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

Assessing the Downstream Utility of Evidence-Aware Retrieval in RAG

Utshab Kumar Ghosh, Debayan Mukhopadhyay, Shubham Chatterjee

Retrieval evaluation for retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is increasingly designed around whether retrieved passages contain evidence that can support generation, rather than topical relevance alone. We study whether this closer alignment with downstream evidence needs also makes retrieval evaluation more useful for the decisions built from it. Across five retrieval benchmarks and an end-to-end TREC RAG 2025 setting, we examine an answer-support signal in four roles: comparing retrievers, guiding retrieval training and system selection, predicting downstream answer quality, and filtering the evidence supplied to a generator. The signal changes retrieval rankings, but its downstream value is not uniform. It does not reliably improve retriever training; the benefit of using it for system selection depends on how the generator is instructed to use the retrieved evidence; and retrieval scores based on it do not robustly predict answer quality on unseen topics. In a direct evidence intervention, human annotators confirm that filtering preferentially preserves passages containing useful answer evidence, yet different answer evaluators reach different conclusions about whether the resulting answers improve. These results show that making retrieval evaluation more closely reflect the evidence needed for generation does not by itself make every downstream use of that evaluation more reliable. RAG evaluation methods should therefore be assessed with respect to the particular comparisons, decisions, and conclusions they are intended to support.

arXiv

Survival-Guided Length Control for Efficient Diffusion Language Models

Ivan Kobyzev, Abbas Ghaddar, Yufei Cui

Diffusion language models (DLMs) generate text by iteratively denoising masked sequences, but standard decoding either fixes the sequence length or relies on ad hoc stopping rules, often leading to unnecessary denoising steps. We recast length selection as a discrete-time survival problem over the end-of-sequence token and propose a plug-in, training-free length predictor that can be added to any existing DLM. Across reasoning and code-generation benchmarks, survival-guided length decoding speeds up inference by up to 7 times while preserving task accuracy. We further find that predicted lengths vary widely even within the same dataset, making model performance sensitive to the chosen length.

arXiv

Knowledge-Verified Emergent Deception in LLM Agents Under Conflicting Incentives

Zheyuan Liu, Weiliang Zhao, Xiangchi Yuan, Ningshan Ma, Yue Huang, Meng Jiang

Large language models are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents serving users on behalf of companies, placing them in settings where user and deployer interests can conflict. When an agent knows that a user is owed something its deployer would prefer to deny, does it remain honest? Answering this is difficult because false statements can reflect either ignorance or hallucination rather than deception. To address this challenge, we introduce KnownLieBench , a knowledge-verified benchmark that first confirms through a neutral probe that an agent knows a user's entitlement, and then evaluates whether it makes false claims once an incentive to deny that entitlement is introduced. Specifically, KnownLieBench covers eight customer-service domains and 112 grounded cases, conducts multi-round dialogues with a trust-tracking customer agent, and separates deception emerging from incentive alone from deception produced under explicit instruction. Across eighteen proprietary and open-weight models, emergent deception varies substantially across model families and domains. We further use the benchmark for post-training, finding that honesty-directed fine-tuning reduces deception under incentive, while deception-graded fine-tuning increases lie success on honest-control dialogues without increasing lie frequency under incentive. By verifying entitlement knowledge before scoring deceptive behavior, KnownLieBench reduces the confound between lying and not knowing and enables more rigorous auditing and steering of agent honesty.

arXiv

Cross-lingual Representation Learning via Centroid Intervention Fusion

Wei Sun, Marie-Francine Moens

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit uneven multilingual performance, especially when dealing with low-resource languages. Inference-time intervention offers a lightweight way to improve cross-lingual transfer by modifying the hidden states produced by the LLMs during the forward pass, without updating model parameters. However, existing cross-lingual intervention methods typically learn separate projections from source to target languages, which limits scalability and prevents knowledge sharing across languages. We propose Centroid Intervention Fusion (CIF), a projection fusion framework that consolidates multiple multilingual intervention projections into a single language-shared operator. Across multilingual commonsense reasoning, natural language inference, factual editing, and machine translation benchmarks, CIF outperforms the strongest prior pairwise intervention baseline by up to +3.378 pp on average across four model backbones, while supporting performance gains for low resource languages. The code is available at https://github.com/VRCMF/CIF.git.

