Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems have emerged as a pivotal methodology for enhancing Large Language Models (LLMs) through the dynamic integration of external knowledge. To further improve RAG's flexibility, Agentic RAG introduces autonomous agents into the workflow. However, Agentic RAG faces several challenges: (1) the success of each step depends on both high-quality planning and accurate search, (2) the lack of supervision for intermediate reasoning steps, and (3) the exponentially large candidate space for planning and searching. To address these challenges, we propose DecoupleSearch, a novel framework that decouples planning and search processes using dual value models, enabling independent optimization of plan reasoning and search grounding. Our approach constructs a reasoning tree, where each node represents planning and search steps. We leverage Monte Carlo Tree Search to assess the quality of each step. During inference, Hierarchical Beam Search iteratively refines planning and search candidates with dual value models. Extensive experiments across policy models of varying parameter sizes, demonstrate the effectiveness of our method.

The reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) are typically developed through the single-turn reinforcement learning, whereas real-world applications often involve multi-turn interactions with human feedback, leading to a potential mismatch between training and deployment conditions. In this work, we study whether multi-turn training with human feedback is necessary for reasoning tasks. We compare conventional single-turn training with three multi-turn strategies and reach contrary conclusions to previous research. We find that models trained in a single-turn setting generalize effectively to both single- and multi-turn evaluations, while models trained with multi-turn strategies exhibit a significant degradation in single-turn reasoning performance. These results suggest that for tasks with complete information, robust single-turn training remains more effective and reliable, as multi-turn training with basic feedback provides limited benefits and can even degrade reasoning capabilities.

Large language models (LLMs) excel at factual recall yet still propagate stale or incorrect knowledge. In-context knowledge editing offers a gradient-free remedy suitable for black-box APIs, but current editors rely on static demonstration sets chosen by surface-level similarity, leading to two persistent obstacles: (i) a quantity-quality trade-off, and (ii) lack of adaptivity to task difficulty. We address these issues by dynamically selecting supporting demonstrations according to their utility for the edit. We propose Dynamic Retriever for In-Context Knowledge Editing (DR-IKE), a lightweight framework that (1) trains a BERT retriever with REINFORCE to rank demonstrations by editing reward, and (2) employs a learnable threshold to prune low-value examples, shortening the prompt when the edit is easy and expanding it when the task is hard. DR-IKE performs editing without modifying model weights, relying solely on forward passes for compatibility with black-box LLMs. On the COUNTERFACT benchmark, it improves edit success by up to 17.1%, reduces latency by 41.6%, and preserves accuracy on unrelated queries, demonstrating scalable and adaptive knowledge editing. The code is available at https://github.com/mwnafee/DR-IKE .

A major concern when deploying LLMs in accuracy-critical domains such as sports reporting is that the generated text may not faithfully reflect the input data. We quantify how input structure affects hallucinations and other factual errors in LLM-generated summaries of NBA play-by-play data, across three formats: row-structured, JSON and unstructured. We manually annotated 3,312 factual errors across 180 game summaries produced by two models, Llama-3.1-70B and Qwen2.5-72B. Input structure has a strong effect: JSON input reduces error rates by 69% for Llama and 65% for Qwen compared to unstructured input, while row-structured input reduces errors by 54% for Llama and 51% for Qwen. A two-way repeated measures ANOVA shows that input structure accounts for over 80% of the variance in error rates, with Tukey HSD post hoc tests confirming statistically significant differences between all input formats.

Recent advances in generative modeling have positioned diffusion models as state-of-the-art tools for sampling from complex data distributions. While these models have shown remarkable success across single-modality domains such as images and audio, extending their capabilities to Modality Translation (MT), translating information across different sensory modalities, remains an open challenge. Existing approaches often rely on restrictive assumptions, including shared dimensionality, Gaussian source priors, and modality-specific architectures, which limit their generality and theoretical grounding. In this work, we propose the Latent Denoising Diffusion Bridge Model (LDDBM), a general-purpose framework for modality translation based on a latent-variable extension of Denoising Diffusion Bridge Models. By operating in a shared latent space, our method learns a bridge between arbitrary modalities without requiring aligned dimensions. We introduce a contrastive alignment loss to enforce semantic consistency between paired samples and design a domain-agnostic encoder-decoder architecture tailored for noise prediction in latent space. Additionally, we propose a predictive loss to guide training toward accurate cross-domain translation and explore several training strategies to improve stability. Our approach supports arbitrary modality pairs and performs strongly on diverse MT tasks, including multi-view to 3D shape generation, image super-resolution, and multi-view scene synthesis. Comprehensive experiments and ablations validate the effectiveness of our framework, establishing a new strong baseline in general modality translation. For more information, see our project page: https://sites.google.com/view/lddbm/home.

