While the widespread use of Large Language Models (LLMs) brings convenience, it also raises concerns about the credibility of academic research and scholarly processes. To better understand these dynamics, we evaluate the penetration of LLMs across academic workflows from multiple perspectives and dimensions, providing compelling evidence of their growing influence. We propose a framework with two components: \texttt{ScholarLens}, a curated dataset of human- and LLM-generated content across scholarly writing and peer review for multi-perspective evaluation, and \texttt{LLMetrica}, a tool for assessing LLM penetration using rule-based metrics and model-based detectors for multi-dimensional evaluation. Our experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of \texttt{LLMetrica}, revealing the increasing role of LLMs in scholarly processes. These findings emphasize the need for transparency, accountability, and ethical practices in LLM usage to maintain academic credibility.

Real-time speech conversation is essential for natural and efficient human-machine interactions, requiring duplex and streaming capabilities. Traditional Transformer-based conversational chatbots operate in a turn-based manner and exhibit quadratic computational complexity that grows as the input size increases. In this paper, we propose DuplexMamba, a Mamba-based end-to-end multimodal duplex model for speech-to-text conversation. DuplexMamba enables simultaneous input processing and output generation, dynamically adjusting to support real-time streaming. Specifically, we develop a Mamba-based speech encoder and adapt it with a Mamba-based language model. Furthermore, we introduce a novel duplex decoding strategy that enables DuplexMamba to process input and generate output simultaneously. Experimental results demonstrate that DuplexMamba successfully implements duplex and streaming capabilities while achieving performance comparable to several recently developed Transformer-based models in automatic speech recognition (ASR) tasks and voice assistant benchmark evaluations.

Despite the rapid development of large language models (LLMs), a fundamental challenge persists: the lack of high-quality optimization modeling datasets hampers LLMs' robust modeling of practical optimization problems from natural language descriptions (NL). This data scarcity also contributes to the generalization difficulties experienced by learning-based methods. To address these challenges, we propose a scalable framework for synthesizing a high-quality dataset, named OptMATH. Starting from curated seed data with mathematical formulations (MF), this framework automatically generates problem data (PD) with controllable complexity. Then, a back-translation step is employed to obtain NL. To verify the correspondence between the NL and the PD, a forward modeling step followed by rejection sampling is used. The accepted pairs constitute the training part of OptMATH. Then a collection of rejected pairs is identified and further filtered. This collection serves as a new benchmark for optimization modeling, containing difficult instances whose lengths are much longer than these of NL4OPT and MAMO. Through extensive experiments, we demonstrate that models of various sizes (0.5B-32B parameters) trained on OptMATH achieve superior results on multiple modeling benchmarks, thereby validating the effectiveness and scalability of our approach.

The rapid advancement of speech generation technologies in the era of large language models (LLMs) has established discrete speech tokens as a foundational paradigm for speech representation. These tokens, characterized by their discrete, compact, and concise nature, are not only advantageous for efficient transmission and storage, but also inherently compatible with the language modeling framework, enabling seamless integration of speech into text-dominated LLM architectures. Current research categorizes discrete speech tokens into two principal classes: acoustic tokens and semantic tokens, each of which has evolved into a rich research domain characterized by unique design philosophies and methodological approaches. This survey systematically synthesizes the existing taxonomy and recent innovations in discrete speech tokenization, conducts a critical examination of the strengths and limitations of each paradigm, and presents systematic experimental comparisons across token types. Furthermore, we identify persistent challenges in the field and propose potential research directions, aiming to offer actionable insights to inspire future advancements in the development and application of discrete speech tokens.

Augmenting large language models (LLMs) with external tools is known as a promising approach to enhancing their capabilities, especially for complex tasks. Synthesizing tool-use data through real-world simulations is an effective way to achieve it. Nevertheless, our investigation reveals that (1) training gains significantly decay as synthetic data increases. The model struggles to benefit from more synthetic data due to potential data diversity issues, resulting in poor performance in complex scenarios. Moreover, we find that (2) this challenge primarily manifests as minor discrepancies between the model's output and the ground truth response (termed as deficiency), such as errors in parameter values that require complex reasoning from the context to resolve. To this end, we propose an iterative reinforced fine-tuning strategy designed to alleviate these challenges. This strategy involves: (1) enhancing the diversity of synthetic data through path exploration of Monte Carlo Tree Search. (2) iteratively identifying deficiency-related data, constructing fine-grained preference pairs to pinpoint deficiencies, and then applying preference optimization to optimize these deficiencies. Our experiments show that models trained using our method achieve about 3\% better performance than same-size models, outperforming larger open-source and closed-source models.

