Recent advances in reasoning techniques have substantially improved the performance of large language models (LLMs), raising expectations for their ability to provide accurate, truthful, and reliable information. However, emerging evidence suggests that iterative reasoning may foster belief entrenchment, rather than enhancing truth-seeking behavior. In this study, we propose a systematic evaluation framework for belief entrenchment in LLM reasoning by leveraging the Martingale property from Bayesian statistics. This property implies that, under rational belief updating, the expected value of future beliefs should remain equal to the current belief, i.e., belief updates cannot be predicted from solely the current belief. We propose the unsupervised, regression-based Martingale Score to measure violations of this property, signaling a deviation from the Bayesian ability of updating on new evidence. In open-ended problem domains, including event forecasting, value-laden questions, and academic paper review, we found such violations to be widespread across models, reasoning paradigms, problem domains, and system prompts, where the future beliefs are consistently predictable from the model's current belief, a phenomenon which we term belief entrenchment. Through comprehensive experiments, we identify the models (e.g., GPT-4o), reasoning techniques (e.g., chain of thought), and domains (e.g., forecasting) more prone to belief entrenchment. Finally, we validate the Martingale Score by showing that it predicts ground-truth accuracy on problem domains where ground truth labels are available. This indicates that, while designed as an unsupervised metric that operates even in domains without access to ground truth, the Martingale Score is a useful proxy of the truth-seeking ability of the LLM reasoning process.

Large language models (LLMs) have recently achieved notable success in code-generation benchmarks such as HumanEval and LiveCodeBench. However, a detailed examination reveals that these evaluation suites often comprise only a limited number of homogeneous test cases, resulting in subtle faults going undetected. This not only artificially inflates measured performance but also compromises accurate reward estimation in reinforcement learning frameworks utilizing verifiable rewards (RLVR). To address these critical shortcomings, we systematically investigate the test-case generation (TCG) task by proposing multi-dimensional metrics designed to rigorously quantify test-suite thoroughness. Furthermore, we introduce a human-LLM collaborative method (SAGA), leveraging human programming expertise with LLM reasoning capability, aimed at significantly enhancing both the coverage and the quality of generated test cases.

In this paper, we reveal that most current efficient multimodal fine-tuning methods are hindered by a key limitation: they are directly borrowed from LLMs, often neglecting the intrinsic differences of multimodal scenarios and even affecting the full utilization of all modalities. Inspired by our empirical observation, we argue that unimodal adaptation and cross-modal adaptation are two essential parts for the effective fine-tuning of MLLMs. From this perspective, we propose Multimodal low-rank Adaptation (MokA), a multimodal-aware efficient fine-tuning strategy that takes multimodal characteristics into consideration.

The increasing deployment of Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) raises safety concerns under potential malicious inputs. However, existing multimodal safety evaluations primarily focus on model vulnerabilities exposed by static image inputs, ignoring the temporal dynamics of video that may induce distinct safety risks. To bridge this gap, we introduce Video-SafetyBench, the first comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate the safety of LVLMs under video-text attacks.

Vision-language models (VLMs) have shown strong performance on text-to-image retrieval benchmarks. However, bridging this success to real-world applications remains a challenge. In practice, human search behavior is rarely a one-shot action. Instead, it is often a multi-round process guided by clues in mind. That is, a mental image ranging from vague recollections to vivid mental representations of the target image.

Robust verbal confidence generated by large language models (LLMs) is crucial for the deployment of LLMs to help ensure transparency, trust, and safety in many applications, including those involving human-AI interactions. In this paper, we present the first comprehensive study on the robustness of verbal confidence under adversarial attacks. We introduce attack frameworks targeting verbal confidence scores through both perturbation and jailbreak-based methods, and demonstrate that these attacks can significantly impair verbal confidence estimates and lead to frequent answer changes. We examine a variety of prompting strategies, model sizes, and application domains, revealing that current verbal confidence is vulnerable and that commonly used defence techniques are largely ineffective or counterproductive. Our findings underscore the need to design robust mechanisms for confidence expression in LLMs, as even subtle semantic-preserving modifications can lead to misleading confidence in responses.

Increasing demand for Large Language Models (LLMs) services imposes substantial deployment and computation costs on providers. LLM routing offers a cost-efficient solution by directing queries to the optimal LLM based on model and query features. However, existing works primarily focus on offline scenarios and struggle to adapt to online settings with high query volume and constrained token budgets. In this work, we introduce the first training-free algorithm for online routing scenarios. Our algorithm leverages approximate nearest neighbor search to efficiently estimate query features and performs a one-time optimization over a small set of initial queries to learn a routing strategy that guides future routing. We provide theoretical guarantees demonstrating that our algorithm achieves a competitive ratio of 1 o(1)under natural assumptions, which is further validated by extensive experiments across 3 benchmark datasets and 8 baselines, showing an average improvement of 3.55 in overall performance, 1.85 in cost efficiency, and nearly 4.25 in throughput. Our code is available at https://github.com/fzwark/PORT.

Large language models (LLMs) excel at zero-shot inference but continue to struggle with complex, multi-step reasoning. Recent methods that augment LLMs with intermediate reasoning steps such as Chain of Thought (CoT) and Program of Thought (PoT) improve performance but often produce undesirable solutions, especially in algorithmic domains. We introduce Per-Instance Program Synthesis (PIPS), a method that generates and refines programs at the instance-level using structural feedback without relying on task-specific guidance or explicit test cases. To further improve performance, PIPS incorporates a confidence metric that dynamically chooses between direct inference and program synthesis on a per-instance basis. Experiments across three frontier LLMs and 30 benchmarks including all tasks of Big Bench Extra Hard (BBEH), visual question answering tasks, relational reasoning tasks, and mathematical reasoning tasks show that PIPS improves the absolute harmonic mean accuracy by up to 8.6% and 9.4% compared to PoT and CoT respectively, and reduces undesirable program generations by 65.1% on the algorithmic tasks compared to PoT with Gemini-2.0-Flash.

The sequential nature of modern LLMs makes them expensive and slow, and speculative sampling has proven to be an effective solution to this problem. Methods like EAGLE perform autoregression at the feature level, reusing top-layer features from the target model to achieve better results than vanilla speculative sampling. A growing trend in the LLM community is scaling up training data to improve model intelligence without increasing inference costs. However, we observe that scaling up data provides limited improvements for EAGLE. We identify that this limitation arises from EAGLE's feature prediction constraints.

Recent studies on Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models have shifted from the end-to-end action-generation paradigm toward a pipeline involving task planning followed by action generation, demonstrating improved performance on various complex, long-horizon manipulation tasks. However, existing approaches vary significantly in terms of network architectures, planning paradigms, representations, and training data sources, making it challenging for researchers to identify the precise sources of performance gains and components to be further improved. To systematically investigate the impacts of different planning paradigms and representations isolating from network architectures and training data, in this paper, we introduce VLA-OS, a unified VLA architecture series capable of various task planning paradigms, and design a comprehensive suite of controlled experiments across diverse object categories (rigid and deformable), visual modalities (2D and 3D), environments (simulation and real-world), and end-effectors (grippers and dexterous hands). Our results demonstrate that: 1) visually grounded planning representations are generally better than language planning representations; 2) the Hierarchical-VLA paradigm generally achieves superior or comparable performance than other paradigms on task performance, pretraining, generalization ability, scalability, and continual learning ability, albeit at the cost of slower training and inference speeds.