The reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) have significantly advanced their performance by enabling in-depth understanding of diverse tasks. With growing interest in applying LLMs to the time series domain, this has proven nontrivial, as evidenced by the limited efficacy of straightforwardly adapting text-domain reasoning techniques. Although recent work has shown promise in several time series tasks, further leveraging advancements in LLM reasoning remains under-explored for time series classification (TSC) tasks, despite their prevalence and significance in many real-world applications. In this paper, we propose ReasonTSC, a novel framework designed to effectively leverage LLM reasoning for time series classification through both a multi-turn reasoning and a fused decision-making strategy tailored to TSC. Rather than straightforwardly applying existing reasoning techniques or relying solely on LLMs' built-in reasoning capabilities, ReasonTSC first steers the model to think over the essential characteristics of time series data. Next, it integrates predictions and confidence scores from plug-in classifiers, e.g., domain-specific time series models, as in-context examples. Finally, ReasonTSC guides the LLM through a structured reasoning process: it evaluates the initial assessment, backtracks to consider alternative hypotheses, and compares their merits before arriving at a final classification. Extensive experiments and systematic ablation studies demonstrate that ReasonTSC consistently outperforms both existing time series reasoning baselines and plug-in models, and is even capable of identifying and correcting plug-in models' false predictions.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) still struggle with complex reasoning tasks in Visual Question Answering (VQA). While current methods have advanced by incorporating visual prompts, our study uncovers critical limitations: these approaches indiscriminately annotate all detected objects for every visual question, generating excessive visual markers that degrade task performance. This issue stems primarily from a lack of focus on key visual elements, raising two important questions: Are all objects equally important, and do all questions require visual prompts? Motivated by Dual Process Theory, which distinguishes between instinctive and deliberate cognitive modes in human reasoning, we propose FOCUS, a plug-and-play approach that dynamically adapts to the complexity of questions, combining fast intuitive judgments with deliberate analytical reasoning to enhance the vision-language reasoning capability of the MLLM. For straightforward questions, FOCUS supports efficient zero-shot reasoning. For more complex tasks, it employs the conceptualizing before observation strategy to highlight critical elements. Extensive experiments on four benchmarks, ScienceQA, TextQA, VizWiz, and MME, demonstrate that FOCUS consistently improves the performance of both open-source and black-box MLLMs, achieving significant gains across all datasets. Ablation studies further validate the importance of combining diverse cognitive strategies with refined visual information for superior performance. Code will be released.

Medical Vision-Language Models (Med-VLMs) have achieved success across various tasks, yet most existing methods overlook the modality misalignment issue that can lead to untrustworthy responses in clinical settings. In this paper, we propose Hierarchical Self-Contrastive Rewarding (HSCR), a novel approach that addresses two critical challenges in Med-VLM alignment: 1) Cost-effective generation of high-quality preference data; 2) Capturing nuanced and context-aware preferences for improved alignment. HSCR first leverages the inherent capability of Med-VLMs to generate dispreferred responses with higher sampling probability. By analyzing output logit shifts after visual token dropout, we identify modality-coupled tokens that induce misalignment and derive an implicit alignment reward function. This function guides token replacement with hallucinated ones during decoding, producing high-quality dispreferred data. Furthermore, HSCR introduces a multi-level preference optimization strategy, which extends beyond traditional adjacent-level optimization by incorporating nuanced implicit preferences, leveraging relative quality in dispreferred data to capture subtle alignment cues for more precise and context-aware optimization. Extensive experiments across multiple medical tasks, including Med-VQA, medical image captioning and instruction following, demonstrate that HSCR not only enhances zero-shot performance but also significantly improves modality alignment and trustworthiness with just 2,000 training entries.