Model distillation is a fundamental technique in building large language models (LLMs), transferring knowledge from a teacher model to a student model. However, distillation can lead to model homogenization, reducing diversity among models and impairing their ability to robustly handle complex or novel tasks. These limitations underscore the need to systematically quantify the distillation process and its impact. In this work, we propose a framework to evaluate and quantify model distillation. Our method addresses two key aspects: (1) Identifying identity cognition contradictions to assess discrepancies in how models perceive and represent identity-related information, and (2) Analyzing multi-granularity response similarities across models to measure the extent of homogenization. Experimental results demonstrate two key insights: (1) Well-known closed-source and open-source LLMs usually exhibit high distillation degrees, except for Claude, Doubao, and Gemini. (2) Base LLMs show higher distillation degrees compared to aligned LLMs. By offering a systematic approach to improve the transparency of LLM data distillation, we call for LLMs with more independent development and more transparent technical reports to improve LLMs' robustness and safety. The code and data are available under https://github.com/Aegis1863/LLMs-Distillation-Quantification.

The wide adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) has attracted significant attention from $\textit{jailbreak}$ attacks, where adversarial prompts crafted through optimization or manual design exploit LLMs to generate malicious contents. However, optimization-based attacks have limited efficiency and transferability, while existing manual designs are either easily detectable or demand intricate interactions with LLMs. In this paper, we first point out a novel perspective for jailbreak attacks: LLMs are more responsive to $\textit{positive}$ prompts. Based on this, we deploy Happy Ending Attack (HEA) to wrap up a malicious request in a scenario template involving a positive prompt formed mainly via a $\textit{happy ending}$, it thus fools LLMs into jailbreaking either immediately or at a follow-up malicious request.This has made HEA both efficient and effective, as it requires only up to two turns to fully jailbreak LLMs. Extensive experiments show that our HEA can successfully jailbreak on state-of-the-art LLMs, including GPT-4o, Llama3-70b, Gemini-pro, and achieves 88.79\% attack success rate on average. We also provide quantitative explanations for the success of HEA.

Humans exhibit remarkable compositional reasoning by integrating knowledge from various sources. For example, if someone learns ( B = f(A) ) from one source and ( C = g(B) ) from another, they can deduce ( C=g(B)=g(f(A)) ) even without encountering ( ABC ) together, showcasing the generalization ability of human intelligence. In this paper, we introduce a synthetic learning task, "FTCT" (Fragmented at Training, Chained at Testing), to validate the potential of Transformers in replicating this skill and interpret its inner mechanism. In the training phase, data consist of separated knowledge fragments from an overall causal graph. During testing, Transformers must infer complete causal graph traces by integrating these fragments. Our findings demonstrate that few-shot Chain-of-Thought prompting enables Transformers to perform compositional reasoning on FTCT by revealing correct combinations of fragments, even if such combinations were absent in the training data. Furthermore, the emergence of compositional reasoning ability is strongly correlated with the model complexity and training-testing data similarity. We propose, both theoretically and empirically, that Transformers learn an underlying generalizable program from training, enabling effective compositional reasoning during testing.

Large Language Model (LLM) agents frameworks often employ modular architectures, incorporating components such as planning, reasoning, action execution, and reflection to tackle complex tasks. However, quantifying the contribution of each module to overall system performance remains a significant challenge, impeding optimization and interpretability. To address this, we introduce CapaBench (Capability-level Assessment Benchmark), an evaluation framework grounded in cooperative game theory's Shapley Value, which systematically measures the marginal impact of individual modules and their interactions within an agent's architecture. By replacing default modules with test variants across all possible combinations, CapaBench provides a principle method for attributing performance contributions. Key contributions include: (1) We are the first to propose a Shapley Value-based methodology for quantifying the contributions of capabilities in LLM agents; (2) Modules with high Shapley Values consistently lead to predictable performance gains when combined, enabling targeted optimization; and (3) We build a multi-round dataset of over 1,500 entries spanning diverse domains and practical task scenarios, enabling comprehensive evaluation of agent capabilities. CapaBench bridges the gap between component-level evaluation and holistic system assessment, providing actionable insights for optimizing modular LLM agents and advancing their deployment in complex, real-world scenarios.

Recent advances in mathematical problem-solving with language models (LMs) integrate chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning and code execution to harness their complementary strengths. However, existing hybrid frameworks exhibit a critical limitation: they depend on externally dictated instructions or rigid code-integration templates, lacking metacognitive awareness -- the capacity to dynamically evaluate intrinsic capabilities and autonomously determine when and how to integrate tools. This rigidity motivates our study of autonomous code integration, enabling models to adapt tool-usage strategies as their reasoning abilities evolve during training. While reinforcement learning (RL) shows promise for boosting LLM reasoning at scale (e.g., DeepSeek-R1), we demonstrate its inefficiency in learning autonomous code integration due to inadequate exploration of the vast combinatorial space of CoT-code interleaving patterns. To address this challenge, we propose a novel Expectation-Maximization (EM) framework that synergizes structured exploration (E-step) with off-policy RL optimization (M-step), creating a self-reinforcing cycle between metacognitive tool-use decisions and evolving capabilities. Experiments reveal our method achieves superior results through improved exploration. Notably, our 7B model improves over 11% on MATH500 and 9.4% on AIME without o1-like CoT.