Large Language Model (LLM)-based user agents have emerged as a powerful tool for improving recommender systems by simulating user interactions. However, existing methods struggle with cross-domain scenarios due to inefficient memory structures, leading to irrelevant information retention and failure to account for social influence factors such as popularity. To address these limitations, we introduce AgentCF++, a novel framework featuring a dual-layer memory architecture and a two-step fusion mechanism to filter domain-specific preferences effectively. Additionally, we propose interest groups with shared memory, allowing the model to capture the impact of popularity trends on users with similar interests. Through extensive experiments on multiple cross-domain datasets, AgentCF++ demonstrates superior performance over baseline models, highlighting its effectiveness in refining user behavior simulation for recommender systems. Our code is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/AgentCF-plus.

Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate remarkable capabilities in question answering (QA), but metrics for assessing their reliance on memorization versus retrieval remain underdeveloped. Moreover, while finetuned models are state-of-the-art on closed-domain tasks, general-purpose models like GPT-4o exhibit strong zero-shot performance. This raises questions about the trade-offs between memorization, generalization, and retrieval. In this work, we analyze the extent to which multimodal retrieval-augmented VLMs memorize training data compared to baseline VLMs. Using the WebQA benchmark, we contrast finetuned models with baseline VLMs on multihop retrieval and question answering, examining the impact of finetuning on data memorization. To quantify memorization in end-to-end retrieval and QA systems, we propose several proxy metrics by investigating instances where QA succeeds despite retrieval failing. Our results reveal the extent to which finetuned models rely on memorization. In contrast, retrieval-augmented VLMs have lower memorization scores, at the cost of accuracy (72% vs 52% on WebQA test set). As such, our measures pose a challenge for future work to reconcile memorization and generalization in both Open-Domain QA and joint Retrieval-QA tasks.

Code verification has recently found great success as a critical component in training large scale reasoning models for coding. Synthetic techniques such as self-generated test cases and reward models provide a way to enhance code capabilities beyond predefined tests. Building on these advancements, we propose new benchmarks designed to systematically evaluate the impact of synthetic verification methods on assessing solution correctness. We introduce HE-R, HE-R+, MBPP-R, and MBPP-R+, which transform existing coding benchmarks into scoring and ranking datasets to evaluate the effectiveness of synthetic verifiers. Using these benchmarks, we analyze synthetic verification methods in standard, reasoning-based, and reward-based LLMs. Our results show that recent reasoning models significantly improve test case generation and that scaling test cases enhances verification accuracy.

Training Large Language Models (LLMs) from scratch requires immense computational resources, making it prohibitively expensive. Model scaling-up offers a promising solution by leveraging the parameters of smaller models to create larger ones. However, existing depth scaling-up methods rely on empirical heuristic rules for layer duplication, which result in poorer initialization and slower convergence during continual pre-training. We propose \textbf{LESA}, a novel learnable method for depth scaling-up. By concatenating parameters from each layer and applying Singular Value Decomposition, we uncover latent patterns between layers, suggesting that inter-layer parameters can be learned. LESA uses a neural network to predict the parameters inserted between adjacent layers, enabling better initialization and faster training. Experiments show that LESA outperforms existing baselines, achieving superior performance with less than half the computational cost during continual pre-training. Extensive analyses demonstrate its effectiveness across different model sizes and tasks.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in working environments for a wide range of tasks, excelling at solving individual problems in isolation. However, are they also able to effectively collaborate over long-term interactions? To investigate this, we introduce MemoryCode, a synthetic multi-session dataset designed to test LLMs' ability to track and execute simple coding instructions amid irrelevant information, simulating a realistic setting. While all the models we tested handle isolated instructions well, even the performance of state-of-the-art models like GPT-4o deteriorates when instructions are spread across sessions. Our analysis suggests this is due to their failure to retrieve and integrate information over long instruction chains. Our results highlight a fundamental limitation of current LLMs, restricting their ability to collaborate effectively in long interactions.

