Physical environments and circumstances are fundamentally dynamic, yet current 3D datasets and evaluation benchmarks tend to concentrate on either dynamic scenarios or dynamic situations in isolation, resulting in incomplete comprehension. To overcome these constraints, we introduce Situat3DChange, an extensive dataset supporting three situation-aware change understanding tasks following the perception-action model: 121K question-answer pairs, 36K change descriptions for perception tasks, and 17K rearrangement instructions for the action task. To construct this large-scale dataset, Situat3DChange leverages 11K human observations of environmental changes to establish shared mental models and shared situational awareness for human-AI collaboration. These observations, enriched with egocentric and allocentric perspectives as well as categorical and coordinate spatial relations, are integrated using an LLM to support understanding of situated changes. To address the challenge of comparing pairs of point clouds from the same scene with minor changes, we propose SCReasoner, an efficient 3D MLLM approach that enables effective point cloud comparison with minimal parameter overhead and no additional tokens required for the language decoder. Comprehensive evaluation on Situat3DChange tasks highlights both the progress and limitations of MLLMs in dynamic scene and situation understanding. Additional experiments on data scaling and cross-domain transfer demonstrate the task-agnostic effectiveness of using Situat3DChange as a training dataset for MLLMs.

Data diversity is crucial for training a strong language model. Yet metrics of diversity often diverge from this goal, measuring variations in heuristic features--like n-grams or embeddings--that are detached from how the model actually performs on a target task. This motivates us to ask: *Can we redefine data diversity--beyond measuring variations in heuristic features--in a way that better predicts model generalization?* Through large-scale empirical analyses spanning over 300 training runs, carefully controlled for data scale and quality, we show that data diversity can be a strong predictor of generalization in LLM reasoning--as measured by average model performance on unseen out-of-distribution benchmarks. We introduce **G-Vendi**, a metric that quantifies diversity via the entropy of model-induced loss gradients. G-Vendi scales to million-sample datasets and yet consistently outperforms heuristic alternatives, achieving strong correlation ($\text{Spearman's } \rho \approx 0.9$) with out-of-distribution (OOD) performance across both natural language inference (NLI) and math reasoning tasks.

Evaluating natural language generation (NLG) systems remains a core challenge, further complicated by the rise of general-purpose large language models (LLMs). Recently, large language models as judges (LLJs) have emerged as a scalable, cost-effective alternative to traditional metrics, but their validity remains underexplored. This position paper argues that the current enthusiasm around LLJs may be premature, as their adoption has outpaced rigorous scrutiny of their reliability and validity as evaluators. Drawing on measurement theory from the social sciences, we identify and critically assess four core assumptions underlying the use of LLJs: their ability to act as proxies for human judgment, their capabilities as evaluators, their scalability, and their cost-effectiveness. We examine how each of these assumptions may be challenged by the inherent limitations of LLMs, LLJs, or current practices in NLG evaluation. To ground our analysis, we explore three applications of LLJs at various stages of the machine learning pipeline: text summarization, data annotation and safety alignment. Finally, we highlight the need for more responsible evaluation practices in LLJs evaluation, to ensure that their growing role in the field supports, rather than undermines, progress in NLG.

LLM-based agents have been widely applied as personal assistants, capable of memorizing information from user messages and responding to personal queries. However, there still lacks an objective and automatic evaluation on their memory capability, largely due to the challenges in constructing reliable questions and answers (QAs) according to user messages. In this paper, we propose MemSim, a Bayesian simulator designed to automatically construct reliable QAs from generated user messages, simultaneously keeping their diversity and scalability. Specifically, we introduce the Bayesian Relation Network (BRNet) and a causal generation mechanism to mitigate the impact of LLM hallucinations on factual information, facilitating the automatic creation of an evaluation dataset. Based on MemSim, we generate a dataset in the daily-life scenario, named MemDaily, and conduct extensive experiments to assess the effectiveness of our approach. We also provide a benchmark for evaluating different memory mechanisms in LLM-based agents with the MemDaily dataset.

