Fine-tuning large language models (LLMs) to aggregate multiple preferences has attracted considerable research attention. With aggregation algorithms advancing, a potential economic scenario arises where fine-tuning services are provided to agents with different preferences. In this context, agents may benefit from strategically misreporting their preferences, but this could harm the aggregation performance. This paper addresses such incentive issues by framing it as a mechanism design problem: an LLM provider determines the fine-tuning objective (training rule) and the pricing scheme (payment rule) for agents. We primarily focus on training rules that maximize social welfare subject to certain regularizations, referred to as SW-Max rules.

Recent Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have shown substantially improved reasoning capabilities over traditional Large Language Models (LLMs) by incorporating extended thinking processes prior to producing final responses. However, excessively lengthy thinking introduces substantial overhead in terms of token consumption and latency, which is unnecessary for simple queries. In this work, we introduce Large Hybrid-Reasoning Models (LHRMs), the first kind of model capable of adaptively determining whether to perform reasoning based on the contextual information of user queries. To achieve this, we propose a two-stage training pipeline comprising Hybrid Fine-Tuning (HFT) as a cold start, followed by online reinforcement learning with the proposed Hybrid Group Policy Optimization (HGPO) to implicitly learn to select the appropriate reasoning mode. Furthermore, we introduce a metric called Hybrid Accuracy to quantitatively assess the model's capability for hybrid reasoning. Extensive experimental results show that LHRMs can adaptively perform hybrid reasoning on queries of varying difficulty and type. It outperforms existing LRMs and LLMs in reasoning and general capabilities while significantly improving efficiency. Together, our work advocates for a reconsideration of the appropriate use of extended reasoning processes and provides a solid starting point for building hybrid reasoning systems.

The success of today's large language models (LLMs) depends on the observation that larger models perform better. However, the origin of this neural scaling law, that loss decreases as a power law with model size, remains unclear. We propose that representation superposition, meaning that LLMs represent more features than they have dimensions, can be a key contributor to loss and cause neural scaling. Based on Anthropic's toy model, we use weight decay to control the degree of superposition, allowing us to systematically study how loss scales with model size. When superposition is weak, the loss follows a power law only if data feature frequencies are power-law distributed.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated broad applications but suffer from issues like hallucinations, erroneous outputs and outdated knowledge. Model editing emerges as an effective solution to refine knowledge in LLMs, yet existing methods typically depend on structured knowledge representations. However, real-world knowledge is primarily embedded within complex, unstructured text. Existing structured knowledge editing approaches face significant challenges when handling the entangled and intricate knowledge present in unstructured text, resulting in issues such as representation ambiguity and editing conflicts. To address these challenges, we propose a Conflict-Aware Knowledge Editing in the Wild (CAKE) framework, the first framework explicitly designed for editing knowledge extracted from wild unstructured text. CAKE comprises two core components: a Semantic-augmented Graph Representation module and a Conflict-aware Knowledge Editing strategy. The Semantic-augmented Graph Representation module enhances knowledge encoding through structural disambiguation, relational enrichment, and semantic diversification. Meanwhile, the Conflict-aware Knowledge Editing strategy utilizes a graph-theoretic coloring algorithm to disentangle conflicted edits by allocating them to orthogonal parameter subspaces, thereby effectively mitigating editing conflicts. Experimental results on the AKEW benchmark demonstrate that CAKE significantly outperforms existing methods, achieving a 15.43\% improvement in accuracy on llama3 editing tasks.

Recent advancements in omnimodal learning have significantly improved understanding and generation across images, text, and speech, yet these developments remain predominantly confined to proprietary models. The lack of high-quality omnimodal datasets and the challenges of real-time emotional speech synthesis have notably hindered progress in open-source research. To address these limitations, we introduce OpenOmni, a two-stage training framework that integrates omnimodal alignment and speech generation to develop a state-of-the-art omnimodal large language model. In the alignment phase, a pretrained speech model undergoes further training on image-text tasks, enabling (near) zero-shot generalization from vision to speech, outperforming models trained on tri-modal datasets. In the speech generation phase, a lightweight decoder is trained on speech tasks with direct preference optimization, which enables real-time emotional speech synthesis with high fidelity. Extensive experiments demonstrate that OpenOmni surpasses state-of-the-art models across omnimodal, vision-language, and speech-language benchmarks. It achieves a 4-point absolute improvement on OmniBench over the leading open-source model VITA, despite using 5$\times$ fewer training examples and a smaller model size (7B vs. 7$\times$8B). Besides, OpenOmni achieves real-time speech generation with less than 1 second latency at non-autoregressive mode, reducing inference time by 5$\times$ compared to autoregressive methods, and improves emotion classification accuracy by 7.7\%.