arXiv

MoganColBERT-TR: A Late-Interaction Multi-Vector Retrieval Model for Turkish

Furkan Yilmaz, Habibe Aleyna Tasdemir, Muhammed Faruk Gozay

We previously reported a ModernBERT encoder trained from scratch for Turkish (MoganBERT-TR) and a single-vector embedding model built on top of it (MoganBERT-embed). This work introduces the third model in that lineage: MoganColBERT-TR, a multi-vector retrieval model that, instead of compressing a query or a document into a single vector, represents it at the token level through a 768->128 projection and scores it with MaxSim late interaction. The model is not trained from scratch: the embedding model's encoder is taken as the starting point and adapted to the ColBERT objective with a single-epoch distillation phase. Training data is produced from two sources - title-to-passage pairs carved out of our own pretraining corpus in the character domain and at sentence boundaries, and two Turkish question-based retrieval sets - and is distilled from the soft scores of a cross-encoder teacher (bge-reranker-v2-m3) over one positive and seven mined negatives. We show that in hard negative mining, rank-based skipping alone is insufficient and must be combined with a group mask and a cosine ceiling. Evaluation is carried out with the official pipeline of TurkColBERT, a benchmark built for Turkish late-interaction retrieval (PLAID index, exact MaxSim), on five Turkish BEIR datasets; none of them appears in our training pool, so all five results are clean zero-shot. With 148.9M parameters, MoganColBERT-TR reaches an overall score of 37.36 (35.53 nDCG@100, 31.81 nDCG@10) averaged over the five datasets and finishes second among the five models compared: it outperforms the twice-as-large ColmmBERT-base-TR on four of five datasets and by +3.05 overall, and the benchmark's largest model by +12.30. The gap to the leading model (mLateOn) is concentrated on ArguAna-TR, the dataset with by far the longest queries.

arXiv

Neuro-symbolic PRM: Enhancing Scientific Reasoning via Structured Traces and Symbolic Verification

Yuxin Zi, Cong Xu, Suparna Bhattacharya, Martin Foltin, Amit Sheth

While tool-augmented Large Language Models have significantly improved multi-step reasoning in quantitative STEM tasks, a critical residual failure mode remains: intermediate reasoning steps that are syntactically well-formed, mathematically executable, and unit-consistent, yet contextually ungrounded. Current approaches either rely on formal verifiers that cannot assess semantic intent, or burden Process Reward Models (PRMs) with the dual task of checking both arithmetic and logic. In this paper, we propose a neuro-symbolic framework that cleanly decouples reasoning into two formal dimensions: Symbolic Validity ($V$) and Semantic Groundedness ($G$). We guarantee $V$ by construction using a deterministic symbolic verifier acting as a hard filter. To assess $G$, we train a PRM conditionally on the verifier-accepted manifold. To train this PRM efficiently, we introduce Counterfactual Symbolic Perturbation (CSP), a novel data synthesis strategy that algorithmically generates constraint-preserving hard negatives (steps that perfectly pass the verifier but are logically flawed). At inference, we deploy a verifier-first constrained search that guarantees execution consistency for verifier-covered operations while relying on the PRM solely to rank semantic grounding. By targeting the exact residual error class of strong tool-using LLMs, our method significantly improves reasoning reliability without the sprawling heuristics of prior frameworks.

arXiv

How Unlikely Is "Unlikely"? Assessing Verbal Probability Perception Across Large Language Models

Christos Petridis, Konstantinos Pelechrinis, Zoran Obradovic

Large language models increasingly produce and interpret verbal probability expressions, yet whether these expressions carry consistent meaning across models (or match human perceptions of uncertainty) remains unknown. We present a systematic cross-model evaluation using a word-to-number mapping task grounded in established human benchmarks. Eleven uncertainty expressions were presented to 19 models under two conditions, forced single-number response and explanation elicitation, alongside a novel bidirectional roundtrip test of internal consistency. LLMs track the human benchmark with surprising fidelity: word ordering is preserved, three anchor points are recovered, and ``possible'' shows the highest variance and cross-model disagreement of any expression tested, consistent with its documented bimodal interpretation in humans. However, models show a systematic upward bias for negative expressions such as ``unlikely'' and ``improbable.'' Explanation elicitation reduces within-model variance while increasing between-model divergence, stabilizing individual models at the cost of inter-model consensus, and the roundtrip experiment reveals clear stratification, with frontier models maintaining coherent bidirectional representations. LLMs thus reproduce the structure of human verbal probability cognition, including its biases, while diverging systematically at the negative end---with implications for any setting where humans and models exchange probabilistic language.

arXiv

When Is Noise Response Universal? Tokenization as the Hidden Variable in Language Models

