The fine-tuning of pre-trained large language models (LLMs) using reinforcement learning (RL) is generally formulated as direct policy optimization. This approach was naturally favored as it efficiently improves a pretrained LLM with simple gradient updates. Another RL paradigm, Q-learning methods, has received far less attention in the LLM community while demonstrating major success in various non-LLM RL tasks. In particular, Q-learning effectiveness stems from its sample efficiency and ability to learn offline, which is particularly valuable given the high computational cost of sampling with LLM. However, naively applying a Q-learning-style update to the model's logits is ineffective due to the specificity of LLMs.

Training large language models (LLMs) from scratch can yield models with unique functionalities and strengths, but it is costly and often leads to redundant capabilities. A more cost-effective alternative is to fuse existing pre-trained LLMs with different architectures into a more powerful model. However, a key challenge in existing model fusion is their dependence on manually predefined vocabulary alignment, which may not generalize well across diverse contexts, leading to performance degradation in several evaluation. To solve this, we draw inspiration from distribution learning and propose the probabilistic token alignment method as a general and soft mapping for alignment, named as PTA-LLM. Our approach innovatively reformulates token alignment into a classic mathematical problem: optimal transport, seamlessly leveraging distribution-aware learning to facilitate more coherent model fusion. Apart from its inherent generality, PTA-LLM exhibits interpretability from a distributional perspective, offering insights into the essence of the token alignment. Empirical results demonstrate that probabilistic token alignment enhances the target model's performance across multiple capabilities.

Current Large Language Models (LLMs) often undergo supervised fine-tuning (SFT) to acquire tool use capabilities. However, SFT struggles to generalize to unfamiliar or complex tool use scenarios. Recent advancements in reinforcement learning (RL), particularly with R1-like models, have demonstrated promising reasoning and generalization abilities. Yet, reward design for tool use presents unique challenges: multiple tools may be invoked with diverse parameters, and coarse-grained reward signals, such as answer matching, fail to offer the finegrained feedback required for effective learning. In this work, we present the first comprehensive study on reward design for tool selection and application tasks within the RL paradigm. We systematically explore a wide range of reward strategies, analyzing their types, scales, granularity, and temporal dynamics. Building on these insights, we propose a principled reward design tailored for tool use tasks and apply it to train LLMs using RL methods. Empirical evaluations across diverse benchmarks demonstrate that our approach yields robust, scalable, and stable training, achieving a 17\% improvement over base models and a 15\% gain over SFT models.

As large language models (LLMs) increasingly serve as close collaborators for humans, it is crucial that they express their reasoning in ways that humans can understand and learn from. However, this capability remains relatively less understood and under-evaluated. To address this, we introduce a conceptual framework for such Human-AI knowledge transfer capabilities and conduct the first large-scale user study (N=118) explicitly designed to measure it. In our two-phase setup, humans first ideate with an LLM on problem-solving strategies, then independently implement solutions, isolating the influence of model reasoning on human understanding. Our findings reveal that while model benchmark performance correlates with collaborative outcomes, this relationship is notably inconsistent with significant outliers, highlighting that knowledge transfer is a distinct capability requiring dedicated optimization. Our analysis uncovers behavioral and strategic factors that mediate successful knowledge transfer, and we release our code, dataset, and evaluation framework to support future work on communicatively aligned models.

Fine-tuning large language models (LLMs) poses significant computational burdens, especially in federated learning (FL) settings. We introduce Layer-wise Efficient Federated Fine-tuning (LEFF), a novel method designed to enhance the efficiency of FL fine-tuning while preserving model performance and minimizing client-side computational overhead. LEFF strategically selects layers for fine-tuning based on client computational capacity, thereby mitigating the straggler effect prevalent in heterogeneous environments. Furthermore, LEFF incorporates an importance-driven layer sampling mechanism, prioritizing layers with greater influence on model performance. Theoretical analysis demonstrates that LEFF achieves a convergence rate of $\mathcal{O}(1/\sqrt{T})$. Extensive experiments on diverse datasets demonstrate that LEFF attains superior computational efficiency and model performance compared to existing federated fine-tuning methods, particularly under heterogeneous conditions.

