Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive capabilities across tasks such as mathematics, coding, and reasoning, yet their learning ability, which is crucial for adapting to dynamic environments and acquiring new knowledge, remains underexplored. In this work, we address this gap by introducing a framework inspired by cognitive psychology and education. Specifically, we decompose general learning ability into three distinct, complementary dimensions: (acquiring knowledge via explicit guidance), (internalizing abstract structures and generalizing to new contexts), and (adapting through accumulated exploration and feedback). We conduct a comprehensive empirical study across the three learning dimensions and identify several insightful findings, such as (i) interaction improves learning; (ii) conceptual understanding is scale-emergent and benefits larger models; and (iii) LLMs are effective few-shot learners but not many-shot learners. Based on our framework and empirical findings, we introduce a benchmark that provides a unified and realistic evaluation of LLMs' general learning abilities across three learning cognition dimensions. It enables diagnostic insights and supports evaluation and development of more adaptive and human-like models.

Existing recommendation systems either rely on user interaction logs, such as online shopping history for shopping recommendations, or focus on text signals. However, item-based histories are not always accessible and generalizable for multimodal recommendation. We hypothesize that a user's visual history --- comprising images from daily life --- can offer rich, task-agnostic insights into their interests and preferences, and thus be leveraged for effective personalization. To this end, we propose VisualLens, a novel framework that leverages multimodal large language models (MLLMs) to enable personalization using task-agnostic visual history. VisualLens extracts, filters, and refines a spectrum user profile from the visual history to support personalized recommendation. We created two new benchmarks, Google-Review-V and Yelp-V, with task-agnostic visual histories, and show that VisualLens improves over state-of-the-art item-based multimodal recommendations by 5-10\% on Hit@3, and outperforms GPT-4o by 2-5\%. Further analysis shows that VisualLens is robust across varying history lengths and excels at adapting to both longer histories and unseen content categories.

We propose LangHOPS, the first Multimodal Large Language Model (MLLM)-based framework for open-vocabulary object-part instance segmentation. Given an image, LangHOPS can jointly detect and segment hierarchical object and part instances from open-vocabulary candidate categories. Unlike prior approaches that rely on heuristic or learnable visual grouping, our approach grounds object-part hierarchies in language space. It integrates the MLLM into the object-part parsing pipeline to leverage rich knowledge and reasoning capabilities, and link multi-granularity concepts within the hierarchies. We evaluate LangHOPS across multiple challenging scenarios, including in-domain and cross-dataset object-part instance segmentation, and zero-shot semantic segmentation. LangHOPS achieves state-of-the-art results, surpassing previous methods by 5.5% Average Precision(AP) (in-domain) and 4.8% (cross-dataset) on the PartImageNet dataset and by 2.5% mIOU on unseen object parts in ADE20K (zero-shot).

A major challenge in training VLM agents, compared to LLM agents, is that states shift from simple texts to complex visual observations, which introduces partial observability and demands robust world modeling. We ask: can VLM agents build internal world models through explicit visual state reasoning? In this work, we architecturally enforce and reward VLM agent's reasoning process via reinforcement learning (RL), formulating the problem as a Partially Observable Markov Decision Process (POMDP). We demonstrate that structuring agent's reasoning into StateEstimation ("what is the current state?") and TransitionModeling ("what is next?") is critical by studying five reasoning strategies. Investigating how agents should ground visual states and represent these internal beliefs, we reveal the optimal representations are task-dependent: Natural Language excels at capturing semantic relationships for general tasks, while Structured formats are essential for high-precision manipulation. These insights motivate our approach to reward shaping and credit assignment. We leverage a WorldModeling Reward to densely rewards the agent's turn-by-turn state predictions, while our Bi-Level General Advantage Estimation (Bi-Level GAE) enables turn-aware credit assignment. Through such world model reasoning, we enable a 3B model to achieve performance of 0.82 on a set of five diverse agent tasks, nearly 3 improvement over its untrained counterpart (0.21) and surpassing proprietary reasoning models like GPT-5 (0.75), Gemini 2.5 Pro (0.67) and Claude 4.5 (0.62).

