This paper studies how to integrate historical control data with experimental data to enhance A/B testing, while addressing the distributional shift between historical and experimental datasets. We propose a pessimistic data integration method that combines two causal effect estimators constructed based on experimental and historical datasets. Our main idea is to conceptualize the weight function for this combination as a policy so that existing pessimistic policy learning algorithms are applicable to learn the optimal weight that minimizes the resulting weighted estimator's mean squared error. Additionally, we conduct comprehensive theoretical and empirical analyses to compare our method against various baseline estimators across five scenarios. Both our theoretical and numerical findings demonstrate that the proposed estimator achieves near-optimal performance across all scenarios.

We study the problem of robust estimation under heterogeneous corruption rates, where each sample may be independently corrupted with a known but non-identical probability. This setting arises naturally in distributed and federated learning, crowdsourcing, and sensor networks, yet existing robust estimators typically assume uniform or worst-case corruption, ignoring structural heterogeneity. For mean estimation for multivariate bounded distributions and univariate gaussian distributions, we give tight minimax rates for all heterogeneous corruption patterns. For multivariate gaussian mean estimation and linear regression, we establish the minimax rate for squared error up to a factor of $\sqrt{d}$, where $d$ is the dimension. Roughly, our findings suggest that samples beyond a certain corruption threshold may be discarded by the optimal estimators -- this threshold is determined by the empirical distribution of the corruption rates given.

Despite significant advances in Vision Language Models (VLMs), they remain constrained by the complexity and redundancy of visual input. When images contain large amounts of irrelevant information, VLMs are susceptible to interference, thus generating excessive task-irrelevant reasoning processes or even hallucinations. This limitation stems from their inability to discover and process the required regions during reasoning precisely. To address this limitation, we present the Chain of Foresight-Focus Thought (CoFFT), a novel training-free approach that enhances VLMs' visual reasoning by emulating human visual cognition. Each Foresight-Focus Thought consists of three stages: (1) Diverse Sample Generation: generates diverse reasoning samples to explore potential reasoning paths, where each sample contains several reasoning steps; (2) Dual Foresight Decoding: rigorously evaluates these samples based on both visual focus and reasoning progression, adding the first step of optimal sample to the reasoning process; (3) Visual Focus Adjustment: precisely adjust visual focus toward regions most beneficial for future reasoning, before returning to stage (1) to generate subsequent reasoning samples until reaching the final answer. These stages function iteratively, creating an interdependent cycle where reasoning guides visual focus and visual focus informs subsequent reasoning.

RJ Scaringe, the CEO of Rivian Automotive, joined us for a wide-ranging interview about how his company's new electric SUV fits into the current EV industry, and what comes next. RJ Scaringe got his PhD from MIT studying internal combustion engines. Then he founded a company to make them obsolete. In 2009, fresh out of grad school, he launched what would become Rivian. The company spent nearly a decade in stealth mode before arriving at the 2018 LA Auto Show with two electric rides nobody had seen coming. The road, however, hasn't been easy. Rivian lost $3.6 billion in 2025, and has burned through nearly $25 billion in the past eight years. It has spent more money over the same period than almost every other pure EV maker. Rivian's IPO was the largest worldwide in 2021, and one of the largest in US history, within days valuing the company at over $100 billion. Its stock has dropped from a high of $130 to around $16. Since the R1 went on sale in 2021, Rivian has sold 175,000 cars.

Memorization in language models is a critical yet poorly understood phenomenon. In this work, we investigate memorization in transformer-based language models by analyzing their memorization dynamics during training over multiple epochs. We find that memorization is neither a constant accumulation of sequences nor simply dictated by the recency of exposure to these sequences. Instead, much like generalization, memorization appears to be driven by pattern recognition. Tracking memorization dynamics in mixed datasets, we observe that models memorize different sub-datasets in distinct bursts, suggesting that each subset is associated with unique underlying patterns, and that the model prefers to learn these patterns in a consistent order. We also find that easily learnable patterns tend to support generalization on unseen data, while more complex patterns do not. Furthermore, in datasets with weak or absent patterns, larger models may delay memorization relative to smaller ones, a behavior we term $\textit{overthinking}$. Our results show that the subset of sequences memorized by a model over time is not arbitrary, and give insights into the internal processes a model goes through during training.

Despite Large Language Models' remarkable capabilities, understanding their internal representations remains challenging. Mechanistic interpretability tools such as sparse autoencoders (SAEs) were developed to extract interpretable features from LLMs but lack temporal dependency modeling, instantaneous relation representation, and more importantly theoretical guarantees--undermining both the theoretical foundations and the practical confidence necessary for subsequent analyses. While causal representation learning (CRL) offers theoretically-grounded approaches for uncovering latent concepts, existing methods cannot scale to LLMs' rich conceptual space due to inefficient computation. To bridge the gap, we introduce an identifiable temporal causal representation learning framework specifically designed for LLMs' high-dimensional concept space, capturing both time-delayed and instantaneous causal relations. Our approach provides theoretical guarantees and demonstrates efficacy on synthetic datasets scaled to match real-world complexity. By extending SAE techniques with our temporal causal framework, we successfully discover meaningful concept relationships in LLM activations. Our findings show that modeling both temporal and instantaneous conceptual relationships advances the interpretability of LLMs.

