We propose ERA, a new paradigm that constrains the sampling entropy above given thresholds by applying specially designed activations to the outputs of models. Our approach demonstrates broad effectiveness across different domains: 1) for large language models(LLMs), boosting the AIME 2025 score for Qwen2.5-Math-7B by 37.4%; 2) for continuous control reinforcement learning agents, improving performance by more than 30% over strong baselines such as SAC on the challenging HumanoidBench; 3) for image classification, enhancing ImageNet top-1 accuracy by 0.69% for ResNet-50. These gains are achieved with a computational overhead of less than 7%. Our work validates output activation as a powerful tool for entropy control, opening a new direction for designing simpler and more robust algorithms.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have achieved impressive performance on complex reasoning tasks by generating detailed chain-of-thought (CoT) explanations. However, these responses are often excessively long, containing redundant reasoning steps that inflate inference cost and reduce usability. Controlling the length of generated reasoning without sacrificing accuracy remains an open challenge. Through a systematic empirical analysis, we reveal a consistent positive correlation between model entropy and response length at different reasoning stages across diverse LRMs: the thinking phase exhibits higher entropy, reflecting exploratory behavior of longer responses, while the final answer phase shows lower entropy, indicating a more deterministic solution. This observation suggests that entropy at different reasoning stages can serve as a control knob for balancing conciseness and performance. Based on this insight, this paper introduces Phase Entropy Aware Reward (PEAR), a reward mechanism that incorporating phase-dependent entropy into the reward design. Instead of treating all tokens uniformly, PEAR penalize excessive entropy during the thinking phase and allowing moderate exploration at the final answer phase, which encourages models to generate concise reasoning traces that retain sufficient flexibility to solve the task correctly. This enables adaptive control of response length without relying on explicit length targets or rigid truncation rules. Extensive experiments across four benchmarks demonstrate that PEAR consistently reduces response length while sustaining competitive accuracy across model scales. In addition, PEAR demonstrates strong out-of-distribution (OOD) robustness beyond the training distribution. Our code is available at: https://github.com/iNLP-Lab/PEAR.

Model pruning, i.e., removing a subset of model weights, has become a prominent approach to reducing the memory footprint of large language models (LLMs) during inference. Notably, popular inference engines, such as vLLM, enable users to conveniently prune downloaded models before they are deployed. While the utility and efficiency of pruning methods have improved significantly, the security implications of pruning remain underexplored. In this work, for the first time, we show that modern LLM pruning methods can be maliciously exploited. In particular, an adversary can construct a model that appears benign yet, once pruned, exhibits malicious behaviors. Our method is based on the idea that the adversary can compute a proxy metric that estimates how likely each parameter is to be pruned. With this information, the adversary can first inject a malicious behavior into those parameters that are unlikely to be pruned. Then, they can repair the model by using parameters that are likely to be pruned, effectively canceling out the injected behavior in the unpruned model. We demonstrate the severity of our attack through extensive evaluation on five models; after any of the pruning in vLLM are applied (Magnitude, Wanda, and SparseGPT), it consistently exhibits strong malicious behaviors in a diverse set of attack scenarios (success rates of up to $95.7\%$ for jailbreak, $98.7\%$ for benign instruction refusal, and $99.5\%$ for targeted content injection). Our results reveal a critical deployment-time security gap and underscore the urgent need for stronger security awareness in model compression.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly adopted for automating survey paper generation \cite{wang2406autosurvey, liang2025surveyx, yan2025surveyforge,su2025benchmarking,wen2025interactivesurvey}. Existing approaches typically extract content from a large collection of related papers and prompt LLMs to summarize them directly. However, such methods often overlook the structural relationships among papers, resulting in generated surveys that lack a coherent taxonomy and a deeper contextual understanding of research progress. To address these shortcomings, we propose \textbf{SurveyG}, an LLM-based agent framework that integrates \textit{hierarchical citation graph}, where nodes denote research papers and edges capture both citation dependencies and semantic relatedness between their contents, thereby embedding structural and contextual knowledge into the survey generation process. The graph is organized into three layers: \textbf{Foundation}, \textbf{Development}, and \textbf{Frontier}, to capture the evolution of research from seminal works to incremental advances and emerging directions. By combining horizontal search within layers and vertical depth traversal across layers, the agent produces multi-level summaries, which are consolidated into a structured survey outline. A multi-agent validation stage then ensures consistency, coverage, and factual accuracy in generating the final survey. Experiments, including evaluations by human experts and LLM-as-a-judge, demonstrate that SurveyG outperforms state-of-the-art frameworks, producing surveys that are more comprehensive and better structured to the underlying knowledge taxonomy of a field.

Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) with Large Language Model (LLM)-powered agents are gaining attention, yet fewer studies explore their team dynamics. Inspired by human team science, we propose a multi-agent framework to examine core aspects of team science: structure, diversity, and interaction dynamics. We evaluate team performance across four tasks: CommonsenseQA, StrategyQA, Social IQa, and Latent Implicit Hate, spanning commonsense and social reasoning. Our results show that flat teams tend to perform better than hierarchical ones, while diversity has a nuanced impact. Interviews suggest agents are overconfident about their team performance, yet post-task reflections reveal both appreciation for collaboration and challenges in integration, including limited conversational coordination.

