Large Language Models (LLMs) trained on massive data capture rich information embedded in the training data. However, this also introduces the risk of privacy leakage, particularly involving personally identifiable information (PII). Although previous studies have shown that this risk can be mitigated through methods such as privacy neurons, they all assume that both the (sensitive) training data and user queries are in English. We show that they cannot defend against the privacy leakage in cross-lingual contexts: even if the training data is exclusively in one language, these (private) models may still reveal private information when queried in another language. In this work, we first investigate the information flow of cross-lingual privacy leakage to give a better understanding. We find that LLMs process private information in the middle layers, where representations are largely shared across languages. The risk of leakage peaks when converted to a language-specific space in later layers. Based on this, we identify privacy-universal neurons and language-specific privacy neurons. Privacy-universal neurons influence privacy leakage across all languages, while language-specific privacy neurons are only related to specific languages. By deactivating these neurons, the cross-lingual privacy leakage risk is reduced by 23.3%-31.6%.

Although value-aligned language models (LMs) appear unbiased in explicit bias evaluations, they often exhibit stereotypes in implicit word association tasks, raising concerns about their fair usage. We investigate the mechanisms behind this discrepancy and find that alignment surprisingly amplifies implicit bias in model outputs. Specifically, we show that aligned LMs, unlike their unaligned counterparts, overlook racial concepts in early internal representations when the context is ambiguous. Not representing race likely fails to activate safety guardrails, leading to unintended biases. Inspired by this insight, we propose a new bias mitigation strategy that works by incentivizing the representation of racial concepts in the early model layers. In contrast to conventional mitigation methods of machine unlearning, our interventions find that steering the model to be more aware of racial concepts effectively mitigates implicit bias. Similar to race blindness in humans, ignoring racial nuances can inadvertently perpetuate subtle biases in LMs.

This paper presents the first comprehensive cross - architectural performance analysis of contemporary AI accelerators designed for LLM inference, introducing a novel workload - centric evaluation methodology that quantifies architectural fitness across operational regimes. We provide the first systematic comparison of memory hierarchies, compute architectures, and interconnect strategies across the full spectrum of commercial accelerators, from GPU - based designs to specialized wafer - scale engines. Our analysis reveals that no single architecture dominates across all workload categories, with performance variations of up to 3.7 between architectures depending on batch size and sequence length. We quantitatively evaluate four primary scaling strategies for trillion - parameter models, demonstrating that expert parallelism delivers the best parameter - to - compute ratio (8.4) but introduces 2.1 latency variance compared to tensor parallelism. This work provides system designers with actionable insights for accelerator selection based on workload characteristics, while identifying key architectural gaps in current designs that will shape future hardware development.

Transformers deliver outstanding performance across a wide range of tasks and are now a dominant backbone architecture for large language models (LLMs). Their task-solving performance is improved by increasing parameter size, as shown in the recent studies on parameter scaling laws. Although recent mechanistic-interpretability studies have deepened our understanding of the internal behavior of Transformers by analyzing their residual stream, the relationship between these internal mechanisms and the parameter scaling laws remains unclear. To bridge this gap, we focus on layers and their size, which mainly decide the parameter size of Transformers. For this purpose, we first theoretically investigate the layers within the residual stream through a bias-diversity decomposition. The decomposition separates (i) bias, the error of each layer's output from the ground truth, and (ii) diversity, which indicates how much the outputs of each layer differ from each other. Analyzing Transformers under this theory reveals that performance improves when individual layers make predictions close to the correct answer and remain mutually diverse. We show that diversity becomes especially critical when individual layers' outputs are far from the ground truth. Finally, we introduce an information-theoretic diversity and show our main findings that adding layers enhances performance only when those layers behave differently, i.e., are diverse. We also reveal the performance gains from increasing the number of layers exhibit submodularity: marginal improvements diminish as additional layers increase, mirroring the logarithmic convergence predicted by the parameter scaling laws. Experiments on multiple semantic-understanding tasks with various LLMs empirically confirm the theoretical properties derived in this study.

