Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance across various tasks, and their application in edge scenarios has attracted significant attention. However, sparse-activated Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) models, which are well suited for edge scenarios, have received relatively little attention due to their high memory demands. Offload-based methods have been proposed to address this challenge, but they face difficulties with expert prediction. Inaccurate expert predictions can result in prolonged inference delays. To promote the application of MoE models in edge scenarios, we propose Fate, an offloading system designed for MoE models to enable efficient inference in resource-constrained environments. The key insight behind Fate is that gate inputs from adjacent layers can be effectively used for expert prefetching, achieving high prediction accuracy without additional GPU overhead. Furthermore, Fate employs a shallow-favoring expert caching strategy that increases the expert hit rate to 99\%. Additionally, Fate integrates tailored quantization strategies for cache optimization and IO efficiency. Experimental results show that, compared to Load on Demand and Expert Activation Path-based method, Fate achieves up to 4.5x and 1.9x speedups in prefill speed and up to 4.1x and 2.2x speedups in decoding speed, respectively, while maintaining inference quality. Moreover, Fate's performance improvements are scalable across different memory budgets.

While large language models excel at following explicit instructions, they often struggle with ambiguous or incomplete user requests, defaulting to verbose, generic responses rather than seeking clarification. We introduce InfoQuest, a multi-turn chat benchmark designed to evaluate how dialogue agents handle hidden context in open-ended user requests. The benchmark presents intentionally ambiguous scenarios that require models to engage in information-seeking dialogue through clarifying questions before providing appropriate responses. Our evaluation of both open and closed-source models reveals that while proprietary models generally perform better, all current assistants struggle with effectively gathering critical information, often requiring multiple turns to infer user intent and frequently defaulting to generic responses without proper clarification. We provide a systematic methodology for generating diverse scenarios and evaluating models' information-seeking capabilities, offering insights into the current limitations of language models in handling ambiguous requests through multi-turn interactions.

Reinforcement learning is now widely adopted as the final stage of large language model training, especially for reasoning-style tasks such as maths problems. Typically, models attempt each question many times during a single training step and attempt to learn from their successes and failures. However, we demonstrate that throughout training with two popular algorithms (PPO and VinePPO) on two widely used datasets, many questions are either solved by all attempts - meaning they are already learned - or by none - providing no meaningful training signal. To address this, we adapt a method from the reinforcement learning literature - sampling for learnability - and apply it to the reinforcement learning stage of LLM training. Our curriculum prioritises questions with high variance of success, i.e. those where the agent sometimes succeeds, but not always. Our findings demonstrate that this curriculum consistently boosts training performance across multiple algorithms and datasets, paving the way for more efficient and effective reinforcement learning in LLMs.

This paper introduces ExKLoP, a novel framework designed to evaluate how effectively Large Language Models (LLMs) integrate expert knowledge into logical reasoning systems. This capability is especially valuable in engineering, where expert knowledge-such as manufacturer-recommended operational ranges-can be directly embedded into automated monitoring systems. By mirroring expert verification steps, tasks like range checking and constraint validation help ensure system safety and reliability. Our approach systematically evaluates LLM-generated logical rules, assessing both syntactic fluency and logical correctness in these critical validation tasks. We also explore the models capacity for self-correction via an iterative feedback loop based on code execution outcomes. ExKLoP presents an extensible dataset comprising 130 engineering premises, 950 prompts, and corresponding validation points. It enables comprehensive benchmarking while allowing control over task complexity and scalability of experiments. We leverage the synthetic data creation methodology to conduct extensive empirical evaluation on a diverse set of LLMs including Llama3, Gemma, Mixtral, Mistral, and Qwen. Results reveal that while models generate nearly perfect syntactically correct code, they frequently exhibit logical errors in translating expert knowledge. Furthermore, iterative self-correction yields only marginal improvements (up to 3%). Overall, ExKLoP serves as a robust evaluation platform that streamlines the selection of effective models for self-correcting systems while clearly delineating the types of errors encountered. The complete implementation, along with all relevant data, is available at GitHub.

The Large Language Model agent workflow enables the LLM to invoke tool functions to increase the performance on specific scientific domain questions. To tackle large scale of scientific research, it requires access to computing resource and parallel computing setup. In this work, we implemented Parsl to the LangChain/LangGraph tool call setup, to bridge the gap between the LLM agent to the computing resource. Two tool call implementations were set up and tested on both local workstation and HPC environment on Polaris/ALCF. The first implementation with Parsl-enabled LangChain tool node queues the tool functions concurrently to the Parsl workers for parallel execution. The second configuration is implemented by converting the tool functions into Parsl ensemble functions, and is more suitable for large task on super computer environment. The LLM agent workflow was prompted to run molecular dynamics simulations, with different protein structure and simulation conditions. These results showed the LLM agent tools were managed and executed concurrently by Parsl on the available computing resource.

