paperlist.ai

AI conference papers

AI conference paper library

Search papers from 30+ top conferences, including NeurIPS, ICLR, ICML, CVPR, ACL and AAAI. Filter by keyword, then open any paper for its abstract, authors and links.

arXiv

A Survey on Rubric-Guided Reinforcement Learning for Language Models

Zifei Shan, Fangning Shao

Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) has become the dominant paradigm for aligning large language models (LLMs) with human preferences. However, traditional RLHF relies on scalar reward signals that lack interpretability and fail to capture the multifaceted nature of response quality. Rubric-guided reinforcement learning addresses these limitations by introducing structured, interpretable evaluation criteria, or rubrics, as the backbone of reward design, feedback generation, and policy optimization. In this survey, we introduce a Bayesian framework that defines constitutions as prior distributions $P(R)$ over evaluation criteria and rubrics as conditional instantiations $R_x \sim P(R|x)$. Under this unified view, we present a taxonomy of rubric-guided RL along the prior-posterior axis, covering constitutional AI, instance-specific rubrics, process-level supervision, self-evolving rubrics, and their agentic and multimodal extensions. Furthermore, as rubrics are natural-language artifacts, we present a linguistic analysis of how granularity trade-offs, semantic drift, and linguistic reward hacking impact alignment reliability, identifying key open problems for future research.

arXiv

XHotpotQA: A Benchmark for Cross-Lingual Knowledge Composition in Multi-Hop Question Answering

Iman Barati, Arash Ghafouri, Behrouz Minaei-Bidgoli

Knowledge-intensive multi-hop question answering requires systems to select evidence and compose dependent facts, yet multilingual benchmarks usually translate an entire example into one language. This hides failures at language boundaries inside the reasoning chain. We introduce XHotpotQA, a controlled benchmark for cross-lingual knowledge composition over mixed-language evidence. Each instance is modeled as an evidence-dependency graph whose question, bridge evidence, answer-bearing evidence, and distractors have explicit language assignments. The audited resource contains 15,661 training and 7,405 validation instances, with sentence-level support supervision and supplied distractors. In validation, 99.81% of items cross the question-to-gold-evidence language interface and 95.60% use gold paragraphs in different languages. Across three reader artifacts, full question-evidence mismatch is associated with 10.25 to 15.79 lower Unicode-aware answer F1 than partial alignment, and different-script evidence with deficits of 11.98 to 23.70 points; the corresponding adapted-selector contrasts are 1.71 and 1.78 points. Under this supplied-candidate design, the evaluated readers therefore show substantially larger condition-associated deficits than the selector. XHotpotQA provides role-aware diagnostics, modular evaluation, and an audited test bed for knowledge-based systems that must integrate evidence across languages.

arXiv

MEMORA: Embodied Action Memory from Egocentric Videos for Reasoning and Planning

Zihao Yu, Xiu Yuan, Chongjie Zhang

Embodied agents accumulate experience over time. We study how accumulated experience can be formed into persistent memory for future reasoning and action. We formulate Embodied Action Memory (EAM) as the capability to form and use memory over embodied experience, together with the persistent memory state produced by that process. We introduce MEMORA, a framework that instantiates EAM through a formation-consolidation-retrieval lifecycle and a multi-store world-memory architecture. MEMORA organizes experience into participant-specific Environment, Entity, Activity, and Inferred Knowledge stores: online editing revises memory as new evidence arrives, while offline consolidation abstracts repeated experience into reusable routines, habits, and preferences. We evaluate MEMORA with MEMORA-Bench, a 45-hour egocentric-video suite that measures both retrospective memory faithfulness and prospective memory-grounded planning. Across four open-weight answer models, MEMORA achieves the strongest aggregate planning performance among the evaluated memory interfaces, with its largest gains on out-of-distribution planning. On these tasks, MEMORA improves Robot-Grounded Plan score by up to 16.6 percent, suggesting that memory formed and consolidated across experience can support planning for new goals beyond directly observed episodes. A physical-robot demonstration further shows that memory formed solely from human egocentric video can ground high-level robot plans in participant-specific objects and preferences. Project website: https://github.com/yuzihaowashu/MEMORA

arXiv

SynthAVE: Scalable Synthetic Labeling for E-Commerce with LLM-Arena Validation

Andrea Scarinci, Virginia Negri, Brayan Impata, Suleiman Khan, Victor Martinez, Marcello Federico