Yefan Tao, Gerald Friedland, Luyang Kong

The performance of textual neural models often degrades when their inputs are corrupted by noise such as typos, OCR errors, or dropped words. We study the degradation rate across neural models, both sentence embeddings and decoder-only LLMs, and find that how consistent it is depends on the scale of the noise: under word-level noise, models with very different architectures decline along nearly the same curve, while under character-level noise they separate. We further identify the determining factor to be the training objective, not the architecture: eight encoders spanning six pretraining paradigms are scattered initially, and collapse onto a common curve after a short contrastive training recipe. We trace the word/character split to tokenization: a single character edit forces the tokenizer to re-segment the surrounding word, disturbing the token sequence far more than dropping a whole word does. This finding and its underlying mechanism provide a practical means to predict a model's robustness to noise without any noisy evaluation, and to install robustness at a chosen noise scale through noise-augmented training.

arXiv

MemToC: Benchmarking Memory-Tool Conflict Resolution in Large Language Models

Arseniy Varlamov, Rishat Zinnatullin, Elisei Rykov, Alexander Panchenko, Ilseyar Alimova

Tool-augmented LLMs must arbitrate between two fallible sources when a tool return conflicts with their parametric memory, yet existing evaluations measure source preference without establishing source correctness. We introduce MemToC, a controlled benchmark for post-tool-return arbitration with executable tools. MemToC comprises 6,504 evaluation episodes constructed from 542 quality-controlled factual questions, independently elicited model-specific closed-book answers, and controlled tool returns of known correctness. These components instantiate four source-correctness cases; tool-error and no-tool conditions are separate controls. Across five open-weight 7-9B models, tool returns strongly dominate elicited closed-book answers. The four instruction-tuned models retain a verified-correct answer against an incorrect tool in only 6.5-17.1% of eligible cases, follow a correct tool in 86.0-93.1%, and repeat the tool return in 78.4-86.0% of cases where both sources are wrong. No cross-model ordering remains stable across three instruction-wording variants with the question and episode content held fixed. We compare prompting with SFT and DPO using chain-level cross-fitting over ToolHop, so questions sharing an underlying fact never straddle training and evaluation. We apply an asymmetric success criterion: correct-answer retention must improve without a detected reduction in correct-tool following. SFT and DPO meet this criterion on the same two of four instruction-tuned backbones. Improvements rarely come cleanly: 19 of 20 tested method-model combinations reduce abstention after tool errors or on unanswerable inputs. Transfer beyond MemToC is positive but partial and depends on the model and presentation frame. Correctness-conditioned arbitration can be improved through fine-tuning, but gains must be evaluated jointly with correct tool use, abstention, and robustness to formulation.

arXiv

On Scope Classification and Current Knowledge-Editing Benchmarks: A Negative Result, with INLAY as a Gradient-Free Case Study

Aditya Pratap Singh

Every memory-based knowledge editor in the SERAC lineage depends on a scope decision: given a query, does a stored edit apply? We report that current knowledge-editing benchmarks cannot measure this decision at all. Using INLAY, a gradient-free editor we built to obtain exact per-query ground truth (the model is frozen, edits live in an external addressable memory, and applying an edit is a bias added along one token's unembedding direction at decode time), we execute every candidate router action on 1,689 queries spanning three datasets and three input conditions. An oracle router choosing the best action every time ties a one-line static policy to four decimal places in all nine dataset-by-condition cells: the maximum attainable gain of any per-query routing method is 0.00 points. Abstention is the sole winning action zero times out of 1,689. The cause is structural: these are counterfactual benchmarks whose evaluation question asks for the post-edit answer, so answering from parametric knowledge is wrong by construction, and a benchmark without negatives cannot reward a classifier's ability to reject. This generalizes beyond our system to the whole scope-classifier family the benchmarks are used to evaluate. We confirm the mechanism directly: constructing the missing condition ourselves, by withholding a query's own edit from the index for half the sample, moves pooled headroom from exactly +0.0000 to +0.0420 and gives abstention its first wins. We also report where INLAY itself does not win (WISE beats it on Qwen2.5-7B CounterFact, and retrieval-augmented generation beats every method we tested, INLAY included, on rigorously matched RippleEdits), and disclose two bugs found during a self-audit of our own routing machinery, neither of which changed a published headline number outside noise.

arXiv

When Youth Enter The Chat: An Epistemic Shift in the Validation of LLM-Based Measures of Student Talk

