Large language models (LLMs) have advanced the automation of data science workflows. Yet it remains unclear whether they can critically leverage external domain knowledge as human data scientists do in practice. To answer this question, we introduce AssistedDS (Assisted Data Science), a benchmark designed to systematically evaluate how LLMs handle domain knowledge in tabular prediction tasks. AssistedDS features both synthetic datasets with explicitly known generative mechanisms and real-world Kaggle competitions, each accompanied by curated bundles of helpful and adversarial documents. These documents provide domain-specific insights into data cleaning, feature engineering, and model selection. We assess state-of-the-art LLMs on their ability to discern and apply beneficial versus harmful domain knowledge, evaluating submission validity, information recall, and predictive performance. Our results demonstrate three key findings: (1) LLMs frequently exhibit an uncritical adoption of provided information, significantly impairing their predictive performance when adversarial content is introduced, (2) helpful guidance is often insufficient to counteract the negative influence of adversarial information, and (3) in Kaggle datasets, LLMs often make errors in handling time-series data, applying consistent feature engineering across different folds, and interpreting categorical variables correctly. These findings highlight a substantial gap in current models' ability to critically evaluate and leverage expert knowledge, underscoring an essential research direction for developing more robust, knowledge-aware automated data science systems. Our data and code are publicly available here: https://github.com/jeremyxianx/Assisted-DS

We present a novel approach to neural code generation that incorporates real-time execution signals into the language model generation process. While large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive code generation capabilities, they typically do not utilize execution feedback during inference, a critical signal that human programmers regularly leverage. Our method, Execution-Guided Classifier-Free Guidance (EG-CFG), dynamically incorporates execution signals as the model generates code, providing line-by-line feedback that guides the generation process toward executable solutions. EG-CFG employs a multi-stage process: first, we conduct beam search to sample candidate program completions for each line; second, we extract execution signals by executing these candidates against test cases; and finally, we incorporate these signals into the prompt during generation. By maintaining consistent signals across tokens within the same line and refreshing signals at line boundaries, our approach provides coherent guidance while preserving syntactic structure. Moreover, the method naturally supports native parallelism at the task level in which multiple agents operate in parallel, exploring diverse reasoning paths and collectively generating a broad set of candidate solutions. Our experiments across diverse coding tasks demonstrate that EG-CFG significantly improves code generation performance compared to standard approaches, achieving state-of-the-art results across various levels of complexity, from foundational problems to challenging competitive programming and data science tasks. Our code is available at: https://github.com/boazlavon/eg_cfg

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) and audio language models have significantly improved music generation, particularly in lyrics-to-song generation. However, existing approaches still struggle with the complex composition of songs and the scarcity of high-quality data, leading to limitations in audio quality, musicality, instruction following, and vocal-instrument harmony. To address these challenges, we introduce LeVo, a language model based framework consisting of LeLM and Music Codec. LeLM is capable of parallel modeling of two types of tokens: mixed tokens, which represent the combined audio of vocals and accompaniment to achieve better vocal-instrument harmony, and dual-track tokens, which separately encode vocals and accompaniment for high-quality song generation. It employs two decoder-only transformers and a modular extension training strategy to prevent interference between different token types. To further enhance musicality and instruction following ability, we introduce a multi-preference alignment method based on Direct Preference Optimization (DPO). This method handles diverse human preferences through a semi-automatic data construction process and post-training. Experimental results demonstrate that LeVo significantly outperforms existing open-source methods in both objective and subjective metrics, while performing competitively with industry systems. Ablation studies further justify the effectiveness of our designs. Audio examples and source code are available at https://levo-demo.github.io and https://github.com/tencent-ailab/songgeneration.

Emerging Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) consistently excel in mathematical and reasoning tasks, showcasing remarkable capabilities. However, the enhancement of reasoning abilities and the exposure of internal reasoning processes introduce new safety vulnerabilities. A critical question arises: when reasoning becomes intertwined with harmfulness, will LRMs become more vulnerable to jailbreaks in reasoning mode? To investigate this, we introduce HauntAttack, a novel and general-purpose black-box adversarial attack framework that systematically embeds harmful instructions into reasoning questions. Specifically, we modify key reasoning conditions in existing questions with harmful instructions, thereby constructing a reasoning pathway that guides the model step by step toward unsafe outputs. We evaluate HauntAttack on 11 LRMs and observe an average attack success rate of 70\%, achieving up to 12 percentage points of absolute improvement over the strongest prior baseline. Our further analysis reveals that even advanced safety-aligned models remain highly susceptible to reasoning-based attacks, offering insights into the urgent challenge of balancing reasoning capability and safety in future model development.

Realistic 3D indoor scene synthesis is vital for embodied AI and digital content creation. It can be naturally divided into two subtasks: object generation and layout generation. While recent generative models have significantly advanced object-level quality and controllability, layout generation remains challenging due to limited datasets. Existing methods either overfit to these datasets or rely on predefined constraints to optimize numerical layout that sacrifice flexibility. As a result, they fail to generate scenes that are both open-vocabulary and aligned with fine-grained user instructions. We introduce DirectLayout, a framework that directly generates numerical 3D layouts from text descriptions using generalizable spatial reasoning of large language models (LLMs). DirectLayout decomposes the generation into three stages: producing a Bird's-Eye View (BEV) layout, lifting it into 3D space, and refining object placements. To enable explicit spatial reasoning and help the model grasp basic principles of object placement, we employ Chain-of-Thought (CoT) Activation based on the 3D-Front dataset. Additionally, we design CoT-Grounded Generative Layout Reward to enhance generalization and spatial planning. During inference, DirectLayout addresses asset-layout mismatches via Iterative Asset-Layout Alignment through in-context learning. Extensive experiments demonstrate that DirectLayout achieves impressive semantic consistency, generalization and physical plausibility.

