Evaluating generative models, such as large language models (LLMs), commonly involves question-answering tasks where the final answer is selected based on probability of answer choices. On the other hand, for models requiring reasoning, the method of answer extraction plays a critical role. Our research reveals that the performance of reasoning models and their final answer distributions are highly sensitive to the answer extraction algorithm employed. In order to mitigate this, we propose a basic framework: Answer Regeneration. The method uses an additional model inference, providing the prior input and output prefaced by the prompt "Answer:". The final answer is then selected or extracted from the regenerated output. We show that this extraction-rule-agnostic approach exhibits improved performance and enhanced robustness. Furthermore, we have applied this framework to general math problems and open-ended question answering tasks. Our analysis and this framework could offer a more reliable results for model evaluation.

Large language models exhibit systematic deficiencies in creative writing, particularly in non-English contexts where training data is scarce and lacks process-level supervision. We present COIG-Writer, a novel Chinese creative writing dataset that captures both diverse outputs and their underlying thought processes through systematic reverse-engineering of high-quality texts. Unlike existing datasets that provide only input-output pairs, COIG-Writer comprises 1,665 meticulously curated triplets spanning 51 genres, each containing: (1) a reverse-engineered prompt, (2) detailed creative reasoning documenting decision-making processes, and (3) the final text. Through comprehensive experiments, we identify a two-component model of creative writing: narrative logic (provided by process supervision) and linguistic expression (maintained by general-purpose data). Our findings reveal three critical insights: (1) Process supervision is highly effective but requires stabilization with general data. A ratio of at least one creative sample to twelve general samples is needed to achieve optimal performance; below this threshold, the win rate progressively degrades (from 62.75% down to 35.78%)., (2) creative capabilities are culturally-bound with no cross-lingual transfer (89.26pp gap between Chinese and English performance), and (3) lexical diversity inversely correlates with creative quality (TTR paradox), suggesting high diversity signals compensatory behavior for logical deficiencies. These findings establish that creative excellence emerges from the interaction between logical scaffolding and linguistic grounding, analogous to how mathematical reasoning enhances but cannot replace linguistic competence in foundation models.

Large language models (LLMs) make remarkable progress in reasoning tasks. Among different reasoning modes, inductive reasoning, due to its better alignment with human learning, attracts increasing interest. However, research on inductive reasoning faces certain challenges. First, existing inductive data mostly focuses on superficial regularities while lacking more complex internal patterns. Second, current works merely prompt LLMs or finetune on simple prompt-response pairs, but do not provide precise thinking processes nor implement difficulty control. Unlike previous work, we address these challenges by introducing \textit{CodeSeq}, a synthetic post-training dataset built from number sequences. We package number sequences into algorithmic problems to discover their general terms, defining a general term generation (GTG) task correspondingly. Our pipeline generates supervised finetuning data by reflecting on failed test cases and incorporating iterative corrections, thereby teaching LLMs to learn autonomous case generation and self-checking. Additionally, it leverages reinforcement learning with a novel Case-Synergy Solvability Scaling Reward based on both solvability, estimated from the problem pass rate, and the success rate of self-directed case generation, enabling models to learn more effectively from both successes and failures. Experimental results show that the models trained with \textit{CodeSeq} improve on various reasoning tasks and can preserve the models' OOD performance.

Large language models promise a broad set of functions, but when not given a specific objective, they default to milquetoast results such as drafting emails littered with cliches. We demonstrate that inferring the user's in-the-moment objective, then rapidly optimizing for that singular objective, enables LLMs to produce tools, interfaces, and responses that are more responsive and desired. We contribute an architecture for automatically inducing just-in-time objectives by passively observing user behavior, then steering downstream AI systems through generation and evaluation against this objective. Inducing just-in-time objectives (e.g., "Clarify the abstract's research contribution") enables automatic generation of tools, e.g., those that critique a draft based on relevant HCI methodologies, anticipate related researchers' reactions, or surface ambiguous terminology. In a series of experiments (N=14, N=205) on participants' own tasks, JIT objectives enable LLM outputs that achieve 66-86% win rates over typical LLMs, and in-person use sessions (N=17) confirm that JIT objectives produce specialized tools unique to each participant.

We present an experimental recipe for studying the relationship between training data and language model (LM) behavior. We outline steps for intervening on data batches -- i.e., ``rewriting history'' -- and then retraining model checkpoints over that data to test hypotheses relating data to behavior. Our recipe breaks down such an intervention into stages that include selecting evaluation items from a benchmark that measures model behavior, matching relevant documents to those items, and modifying those documents before retraining and measuring the effects. We demonstrate the utility of our recipe through case studies on factual knowledge acquisition in LMs, using both cooccurrence statistics and information retrieval methods to identify documents that might contribute to knowledge learning. Our results supplement past observational analyses that link cooccurrence to model behavior, while demonstrating that extant methods for identifying relevant training documents do not fully explain an LM's ability to correctly answer knowledge questions. Overall, we outline a recipe that researchers can follow to test further hypotheses about how training data affects model behavior. Our code is made publicly available to promote future work.