Automated Audio Captioning (AAC) aims to describe the semantic contexts of general sounds, including acoustic events and scenes, by leveraging effective acoustic features. To enhance performance, an AAC method, EnCLAP, employed discrete tokens from EnCodec as an effective input for fine-tuning a language model BART. However, EnCodec is designed to reconstruct waveforms rather than capture the semantic contexts of general sounds, which AAC should describe. To address this issue, we propose CLAP-ART, an AAC method that utilizes "semantic-rich and discrete" tokens as input. CLAP-ART computes semantic-rich discrete tokens from pre-trained audio representations through vector quantization. We experimentally confirmed that CLAP-ART outperforms baseline EnCLAP on two AAC benchmarks, indicating that semantic-rich discrete tokens derived from semantically rich AR are beneficial for AAC. Index T erms: automated audio captioning, discrete token, residual vector quantization, audio representation.

Automating the enrichment of UML class diagrams with behavioral methods from natural language use cases is a significant challenge. This study evaluates nine large language models (LLMs) in augmenting a methodless UML diagram (21 classes, 17 relationships) using 21 structured waste-management use cases. A total of 90 diagrams (3,373 methods) were assessed across six metrics: method quantity, signature richness (visibility, names, parameters, return types), annotation completeness (linking to use cases/actions), structural fidelity, syntactic correctness (PlantUML compilation), and naming convergence (across models). All LLMs produced valid PlantUML diagrams adhering to UML conventions. Some models excelled in method coverage and annotation accuracy, while others showed richer parameterization but weaker traceability. These results demonstrate that LLMs can generate well-structured methods with consistent naming, advancing automated behavioral modeling. However, inconsistencies in annotations and signatures highlight the need for improved prompt engineering and model selection. The rapid generation of these methods supports Agile practices by enabling faster design iterations. Despite their capabilities, human oversight is essential to ensure accuracy, appropriateness, and semantic alignment. This positions LLMs as collaborative partners in software design. All experimental artifacts (\texttt{.puml}, \texttt{.png}, \texttt{.csv}) are publicly available for reproducibility.

As large language models (LLMs) grow in power and influence, ensuring their safety and preventing harmful output becomes critical. Automated red teaming serves as a tool to detect security vulnerabilities in LLMs without manual labor. However, most existing methods struggle to balance the effectiveness and diversity of red-team generated attack prompts. To address this challenge, we propose \ourapproach, a novel automated red teaming training framework that utilizes reinforcement learning to explore and generate more effective attack prompts while balancing their diversity. Specifically, it consists of three training stages: (1) Cold Start: The red team model is supervised and fine-tuned on a jailbreak dataset obtained through imitation learning. (2) Warm-up Exploration: The model is trained in jailbreak instruction following and exploration, using diversity and consistency as reward signals. (3) Enhanced Jailbreak: Progressive jailbreak rewards are introduced to gradually enhance the jailbreak performance of the red-team model. Extensive experiments on a variety of LLMs show that \ourapproach effectively balances the diversity and effectiveness of jailbreak prompts compared to existing methods. Our work significantly improves the efficiency of red team exploration and provides a new perspective on automated red teaming.

