Inverse folding models have proven to be highly effective zero-shot predictors of protein stability. Despite this success, the link between the amino acid preferences of an inverse folding model and the free-energy considerations underlying thermodynamic stability remains incompletely understood. A better understanding would be of interest not only from a theoretical perspective, but also potentially provide the basis for stronger zero-shot stability prediction. In this paper, we take steps to clarify the free-energy foundations of inverse folding models. Our derivation reveals the standard practice of likelihood ratios as a simplistic approximation and suggests several paths towards better estimates of the relative stability. We empirically assess these approaches and demonstrate that considerable gains in zero-shot performance can be achieved with fairly simple means.

Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs) have been increasingly used to support various decision-making tasks, assisting humans in making informed decisions. However, when LLMs confidently provide incorrect information, it can lead humans to make suboptimal decisions. To prevent LLMs from generating incorrect information on topics they are unsure of and to improve the accuracy of generated content, prior works have proposed Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG), where external documents are referenced to generate responses. However, previous RAG methods focus only on retrieving documents most relevant to the input query, without specifically aiming to ensure that the human user's decisions are well-calibrated. To address this limitation, we propose a novel retrieval method called Calibrated Retrieval-Augmented Generation (CalibRAG), which ensures that decisions informed by RAG are well-calibrated. Then we empirically validate that CalibRAG improves calibration performance as well as accuracy, compared to other baselines across various datasets.

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved impressive results on complex reasoning tasks, but their high inference cost remains a major barrier to real-world deployment. A promising solution is to use cascaded inference, where small, cheap models handle easy queries, and only the hardest examples are escalated to more powerful models. However, existing cascade methods typically rely on supervised training with labeled data, offer no theoretical generalization guarantees, and provide limited control over test-time computational cost.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being asked to make economically rational decisions and indeed are already being applied to economic tasks like stock picking and financial analysis. Existing LLM benchmarks tend to focus on specific applications, making them insufficient for characterizing economic reasoning more broadly. In previous work, we offered a blueprint for comprehensively benchmarking $\textit{strategic}$ decision-making Raman et al. 2024. However, this work did not engage with the even larger microeconomic literature on $\textit{non-strategic}$ settings. We address this gap here, taxonomizing microeconomic reasoning into $58$ distinct elements, each grounded in up to $10$ distinct domains, $5$ perspectives, and $3$ types. The generation of benchmark data across this combinatorial space is powered by a novel LLM-assisted data generation protocol that we dub auto-STEER, which generates a set of questions by adapting handwritten templates to target new domains and perspectives. By generating fresh questions for each element, auto-STEER induces diversity which could help to reduce the risk of data contamination. We use this benchmark to evaluate $27$ LLMs spanning a range of scales and adaptation strategies, comparing performance across multiple formats--multiple-choice and free-text question answering--and scoring schemes. Our results surface systematic limitations in current LLMs' ability to generalize economic reasoning across types, formats, and textual perturbations, and establish a foundation for evaluating and improving economic competence in foundation models.

Enhancing large language models by simply scaling up datasets has begun to yield diminishing returns, shifting the spotlight to data quality. Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) has emerged as a powerful technique for generating high-quality chain-of-thought data, yet conventional approaches typically retain only the top-scoring trajectory from the search tree, discarding sibling nodes that often contain valuable partial insights, recurrent error patterns, and alternative reasoning strategies. This unconditional rejection of non-optimal reasoning branches may waste vast amounts of informative data in the whole search tree. We propose SIGMA (Sibling Guided Monte Carlo Augmentation), a novel framework that reintegrates these discarded sibling nodes to refine LLM reasoning. SIGMA forges semantic links among sibling nodes along each search path and applies a two-stage refinement: a critique model identifies overlooked strengths and weaknesses across the sibling set, and a revision model conducts text-based backpropagation to refine the top-scoring trajectory in light of this comparative feedback. By recovering and amplifying the underutilized but valuable signals from non-optimal reasoning branches, SIGMA substantially improves reasoning trajectories. On the challenging MATH benchmark, our SIGMA-tuned 7B model achieves 54.92\% accuracy using only 30K samples, outperforming state-of-the-art models trained on 590K samples. This result highlights that our sibling-guided optimization not only significantly reduces data usage but also significantly boosts LLM reasoning.