Step-by-step reasoning is widely used to enhance the reasoning ability of large language models (LLMs) in complex problems. Evaluating the quality of reasoning traces is crucial for understanding and improving LLM reasoning. However, the evaluation criteria remain highly unstandardized, leading to fragmented efforts in developing metrics and meta-evaluation benchmarks. To address this gap, this survey provides a comprehensive overview of step-by-step reasoning evaluation, proposing a taxonomy of evaluation criteria with four top-level categories (groundedness, validity, coherence, and utility). We then categorize metrics based on their implementations, survey which metrics are used for assessing each criterion, and explore whether evaluator models can transfer across different criteria. Finally, we identify key directions for future research.

We consider the following problem: given the weights of two models, can we test whether they were trained independently -- i.e., from independent random initializations? We consider two settings: constrained and unconstrained. In the constrained setting, we make assumptions about model architecture and training and propose a family of statistical tests that yield exact p-values with respect to the null hypothesis that the models are trained from independent random initializations. These p-values are valid regardless of the composition of either model's training data; we compute them by simulating exchangeable copies of each model under our assumptions and comparing various similarity measures of weights and activations between the original two models versus these copies. We report the p-values from these tests on pairs of 21 open-weight models (210 total pairs) and correctly identify all pairs of non-independent models. Our tests remain effective even if one model was fine-tuned for many tokens. In the unconstrained setting, where we make no assumptions about training procedures, can change model architecture, and allow for adversarial evasion attacks, the previous tests no longer work. Instead, we propose a new test which matches hidden activations between two models, and which is robust to adversarial transformations and to changes in model architecture. The test can also do localized testing: identifying specific non-independent components of models. Though we no longer obtain exact p-values from this, empirically we find it behaves as one and reliably identifies non-independent models. Notably, we can use the test to identify specific parts of one model that are derived from another (e.g., how Llama 3.1-8B was pruned to initialize Llama 3.2-3B, or shared layers between Mistral-7B and StripedHyena-7B), and it is even robust to retraining individual layers of either model from scratch.

Training large language models (LLMs) for different inference constraints is computationally expensive, limiting control over efficiency-accuracy trade-offs. Moreover, once trained, these models typically process tokens uniformly, regardless of their complexity, leading to static and inflexible behavior. In this paper, we introduce a post-training optimization framework, DynaMoE, that adapts a pre-trained dense LLM to a token-difficulty-driven Mixture-of-Experts model with minimal fine-tuning cost. This adaptation makes the model dynamic, with sensitivity control to customize the balance between efficiency and accuracy. DynaMoE features a token-difficulty-aware router that predicts the difficulty of tokens and directs them to the appropriate sub-networks or experts, enabling larger experts to handle more complex tokens and smaller experts to process simpler ones. Our experiments demonstrate that DynaMoE can generate a range of adaptive model variants of the existing trained LLM with a single fine-tuning step, utilizing only $10B$ tokens, a minimal cost compared to the base model's training. Each variant offers distinct trade-offs between accuracy and performance. Compared to the baseline post-training optimization framework, Flextron, our method achieves similar aggregated accuracy across downstream tasks, despite using only $\frac{1}{9}\text{th}$ of their fine-tuning cost.

This paper introduces PeopleJoin, a benchmark for evaluating LM-mediated collaborative problem solving. Given a user request, PeopleJoin agents must identify teammates who might be able to assist, converse with these teammates to gather information, and finally compile a useful answer or summary for the original user. PeopleJoin comprises two evaluation domains: PeopleJoin-QA, focused on questions about tabular data, and PeopleJoin-DocCreation, focused on document creation tasks. The two domains are adapted from existing NLP benchmarks for database question answering and multi-document summarization; here, however, the information needed to complete these tasks is distributed across synthetic ``organizations'' of 2--20 users, simulating natural multi-user collaboration scenarios. We implemented several popular LM agent architectures, evaluating their accuracy and efficiency at completing tasks, and highlight new research questions that can be studied using PeopleJoin.

As the scale of training large language models (LLMs) increases, one emergent failure is silent data corruption (SDC), where hardware produces incorrect computations without explicit failure signals. In this work, we are the first to investigate the impact of real-world SDCs on LLM training by comparing model training between healthy production nodes and unhealthy nodes exhibiting SDCs. With the help from a cloud computing platform, we access the unhealthy nodes that were swept out from production by automated fleet management. Using deterministic execution via XLA compiler and our proposed synchronization mechanisms, we isolate and analyze the impact of SDC errors on these nodes at three levels: at each submodule computation, at a single optimizer step, and at a training period. Our results reveal that the impact of SDCs on computation varies on different unhealthy nodes. Although in most cases the perturbations from SDCs on submodule computation and gradients are relatively small, SDCs can lead models to converge to different optima with different weights and even cause spikes in the training loss. Our analysis sheds light on further understanding and mitigating the impact of SDCs.