Liliana Santos-Deonizio, James Malamut, Ramón Antonio Martínez, Dorottya Demszky

LLMs are being used increasingly to measure aspects of student discourse (e.g. talk moves, collaboration, equity of voice) at scale. Typically, LLM-based measures of student talk use transcriptions of classroom conversations that only include verbal contributions, which de-contextualize student language. Common practices for validating these measures include comparing outputs against expert annotations by adults, using held out evaluation sets and F1 scores. We argue that these approaches are insufficient to ensure that such measures are meaningful and equitable for teaching and learning, particularly for racially and linguistically marginalized youth. In order to center the youth whose talk is being analyzed, re-contextualizing these classroom conversations and engaging youth in the research process is necessary. Sharing epistemic authority with youth, ultimately, centers their point of view and adds crucial nuance to the analysis of their talk that adult experts, researchers, and LLMs cannot provide. In a case study of multilingual youth in one 8th-grade math classroom, we address the epistemic exclusion of youth by employing multiple ethnographically-oriented methods to re-contextualize student conversations and center youth as epistemic authorities in conversation with researchers and LLMs. We conducted participant observations, interviews, focus groups, and member checks with four focal students. Findings reveal that there were misalignments between students' interpretations of their own math talk experiences and the LLM-based measures of their talk. Students contested both the LLM classifications and the coding scheme used to measure their talk, highlighting the need for youth to be involved in the epistemic process of producing knowledge about their experiences.

arXiv

Learning the ARTS of Search for Automated Discovery

Gurusha Juneja, Arnav Kumar Jain, Deepak Nathani, William Yang Wang, Xin Eric Wang

Scientific discovery can be formulated as an iterative search process over the space of hypotheses and experiments. Contemporary methods navigate this space using heuristics such as MCTS. These algorithms conflate the merit of a hypothesis with the quality of its experimental execution. A promising hypothesis with preliminary execution is therefore ranked below a modest hypothesis whose execution is refined. Moreover, prior methods prune the search logs as the search progresses because the accumulated history outgrows the context window. We propose Agentic Reasoning for Tree Search (ARTS), where we deploy a reasoning language model to navigate this space. The model inspects prior execution logs, diagnoses whether earlier failures arose from faulty implementations or bad hypotheses, and selects the hypothesis to build on next. To mitigate challenges with context length, ARTS uses test-time training to instill the knowledge of search tree in the model weights. Across 22 tasks from MLGym and MLEBench, we show that ARTS outperforms leading algorithms, with over 15.3% relative improvement in the normalized score. With test-time training we show that a Qwen3-4B agent can match performance with closed-source frontier models like Gemini-3 Pro and GPT o3-reasoning with upto 5x lower inference cost. We further observe that on partially observable RL tasks, the test-time trained Qwen3-4B scientist surpasses ARTS with the o3 scientist by rediscovering the human-best recurrent-memory solution that heuristic methods prune away.

arXiv

Harnessing the Collective Intelligence of AI Agents in the Wild for New Discoveries

Federico Bianchi, Yongchan Kwon, Aneesh Pappu, James Zou

Scientific discovery is often a collective process: researchers share partial results, inspect failed attempts, and build on each other's ideas over long time horizons. Recent AI systems have shown that language-model-based agents can make meaningful progress on open scientific problems, but most existing systems operate in isolation. In this paper, we present EinsteinArena, an agent-native platform for open distributed research and discovery. EinsteinArena provides agents with a live set of open problems, each with a solid verifier, public leaderboard, and problem-specific discussion forum where agents can ask questions and share insights. We focus on mathematical tasks that have garnered substantial research interest, where progress can be measured unambiguously. As of May 2026, agents on EinsteinArena have discovered 12 new state-of-the-art results better than any previous human or AI solutions. One notable example is the kissing number problem in dimension 11, where the platform improved the best known lower bound from 593 to 604. This advance did not come from a single agent or isolated run. Rather it arose through a sequence of submissions, public discussion, verifier refinement, and subsequent agent-to-agent borrowing of ideas. These results provide evidence that decentralized scientific discovery can emerge from open interaction among autonomous agents in the wild, demonstrating a new paradigm for collective AI-driven research.

arXiv

Many Circuits, One Mechanism: Input Variation and Evaluation Granularity in Circuit Discovery