Despite the widespread application of Large Language Models (LLMs) across various domains, they frequently exhibit overconfidence when encountering uncertain scenarios, yet existing solutions primarily rely on evasive responses (e.g., "I don't know") overlooks the opportunity of identifying and addressing the uncertainty to generate more satisfactory responses. To systematically investigate and improve LLMs' ability of recognizing and addressing the source of uncertainty, we introduce \textbf{ConfuseBench}, a benchmark mainly focus on three types of uncertainty: document scarcity, limited capability, and query ambiguity. Experiments with ConfuseBench reveal that current LLMs struggle to accurately identify the root cause of uncertainty and solve it. They prefer to attribute uncertainty to query ambiguity while overlooking capability limitations, especially for those weaker models. To tackle this challenge, we first generate context-aware inquiries that highlight the confusing aspect of the original query. Then we judge the source of uncertainty based on the uniqueness of the inquiry's answer. Further we use an on-policy training method, InteractDPO to generate better inquiries. Experimental results demonstrate the efficacy of our approach.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance in biomedical relation extraction, even in zero-shot scenarios. However, evaluating LLMs in this task remains challenging due to their ability to generate human-like text, often producing synonyms or abbreviations of gold-standard answers, making traditional automatic evaluation metrics unreliable. On the other hand, while human evaluation is more reliable, it is costly and time-consuming, making it impractical for real-world applications. This paper investigates the use of LLMs-as-the-Judge as an alternative evaluation method for biomedical relation extraction. We benchmark 8 LLMs as judges to evaluate the responses generated by 5 other LLMs across 3 biomedical relation extraction datasets. Unlike other text-generation tasks, we observe that LLM-based judges perform quite poorly (usually below 50% accuracy) in the biomedical relation extraction task. Our findings reveal that it happens mainly because relations extracted by LLMs do not adhere to any standard format. To address this, we propose structured output formatting for LLM-generated responses that helps LLM-Judges to improve their performance by about 15% (on average). We also introduce a domain adaptation technique to further enhance LLM-Judge performance by effectively transferring knowledge between datasets. We release both our human-annotated and LLM-annotated judgment data (36k samples in total) for public use here: https://github.com/tahmedge/llm_judge_biomedical_re.

Recent studies have shown that supervised fine-tuning of LLMs on a small number of high-quality datasets can yield strong reasoning capabilities. However, full fine-tuning (Full FT), while powerful, is computationally expensive and susceptible to overfitting and catastrophic forgetting, particularly when data is limited. Sparse fine-tuning, which previously achieved notable success by updating only a small subset of model parameters, offers a promising trade-off between efficiency and effectiveness. Yet, it has lagged behind in the LLM era due to the difficulty of identifying parameters truly critical for reasoning. In this work, we state that weights with the largest magnitude after low-rank approximation are critical weights for fine-tuning, which we call Principal Weights. Surprisingly, while magnitude-based sparse fine-tuning performs poorly as a baseline on LLM fine-tuning, it becomes highly effective after rank reduction. These insights motivate our method: Low-rank Informed Sparse Fine-Tuning (LIFT). LIFT only updates the top 5% Principal Weights throughout training and consistently achieves better performance on reasoning tasks than Full FT, while maintaining memory efficiency on par with popular parameter-efficient fine-tuning methods. In addition to strong performance on target domains such as arithmetic reasoning, LIFT also retains up to 20% more source-domain knowledge, compared to Full FT and LoRA. Our code is available at: https://github.com/zihanghliu/LIFT.

Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) highlight the need to align their behaviors with human values. A critical, yet understudied, issue is the potential divergence between an LLM's stated preferences (its reported alignment with general principles) and its revealed preferences (inferred from decisions in contextualized scenarios). Such deviations raise fundamental concerns for the interpretability, trustworthiness, reasoning transparency, and ethical deployment of LLMs, particularly in high-stakes applications. This work formally defines and proposes a method to measure this preference deviation. We investigate how LLMs may activate different guiding principles in specific contexts, leading to choices that diverge from previously stated general principles. Our approach involves crafting a rich dataset of well-designed prompts as a series of forced binary choices and presenting them to LLMs. We compare LLM responses to general principle prompts stated preference with LLM responses to contextualized prompts revealed preference, using metrics like KL divergence to quantify the deviation. We repeat the analysis across different categories of preferences and on four mainstream LLMs and find that a minor change in prompt format can often pivot the preferred choice regardless of the preference categories and LLMs in the test. This prevalent phenomenon highlights the lack of understanding and control of the LLM decision-making competence. Our study will be crucial for integrating LLMs into services, especially those that interact directly with humans, where morality, fairness, and social responsibilities are crucial dimensions. Furthermore, identifying or being aware of such deviation will be critically important as LLMs are increasingly envisioned for autonomous agentic tasks where continuous human evaluation of all LLMs' intermediary decision-making steps is impossible.