This paper details our submission to the AraGenEval Shared Task on Arabic AI-generated text detection, where our team, BUSTED, secured 5th place. We investigated the effectiveness of three pre-trained transformer models: AraELECTRA, CAMeLBERT, and XLM-RoBERTa. Our approach involved fine-tuning each model on the provided dataset for a binary classification task. Our findings revealed a surprising result: the multilingual XLM-RoBERTa model achieved the highest performance with an F1 score of 0.7701, outperforming the specialized Arabic models. This work underscores the complexities of AI-generated text detection and highlights the strong generalization capabilities of multilingual models.

Efficient screening and early diagnosis of HIV are critical for reducing onward transmission. Although large scale laboratory testing is not feasible, the widespread adoption of Electronic Health Records (EHRs) offers new opportunities to address this challenge. Existing research primarily focuses on applying machine learning methods to structured data, such as patient demographics, for improving HIV diagnosis. However, these approaches often overlook unstructured text data such as clinical notes, which potentially contain valuable information relevant to HIV risk. In this study, we propose a novel pipeline that leverages a Large Language Model (LLM) to analyze unstructured EHR text and determine a patient's eligibility for further HIV testing. Experimental results on clinical data from Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam demonstrate that our pipeline achieved high accuracy while maintaining a low false negative rate.

Multi-task post-training of large language models (LLMs) is typically performed by mixing datasets from different tasks and optimizing them jointly. This approach implicitly assumes that all tasks contribute gradients of similar magnitudes; when this assumption fails, optimization becomes biased toward large-gradient tasks. In this paper, however, we show that this assumption fails in RL post-training: certain tasks produce significantly larger gradients, thus biasing updates toward those tasks. Such gradient imbalance would be justified only if larger gradients implied larger learning gains on the tasks (i.e., larger performance improvements) -- but we find this is not true. Large-gradient tasks can achieve similar or even much lower learning gains than small-gradient ones. Further analyses reveal that these gradient imbalances cannot be explained by typical training statistics such as training rewards or advantages, suggesting that they arise from the inherent differences between tasks. This cautions against naive dataset mixing and calls for future work on principled gradient-level corrections for LLMs.

Despite the rapid expansion of Large Language Models (LLMs) in healthcare, robust and explainable evaluation of their ability to assess clinical trial reporting according to CONSORT standards remains an open challenge. In particular, uncertainty calibratio n and metacognitive reliability of LLM reasoning are poorly understood and underexplored in medical automation. This study applies a behavioral and metacognitive analytic approach using an expert - validated dataset, systematically comparing two representati ve LLMs -- one general and one domain - specialized -- across three prompt strategies. We analyze both cognitive adaptation and calibration error using metrics: Expected Calibration Error (ECE) and a baseline - normalized Relative Calibration Error (RCE) that enable s reliable cross - model comparison. Our results reveal pronounced miscalibration and overconfidence in both models, especially under clinical role - playing conditions, with calibration error persisting above clinically relevant thresholds. These findings und erscore the need for improved calibration, transparent code, and strategic prompt engineering for the development of reliable and explainable medical AI.

Curriculum learning (CL) - ordering training data from easy to hard - has become a popular strategy for improving reasoning in large language models (LLMs). Yet prior work employs disparate difficulty metrics and training setups, leaving open fundamental questions: When does curriculum help? Which direction - forward or reverse - is better? And does the answer depend on what we measure? We address these questions through a unified offline evaluation framework that decomposes curriculum difficulty into five complementary dimensions: Problem Difficulty, Model Surprisal, Confidence Margin, Predictive Uncertainty, and Decision Variability. Through controlled post-training experiments on mathematical reasoning benchmarks with Llama3.1-8B, Mistral-7B, and Gemma3-4B, we find that (i) no curriculum strategy dominates universally - the relative effectiveness of forward versus reverse CL depends jointly on model capability and task complexity; (ii) even within a single metric, samples at different difficulty levels produce distinct gains depending on task demands; and (iii) task-aligned curricula focus on shaping the model's final representations and generalization, whereas inner-state curricula modulate internal states such as confidence and uncertainty. Our findings challenge the notion of a universal curriculum strategy and offer actionable guidance across model and task regimes, with some metrics indicating that prioritizing decision-uncertain samples can further enhance learning outcomes.