Test-time scaling has significantly improved large language model performance, enabling deeper reasoning to solve complex problems. However, this increased reasoning capability also leads to excessive token generation and unnecessary problem-solving attempts. We introduce Don\'t Answer Bench (DNA Bench), a new benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs ability to robustly understand the tricky reasoning triggers and avoiding unnecessary generation. DNA Bench consists of 150 adversarially designed prompts that are easy for humans to understand and respond to, but surprisingly not for many of the recent prominent LLMs. DNA Bench tests models abilities across different capabilities, such as instruction adherence, hallucination avoidance, redundancy filtering, and unanswerable question recognition. We evaluate reasoning LLMs (RLMs), including DeepSeek-R1, OpenAI O3-mini, Claude-3.7-sonnet and compare them against a powerful non-reasoning model, e.g., GPT-4o. Our experiments reveal that RLMs generate up to 70x more tokens than necessary, often failing at tasks that simpler non-reasoning models handle efficiently with higher accuracy. Our findings underscore the need for more effective training and inference strategies in RLMs.

This work presents a framework for assessing whether large language models (LLMs) encode more factual knowledge in their parameters than what they express in their outputs. While a few studies hint at this possibility, none has clearly defined or demonstrated this phenomenon. We first propose a formal definition of knowledge, quantifying it for a given question as the fraction of correct-incorrect answer pairs where the correct one is ranked higher. This gives rise to external and internal knowledge, depending on the information used to score individual answer candidates: either the model's observable token-level probabilities or its intermediate computations. Hidden knowledge arises when internal knowledge exceeds external knowledge. We then present a case study, applying this framework to three popular open-weights LLMs in a closed-book QA setup. Our results indicate that: (1) LLMs consistently encode more factual knowledge internally than what they express externally, with an average gap of 40%. (2) Surprisingly, some knowledge is so deeply hidden that a model can internally know an answer perfectly, yet fail to generate it even once, despite large-scale repeated sampling of 1,000 answers. This reveals fundamental limitations in the generation capabilities of LLMs, which (3) puts a practical constraint on scaling test-time compute via repeated answer sampling in closed-book QA: significant performance improvements remain inaccessible because some answers are practically never sampled, yet if they were, we would be guaranteed to rank them first.

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning has significantly advanced state-of-the-art AI capabilities. However, recent studies have shown that CoT reasoning is not always faithful, i.e. CoT reasoning does not always reflect how models arrive at conclusions. So far, most of these studies have focused on unfaithfulness in unnatural contexts where an explicit bias has been introduced. In contrast, we show that unfaithful CoT can occur on realistic prompts with no artificial bias. Our results reveal non-negligible rates of several forms of unfaithful reasoning in frontier models: Sonnet 3.7 (16.3%), DeepSeek R1 (5.3%) and ChatGPT-4o (7.0%) all answer a notable proportion of question pairs unfaithfully. Specifically, we find that models rationalize their implicit biases in answers to binary questions ("implicit post-hoc rationalization"). For example, when separately presented with the questions "Is X bigger than Y?" and "Is Y bigger than X?", models sometimes produce superficially coherent arguments to justify answering Yes to both questions or No to both questions, despite such responses being logically contradictory. We also investigate restoration errors (Dziri et al., 2023), where models make and then silently correct errors in their reasoning, and unfaithful shortcuts, where models use clearly illogical reasoning to simplify solving problems in Putnam questions (a hard benchmark). Our findings raise challenges for AI safety work that relies on monitoring CoT to detect undesired behavior.

With the rapid development of artificial intelligence technologies and wearable devices, egocentric vision understanding has emerged as a new and challenging research direction, gradually attracting widespread attention from both academia and industry. Egocentric vision captures visual and multimodal data through cameras or sensors worn on the human body, offering a unique perspective that simulates human visual experiences. This paper provides a comprehensive survey of the research on egocentric vision understanding, systematically analyzing the components of egocentric scenes and categorizing the tasks into four main areas: subject understanding, object understanding, environment understanding, and hybrid understanding. We explore in detail the sub-tasks within each category. We also summarize the main challenges and trends currently existing in the field. Furthermore, this paper presents an overview of high-quality egocentric vision datasets, offering valuable resources for future research. By summarizing the latest advancements, we anticipate the broad applications of egocentric vision technologies in fields such as augmented reality, virtual reality, and embodied intelligence, and propose future research directions based on the latest developments in the field.