Modern long-context large language models (LLMs) perform well on synthetic "needle-in-a-haystack" (NIAH) benchmarks, but such tests overlook how noisy contexts arise from biased retrieval and agentic workflows. We argue that haystack engineering is necessary to construct noisy long contexts that faithfully capture key real-world factors -- distraction from heterogeneous biased retrievers and cascading errors in agentic workflows -- to test models' long-context robustness. We instantiate it through HaystackCraft, a new NIAH benchmark built on the full English Wikipedia hyperlink network with multi-hop questions. HaystackCraft evaluates how heterogeneous retrieval strategies (e.g., sparse, dense, hybrid, and graph-based) affect distractor composition, haystack ordering, and downstream LLM performance. HaystackCraft further extends NIAH to dynamic, LLM-dependent settings that simulate agentic operations, where models refine queries, reflect on their past reasonings, and decide when to stop. Experiments with 15 long-context models show that (1) while stronger dense retrievers can introduce more challenging distractors, graph-based reranking simultaneously improves retrieval effectiveness and mitigates more harmful distractors; (2) in agentic tests, even advanced models like Gemini 2.5 Pro and GPT-5 suffer cascading failures from self-generated distractors or struggle to perform early stops. These results highlight persistent challenges in agentic long-context reasoning and establish HaystackCraft as a valuable testbed for future progress.

Rubrics provide a flexible way to train LLMs on open-ended long-form answers where verifiable rewards are not applicable and human preferences provide coarse signals. Prior work shows that reinforcement learning with rubric-based rewards leads to consistent gains in LLM post-training. Most existing approaches rely on rubrics that remain static over the course of training. Such static rubrics, however, are vulnerable to reward-hacking type behaviors and fail to capture emergent desiderata that arise during training. We introduce Online Rubrics Elicitation (OnlineRubrics), a method that dynamically curates evaluation criteria in an online manner through pairwise comparisons of responses from current and reference policies. This online process enables continuous identification and mitigation of errors as training proceeds. Empirically, this approach yields consistent improvements of up to 8% over training exclusively with static rubrics across AlpacaEval, GPQA, ArenaHard as well as the validation sets of expert questions and rubrics. We qualitatively analyze the elicited criteria and identify prominent themes such as transparency, practicality, organization, and reasoning.

We then prompt-engineered GPT-4 (ChatGPT 4.0) to generate descriptive text labels for each image, creating 300 image-text labels for training. The CoFRIDA framework provided stroke-level painting data by simulating the robot's painting process, generating both partial-progress and completed canvases [1], [11]. While CoFRIDA is originally designed to produce paintings that accurately depict their subject matter with coherent stroke patterns and layering, our work adapts this approach specifically for abstract art by fine-tuning the InstructPix2Pix Module on a curated dataset of abstract works from Kaggle paired with GPT -4-generated captions. This specialization enables the model to generate abstract-style transformations suited for robotic execution in iterative and collaborative painting scenarios. I. Artistic Framework The robot was programmed to draw circle-inspired shapes in the first session, square-inspired in the second, and triangle-inspired in the third. This setting was inspired by Bruno Munari's [17] exploration of geometric forms (see Figure 6). In the 1960s, Italian designer Bruno Munari published visual case studies on Circle, Square, and later Triangle, associating each with specific qualities: the circle with the Divine, the square with safety, and the triangle as a key connective form.

Jailbreaking large language models (LLMs) has emerged as a pressing concern with the increasing prevalence and accessibility of conversational LLMs. Adversarial users often exploit these models through carefully engineered prompts to elicit restricted or sensitive outputs, a strategy widely referred to as jailbreaking. While numerous defense mechanisms have been proposed, attackers continuously develop novel prompting techniques, and no existing model can be considered fully resistant. In this study, we investigate the jailbreak phenomenon by examining the internal representations of LLMs, with a focus on how hidden layers respond to jailbreak versus benign prompts. Specifically, we analyze the open-source LLM GPT-J and the state-space model Mamba2, presenting preliminary findings that highlight distinct layer-wise behaviors. Our results suggest promising directions for further research on leveraging internal model dynamics for robust jailbreak detection and defense.

As large language models (LLMs) are deployed globally, creating pluralistic systems that can accommodate the diverse preferences and values of users worldwide becomes essential. We introduce EVALUESTEER, a benchmark to measure LLMs' and reward models' (RMs) steerability towards users' value and stylistic preference profiles grounded in psychology and human-LLM interaction literature. To address the gap in existing datasets that do not support controlled evaluations of RM steering, we synthetically generated 165,888 preference pairs -- systematically varying pairs along 4 value dimensions (traditional, secular-rational, survival, and self-expression) and 4 style dimensions (verbosity, readability, confidence, and warmth). We use EVALUESTEER to evaluate whether, given a user profile and a pair of candidate value-laden and style-laden responses, LLMs and RMs are able to select the output that aligns with the user's preferences. We evaluate six open-source and proprietary LLMs and RMs under eleven systematic prompting conditions and six preference comparison scenarios. Notably, our results show that, when given the user's full profile of values and stylistic preferences, the best models achieve <75% accuracy at choosing the correct response, in contrast to >99% accuracy when only relevant style and value preferences are provided. EVALUESTEER thus highlights the limitations of current RMs at identifying and adapting to relevant user profile information, and provides a challenging testbed for developing RMs that can be steered towards diverse human values and preferences.