A significant use case of instruction-finetuned Large Language Models (LLMs) is to solve question-answering tasks interactively. In this setting, an LLM agent is tasked with making a prediction by sequentially querying relevant information from the user, as opposed to a single-turn conversation. This paper explores sequential querying strategies that aim to minimize the expected number of queries. One such strategy is Information Pursuit (IP), a greedy algorithm that at each iteration selects the query that maximizes information gain or equivalently minimizes uncertainty. However, obtaining accurate estimates of mutual information or conditional entropy for LLMs is very difficult in practice due to over-or under-confident LLM probabilities, which leads to suboptimal query selection and predictive performance.

CAPTCHAs have been a critical bottleneck for deploying web agents in real-world applications, often blocking them from completing end-to-end automation tasks. While modern multimodal LLM agents have demonstrated impressive performance in static perception tasks, their ability to handle interactive, multi-step reasoning challenges like CAPTCHAs is largely untested.

Long-form video understanding presents significant challenges due to extensive temporal-spatial complexity and the difficulty of question answering under such extended contexts. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated considerable advancements in video analysis capabilities and long context handling, they continue to exhibit limitations when processing information-dense hour-long videos.

Pre-training large language models (LLMs) on vast text corpora enhances natural language processing capabilities but risks encoding social biases, particularly gender bias. While parameter-modification methods like fine-tuning mitigate bias, they are resource-intensive, unsuitable for closed-source models, and lack adaptability to evolving societal norms. Instruction-based approaches offer flexibility but often compromise general performance on normal tasks. To address these limitations, we propose $\textit{FaIRMaker}$, an automated and model-independent framework that employs an $\textbf{auto-search and refinement}$ paradigm to adaptively generate Fairwords, which act as instructions to reduce gender bias and enhance response quality.

Diffusion Language Models (DLMs) promise parallel generation and bidirectional context, yet they underperform autoregressive (AR) models in both and . We identify that this performance gap arises when important tokens (e.g., key words or low-frequency words that anchor a sentence) are masked early in the forward process, limiting contextual information for accurate reconstruction. To address this, we introduce the, a novel two-stage framework that first predicts distributions over important tokens via an anchor network, and then predicts the likelihoods of missing tokens conditioned on the anchored predictions. ADLM significantly improves test perplexity on LM1B and OpenWebText, achieving up to 25.4\% gains over prior DLMs, and narrows the gap with strong AR baselines. It also achieves state-of-the-art zero-shot generalization across seven benchmarks and surpasses AR models in MAUVE score, which marks the first time a DLM generates better human-like text than an AR model. Theoretically, we derive an Anchored Negative Evidence Lower Bound (ANELBO) objective and show that anchoring improves sample complexity and likelihood modeling. Beyond diffusion, anchoring boosts performance in AR models and enhances reasoning in math and logic tasks, outperforming existing chain-of-thought approaches.

Decision-making models for individuals, particularly in high-stakes scenarios like vaccine uptake, often diverge from population optimal predictions. This gap arises from the uniqueness of the individual decision-making process, shaped by numerical attributes (e.g., cost, time) and linguistic influences (e.g., personal preferences and constraints). Developing upon Utility Theory and leveraging the textual-reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), this paper proposes an Adaptive Textual-symbolic Human-centric Reasoning framework (ATHENA) to address the optimal information integration. ATHENA uniquely integrates two stages: First, it discovers robust, group-level symbolic utility functions via LLM-augmented symbolic discovery; Second, it implements individual-level semantic adaptation, creating personalized semantic templates guided by the optimal utility to model personalized choices. Validated on real-world travel mode and vaccine choice tasks, ATHENA consistently outperforms utility-based, machine learning, and other LLM-based models, lifting F1 score by at least 6.5\% over the strongest cutting-edge models. Further, ablation studies confirm that both stages of ATHENA are critical and complementary, as removing either clearly degrades overall predictive performance. By organically integrating symbolic utility modeling and semantic adaptation, ATHENA provides a new scheme for modeling human-centric decisions. The project page can be found at https://yibozh.github.io/Athena.