Recent trends in test-time scaling for reasoning models (e.g., OpenAI o1, DeepSeek R1) have led to a popular belief that extending thinking traces using prompts like "Wait" or "Let me rethink" can improve performance. This raises a natural question: Does thinking more at test-time truly lead to better reasoning? To answer this question, we perform a detailed empirical study across models and benchmarks, which reveals a consistent pattern of initial performance improvements from additional thinking followed by a decline, due to "overthinking". To understand this non-monotonic trend, we consider a simple probabilistic model, which reveals that additional thinking increases output variance-creating an illusion of improved reasoning while ultimately undermining precision. Thus, observed gains from "more thinking" are not true indicators of improved reasoning, but artifacts stemming from the connection between model uncertainty and evaluation metric. This suggests that test-time scaling through extended thinking is not an effective way to utilize the inference thinking budget. Recognizing these limitations, we introduce an alternative test-time scaling approach, parallel thinking, inspired by Best-of-N sampling. Our method generates multiple independent reasoning paths within the same inference budget and selects the most consistent response via majority vote, achieving up to 20% higher accuracy compared to extended thinking. This provides a simple yet effective mechanism for test-time scaling of reasoning models.

LLM-as-a-judge is a framework where a large language model (LLM) evaluates the output of another LLM. While LLMs excel at producing qualitative textual evaluations, they often struggle to predict human preferences and numeric scores. We propose quantitative LLM judges, which align evaluation scores of existing LLM judges to humans in a given domain using regression models. The models are trained to improve the score of the original judge using its rationale and score. We present four quantitative judges for different types of absolute and relative feedback, which showcases the generality and versatility of our framework. Our framework is more computationally efficient than supervised fine-tuning and can be more statistically efficient when human feedback is limited, which is expected in practice. We validate these claims empirically on four datasets using two base judges. Our experiments show that quantitative judges can improve the predictive power of existing judges through post-hoc modeling.

As large language models (LLMs) transition from static tools to fully agentic systems, their potential for transforming social science research has become increasingly evident. This paper introduces a structured framework for understanding the diverse applications of LLM-based agents, ranging from simple data processors to complex, multi-agent systems capable of simulating emergent social dynamics. By mapping this developmental continuum across six levels, the paper clarifies the technical and methodological boundaries between different agentic architectures, providing a comprehensive overview of current capabilities and future potential. It highlights how lower-tier systems streamline conventional tasks like text classification and data annotation, while higher-tier systems enable novel forms of inquiry, including the study of group dynamics, norm formation, and large-scale social processes. However, these advancements also introduce significant challenges, including issues of reproducibility, ethical oversight, and the risk of emergent biases. The paper critically examines these concerns, emphasizing the need for robust validation protocols, interdisciplinary collaboration, and standardized evaluation metrics. It argues that while LLM-based agents hold transformative potential for the social sciences, realizing this promise will require careful, context-sensitive deployment and ongoing methodological refinement. The paper concludes with a call for future research that balances technical innovation with ethical responsibility, encouraging the development of agentic systems that not only replicate but also extend the frontiers of social science, offering new insights into the complexities of human behavior.

Recent studies show that LLMs possess different skills and specialize in different tasks. In fact, we observe that their varied performance occur in several levels of granularity. For example, in the code optimization task, code LLMs excel at different optimization categories and no one dominates others. This observation prompts the question of how one leverages multiple LLM agents to solve a coding problem without knowing their complementary strengths a priori. We argue that a team of agents can learn from each other's successes and failures so as to improve their own performance. Thus, a lesson is the knowledge produced by an agent and passed on to other agents in the collective solution process. We propose a lesson-based collaboration framework, design the lesson solicitation--banking--selection mechanism, and demonstrate that a team of small LLMs with lessons learned can outperform a much larger LLM and other multi-LLM collaboration methods.

Reasoning Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have shown promising performance on complex multimodal tasks. However, they still face significant challenges: they are highly sensitive to reasoning errors, require large volumes of annotated data or accurate verifiers, and struggle to generalize beyond specific domains. To address these limitations, we explore self-correction as a strategy to enhance reasoning VLMs. We first conduct an in-depth analysis of reasoning VLMs' self-correction abilities and identify key gaps. Based on our findings, we introduce Sherlock, a self-correction and self-improvement training framework. Sherlock introduces a trajectory-level self-correction objective, a preference data construction method based on visual perturbation, and a dynamic $β$ for preference tuning. Once the model acquires self-correction capabilities using only 20k randomly sampled annotated data, it continues to self-improve without external supervision. Built on the Llama3.2-Vision-11B model, Sherlock achieves remarkable results across eight benchmarks, reaching an average accuracy of 64.1 with direct generation and 65.4 after self-correction. It outperforms LLaVA-CoT (63.2), Mulberry (63.9), and LlamaV-o1 (63.4) while using less than 20% of the annotated data.