Fine-tuning large language models (LLMs) for e-commerce attribute extraction requires labeled data representative across thousands of product types, attributes, and multiple languages. This combinatorial scale translates to millions of annotations, rendering human labeling prohibitively costly. While recent work has demonstrated synthetic label generation using LLMs, deploying such approaches at industrial scale requires integrated quality control mechanisms. We present SynthAVE, a large-scale benchmark for attribute-value verification spanning 12,726 products across 229 product types, 792 attributes, and 4 languages (Spanish, French, Italian, German). To validate synthetic labels at scale, we introduce a multi-LLM arena framework where each sample is evaluated by 21 judge configurations (7 model families $\times$ 3 prompts), with final labels determined via majority voting; disagreements with the synthetic label are expert-adjudicated and agreement cases are audited on a stratified sample. The majority vote ensemble agrees with expert labels at Cohen's $κ= 0.92$ (95.0% agreement), while individual judges agree with one another only moderately (Fleiss' $κ= 0.76$)--by design, since we select for diversity. This demonstrates that diverse models with varying individual judgments aggregate into highly reliable predictions, enabling cost-effective validation at scale while concentrating expert effort on the cases where it changes the label. We estimate the resulting label quality at 97.9%.

arXiv

Rating the Pitch, Not the Product: User Evaluations of LLMs Reflect Expectations More Than Performance

Robert Morabito, Tyler McDonald, Charitra Viswanath, Angel Hsing-Chi Hwang, Susanne Gaube, Jad Kabbara, Ali Emami

Imagine two users interact with the same LLM. One has been told it is the cutting-edge flagship model; the other, an older, weaker model. They walk away with markedly different ratings of its usefulness and intelligence, yet they used the same model. In a controlled study, 162 participants each used one of six LLMs from two families across three collaborative tasks, after first viewing a landing page that matched, overstated, or understated their model's true capability. This pre-interaction framing shifted user opinions and interaction behavior while task performance did not. Oversold users rated the model more favorably and used more directive prompting, while Undersold users wrote longer, more collaborative prompts. The quality of what users and the model produced together depended only on the model's true capability, not on what users were told. Participants' change in model impressions after use, measured across two impression measures, was not predicted by task performance ($β= -0.01$ and $0.11$, both n.s.), but by whether the model met users' expectations ($β= 0.47$ and $0.50$, both $p < .001$) and how confident they felt working with it ($β= 0.47$ and $0.36$, both $p < .001$). After interaction, users are still rating the pitch, not the product: user-elicited LLM evaluations, including the preference data driving public leaderboards, measure expectation management at least as much as the model itself.

arXiv

Bayesian Sparse Low-Rank Adaptation for Large Language Model Uncertainty Estimation

Jijie Zhang, Zhe Ren, Quan Zhang, Dandan Guo

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit remarkable reasoning capabilities, but their task-specific fine-tuning is notoriously plagued by overconfidence, severely hindering trustworthy deployment. We propose Data-Adaptive Lower-Rank Adaptation (DALorRA), a simple and effective variational Bayesian sparse framework that shifts the paradigm of uncertainty quantification from the dense parameter space to the lightweight rank level of low-rank adaptation (LoRA). With the insight that LoRA essentially aggregates multiple rank-one components that may provide superfluous model capacity, DALorRA imposes stochastic masking on rank dimensions, enabling Bayesian regularization of model capacity during training and ensemble-like calibration during inference. Extensive experiments demonstrate DALorRA's excellent calibration of LLMs without compromising reasoning accuracy.

arXiv

When Calibration Rankings Reverse: Accuracy-Controlled Evaluation for Fair Comparison of LLMs