Speculative decoding is an effective and lossless method for Large Language Model (LLM) inference acceleration. It employs a smaller model to generate a draft token sequence, which is then verified by the original base model. In multi-GPU systems, inference latency can be further reduced through tensor parallelism (TP), while the optimal TP size of the draft model is typically smaller than that of the base model, leading to GPU idling during the drafting stage. We observe that such inefficiency stems from the sequential execution of layers, which is seemingly natural but actually unnecessary. Therefore, we propose EasySpec, a layer-parallel speculation strategy that optimizes the efficiency of multi-GPU utilization.

Reliably predicting the behavior of language models---such as whether their outputs are correct or have been adversarially manipulated---is a fundamentally challenging task. This is often made even more difficult as frontier language models are offered only through closed-source APIs, providing only black-box access. In this paper, we predict the behavior of black-box language models by asking follow-up questions and taking the probabilities of responses representations to train reliable predictors. We first demonstrate that training a linear model on these responses reliably and accurately predicts model correctness on question-answering and reasoning benchmarks. Surprisingly, this can that operate over model internals or activations. Furthermore, we demonstrate that these follow-up question responses can reliably distinguish between a clean version of an LLM and one that has been adversarially influenced via a system prompt to answer questions incorrectly or to introduce bugs into generated code. Finally, we show that they can also be used to differentiate between black-box LLMs, enabling the detection of misrepresented models provided through an API. Overall, our work shows promise in monitoring black-box language model behavior, supporting their deployment in larger, autonomous systems.

Recent progress in large language models (LLMs) highlights the power of scaling test-time compute to achieve strong performance on complex tasks, such as mathematical reasoning and code generation. This raises a critical question: how should model training be modified to optimize performance under a subsequent test-time compute strategy and budget? To explore this, we focus on pass@N, a simple test-time strategy that searches for a correct answer in N independent samples. We show, surprisingly, that training with cross-entropy (CE) can be with pass@N in that pass@N accuracy with longer CE training. We explain the origins of this misalignment in terms of model overconfidence induced by CE, and experimentally verify our prediction of overconfidence as an impediment to scaling test-time compute via pass@N. Furthermore we suggest a principled, modified training loss that is better aligned to pass@N by limiting model confidence and rescuing pass@N test performance. Our algorithm demonstrates improved mathematical reasoning on MATH and MiniF2F benchmarks under several scenarios: (1) providing answers to math questions both with and without Chain-of-Thought reasoning traces; and (2) proving theorems by searching over proof trees of varying shapes. Overall our work underscores the importance of co-designing two traditionally separate phases of LLM development: training-time protocols and test-time search and reasoning strategies.

Selecting artificial intelligence (AI) models, such as large language models (LLMs), from multiple candidates requires accurate performance estimation. This is ideally achieved through empirical evaluations involving abundant real-world data. However, such evaluations are costly and impractical at scale. To address this challenge, autoevaluation methods leverage synthetic data produced by automated evaluators, such as LLMs-as-judges, reducing variance but potentially introducing bias. Recent approaches have employed semi-supervised prediction-powered inference ($\texttt{PPI}$) to correct for the bias of autoevaluators. However, the use of autoevaluators may lead in practice to a degradation in sample efficiency compared to conventional methods using only real-world data. In this paper, we propose $\texttt{R-AutoEval+}$, a novel framework that provides finite-sample reliability guarantees on the model evaluation, while also ensuring an enhanced (or at least no worse) sample efficiency compared to conventional methods. The key innovation of $\texttt{R-AutoEval+}$ is an adaptive construction of the model evaluation variable, which dynamically tunes its reliance on synthetic data, reverting to conventional methods when the autoevaluator is insufficiently accurate. Experiments on the use of LLMs-as-judges for the optimization of quantization settings for the weights of an LLM, for prompt design in LLMs, and for test-time reasoning budget allocation in LLMs confirm the reliability and efficiency of $\texttt{R-AutoEval+}$.

Medical time-series analysis differs fundamentally from general ones by requiring specialized domain knowledge to interpret complex signals and clinical context. Large language models (LLMs) hold great promise for augmenting medical time-series analysis by complementing raw series with rich contextual knowledge drawn from biomedical literature and clinical guidelines. However, realizing this potential depends on precise and meaningful prompts that guide the LLM to key information. Yet, determining what constitutes effective prompt content remains non-trivial--especially in medical settings where signal interpretation often hinges on subtle, expert-defined decision-making indicators. To this end, we propose InDiGO, a knowledge-aware evolutionary learning framework that integrates clinical signals and decision-making indicators through iterative optimization. Across four medical benchmarks, InDiGO consistently outperforms prior methods.