Large language models (LLMs)-empowered web agents enables automating complex, real-time web navigation tasks in enterprise environments. However, existing web agents relying on supervised fine-tuning (SFT) often struggle with generalization and robustness due to insufficient reasoning capabilities when handling the inherently dynamic nature of web interactions. In this study, we introduce WorkForceAgent-R1, an LLM-based web agent trained using a rule-based R1-style reinforcement learning framework designed explicitly to enhance single-step reasoning and planning for business-oriented web navigation tasks. We employ a structured reward function that evaluates both adherence to output formats and correctness of actions, enabling WorkForceAgent-R1 to implicitly learn robust intermediate reasoning without explicit annotations or extensive expert demonstrations. Extensive experiments on the WorkArena benchmark demonstrate that WorkForceAgent-R1 substantially outperforms SFT baselines by 10.26-16.59%, achieving competitive performance relative to proprietary LLM-based agents (gpt-4o) in workplace-oriented web navigation tasks.

Biomedical reasoning often requires traversing interconnected relationships across entities such as drugs, diseases, and proteins. Despite the increasing prominence of large language models (LLMs), existing benchmarks lack the ability to evaluate multi-hop reasoning in the biomedical domain, particularly for queries involving one-to-many and many-to-many relationships. This gap leaves the critical challenges of biomedical multi-hop reasoning underexplored. To address this, we introduce BioHopR, a novel benchmark designed to evaluate multi-hop, multi-answer reasoning in structured biomedical knowledge graphs. Built from the comprehensive PrimeKG, BioHopR includes 1-hop and 2-hop reasoning tasks that reflect real-world biomedical complexities. Evaluations of state-of-the-art models reveal that O3-mini, a proprietary reasoning-focused model, achieves 37.93% precision on 1-hop tasks and 14.57% on 2-hop tasks, outperforming proprietary models such as GPT4O and open-source biomedical models including HuatuoGPT-o1-70B and Llama-3.3-70B. However, all models exhibit significant declines in multi-hop performance, underscoring the challenges of resolving implicit reasoning steps in the biomedical domain. By addressing the lack of benchmarks for multi-hop reasoning in biomedical domain, BioHopR sets a new standard for evaluating reasoning capabilities and highlights critical gaps between proprietary and open-source models while paving the way for future advancements in biomedical LLMs.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) have exhibited the capacity of enhancing reasoning performance via internal test-time scaling. Building upon this, a promising direction is to further scale test-time compute to unlock even greater reasoning capabilities. However, as we push these scaling boundaries, systematically understanding the practical limits and achieving optimal resource allocation becomes a critical challenge. In this paper, we investigate the scaling plateau of test-time scaling and introduce the Test-Time Scaling Performance Model (TTSPM). We theoretically analyze two fundamental paradigms for such extended scaling, parallel scaling and sequential scaling, from a probabilistic modeling perspective. Our primary contribution is the derivation of the saturation point on the scaling budget for both strategies, identifying thresholds beyond which additional computation yields diminishing returns. Remarkably, despite their distinct mechanisms, both paradigms converge to a unified mathematical structure in their upper bounds. We empirically validate our theoretical findings on challenging reasoning benchmarks, including AIME, MATH-500, and GPQA, demonstrating the practical utility of these bounds for test-time resource allocation. We hope that this work provides insights into the cost-benefit trade-offs of test-time scaling, guiding the development of more resource-efficient inference strategies for large reasoning models.

