Speculative decoding accelerates language model inference by using a fast drafter to propose candidate tokens that are then verified by a larger target model. Existing theory largely studies the stochastic, distribution-preserving setting, where the goal is to exactly sample from the target distribution. In contrast, many practical systems use greedy decoding, relaxed acceptance rules, or tree-based candidate sets, where success is governed by local ranking and threshold events rather than exact distributional equality. We develop a theory for these regimes. We identify that many common acceptance criteria have rejection regions that can be characterized as lower level sets of the target distribution. For these, we characterize the exact KL divergence required for rejection yielding exact certificates and sharp margin-based bounds for strict greedy decoding, additive and multiplicative relaxed acceptance, top-(m) relaxed criteria, and entropy-thresholded acceptance. We then extend the framework to greedy tree decoding, deriving exact and margin-only certificates for when the target greedy token remains covered by the drafter's top-(m) candidates. Finally, we evaluate the resulting certificates on Qwen3 models, showing that relaxed and tree-based criteria substantially enlarge the region of certified acceptance, especially on decoding steps with low target model distribution margin. These results complement existing distribution-preserving analyses of speculative decoding by characterizing the deterministic local acceptance events common in practical inference systems.

Classification and Regression Trees (CART) constitute one of the most influential paradigms in statistical learning. Although a variety of impurity measures have been proposed for different statistical models, these criteria are typically introduced on a case-by-case basis and analyzed separately. In this paper, we study CART through the lens of Bregman divergences. This perspective places the classical least-squares criterion, Poisson deviance, Kullback-Leibler-type losses, and other impurity measures associated with exponential-family models within a common framework. As a result, key ingredients of the CART methodology -- including node representatives, impurity measures, and split selection rules -- can be expressed and analyzed through general properties of convex functions rather than through separate model-specific constructions. Beyond the algorithmic formulation, we investigate theoretical properties of Bregman-based CART procedures. In particular, we analyze how geometric properties of the generating convex function influence impurity reductions and stability of recursive partitions. We also establish consistency results within the proposed framework, providing a unified theoretical treatment for a broad family of CART type procedures. Our results provide a geometric interpretation of impurity-based tree construction and show that many classical CART impurity criteria admit a common interpretation within a Bregman framework.

T propose o address a no the vel challenge Agent-as-a-Judge of evaluating framew time-v ork. Our arying method and construct complex s answers, task-specific we judg answer of ten e a frontier g correctness ents based agentic and on a search source tree-structured systems attribution.

Recent advances in multi-modal models have demonstrated strong performance in tasks such as image generation and reasoning. However, applying these models to the fire domain remains challenging due to the lack of publicly available datasets with high-quality fire domain annotations. To address this gap, we introduce DetectiumFire, a large-scale, multi-modal dataset comprising of 22.5k high-resolution fire-related images and 2.5k real-world fire-related videos covering a wide range of fire types, environments, and risk levels. The data are annotated with both traditional computer vision labels (e.g., bounding boxes) and detailed textual prompts describing the scene, enabling applications such as synthetic data generation and fire risk reasoning. DetectiumFire offers clear advantages over existing benchmarks in scale, diversity, and data quality, significantly reducing redundancy and enhancing coverage of real-world scenarios. We validate the utility of DetectiumFire across multiple tasks, including object detection, diffusion-based image generation, and vision-language reasoning. Our results highlight the potential of this dataset to advance fire-related research and support the development of intelligent safety systems. We release DetectiumFire to promote broader exploration of fire understanding in the AI community.

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.

As multimodal large models (MLLMs) continue to advance across challenging tasks, a key question emerges: What essential capabilities are still missing? A critical aspect of human learning is continuous interaction with the environment - not limited to language, but also involving multimodal understanding and generation. To move closer to human-level intelligence, models must similarly support multi-turn, multimodal interaction. In particular, they should comprehend interleaved multimodal contexts and respond coherently in ongoing exchanges. In this work, we present an initial exploration through the INTERMT - the first preference dataset for multi-turn multimodal interaction, grounded in real human feedback.