Converging societal and technical factors have transformed language technologies into user-facing applications employed across languages. Machine Translation (MT) has become a global tool, with cross-lingual services now also supported by dialogue systems powered by multilingual Large Language Models (LLMs). This accessibility has expanded MT's reach to a vast base of lay users, often with little to no expertise in the languages or the technology itself. Despite this, the understanding of MT consumed by this diverse group of users -- their needs, experiences, and interactions with these systems -- remains limited. This paper traces the shift in MT user profiles, focusing on non-expert users and how their engagement with these systems may change with LLMs. We identify three key factors -- usability, trust, and literacy -- that shape these interactions and must be addressed to align MT with user needs. By exploring these dimensions, we offer insights to guide future MT with a user-centered approach.

We introduce the dataset of Everyday Hard Optimization Problems (EHOP), a collection of NP-hard optimization problems expressed in natural language. EHOP includes problem formulations that could be found in computer science textbooks, versions that are dressed up as problems that could arise in real life, and variants of well-known problems with inverted rules. We find that state-of-the-art LLMs, across multiple prompting strategies, systematically solve textbook problems more accurately than their real-life and inverted counterparts. We argue that this constitutes evidence that LLMs adapt solutions seen during training, rather than leveraging reasoning abilities that would enable them to generalize to novel problems.

Alignment techniques have become central to ensuring that Large Language Models (LLMs) generate outputs consistent with human values. However, existing alignment paradigms often model an averaged or monolithic preference, failing to account for the diversity of perspectives across cultures, demographics, and communities. This limitation is particularly critical in health-related scenarios, where plurality is essential due to the influence of culture, religion, personal values, and conflicting opinions. Despite progress in pluralistic alignment, no prior work has focused on health, likely due to the unavailability of publicly available datasets. To address this gap, we introduce VITAL, a new benchmark dataset comprising 13.1K value-laden situations and 5.4K multiple-choice questions focused on health, designed to assess and benchmark pluralistic alignment methodologies. Through extensive evaluation of eight LLMs of varying sizes, we demonstrate that existing pluralistic alignment techniques fall short in effectively accommodating diverse healthcare beliefs, underscoring the need for tailored AI alignment in specific domains. This work highlights the limitations of current approaches and lays the groundwork for developing health-specific alignment solutions.

Columbia University, USA Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown surprising proficie ncy in generating code snippets, promising to automate large parts of software engineering via artifici al intelligence (AI). We argue that successfully deploying AI software engineers requires a level of trust eq ual to or even greater than the trust established by human-driven software engineering practices. The recen t trend toward LLM agents offers a path toward integrating the power of LLMs to create new code with the powe r of analysis tools to increase trust in the code. This opinion piece comments on whether LLM agents could dominate software engineering workflows in the future and whether the focus of programming will shift from programming at scale to programming with trust. Software engineering is undergoing a significant phase of greater au tomation owing to the emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) for code.

Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) have recently gained attention due to their distinctive performance and broad applicability. While it has been previously shown that their efficacy in usage scenarios involving non-Western contexts falls short, existing studies are limited in scope, covering just a narrow range of cultures, focusing exclusively on a small number of cultural aspects, or evaluating a limited selection of models on a single task only. Towards globally inclusive LVLM research, we introduce GIMMICK, an extensive multimodal benchmark designed to assess a broad spectrum of cultural knowledge across 144 countries representing six global macro-regions. GIMMICK comprises six tasks built upon three new datasets that span 728 unique cultural events or facets on which we evaluated 20 LVLMs and 11 LLMs, including five proprietary and 26 open-weight models of all sizes. We systematically examine (1) regional cultural biases, (2) the influence of model size, (3) input modalities, and (4) external cues. Our analyses reveal strong biases toward Western cultures across models and tasks and highlight strong correlations between model size and performance, as well as the effectiveness of multimodal input and external geographic cues. We further find that models have more knowledge of tangible than intangible aspects (e.g., food vs. rituals) and that they excel in recognizing broad cultural origins but struggle with a more nuanced understanding.