Large Language Models (LLMs), such as OpenAI's o1 and DeepSeek's R1, excel at advanced reasoning tasks like math and coding via Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR), but still struggle with puzzles solvable by humans without domain knowledge. We introduce Enigmata, the first comprehensive suite tailored for improving LLMs with puzzle reasoning skills. It includes 36 tasks across seven categories, each with 1) a generator that produces unlimited examples with controllable difficulty and 2) a rule-based verifier for automatic evaluation. This generator-verifier design supports scalable, multi-task RL training, fine-grained analysis, and seamless RLVR integration. We further propose Enigmata-Eval, a rigorous benchmark, and develop optimized multi-task RLVR strategies. Our trained model, Qwen2.5-32B-Enigmata, consistently surpasses o3-mini-high and o1 on the puzzle reasoning benchmarks like Enigmata-Eval, ARC-AGI (32.8%), and ARC-AGI 2 (0.6%). It also generalizes well to out-of-domain puzzle benchmarks and mathematical reasoning, with little multi-tasking trade-off. When trained on larger models like Seed1.5-Thinking (20B activated parameters and 200B total parameters), puzzle data from Enigmata further boosts SoTA performance on advanced math and STEM reasoning tasks such as AIME (2024-2025), BeyondAIME and GPQA (Diamond), showing nice generalization benefits of Enigmata. This work offers a unified, controllable framework for advancing logical reasoning in LLMs. Resources of this work can be found at https://seed-enigmata.github.io.

Can LLMs accurately adjust their confidence when facing opposition? Building on previous studies measuring calibration on static fact-based question-answering tasks, we evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) in a dynamic, adversarial debate setting, uniquely combining two realistic factors: (a) a multi-turn format requiring models to update beliefs as new information emerges, and (b) a zero-sum structure to control for task-related uncertainty, since mutual high-confidence claims imply systematic overconfidence. We organized 60 three-round policy debates among ten state-of-the-art LLMs, with models privately rating their confidence (0-100) in winning after each round. We observed five concerning patterns: (1) Systematic overconfidence: models began debates with average initial confidence of 72.9% vs. a rational 50% baseline. (2) Confidence escalation: rather than reducing confidence as debates progressed, debaters increased their win probabilities, averaging 83% by the final round. (3) Mutual overestimation: in 61.7% of debates, both sides simultaneously claimed >=75% probability of victory, a logical impossibility. (4) Persistent self-debate bias: models debating identical copies increased confidence from 64.1% to 75.2%; even when explicitly informed their chance of winning was exactly 50%, confidence still rose (from 50.0% to 57.1%). (5) Misaligned private reasoning: models' private scratchpad thoughts sometimes differed from their public confidence ratings, raising concerns about faithfulness of chain-of-thought reasoning. These results suggest LLMs lack the ability to accurately self-assess or update their beliefs in dynamic, multi-turn tasks; a major concern as LLMs are now increasingly deployed without careful review in assistant and agentic roles. Code for our experiments is available at https://github.com/pradyuprasad/llms_overconfidence

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have recently achieved significant progress in visual tasks, including semantic scene understanding and text-image alignment, with reasoning variants enhancing performance on complex tasks involving mathematics and logic. However, their capacity for reasoning tasks involving fine-grained visual understanding remains insufficiently evaluated. To address this gap, we introduce ReasonMap, a benchmark designed to assess the fine-grained visual understanding and spatial reasoning abilities of MLLMs. ReasonMap encompasses high-resolution transit maps from 30 cities across 13 countries and includes 1,008 question-answer pairs spanning two question types and three templates. Furthermore, we design a two-level evaluation pipeline that properly assesses answer correctness and quality. Comprehensive evaluations of 15 popular MLLMs, including both base and reasoning variants, reveal a counterintuitive pattern: among open-source models, base models outperform reasoning ones, while the opposite trend is observed in closed-source models. Additionally, performance generally degrades when visual inputs are masked, indicating that while MLLMs can leverage prior knowledge to answer some questions, fine-grained visual reasoning tasks still require genuine visual perception for strong performance. Our benchmark study offers new insights into visual reasoning and contributes to investigating the gap between open-source and closed-source models.