Military weapon systems and command-and-control infrastructure augmented by artificial intelligence (AI) have seen rapid development and deployment in recent years. However, the sociotechnical impacts of AI on combat systems, military decision-making, and the norms of warfare have been understudied. We focus on a specific subset of lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) that use AI for targeting or battlefield decisions. We refer to this subset as AI-powered lethal autonomous weapon systems (AI-LAWS) and argue that they introduce novel risks--including unanticipated escalation, poor reliability in unfamiliar environments, and erosion of human oversight--all of which threaten both military effectiveness and the openness of AI research. These risks cannot be addressed by high-level policy alone; effective regulation must be grounded in the technical behavior of AI models. We argue that AI researchers must be involved throughout the regulatory lifecycle. Thus, we propose a clear, behavior-based definition of AILAWS--systems that introduce unique risks through their use of modern AI--as a foundation for technically grounded regulation, given that existing frameworks do not distinguish them from conventional LAWS. Using this definition, we propose several technically-informed policy directions and invite greater participation from the AI research community in military AI policy discussions.

Recent progress in Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) has enabled promising applications in medical tasks, such as report generation and visual question answering. However, existing benchmarks focus mainly on the final diagnostic answer, offering limited insight into whether models engage in clinically meaningful reasoning. To address this, we present CheXStruct and CXReasonBench, a structured pipeline and benchmark built on the publicly available MIMIC-CXR-JPG dataset. CheXStruct automatically derives a sequence of intermediate reasoning steps directly from chest X-rays, such as segmenting anatomical regions, deriving anatomical landmarks and diagnostic measurements, computing diagnostic indices, and applying clinical thresholds. CXReasonBench leverages this pipeline to evaluate whether models can perform clinically valid reasoning steps and to what extent they can learn from structured guidance, enabling fine-grained and transparent assessment of diagnostic reasoning. The benchmark comprises 18,988 QA pairs across 12 diagnostic tasks and 1,200 cases, each paired with up to 4 visual inputs, and supports multi-path, multi-stage evaluation including visual grounding via anatomical region selection and diagnostic measurements. Even the strongest of 12 evaluated LVLMs struggle with structured reasoning and generalization, often failing to link abstract knowledge with anatomically grounded visual interpretation.

Recent advances have enabled LLM-powered AI agents to autonomously execute complex tasks by combining language model reasoning with tools, memory, and web access. But can these systems be trusted to follow deployment policies in realistic environments, especially under attack? To investigate, we ran the largest public red-teaming competition to date, targeting 22 frontier AI agents across 44 realistic deployment scenarios. Participants submitted 1.8 million promptinjection attacks, with over 60,000 successfully eliciting policy violations such as unauthorized data access, illicit financial actions, and regulatory noncompliance. We use these results to build the Agent Red Teaming (ART) benchmark--a curated set of high-impact attacks--and evaluate it across 19state-of-the-art models.

Model editing aims to efficiently revise incorrect or outdated knowledge within LLMs without incurring the high cost of full retraining and risking catastrophic forgetting. Currently, most LLM editing datasets are confined to narrow knowledge domains and cover a limited range of editing evaluation. They often overlook the broad scope of editing demands and the diversity of ripple effects resulting from edits. In this context, we introduce UNIEDIT, a unified benchmark for LLM editing grounded in open-domain knowledge. First, we construct editing samples by selecting entities from 25 common domains across five major categories, utilizing the extensive triple knowledge available in open-domain knowledge graphs to ensure comprehensive coverage of the knowledge domains. To address the issues of generality and locality in editing, we design an Neighborhood Multi-hop Chain Sampling (NMCS) algorithm to sample subgraphs based on a given knowledge piece to entail comprehensive ripple effects to evaluate. Finally, we employ proprietary LLMs to convert the sampled knowledge subgraphs into natural language text, guaranteeing grammatical accuracy and syntactical diversity. Extensive statistical analysis confirms the scale, comprehensiveness, and diversity of our UNIEDIT benchmark. We conduct comprehensive experiments across multiple LLMs and editors, analyzing their performance to highlight strengths and weaknesses in editing across open knowledge domains and various evaluation criteria, thereby offering valuable insights for future research endeavors.