throughout their CoT, making it progressively more accurate. In particular, we find that reasoning models become increasingly better calibrated as their CoT unfolds, a trend not observed in non-reasoning models. Moreover, removing slow thinking behaviors from the CoT leads to a significant drop in calibration. Lastly, we show that non-reasoning models also demonstrate enhanced calibration when simply guided to slow think via in-context learning, fully isolating slow thinking as the source of the calibration gains.2