Large Language Models (LLMs) are commonly used as evaluators in various applications, but the reliability of the outcomes remains a challenge. One such challenge is using LLMs-as-judges for direct assessment, i.e., assigning scores from a specified range without any references. We first show that this challenge stems from LLM judge outputs being associated with score range bias, i.e., LLM judge outputs are highly sensitive to pre-defined score ranges, preventing the search for optimal score ranges. We also show that similar biases exist among models from the same family. We then mitigate this bias through contrastive decoding, achieving up to 11.3% relative improvement on average in Spearman correlation with human judgments across different score ranges.

The objective of designing a control system is to steer a dynamical system with a control signal, guiding it to exhibit the desired behavior. The Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman (HJB) partial differential equation offers a framework for optimal control system design. However, numerical solutions to this equation are computationally intensive, and analytical solutions are frequently unavailable. Knowledge-guided machine learning methodologies, such as physics-informed neural networks (PINNs), offer new alternative approaches that can alleviate the difficulties of solving the HJB equation numerically. This work presents a multistage ensemble framework to learn the optimal cost-to-go, and subsequently the corresponding optimal control signal, through the HJB equation. Prior PINN-based approaches rely on a stabilizing the HJB enforcement during training. Our framework does not use stabilizer terms and offers a means of controlling the nonlinear system, via either a singular learned control signal or an ensemble control signal policy. Success is demonstrated in closed-loop control, using both ensemble- and singular-control, of a steady-state time-invariant two-state continuous nonlinear system with an infinite time horizon, accounting of noisy, perturbed system states and varying initial conditions.

Large language models (LLMs) excel at generating fluent text, but their internal reasoning remains opaque and difficult to control. Sparse autoencoders (SAEs) make hidden activations more interpretable by exposing latent features that often align with human concepts. Yet, these features are fragile and passive, offering no mechanism for systematic reasoning or model control. To address this, we introduce ActivationReasoning (AR), a framework that embeds explicit logical reasoning into the latent space of LLMs. It proceeds in three stages: (1) Finding latent representations, first latent concept representations are identified (e.g., via SAEs) and organized into a dictionary; (2) Activating propositions, at inference time AR detects activating concepts and maps them to logical propositions; and (3)Logical reasoning, applying logical rules over these propositions to infer higher-order structures, compose new concepts, and steer model behavior. We evaluate AR on multi-hop reasoning (PrOntoQA), abstraction and robustness to indirect concept cues (Rail2Country), reasoning over natural and diverse language (ProverQA), and context-sensitive safety (BeaverTails). Across all tasks, AR scales robustly with reasoning complexity, generalizes to abstract and context-sensitive tasks, and transfers across model backbones. These results demonstrate that grounding logical structure in latent activations not only improves transparency but also enables structured reasoning, reliable control, and alignment with desired behaviors, providing a path toward more reliable and auditable AI.

LLM Driven text-to-table (T2T) systems often rely on extensive prompt-engineering or iterative event extraction in code-parsable formats, which boosts scores but are computationally expensive and obscure how models actually reason over temporal evolving narratives to summarise key information. We present CMT-Bench, a diagnostic benchmark built from live cricket commentary that requires dynamic table generation across two evolving schemas under a dense, rule-governed policy. CMT-Bench is designed to probe robustness via three semantics-preserving dimensions: (i) extractive-cue ablation to separate extractive shortcuts from state tracking, (ii) temporal prefixing to test long-context stability, and (iii) entity-form perturbations (anonymization, outof-distribution substitutions, role-entangling paraphrases) to assess sensitivity to surface variation. Across diverse long-context stateof-the-art LLMs, we find large drops without extractive summaries, monotonic degradation with input length, and consistent accuracy drop under entity-form changes. Complementary distributional tests confirm significant shifts in numeric error patterns, indicating drift in reasoning rather than mere noise. Our results show that current LLMs are brittle in dynamic Textto-table generation, motivating robustness-first evaluation as a prerequisite for developing efficient and scalable approaches for this task.

Goal changes are a defining feature of real world multi-turn interactions, yet current agent benchmarks primarily evaluate static objectives or one-shot tool use. We introduce AgentChangeBench, a benchmark explicitly designed to measure how tool augmented language model agents adapt to mid dialogue goal shifts across three enterprise domains. Our framework formalizes evaluation through four complementary metrics: Task Success Rate (TSR) for effectiveness, Tool Use Efficiency (TUE) for reliability, Tool Call Redundancy Rate (TCRR) for wasted effort, and Goal-Shift Recovery Time (GSRT) for adaptation latency. AgentChangeBench comprises 2,835 task sequences and five user personas, each designed to trigger realistic shift points in ongoing workflows. Using this setup, we evaluate several frontier models and uncover sharp contrasts obscured by traditional $\text{pass}@k$ scores: for example, GPT-4o reaches $92.2\%$ recovery on airline booking shifts while Gemini collapses to $48.6\%$, and retail tasks show near perfect parameter validity yet redundancy rates above $80\%$, revealing major inefficiencies. These findings demonstrate that high raw accuracy does not imply robustness under dynamic goals, and that explicit measurement of recovery time and redundancy is essential. AgentChangeBench establishes a reproducible testbed for diagnosing and improving agent resilience in realistic enterprise settings.