Zhichao Yang, Caiqi Zhang, Ruihan Yang, Chengzu Li, Nigel Collier, Deqing Yang

Calibration evaluates whether a model confidence aligns with its empirical accuracy. Existing studies often compare the calibration of different large language models using global calibration metrics such as Expected Calibration Error and Brier Score. We begin by showing, both theoretically and empirically, that such comparisons are confounded by differences in model accuracy. For fairer cross-model comparison, we then propose ACE, an accuracy-controlled evaluation framework with three complementary views: Instance-Aligned, Distribution-Aligned, and Candidate-Aligned calibration. Across multiple benchmarks, model families, and confidence elicitation methods, we use ACE to study two practically important comparison axes, small versus large models and thinking versus non-thinking models. We find that many previously reported calibration advantages under raw global metrics weaken substantially after accuracy control. We also find that ranking reversal is frequent: models favored by raw metrics often cease to be favored once accuracy is controlled. Our results show that raw global calibration metrics are not robust for cross-model comparison, and that fair calibration comparison requires accuracy-aware evaluation.

arXiv

Fund2Persona: A Framework for Building and Refining Financial Advisor Personas from Fund Disclosure Data

Suhwan Park, Hoyoung Lee, Zhangyang Wang, Alejandro Lopez-Lira, Young Cha, Chanyeol Choi, Jaewon Choi, Yongjae Lee

Demand for personalized financial advice is growing, yet current LLM-based advisors often fail to provide consistent and specialized guidance.\ Simple persona prompts rarely specify how a financial advisor should reason and often drift toward generic recommendations. We propose Fund2Persona, a framework that builds financial-advisor personas from real-world fund disclosures and refines them through an actor--scorer--patcher loop. We test whether the resulting personas can predict held-out portfolio changes and produce commentary consistent with fund managers' own explanations. They outperform generic baselines on both tasks. We further study two downstream diagnostics: market-scenario generation, where persona retrieval broadens plausible investment views, and multi-turn investor--advisor conversations, where matched personas give more specific and useful advice than a generic advisor. These results suggest that real fund data can bring manager-specific investment expertise to LLM advisors rather than merely changing an LLM's surface style.

arXiv

Can MLLMs Critique Like Humans? Evaluating Open-Ended Aesthetic Reasoning in Multimodal Large Language Models

Sajjad Ghiasvand, Maryam Amirizaniani, Haniyeh Ehsani Oskouie, Mahnoosh Alizadeh, Ramtin Pedarsani

Open-ended aesthetic critique is a challenge for multimodal large language models (MLLMs): it has no single correct answer, and most aesthetic evaluation measures models against numeric scores rather than the written critiques people actually give. We ask whether MLLM critiques are close to human ones, scoring eight open-weight MLLMs from $7$B to $397$B, plus GPT-5.5, against multiple ranked human critiques for each of $1{,}227$ \texttt{r/photocritique} posts under eight prompt conditions. Reference-based similarity gives a misleading picture. In absolute terms the stricter lexical and learned metrics align only weakly with human critiques while a coarse embedding cosine reports broad topical overlap, yet requesting shorter critiques raises those scores and withholding the image barely changes them: the similarity reflects length, the post text, and a stable critiquing style more than image-specific observation. An LLM judge sharpens the question rather than settling it: in the primary condition all four judges prefer the frontier models' critiques to the human ones, but on the $7$--$8$B models they diverge wildly, from $9\%$ to $81\%$ preference on identical pairs. Asked instead how similar each pair is in substance, those judges and two human annotators agree, rating every model between $1.81$ and $2.59$ on a $1$--$5$ scale, close to ``mostly different''. Behaviorally, the models diverge in ways the scores do not surface: they cover nearly every aesthetic aspect where humans are selective and repeat themselves across critiques of one photo, even when prompted to write at human length. We argue that reference-based similarity rewards a fluent, comprehensive critique style rather than the selectivity and specificity of human critique.

arXiv

DMV-Bench: Diagnosing Long-Horizon Multimodal Agents' Visual Memory with Incidental Cue Injection