Recent reports claim that large language models (LLMs) now outperform elite humans in competitive programming. Drawing on knowledge from a group of medalists in international algorithmic contests, we revisit this claim, examining how LLMs differ from human experts and where limitations still remain. We introduce LiveCodeBench Pro, a benchmark composed of problems from Codeforces, ICPC, and IOI that are continuously updated to reduce the likelihood of data contamination. A team of Olympiad medalists annotates every problem for algorithmic categories and conducts a line-by-line analysis of failed model-generated submissions. Using this new data and benchmark, we find that frontier models still have significant limitations: without external tools, the best model achieves only 53\% pass@1 on medium-difficulty problems and 0\% on hard problems, domains where expert humans still excel. We also find that LLMs succeed at implementation-heavy problems but struggle with nuanced algorithmic reasoning and complex case analysis, often generating confidently incorrect justifications. High performance appears largely driven by implementation precision and tool augmentation, not superior reasoning. LiveCodeBench Pro thus highlights the significant gap to human grandmaster levels, while offering fine-grained diagnostics to steer future improvements in code-centric LLM reasoning.

Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have spurred transformative applications in various domains, ranging from open-source to proprietary LLMs. However, jailbreak attacks, which aim to break safety alignment and user compliance by tricking the target LLMs into answering harmful and risky responses, are becoming an urgent concern. The practice of red-teaming for LLMs is to proactively explore potential risks and error-prone instances before the release of frontier AI technology. This paper proposes an agentic workflow to automate and scale the red-teaming process of LLMs through the Composition-of-Principles (CoP) framework, where human users provide a set of red-teaming principles as instructions to an AI agent to automatically orchestrate effective red-teaming strategies and generate jailbreak prompts. Distinct from existing red-teaming methods, our CoP framework provides a unified and extensible framework to encompass and orchestrate human-provided red-teaming principles to enable the automated discovery of new red-teaming strategies. When tested against leading LLMs, CoP reveals unprecedented safety risks by finding novel jailbreak prompts and improving the best-known single-turn attack success rate by up to 19.0 times.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities as intelligent agents capable of solving complex problems.

With the increasing adoption of Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems for knowledge-intensive tasks, ensuring the adequacy of retrieved documents has become critically important for generation quality. Traditional reranking approaches face three significant challenges: substantial computational overhead that scales with document length, dependency on plain text that limits application in sensitive scenarios, and insufficient assessment of document value beyond simple relevance metrics. We propose EAReranker, an efficient embedding-based adequacy assessment framework that evaluates document utility for RAG systems without requiring access to original text content.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as personalized user assistants, effectively adapting to users' evolving preferences is critical for delivering high-quality personalized responses. While user preferences are often stable in content, their relative strengths shift over time due to changing goals and contexts. Therefore, modeling these dynamic preference strengths can enable finer-grained personalization. However, current methods face two major challenges: (i) limited user feedback makes it difficult to estimate preference strengths accurately, and (ii) natural language ambiguity limits the controllability of preference-guided generation. To address these issues, we propose AdaPA-Agent, a LLM-agent personalization framework that models dynamic preference strengths via Adaptive Preference Arithmetic. First, instead of requiring additional user feedback, AdaPA-Agent employs an alignment-based strength estimation module to estimate the strength of user preferences from the existing user-agent interaction. Then, it guides controllable personalized generation by linearly combining next-token distributions, weighted by the estimated strengths of individual preferences. Experiments on two personalization tasks-conversational recommendation and personalized web interaction-demonstrate that AdaPA-Agent better aligning with users' changing intents, and has achieved over 18.9\% and 14.2\% improvements compared to ReAct, the widely-used agent framework.