Tabular data is one of the most ubiquitous sources of information worldwide, spanning a wide variety of domains. This inherent heterogeneity has slowed the development of Tabular Foundation Models (TFMs) capable of fast generalization to unseen datasets. In-Context Learning (ICL) has recently emerged as a promising solution for TFMs, enabling dynamic adaptation to new tasks without additional tuning. While many studies have attempted to re-purpose large language models for tabular ICL, they have had limited success, so recent works have focused on developing tabular-specific foundation models. In this work, we propose an approach to combine ICL-based retrieval with self supervised learning to train tabular foundation models. We also investigate the utility of real vs.

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.

With the significant progress of large reasoning models in complex coding and reasoning tasks, existing benchmarks, like LiveCodeBench and CodeElo, are insufficient to evaluate the coding capabilities of large language models (LLMs) in real competition environments. Moreover, current evaluation metrics such as Pass@K fail to capture the reflective abilities of reasoning models. To address these challenges, we propose ICPC-Eval, a top-level competitive coding benchmark designed to probing the frontiers of LLM reasoning. ICPC-Eval includes 118 carefully curated problems from 11 recent ICPC contests held in various regions of the world, offering three key contributions: 1) A challenging realistic ICPC competition scenario, featuring a problem type and difficulty distribution consistent with actual contests.

For Large Language Models (LLMs) to be reliably deployed in both everyday and high-stakes domains, knowing when not to answer is equally critical as answering correctly.Real-world user queries, which can be underspecified, ill-posed, or fundamentally unanswerable, require LLMs to reason about uncertainty and selectively abstain---i.e., refuse to answer definitively.However, abstention remains understudied, without a systematic evaluation framework for modern LLMs.In this work, we introduce AbstentionBench: a large-scale benchmark for holistically evaluating abstention across 20 diverse datasets, including questions with unknown answers, underspecification, false premises, subjective interpretations, and outdated information.Evaluating 20 frontier LLMs reveals abstention is an unsolved problem, and one where scaling models is of little use.While recent reasoning LLMs have shown impressive results in complex problem solving, surprisingly, we find that reasoning fine-tuning degrades abstention (by 24\% on average), even for math and science domains on which reasoning models are explicitly trained.We find that while a carefully crafted system prompt can boost abstention in practice, it does not resolve models' fundamental inability to reason about uncertainty.We release AbstentionBench to foster research into advancing LLM reliability.

AI agents have the potential to significantly alter the cybersecurity landscape. Here, we introduce the first framework to capture offensive and defensive cyber-capabilities in evolving real-world systems. Instantiating this framework with BountyBench, we set up 25 systems with complex, real-world codebases. To capture the vulnerability lifecycle, we define three task types: Detect (detecting a new vulnerability), Exploit (exploiting a given vulnerability), and Patch (patching a given vulnerability). For Detect, we construct a new success indicator, which is general across vulnerability types and provides localized evaluation. We manually set up the environment for each system, including installing packages, setting up server(s), and hydrating database(s). We add 40 bug bounties, which are vulnerabilities with monetary awards from \\$10 to \\$30,485, covering 9 of the OWASP Top 10 Risks. To modulate task difficulty, we devise a new strategy based on information to guide detection, interpolating from identifying a zero day to exploiting a given vulnerability. We evaluate 10 agents: Claude Code, OpenAI Codex CLI with o3-high and o4-mini, and custom agents with o3-high, GPT-4.1,

Recent interpretability work on large language models (LLMs) has been increasingly dominated by a feature-discovery approach with the help of proxy modules. Then, the quality of features learned by, e.g., sparse auto-encoders (SAEs), is evaluated. This paradigm naturally raises a critical question: do such learned features have better properties than those already represented within the original model parameters, and unfortunately, only a few studies have made such comparisons systematically so far. In this work, we revisit the interpretability of feature vectors stored in feed-forward (FF) layers, given the perspective of FF as key-value memories, with modern interpretability benchmarks. Our extensive evaluation revealed that SAE and FFs exhibits a similar range of interpretability, although SAEs displayed an observable but minimal improvement in some aspects. Furthermore, in certain aspects, surprisingly, even vanilla FFs yielded better interpretability than the SAEs, and features discovered in SAEs and FFs diverged. These bring questions about the advantage of SAEs from both perspectives of feature quality and faithfulness, compared to directly interpreting FF feature vectors, and FF key-value parameters serve as a strong baseline in modern interpretability research.