The ability to recognize patterns from examples and apply them to new ones is a primal ability for general intelligence, and is widely studied by psychology and AI researchers. Many benchmarks have been proposed to measure such ability for Large Language Models (LLMs); however, they focus on few-shot (usually <10) setting and lack evaluation for aggregating many pieces of information from long contexts. On the other hand, the ever-growing context length of LLMs have brought forth the novel paradigm of many-shot In-Context Learning (ICL), which addresses new tasks with hundreds to thousands of examples without expensive and inefficient fine-tuning. However, many-shot evaluations often focus on classification, and popular long-context LLM tasks such as Needle-In-A-Haystack (NIAH) seldom require complicated intelligence for integrating many pieces of information. To fix the issues from both worlds, we propose MIR-Bench, the first many-shot in-context reasoning benchmark for pattern recognition that asks LLM to predict output via input-output examples from underlying functions with diverse data format. Based on MIR-Bench, we study many novel problems for many-shot in-context reasoning, and acquired many insightful findings including scaling effect, robustness, inductive vs. transductive reasoning, retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG), coding for inductive reasoning, cross-domain generalizability, etc.

Mother sues OpenAI in US after daughter's death linked to ChatGPT use Alice Carrier had recently started playing the guitar again, a hobby she enjoyed in high school but had set aside during college. It was one of several pursuits she filled her free time with as she interviewed for new jobs, spent time with her dog and enjoyed activities, including gaming. By all appearances, at least to her mother, Kristie Carrier, things were going well. Alice was working as a web developer in Montreal, Canada, fulfilling a dream she had carried since growing up in the small town of Lawrence, New Brunswick. But what Carrier did not know was how much her daughter was struggling in silence.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly central to agentic systems due to their strong reasoning and planning capabilities. By interacting with external environments through predefined tools, these agents can carry out complex user tasks. Nonetheless, this interaction also introduces the risk of prompt injection attacks, where malicious inputs from external sources can mislead the agent's behavior, potentially resulting in economic loss, privacy leakage, or system compromise. System-level defenses have recently shown promise by enforcing static or predefined policies, but they still face two key challenges: the ability to dynamically update security rules and the need for memory stream isolation. To address these challenges, we propose DRIFT, a Dynamic Rule-based Isolation Framework for Trustworthy agentic systems, which enforces both control-and data-level constraints. A Secure Planner first constructs a minimal function trajectory and a JSON-schema-style parameter checklist for each function node based on the user query. A Dynamic Validator then monitors deviations from the original plan, assessing whether changes comply with privilege limitations and the user's intent. Finally, an \textit{Injection Isolator} detects and masks any instructions that may conflict with the user query from the memory stream to mitigate long-term risks.

The widespread adoption of large language models (LLMs) across industries has increased the demand for high-quality and customizable outputs. However, traditional alignment methods often require retraining large pretrained models, making it difficult to quickly adapt and optimize LLMs for diverse applications. To address this limitation, we propose a novel \textit{Residual Alignment Model} (\textit{RAM}) that formalizes the alignment process as a type of importance sampling. In this framework, the unaligned upstream model serves as the proposal distribution, while the alignment process is framed as secondary sampling based on an autoregressive alignment module that acts as an estimator of the importance weights. This design enables a natural detachment of the alignment module from the target aligned model, improving flexibility and scalability. Based on this model, we derive an efficient sequence-level training strategy for the alignment module, which operates independently of the proposal module. Additionally, we develop a resampling algorithm with iterative token-level decoding to address the common first-token latency issue in comparable methods. Experimental evaluations on two leading open-source LLMs across diverse tasks, including instruction following, domain adaptation, and preference optimization, demonstrate that our approach consistently outperforms baseline models.

Large language models (LLMs) often concentrate their attention on a few specific tokens referred to as . Common examples include the first token, a prompt-independent sink, and punctuation tokens, which are prompt-dependent. While the tokens causing the sinks often lack direct semantic meaning, the presence of the sinks is critical for model performance, particularly under model compression and KV-caching. Despite their ubiquity, the function, semantic role, and origin of attention sinks--especially those beyond the first token--remain poorly understood. In this work, we conduct a comprehensive investigation demonstrating that attention sinks: a sequence of tokens, them using a common direction in embedding space, and them back into the residual stream, where tokens are later retrieved based on the tags they have acquired. Probing experiments reveal these tags carry semantically meaningful information, such as the truth of a statement. These findings extend to reasoning models, where the mechanism spans more heads and explains greater variance in embeddings, or recent models with query-key normalization, where sinks remain just as prevalent. To encourage future theoretical analysis, we introduce a minimal problem which can be solved through the'catch, tag, release' mechanism, and where it emerges through training.