This paper investigates the computational complexity of reinforcement learning within a novel linear function approximation regime, termed partial $q^{\pi}$-realizability. In this framework, the objective is to learn an $\epsilon$-optimal policy with respect to a predefined policy set $\Pi$, under the assumption that all value functions corresponding to policies in $\Pi$ are linearly realizable. This framework adopts assumptions that are weaker than those in the $q^{\pi}$-realizability setting yet stronger than those in the q*-realizability setup. As a result, it provides a more practical model for reinforcement learning scenarios where function approximation naturally arise. We prove that learning an $\epsilon$-optimal policy in this newly defined setting is computationally hard. More specifically, we establish NP-hardness under a parameterized greedy policy set (i.e., argmax) and, further, show that--unless NP = RP--an exponential lower bound (exponential in feature vector dimension) holds when the policy set contains softmax policies, under the Randomized Exponential Time Hypothesis. Our hardness results mirror those obtained in the $q^*$-realizability settings, and suggest that computational difficulty persists even when the policy class $ \Pi $ is expanded beyond the optimal policy, reinforcing the unbreakable nature of the computational hardness result regarding partial $ q^{\pi} $-realizability under two important policy sets. To establish our negative result, our primary technical contribution is a reduction from two complexity problems, $\delta$-Max-3SAT and $\delta$-Max-3SAT($b$), to instances of our problem settings: GLinear-$\kappa$-RL (under the greedy policy set) and SLinear-$\kappa$-RL (under the softmax policy set), respectively. Our findings indicate that positive computational results are generally unattainable in the context of partial $ q^{\pi} $-realizability, in sharp contrast to the $ q^{\pi} $-realizability setting under a generative access model.

Recent studies show that the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) can be improved by applying Reinforcement Learning (RL) to question-answering (QA) tasks in areas such as math and coding. With a long context length, LLMs may learn to perform search, as indicated by the self-correction behavior observed in DeepSeek R1. However, this search behavior is often imprecise and lacks confidence, resulting in long, redundant responses and highlighting deficiencies in intuition and verification. Inspired by the Dual Process Theory in psychology, we introduce a simple modification to the QA task that includes four stages: Fast Thinking, where the LLM must answer within a strict token budget; Verification, where the model evaluates its initial response; Slow Thinking, where it refines the initial response with more deliberation; and Summarization, where it distills the refinement from the previous stage into precise steps. Our proposed task improves average accuracy from 25.6% to 27.3% for Qwen2.5-1.5B, and from 45.9% to 51.0% for DeepSeek-R1-Qwen-1.5B. Notably, for Qwen2.5-1.5B, the Fast Thinking mode alone achieves 25.2% accuracy using fewer than 1000 tokens, demonstrating substantial inference efficiency gains. These findings suggest that intuition and deliberative reasoning are distinct, complementary systems benefiting from targeted training. Additionally, we have open-sourced both the trained models and the source code.

Test-Time Scaling (TTS) improves the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) by using additional inference-time computation to explore multiple reasoning paths through search. Yet how to allocate a fixed rollout budget most effectively during search remains underexplored, often resulting in inefficient use of compute at test time. To bridge this gap, we formulate test-time search as a resource allocation problem and derive the optimal allocation strategy that maximizes the probability of obtaining a correct solution under a fixed rollout budget. Within this formulation, we reveal a core limitation of existing search methods: solution-level allocation tends to favor reasoning directions with more candidates, leading to theoretically suboptimal and inefficient use of compute. To address this, we propose Direction-Oriented Resource Allocation (DORA), a provably optimal method that mitigates this bias by decoupling direction quality from candidate count and allocating resources at the direction level. To demonstrate DORA's effectiveness, we conduct extensive experiments on challenging mathematical reasoning benchmarks including MATH500, AIME2024, and AIME2025. The empirical results show that DORA consistently outperforms strong baselines with comparable computational cost, achieving state-of-the-art accuracy. We hope our findings contribute to a broader understanding of optimal TTS for LLMs.

When and why representations learned by different deep neural networks are similar is an active research topic. We choose to address these questions from the perspective of identifiability theory, which suggests that a measure of representational similarity should be invariant to transformations that leave the model distribution unchanged. Focusing on a model family which includes several popular pre-training approaches, e.g., autoregressive language models, we explore when models which generate distributions that are close have similar representations. We prove that a small Kullback--Leibler divergence between the model distributions does not guarantee that the corresponding representations are similar. This has the important corollary that models with near-maximum data likelihood can still learn dissimilar representations---a phenomenon mirrored in our experiments with models trained on CIFAR-10. We then define a distributional distance for which closeness implies representational similarity, and in synthetic experiments, we find that wider networks learn distributions which are closer with respect to our distance and have more similar representations. Our results thus clarify the link between closeness in distribution and representational similarity.