Salesforce's CEO backtracks after saying Trump should send troops into San Francisco In tech this week: The CEO of the city's largest private employer apologizes, Amazon Web Services' outage and OpenAI's Sora makes waves What I'm watching this week: South Park's caricature of Peter Thiel and his obsession with the antichrist . Read our reporting on the show's inspiration: Thiel's bizarre off-the-record lectures on the subject. And now, let's get into things. The co-founder and CEO of Salesforce, said last week that Donald Trump should make good on his threats to send the US national guard into San Francisco, despite resistance from local leaders. Even Marc Benioff's own public relations manager was aghast at his remarks, according to the New York Times .

This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Quotes displayed in real-time or delayed by at least 15 minutes. Market data provided by Factset . Powered and implemented by FactSet Digital Solutions . Mutual Fund and ETF data provided by Refinitiv Lipper .

The Black-Litterman model addresses the sensitivity issues of tra- ditional mean-variance optimization by incorporating investor views, but systematically generating these views remains a key challenge. This study proposes and validates a systematic frame- work that translates return forecasts and predictive uncertainty from Large Language Models (LLMs) into the core inputs for the Black-Litterman model: investor views and their confidence lev- els. Through a backtest on S&P 500 constituents, we demonstrate that portfolios driven by top-performing LLMs significantly out- perform traditional baselines in both absolute and risk-adjusted terms. Crucially, our analysis reveals that each LLM exhibits a dis- tinct and consistent investment style which is the primary driver of performance. We found that the selection of an LLM is therefore not a search for a single best forecaster, but a strategic choice of an investment style whose success is contingent on its alignment with the prevailing market regime. The source code and data are available at https://github.com/youngandbin/LLM-BLM.

Reinforcement learning (RL) has emerged as an effective paradigm for enhancing model reasoning. However, existing RL methods like GRPO often rely on unstructured self-sampling to fit scalar rewards, often producing inefficient rollouts that fail to capture transferable problem-solving strategies. To address these limitations, we propose **TemplateRL**, a structured template-guided RL framework that augments policy optimization with explicit template guidance. Our approach first constructs a problem-solving template library via MCTS on a small seed set, then seamlessly integrates this high-level structured guidance into RL training. By guiding rollout generation to align with proven template structures, TemplateRL significantly improves high-quality trajectory hit rates while reducing ineffective exploration. This structure-guided design steers the policy toward validated strategic patterns, stabilizing training dynamics, and enhancing RL sampling efficiency. Notably, the explicit template library is interpretable, editable, and supports online updates-enabling continuous updates during both training and inference. Extensive experiments demonstrate that TemplateRL outperforms GRPO by 99% on AIME and 41% on AMC, with superior stability on weak models and remarkable cross-domain generalization, highlighting its potential for broader tasks.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently achieved remarkable performance in long-context understanding. However, current long-context LLM benchmarks are limited by rigid context length, labor-intensive annotation, and the pressing challenge of label leakage issues during LLM training. Therefore, we propose \textsc{AcademicEval}, a live benchmark for evaluating LLMs over long-context generation tasks. \textsc{AcademicEval} adopts papers on arXiv to introduce several academic writing tasks with long-context inputs, \textit{i.e.}, \textsc{Title}, \textsc{Abstract}, \textsc{Introduction}, and \textsc{Related Work}, which cover a wide range of abstraction levels and require no manual labeling. Moreover, \textsc{AcademicEval} integrates high-quality and expert-curated few-shot demonstrations from a collected co-author graph to enable flexible context length. Especially, \textsc{AcademicEval} features an efficient live evaluation, ensuring no label leakage. We conduct a holistic evaluation on \textsc{AcademicEval}, and the results illustrate that LLMs perform poorly on tasks with hierarchical abstraction levels and tend to struggle with long few-shot demonstrations, highlighting the challenge of our benchmark. Through experimental analysis, we also reveal some insights for enhancing LLMs' long-context modeling capabilities. Code is available at https://github.com/ulab-uiuc/AcademicEval

Recent advances in large reasoning models (LRMs) have enabled remarkable performance on complex tasks such as mathematics and coding by generating long Chain-of-Thought (CoT) traces. In this paper, we identify and systematically analyze a critical vulnerability we term reasoning distraction, where LRMs are diverted from their primary objective by irrelevant yet complex tasks maliciously embedded in the prompt. Through a comprehensive study across diverse models and benchmarks, we show that even state-of-the-art LRMs are highly susceptible, with injected distractors reducing task accuracy by up to 60%. We further reveal that certain alignment techniques can amplify this weakness and that models may exhibit covert compliance, following hidden adversarial instructions in reasoning while concealing them in the final output. To mitigate these risks, we propose a training-based defense that combines Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) and Reinforcement Learning (RL) on synthetic adversarial data, improving robustness by over 50 points on challenging distractor attacks. Our findings establish reasoning distraction as a distinct and urgent threat to LRM reliability and provide a practical step toward safer and more trustworthy reasoning systems.