Yujin Tang, Chenming Shang, Ruize Xu, Nikhil Singh

Agent benchmarks for measuring memory largely study textual cases, in which information is deliberately extracted from the environment, written down, and then later retrieved. In other words, they assess what agents elected to record, not what they happened to see. We introduce DMV-Bench (code: https://github.com/yyyujintang/DMV-Bench), the first interactive benchmark for visual memory in multimodal agents, to study this often-neglected property. DMV-Bench is built on (1) a controlled home-furnishing e-commerce environment, supported by a catalog of 1,000 product variants, and (2) a text-leakage contract which ensures that the primary discriminative signal of each task is solely in the pixels. In DMV-Bench, agents undergo chains of autonomous shopping sessions in which every visited product image carries a unique, pre-rendered incidental cue that the agent is later asked to recall. We show that conventional solutions struggle with this task. Inspired by dual-coding theory, we propose a memory architecture that uses parallel visual and verbal codes, which we call DualMem. On DMV-Bench, DualMem outperforms a caption-only baseline and three recent multimodal agent-memory systems across multi-session chain lengths on multiple models. These gains persist even adjusting for memory-bank size and encoding-position bias. Further experiments also reveal an asymmetric division of labor between the two codes; a weighted coding scheme is often strongest. We view this as a step towards memory systems that preserve a richer record of agents' observations.

arXiv

SHERLOC: Structured Diagnostic Localization for Code Repair Agents

Hovhannes Tamoyan, Sean Narenthiran, Erik Arakelyan, Mira Mezini, Boris Ginsburg

LLM agents solve repository-level coding tasks through multi-turn tool use, but utilize half their budget on locating faults before editing. Dedicated localization frameworks have emerged, yet are still evaluated as file retrieval rather than actionable diagnosis, producing locations without the diagnostic context a repair agent needs. We introduce SHERLOC (Structured Hypothesis-driven Exploration and Reasoning for Localization), a training-free framework pairing a reasoning LLM with compact repository tools and self-recovery, without fine-tuning or multi-agent orchestration. SHERLOC reaches state-of-the-art localization across model scales: 84.33% accuracy@1 on SWE-Bench Lite and 81.27% recall@1 on SWE-Bench Verified; at ~30B parameters, it matches or outperforms other agentic methods. Injecting our locations and diagnostic findings into repair agents yields an average +5.95 pp resolve-rate gain from the best SHERLOC result per setting on SWE-Bench Verified. SHERLOC cuts localization and total tokens by 36.7% and 23.1% on average.

arXiv

In LLM Reasoning, there is Irrationality on top of Value Misalignment

Kejiang Qian, Fengxiang He

Significant progress has been made in aligning LLMs with target value functions. We argue that, even when an LLM has been well aligned in (post-)training, it may still fail to maximise the aligned value in reasoning. We mathematically formalise this gap as rational value risk: the utility discrepancy between a model's deployed reasoning strategy and its rational counterpart whose responses maximise utility in the steepest direction. The estimation error of rational value risk is further decomposed into three components from bounded prompts, bounded responses, and imperfect verifiers. Extensive experiments are conducted, covering models Llama-3.1, Qwen-2.5, Tülu-3 families (7B-72B), GPT-5.2, GPT-5.5, and DeepSeek-V4, and benchmarks UltraFeedback, AlpacaEval, GSM8K, MATH, HumanEval, and MathArena. The results validate that (1) rational value risk is widespread; (2) value alignment can reduce, but cannot avoid, it; (3) self-consistency can improve rationality; and (4) a longer chain of thought improves rationality but with diminishing returns. The code is at https://github.com/EVIEHub/LLM-Rationality

arXiv

PEAR: Permutation-Equivariant Adaptive Routing Multi-Agent Debate

Yang Feng, Ziwei Xu, Xia Hu, Fengxiang He

Multi-agent debate improves the reliability of large language models (LLMs) through iterative peer critiques. However, fixed topologies often introduce persistent positional biases, amplify unreliable agents, and cause high sensitivity to role assignments. We introduce \textit{Permutation-Equivariant Adaptive Routing Multi-Agent Debate (PEAR)}, an inference-time train-free protocol that dynamically reconfigures communication roles and sparse topologies across consecutive debate rounds. By strategically switching agent-to-role assignments based on evolving agent states, PEAR prevents any agent from permanently occupying a privileged network position or distributes influence more evenly across the debate. We theoretically characterize PEAR as an equivariant sparse router: it preserves accuracy under agent relabeling while reducing routing complexity and improving generalization. Comprehensive empirical evaluations across four reasoning benchmarks and six diverse LLM backbones demonstrate PEAR significantly improves average accuracy over the strongest debate baselines. The code is available at https://github.com/EVIEHub/PEAR.

arXiv

Are LLMs Ready to Assist Physicians? PhysAssistBench for Interactive Doctor-Patient-EHR Assistance

