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.

Large Language Models' (LLMs) programming capabilities enable their participation in \textit{open-source games}: a game-theoretic setting in which players submit computer programs in lieu of actions. These programs offer numerous advantages, including interpretability, inter-agent transparency, and formal verifiability; additionally, they enable \textit{program equilibria}, solutions that leverage the transparency of code and are inaccessible within normal-form settings. We evaluate the capabilities of leading open-and closed-weight LLMs to predict and classify program strategies and evaluate features of the approximate program equilibria reached by LLM agents in dyadic and evolutionary settings. We identify the emergence of payoff-maximizing, cooperative, and deceptive strategies, characterize the adaptation of mechanisms within these programs over repeated open-source games, and analyze their comparative evolutionary fitness. We find that open-source games serve as a viable environment to study and steer the emergence of cooperative strategy in multi-agent dilemmas.

Despite Large Language Models' remarkable capabilities, understanding their internal representations remains challenging. Mechanistic interpretability tools such as sparse autoencoders (SAEs) were developed to extract interpretable features from LLMs but lack temporal dependency modeling, instantaneous relation representation, and more importantly theoretical guarantees--undermining both the theoretical foundations and the practical confidence necessary for subsequent analyses. While causal representation learning (CRL) offers theoretically-grounded approaches for uncovering latent concepts, existing methods cannot scale to LLMs' rich conceptual space due to inefficient computation. To bridge the gap, we introduce an identifiable temporal causal representation learning framework specifically designed for LLMs' high-dimensional concept space, capturing both time-delayed and instantaneous causal relations. Our approach provides theoretical guarantees and demonstrates efficacy on synthetic datasets scaled to match real-world complexity. By extending SAE techniques with our temporal causal framework, we successfully discover meaningful concept relationships in LLM activations. Our findings show that modeling both temporal and instantaneous conceptual relationships advances the interpretability of LLMs.

Despite their strengths, large language models (LLMs) often fail to communicate their confidence accurately, making it difficult to assess when they might be wrong and limiting their reliability. In this work, we demonstrate that reasoning models that engage in extended chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning exhibit superior performance not only in problem-solving but also in accurately expressing their confidence. Specifically, we benchmark six reasoning models across six datasets and find that they achieve strictly better confidence calibration than their non-reasoning counterparts in 33 out of the 36 settings. Our detailed analysis reveals that these gains in calibration stem from the slow thinking behaviors of reasoning models (e.g., exploring alternative approaches and backtracking) which enable them to adjust their confidence dynamically throughout their CoT, making it progressively more accurate. In particular, we find that reasoning models become increasingly better calibrated as their CoT unfolds, a trend not observed in non-reasoning models. Moreover, removing slow thinking behaviors from the CoT leads to a significant drop in calibration. Lastly, we show that non-reasoning models also demonstrate enhanced calibration when simply guided to slow think via in-context learning, fully isolating slow thinking as the source of the calibration gains.