Existing expert merging strategies for Sparse Mixture of Experts (SMoE) typically rely on input-dependent or input-independent averaging of expert parameters, but often lack a principled weighting mechanism. In this work, we reinterpret expert merging through the lens of game theory, revealing cooperative and competitive dynamics among experts. Based on this perspective, we introduce Nash Merging of Experts (NAMEx), a novel framework that incorporates Nash Bargaining into the merging process, enabling more balanced and efficient collaboration among experts. Additionally, we incorporate complex momentum into NAMEx to accelerate expert propagation with theoretical guarantees for convergence. Extensive experiments across language modelling, text classification, image classification, and zero-shot robustness under data corruption show that NAMEx consistently outperforms competing methods while integrating seamlessly with popular MoE architectures. Finally, we demonstrate NAMEx's scalability by applying it to large-scale systems, including Qwen1.5-MoE (14B) and DeepSeek-MoE (16B), where it proves effective in both zero-shot and fine-tuning settings.

Existing benchmarks for evaluating mathematical reasoning in large language models (LLMs) rely primarily on competition problems, formal proofs, or artificially challenging questions -- failing to capture the nature of mathematics encountered in actual research environments. We introduce RealMath, a novel benchmark derived directly from research papers and mathematical forums that assesses LLMs' abilities on authentic mathematical tasks. Our approach addresses three critical challenges: sourcing diverse research-level content, enabling reliable automated evaluation through verifiable statements, and designing a continually refreshable dataset to mitigate contamination risks. Experimental results across multiple LLMs reveal surprising capabilities in handling research mathematics compared to competition problems, suggesting current models may already serve as valuable assistants for working mathematicians despite limitations on highly challenging problems. The code and dataset for RealMath are publicly available.

Traditional ranking systems optimize offline proxy objectives that rely on oversimplified assumptions about user behavior, often neglecting factors such as position bias and item diversity. Consequently, these models fail to improve true counterfactual utilities such as such as click-through rate or purchase probability, when evaluated in online A/B tests. We introduce RewardRank, a data-driven learning-to-rank (LTR) framework for counterfactual utility maximization. RewardRank first learns a reward model that predicts the utility of any ranking directly from logged user interactions, and then trains a ranker to maximize this reward using a differentiable soft permutation operator. To enable rigorous and reproducible evaluation, we further propose two benchmark suites: (i) Parametric Oracle Evaluation (PO-Eval), which employs an open-source click model as a counterfactual oracle on the Baidu-ULTR dataset, and (ii) LLM-as-User Evaluation (LAU-Eval), which simulates realistic user behavior via large language models on the Amazon-KDD-Cup dataset. RewardRank achieves the highest counterfactual utility across both benchmarks and demonstrates that optimizing classical metrics such as NDCG is sub-optimal for maximizing true user utility. Finally, using real user feedback from the Baidu-ULTR dataset, RewardRank establishes a new state of the art in offline relevance performance. Overall, our results show that learning-to-rank can be reformulated as direct optimization of counterfactual utility, achieved in a purely data-driven manner without relying on explicit modeling assumptions such as position bias. Our code is available at: $https://github.com/GauravBh1010tt/RewardRank$

Biomedical question answering (QA) requires accurate interpretation of complex medical knowledge. Large language models (LLMs) have shown promising capabilities in this domain, with retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems enhancing performance by incorporating external medical literature. However, RAG-based approaches in biomedical QA suffer from hallucinations due to post-retrieval noise and insufficient verification of retrieved evidence, undermining response reliability. We propose MedTrust-Guided Iterative RAG, a framework designed to enhance factual consistency and mitigate hallucinations in medical QA. Our method introduces three key innovations. First, it enforces citation-aware reasoning by requiring all generated content to be explicitly grounded in retrieved medical documents, with structured Negative Knowledge Assertions used when evidence is insufficient. Second, it employs an iterative retrieval-verification process, where a verification agent assesses evidence adequacy and refines queries through Medical Gap Analysis until reliable information is obtained. Third, it integrates the MedTrust-Align Module (MTAM) that combines verified positive examples with hallucination-aware negative samples, leveraging Direct Preference Optimization to reinforce citation-grounded reasoning while penalizing hallucination-prone response patterns.