Diffusion language models (DLMs) are emerging as a powerful and promising alternative to the dominant autoregressive paradigm, offering inherent advantages in parallel generation and bidirectional context modeling. However, the performance of DLMs on code generation tasks, which have stronger structural constraints, is significantly hampered by the critical trade-off between inference speed and output quality. We observed that accelerating the code generation process by reducing the number of sampling steps usually leads to a catastrophic collapse in performance. In this paper, we introduce efficient Sampling with Adaptive acceleration and Backtracking Enhanced Remasking (i.e., Saber), a novel training-free sampling algorithm for DLMs to achieve better inference speed and output quality in code generation. Specifically, Saber is motivated by two key insights in the DLM generation process: 1) it can be adaptively accelerated as more of the code context is established; 2) it requires a backtracking mechanism to reverse the generated tokens. Extensive experiments on multiple mainstream code generation benchmarks show that Saber boosts Pass@1 accuracy by an average improvement of 1.9% over mainstream DLM sampling methods, meanwhile achieving an average 251.4% inference speedup. By leveraging the inherent advantages of DLMs, our work significantly narrows the performance gap with autoregressive models in code generation.

Mechanistic interpretability strives to explain model behavior in terms of bottom-up primitives. The leading paradigm is to express hidden states as a sparse linear combination of basis vectors, called features. However, this only identifies which text sequences (exemplars) activate which features; the actual interpretation of features requires subjective inspection of these exemplars. This paper advocates for a different solution: rule-based descriptions that match token patterns in the input and correspondingly increase or decrease the likelihood of specific output tokens. Specifically, we extract rule-based descriptions of SAE features trained on the outputs of attention layers. While prior work treats the attention layers as an opaque box, we describe how it may naturally be expressed in terms of interactions between input and output features, of which we study three types: (1) skip-gram rules of the form "[Canadian city]... speaks --> English", (2) absence rules of the form "[Montreal]... speaks -/-> English," and (3) counting rules that toggle only when the count of a word exceeds a certain value or the count of another word. Absence and counting rules are not readily discovered by inspection of exemplars, where manual and automatic descriptions often identify misleading or incomplete explanations. We then describe a simple approach to extract these types of rules automatically from a transformer, and apply it to GPT-2 small. We find that a majority of features may be described well with around 100 skip-gram rules, though absence rules are abundant even as early as the first layer (in over a fourth of features). We also isolate a few examples of counting rules. This paper lays the groundwork for future research into rule-based descriptions of features by defining them, showing how they may be extracted, and providing a preliminary taxonomy of some of the behaviors they represent.

Large language models exhibit a puzzling inconsistency: they solve complex problems yet frequently fail on seemingly simpler ones. We investigate whether LLMs internally encode problem difficulty in a way that aligns with human judgment, and whether this representation tracks generalization during reinforcement learning post-training. We train linear probes across layers and token positions on 60 models, evaluating on mathematical and coding subsets of Easy2HardBench. We find that human-labeled difficulty is strongly linearly decodable (AMC: $ρ\approx 0.88$) and exhibits clear model-size scaling, whereas LLM-derived difficulty is substantially weaker and scales poorly. Steering along the difficulty direction reveals that pushing models toward "easier" representations reduces hallucination and improves accuracy. During GRPO training on Qwen2.5-Math-1.5B, the human-difficulty probe strengthens and positively correlates with test accuracy across training steps, while the LLM-difficulty probe degrades and negatively correlates with performance. These results suggest that human annotations provide a stable difficulty signal that RL amplifies, while automated difficulty estimates derived from model performance become misaligned precisely as models improve. We release probe code and evaluation scripts to facilitate replication.

Small Language Models (SLMs) offer compelling advantages in deployment cost and latency, but their accuracy often lags behind larger models, particularly for complex domain-specific tasks. While supervised fine-tuning can help bridge this performance gap, it requires substantial manual effort in data preparation and iterative optimization. We present PaDA-Agent (Pattern-guided Data Augmentation Agent), an evaluation-driven approach that streamlines the data augmentation process for SLMs through coordinated operations. Unlike state-of-the-art approaches that focus on model training errors only and generating error-correcting samples, PaDA-Agent discovers failure patterns from the validation data via evaluations and drafts targeted data augmentation strategies aiming to directly reduce the generalization gap. Our experimental results demonstrate significant improvements over state-of-the-art LLM-based data augmentation approaches for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct model fine-tuning.

What does it truly mean for a language model to "reason"? Most current evaluations and benchmarks reward models' correct standalone answers--but correctness alone reveals little about the process that produced them. In this work, we explore a different perspective: reasoning is not a static chain of steps, but a dynamic trajectory where ideas interact, clash, and evolve into deeper insights. To capture this dynamic, we draw on a well-established philosophical tradition: dialectics, where reasoning unfolds through thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Building on this, we present SIEV, a structured framework that evaluates reasoning of LLMs through dialectics. Unlike conventional evaluations, SIEV assesses not only the conclusion a model reaches, but how it gets there: its ability to resolve tension, integrate distinct ideas, and synthesize higher-order reasoning. This lens uncovers significant reasoning gaps in state-of-the-art models even under saturated benchmarks like GSM and MMLU. For instance, GPT -5-chat, a recent model, loses over 40 points (out of 100) when evaluated with SIEV on GSM. Our findings highlight that adopting a process-oriented, philosophically grounded approach enables a deeper, more rigorous, and more discriminative assessment of LLM reasoning. Reasoning and LLMs: Reasoning is central to how people solve problems and make decisions, and it is increasingly vital for LLMs in real-world use. Traditionally, LLM performance has been assessed using benchmarks that span diverse domains (e.g., GPQA Rein et al. (2023), MMLU-Pro Wang et al. (2024), AIME HuggingFaceH4 (2024), etc.). While these benchmarks offer various metrics to cover comparing models in wide range of topics, the core evaluation paradigm remains largely unchanged: did the model get the right answer? We argue that this narrow focus only on the direct standalone responses is increasingly inadequate--especially when evaluating reasoning. It overlooks the depth, robustness, and coherence of the reasoning process itself. To address this, a shift toward evaluating how models reason--not just what they conclude--is needed.