Tianming Du, Peijie Yu, Sihan Shang, Danli Shi, My Linh Nguyen, Shengbo Gao, Guangyuan Li, Yinghong Yu, Yan Jiang, Qianlong Zhao, Behzad Bozorgtabar, Shaoxiong Ji, Jiazhen Pan, Daniel Rueckert, Jiancheng Yang

The most plausible near-term role of medical LLMs is to assist rather than replace physicians, yet current evaluations often test isolated capabilities: clinical knowledge, EHR system interaction, or patient communication. Physician assistance instead requires coordinating these capabilities within the same interaction, where physicians issue underspecified requests, patients describe symptoms ambiguously, and EHR systems demand precise tool use. We introduce PhysAssistBench, a benchmark for interactive doctor-patient-EHR assistance. Built from real MIMIC-IV cases, PhysAssistBench uses a scalable pipeline to construct agentic patients: interactive, record-grounded agents that turn static EHR records into multi-turn clinical scenarios while preserving clinical factuality. PhysAssistBench provides a curated bilingual evaluation set of 1,296 manually reviewed and physician-validated turns. Experiments with leading LLMs show that current models remain unreliable in this setting, which exposes a key bottleneck for clinical LLMs: reliable assistance requires coordination across knowledge, communication, and systems, not isolated gains in any of them.

arXiv

Beyond Helpfulness: A Teaching-over-Solving Diagnostic for Measuring Educational Impact in LLM Tutors

Junyi Yao, Zihao Zheng, Baichuan Li

Large language models are increasingly proposed as educational tutors, yet stronger task-solving ability does not necessarily imply stronger learning support. Motivated by recent calls to measure the social impact of NLP systems in practice, we study whether public LLM tutoring benchmarks distinguish learning-supportive behavior from mere answer production. We propose a lightweight diagnostic based on the gap between solving-oriented and pedagogy-oriented benchmark performance. Using public MathTutorBench leaderboard results, we show that these dimensions are only partially aligned: across eight publicly reported models, the correlation between solving and pedagogy composites is 0.421, and several models shift meaningfully in rank when evaluation moves from solving to pedagogy. We then analyze the public TutorBench sample and show that agency-relevant behaviors are explicitly encoded in benchmark rubrics, especially in active-learning settings that reward guiding questions, calibrated hints, and non-disclosive scaffolding. Together, these findings suggest that educational-impact evaluation should not treat task success as a sufficient proxy for learning support. We argue that public tutoring benchmarks can better support positive-impact evaluation by reporting solving-oriented and pedagogy-oriented scores separately and by making disclosure-sensitive, student-agency-preserving criteria more explicit.

arXiv

When Similar Means Different: Evaluating LLMs on Arabic--Hebrew Cognates

Junhong Liang, Noor Abo Mokh, Bashar Alhafni

Arabic and Hebrew, as closely related Semitic languages, share many words with similar surface forms, including true cognates, false friends, and modern loanwords. These lexical relationships create ambiguity for cross-lingual semantic interpretation, as similar forms may correspond to shared, divergent, or borrowed meanings. To evaluate whether LLMs can make these distinctions, we introduce SemCog Bench, a curated benchmark of 1,858 Arabic--Hebrew word pairs with sentence-level annotations for cognate identification and semantic disambiguation. We evaluate a diverse set of open-source and proprietary LLMs across multiple input representations and contextual settings. Our results show reliance on surface-form similarity, with weaker performance on false friends and wide variation on loanwords. We further find that context and scale yield model-dependent gains, while original-script inputs generally perform best. Our findings reveal limitations in cross-lingual form-meaning reasoning and establish SemCog Bench as a benchmark for cross-lingual lexical semantics. Our code and data are publicly available.

arXiv

Attention-Discounted Adaptive Sampler for Masked Diffusion Language Models

Yusuf Sahin, Ahmed Rockey Saikia, Volkan Cevher, Paolo Favaro

Masked diffusion language models can reduce inference steps by revealing multiple tokens per denoising iteration, but this parallelism is fragile: positions that are individually confident may be unsafe to commit together when their predictions are coupled. Existing training-free samplers such as Top-$k$, Fast-dLLM, and EB-Sampler mainly control how many tokens to reveal, while often ranking candidates by token-wise scores that ignore interactions within the selected set. We propose ADAS, a training-free reranking rule that leaves the base sampler's stopping rule unchanged and greedily discounts each token-wise confidence score according to its attention to already selected positions, weighted by their prediction uncertainty. Across LLaDA-8B-Base and Dream-7B-Base on the reasoning benchmarks GSM8K and MATH500 and the code benchmarks HumanEval and MBPP, plugging ADAS into all three samplers improves low-NFE performance at matched denoiser evaluations by $9.11$ and $10.46$ percentage points on average, respectively, with $3.1\%$ per-forward runtime overhead.