We study a two-sided market, wherein, price-sensitive heterogeneous customers and servers arrive and join their respective queues. A compatible customer-server pair can then be matched by the platform, at which point, they leave the system. Our objective is to design pricing and matching algorithms that maximize the platform's profit, while maintaining reasonable queue lengths. As the demand and supply curves governing the price-dependent arrival rates may not be known in practice, we design a novel online-learning-based pricing policy and establish its near-optimality. In particular, we prove a tradeoff among three performance metrics: $\tilde{O}(T^{1-γ})$ regret, $\tilde{O}(T^{γ/2})$ average queue length, and $\tilde{O}(T^γ)$ maximum queue length for $γ\in (0, 1/6]$, significantly improving over existing results [1]. Moreover, barring the permissible range of $γ$, we show that this trade-off between regret and average queue length is optimal up to logarithmic factors under a class of policies, matching the optimal one as in [2] which assumes the demand and supply curves to be known. Our proposed policy has two noteworthy features: a dynamic component that optimizes the tradeoff between low regret and small queue lengths; and a probabilistic component that resolves the tension between obtaining useful samples for fast learning and maintaining small queue lengths.

Abstract--T ask and motion planning (T AMP) for robotics manipulation necessitates long-horizon reasoning involving versatile actions and skills. While deterministic actions can be crafted by sampling or optimizing with certain constraints, planning actions with uncertainty, i.e., probabilistic actions, remains a challenge for T AMP . On the contrary, Reinforcement Learning (RL) excels in acquiring versatile, yet short-horizon, manipulation skills that are robust with uncertainties. Besides the policy, a RL skill is defined with data-driven logical components that enable the skill to be deployed by symbolic planning. A plan refinement sub-routine is designed to further tackle the inevitable effect uncertainties. In the experiments, we compare our method with baseline hierarchical planning from both T AMP and RL fields and illustrate the strength of the method. The results show that by embedding RL skills, we extend the capability of T AMP to domains with probabilistic skills, and improve the planning efficiency compared to the previous methods. Reinforcement Learning (RL) empowers robots to acquire manipulation skills without human programming. However, prior works mostly tackle single-skill or short-term manipulation tasks, such as grasping [1] or peg insertion [2] or synergies between two actions [3]. The long-horizon manipulation planning remains a challenge in the RL field because of expanding state/action spaces and sparse rewards etc [4].

We propose and test the LLM Brain Rot Hypothesis: continual exposure to junk web text induces lasting cognitive decline in large language models (LLMs). To causally isolate data quality, we run controlled experiments on real Twitter/X corpora, constructing junk and reversely controlled datasets via two orthogonal operationalizations: M1 (engagement degree) and M2 (semantic quality), with matched token scale and training operations across conditions. Contrary to the control group, continual pre-training of 4 LLMs on the junk dataset causes non-trivial declines (Hedges' $g>0.3$) on reasoning, long-context understanding, safety, and inflating "dark traits" (e.g., psychopathy, narcissism). The gradual mixtures of junk and control datasets also yield dose-response cognition decay: for example, under M1, ARC-Challenge with Chain Of Thoughts drops $74.9 \rightarrow 57.2$ and RULER-CWE $84.4 \rightarrow 52.3$ as junk ratio rises from $0\%$ to $100\%$. Error forensics reveal several key insights. First, we identify thought-skipping as the primary lesion: models increasingly truncate or skip reasoning chains, explaining most of the error growth. Second, partial but incomplete healing is observed: scaling instruction tuning and clean data pre-training improve the declined cognition yet cannot restore baseline capability, suggesting persistent representational drift rather than format mismatch. Finally, we discover that the popularity, a non-semantic metric, of a tweet is a better indicator of the Brain Rot effect than the length in M1. Together, the results provide significant, multi-perspective evidence that data quality is a causal driver of LLM capability decay, reframing curation for continual pretraining as a \textit{training-time safety} problem and motivating routine "cognitive health checks" for deployed LLMs.

Recent studies suggest that very small language models (SLMs) can generate surprisingly coherent text when trained on simplified, child-directed corpora such as TinyStories. These findings have been interpreted as evidence that readability -- characterized by accessible vocabulary, familiar narrative structure, and simple syntax -- plays a key role in enabling such capabilities to emerge. In this paper, we challenge that interpretation. We construct synthetic datasets with matched structure but varied readability, and find that readability alone does not predict coherence or learning efficiency in SLMs. Models trained on complex, adult-level text perform comparably to those trained on simplified language, and even exhibit faster development of coherence during training. Instead, we show that statistical simplicity, as measured by n-gram diversity, is a stronger predictor of learnability. Our findings caution against the growing trend of anthropomorphizing language model training -- drawing parallels to human cognitive development without empirical basis -- and argue for more precise reasoning about what properties actually support capability emergence in small models.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have become increasingly incorporated into everyday life for many internet users, taking on significant roles as advice givers in the domains of medicine, personal relationships, and even legal matters. The importance of these roles raise questions about how and what responses LLMs make in difficult political and moral domains, especially questions about possible biases. To quantify the nature of potential biases in LLMs, various works have applied Moral Foundations Theory (MFT), a framework that categorizes human moral reasoning into five dimensions: Harm, Fairness, Ingroup Loyalty, Authority, and Purity. Previous research has used the MFT to measure differences in human participants along political, national, and cultural lines. While there has been some analysis of the responses of LLM with respect to political stance in role-playing scenarios, no work so far has directly assessed the moral leanings in the LLM responses, nor have they connected LLM outputs with robust human data. In this paper we analyze the distinctions between LLM MFT responses and existing human research directly, investigating whether commonly available LLM responses demonstrate ideological leanings: either through their inherent responses, straightforward representations of political ideologies, or when responding from the perspectives of constructed human personas. We assess whether LLMs inherently generate responses that align more closely with one political ideology over another, and additionally examine how accurately LLMs can represent ideological perspectives through both explicit prompting and demographic-based role-playing. By systematically analyzing LLM behavior across these conditions and experiments, our study provides insight into the extent of political and demographic dependency in AI-generated responses.