The proliferation of synthetic images generated by advanced AI models poses significant challenges in identifying and understanding manipulated visual content. Current fake image detection methods predominantly rely on binary classification models that focus on accuracy while often neglecting interpretability, leaving users without clear insights into why an image is deemed real or fake. To bridge this gap, we introduce TruthLens, a novel training-free framework that reimagines deepfake detection as a visual question-answering (VQA) task. TruthLens utilizes state-of-the-art large vision-language models (LVLMs) to observe and describe visual artifacts and combines this with the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) like GPT-4 to analyze and aggregate evidence into informed decisions. By adopting a multimodal approach, TruthLens seamlessly integrates visual and semantic reasoning to not only classify images as real or fake but also provide interpretable explanations for its decisions. This transparency enhances trust and provides valuable insights into the artifacts that signal synthetic content. Extensive evaluations demonstrate that TruthLens outperforms conventional methods, achieving high accuracy on challenging datasets while maintaining a strong emphasis on explainability. By reframing deepfake detection as a reasoning-driven process, TruthLens establishes a new paradigm in combating synthetic media, combining cutting-edge performance with interpretability to address the growing threats of visual disinformation.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely applied to domain-specific tasks due to their massive general knowledge and remarkable inference capacities. Current studies on LLMs have shown immense potential in applying LLMs to model individual mobility prediction problems. However, most LLM-based mobility prediction models only train on specific datasets or use single well-designed prompts, leading to difficulty in adapting to different cities and users with diverse contexts. To fill these gaps, this paper proposes a unified fine-tuning framework to train a foundational open source LLM-based mobility prediction model. We conducted extensive experiments on six real-world mobility datasets to validate the proposed model. The results showed that the proposed model achieved the best performance in prediction accuracy and transferability over state-of-the-art models based on deep learning and LLMs.

Large language models (LLMs) trained on massive multilingual datasets hint at the formation of interlingual constructs--a shared subspace in the representation space. However, evidence regarding this phenomenon is mixed, leaving it unclear whether these models truly develop unified interlingual representations, or present a partially aligned constructs. We explore 31 diverse languages varying on their resource-levels, typologies, and geographical regions; and find that multilingual LLMs exhibit inconsistent cross-lingual alignments. To address this, we propose an interlingual representation framework identifying both the shared interlingual semantic subspace and fragmented components, existed due to representational limitations. We introduce Interlingual Local Overlap (ILO) score to quantify interlingual alignment by comparing the local neighborhood structures of high-dimensional representations. We utilize ILO to investigate the impact of single-language fine-tuning on the interlingual representations in multilingual LLMs. Our results indicate that training exclusively on a single language disrupts the alignment in early layers, while freezing these layers preserves the alignment of interlingual representations, leading to improved cross-lingual generalization. These results validate our framework and metric for evaluating interlingual representation, and further underscore that interlingual alignment is crucial for scalable multilingual learning.

Task-specific instruction tuning enhances the performance of large language models (LLMs) on specialized tasks, yet efficiently selecting relevant data for this purpose remains a challenge. Inspired by neural coactivation in the human brain, we propose a novel data selection method called NAS, which leverages neuronal activation states as embeddings for samples in the feature space. Extensive experiments show that NAS outperforms classical data selection methods in terms of both effectiveness and robustness across different models, datasets, and selection ratios.

Neglecting non-functional requirements (NFRs) early in software development can lead to critical challenges. Despite their importance, NFRs are often overlooked or difficult to identify, impacting software quality. To support requirements engineers in eliciting NFRs, we developed a framework that leverages Large Language Models (LLMs) to derive quality-driven NFRs from functional requirements (FRs). Using a custom prompting technique within a Deno-based pipeline, the system identifies relevant quality attributes for each functional requirement and generates corresponding NFRs, aiding systematic integration. A crucial aspect is evaluating the quality and suitability of these generated requirements. Can LLMs produce high-quality NFR suggestions? Using 34 functional requirements - selected as a representative subset of 3,964 FRs-the LLMs inferred applicable attributes based on the ISO/IEC 25010:2023 standard, generating 1,593 NFRs. A horizontal evaluation covered three dimensions: NFR validity, applicability of quality attributes, and classification precision. Ten industry software quality evaluators, averaging 13 years of experience, assessed a subset for relevance and quality. The evaluation showed strong alignment between LLM-generated NFRs and expert assessments, with median validity and applicability scores of 5.0 (means: 4.63 and 4.59, respectively) on a 1-5 scale. In the classification task, 80.4% of LLM-assigned attributes matched expert choices, with 8.3% near misses and 11.3% mismatches. A comparative analysis of eight LLMs highlighted variations in performance, with gemini-1.5-pro exhibiting the highest attribute accuracy, while llama-3.3-70B achieved higher validity and applicability scores. These findings provide insights into the feasibility of using LLMs for automated NFR generation and lay the foundation for further exploration of AI-assisted requirements engineering.

Language models usually use left-to-right (L2R) autoregressive factorization. However, L2R factorization may not always be the best inductive bias. Therefore, we investigate whether alternative factorizations of the text distribution could be beneficial in some tasks. We investigate right-to-left (R2L) training as a compelling alternative, focusing on multiple-choice questions (MCQs) as a test bed for knowledge extraction and reasoning. Through extensive experiments across various model sizes (2B-8B parameters) and training datasets, we find that R2L models can significantly outperform L2R models on several MCQ benchmarks, including logical reasoning, commonsense understanding, and truthfulness assessment tasks. Our analysis reveals that this performance difference may be fundamentally linked to multiple factors including calibration, computability and directional conditional entropy. We ablate the impact of these factors through controlled simulation studies using arithmetic tasks, where the impacting factors can be better disentangled. Our work demonstrates that exploring alternative factorizations of the text distribution can lead to improvements in LLM capabilities and provides theoretical insights into optimal factorization towards approximating human language distribution, and when each reasoning order might be more advantageous.