arXiv

Arabic Sentence Segmentation Across Genres and Punctuation Conditions

Mohammed Elkholy, Khalid N. Elmadani, Nizar Habash, Bashar Alhafni

Sentence segmentation in Arabic is challenging due to ambiguous and inconsistent punctuation, with many texts lacking reliable sentence boundary markers. Existing approaches rely heavily on punctuation cues and are typically evaluated on well-formed text, limiting their robustness in realistic Arabic settings. To address this, we introduce AraSEG, a genre-diverse sentence segmentation corpus spanning eight genres and a wide range of punctuation and document structure conditions. Using AraSEG, we evaluate LLMs, lightweight encoder models, and dependency parser-based models under increasingly challenging segmentation settings. Our experiments show that lightweight encoders, and even dependency parser-based models, outperform LLMs under the hardest conditions. We further investigate the effects of training data size and genre diversity, finding that performance eventually saturates and cross-genre generalization remains challenging. We also demonstrate that accurate sentence segmentation substantially improves downstream dependency parsing. We make our code, data, and models publicly available.

arXiv

Revising Context, Shifting Simulated Stance: Auditing LLM-Based Stance Simulation in Online Discussions

Xinnong Zhang, Wanting Shan, Hanjia Lyu, Zhongyu Wei, Jiebo Luo

Large language models are increasingly used to simulate social media users and infer how individuals may respond to online discussions. However, it remains unclear whether these simulations reflect precise user-specific beliefs or whether they are highly sensitive to semantically independent changes in conversational contexts. In this work, we study counterfactual context revision as a framework for auditing LLM-based stance simulation. Given an original online conversation, we first infer a target user's stance toward a specific topic. We then apply controlled revision strategies to the conversational context and simulate the user's stance again under the revised context. We compare text-only revision strategies with a multimodal one that incorporates meme-based context and evaluate two main effectiveness metrics, i.e., average directional stance shift and stance transition rate. The results reveal effective and robust stance transitions in both text-only and multimodal strategies across different polarization-preference mechanisms. Our study contributes an evaluation framework for understanding the context sensitivity of LLM-based stance simulation (https://github.com/STARResearchLab/StanceShift). More broadly, it highlights both the promise and risk of using LLMs as proxies for social media users in social simulation.

arXiv

World Models Meet Language Models: On the Complementarity of Concrete and Abstract Reasoning

Yucheng Zhou, Wei Tao, Yiwen Guo, Jianbing Shen

World models and multimodal large language models (MLLMs) provide complementary capabilities for predicting future outcomes from static visual observations. World models can generate concrete visual rollouts of possible futures, while MLLMs can reason abstractly over questions, goals, and rules. However, generated rollouts are stochastic and may be visually plausible but task-incorrect, making it necessary to determine when visual simulation is useful, whether a rollout is credible, and how it should influence the final answer. We formulate this problem as controlled concrete reasoning, where a model learns to invoke, verify, and integrate visual future simulation alongside abstract reasoning. To study this setting, we construct two human-verified benchmarks, VRQABench for controllable spatial lookahead and OpenWorldQA for open-domain physical prediction, and propose Privileged-Future On-Policy Self-Distillation (PF-OPSD). During training, PF-OPSD uses ground-truth future videos and answers only as teacher-side privileged context to evaluate on-policy concrete-reasoning trajectories, while the deployable student never observes true futures at test time. Experimental results show that PF-OPSD outperforms baseline by 10.6% and 10.9% on VRQABench and OpenWorldQA, respectively, while increasing robustness to noisy or conflicting rollouts. Our code and dataset are available at https://github.com/yczhou001/PF-OPSD.

Keep browsing

More papers from top AI conferences

30+ top conferences, by conference, year, and topic.