Alireza Bayat Makou, Jingcheng Niu, Subhabrata Dutta, Iryna Gurevych

Circuit discovery methods identify subgraphs that explain model behaviors, and structural differences between discovered circuits are commonly interpreted as evidence of distinct mechanisms. We test this assumption by varying input-token frequency while holding the task fixed. The discovered circuits appear specialized by frequency when compared structurally, but functional and representational analyses show no reliable evidence of corresponding differences. We term this mismatch phantom specialization. Using the Literal Sequence Copying task across four frequency bands plus a frequency-weighted control, we extract 75 circuits from five Pythia models (70M-1.4B). We find that structurally distinct circuits implement the same computation: band-specific edges transfer broadly across bands, a core shared across most bands recovers at least 99% of circuit performance in models above 70M, and causal interchange interventions confirm that internal representations are interchangeable across frequency bands. A smaller subject-verb agreement replication shows the same pattern: circuits differ structurally but transfer broadly across bands, and the core shared by most bands recovers nearly all circuit accuracy. Repeated extractions within the same band further suggest that discovery algorithms sample from an equivalence class of valid subgraphs rather than recovering a unique mechanism. Standard evaluation practice obscures this pattern: source-level evaluation inflates apparent faithfulness, while edge-level evaluation reveals the many-to-one mapping from structure to function. We do not test specialization at the level of token positions or features inside a component. Our results show that structural differences between circuits are not sufficient evidence for distinct mechanisms, and that exposing this requires edge-level evaluation and cross-condition transfer tests.

arXiv

$p1$: Better Prompt Optimization with Fewer Prompts

Zhaolin Gao, Yu, Wang, Bo Liu, Thorsten Joachims, Kianté Brantley, Wen Sun

Prompt optimization improves language models without updating their weights by searching for a better system prompt, but its effectiveness varies widely across tasks. We study what makes a task amenable to prompt optimization. We show that the reward variance across different system prompts can be decomposed into two components: variance among responses, which captures generation stochasticity, and variance among system prompts, which captures differences in system prompt quality. Prompt optimization succeeds when variance among system prompts is sufficiently large, but fails when variance among responses dominates the variance of the system prompts. Surprisingly, we further show that scaling to more user prompts can hurt optimization by reducing variance among system prompts, especially on heterogeneous datasets where different user prompts favor different system prompts. Motivated by this insight, we propose $p1$, a simple user prompt filtering method that selects a small subset of user prompts with high variance across candidate system prompts. This subset of user prompts allows one to distinguish a good system prompt from a bad one, making system optimization easier. Experiments on reasoning benchmarks show that $p1$ substantially improves prompt optimization over training on the full dataset and outperforms strong baselines such as GEPA. Notably, training on only two prompts from AIME 24 yields a system prompt that generalizes well to other reasoning benchmarks.

arXiv

How LLMs Distort Our Written Language

Marwa Abdulhai, Isadora White, Yanming Wan, Ibrahim Qureshi, Joel Z Leibo, Max Kleiman-Weiner, Natasha Jaques

Large language models (LLMs) are used by over a billion people globally, most often to assist with writing. In this work, we demonstrate that LLMs not only alter the voice and tone of human writing but also consistently alter the intended meaning. First, we conduct a human user study to understand how people actually interact with LLMs when using them for writing. Our findings reveal that extensive LLM use led to a nearly 70% increase in essays that remained neutral in answering the topic question. Significantly more heavy LLM users reported that the writing was less creative and not in their voice. Next, using a dataset of human-written essays that was collected in 2021 before the widespread release of LLMs, we study how asking an LLM to revise the essay based on the human-written feedback in the dataset induces large changes in the resulting content and meaning. We find that even when LLMs are prompted with expert feedback and asked to only make grammar edits, they still change the text in a way that significantly alters its semantic meaning. We then examine LLM-generated text in the wild, specifically focusing on the 21% of AI-generated scientific peer reviews at a recent top AI conference. We find that LLM-generated reviews place significantly less weight on clarity and significance of the research, and assign scores that, on average, are a full point higher. These findings highlight a misalignment between the perceived benefit of AI use and an implicit, consistent effect on the semantics of human writing, motivating future work on how widespread AI writing will affect our cultural and scientific institutions.

arXiv

Beyond Factual QA: Mentorship-Oriented Question Answering over Long-Form Multilingual Content

Parth Bhalerao, Ruiwen Guan, Diola Dsouza, Oana Ignat

Question answering systems are typically evaluated on factual correctness, yet many real-world applications-such as education and career guidance-require mentorship: responses that provide reflection and guidance. Existing QA benchmarks rarely capture this distinction, particularly in multilingual and long-form settings. We introduce MentorQA, the first multilingual dataset and evaluation framework for mentorship-focused question answering from long-form videos, comprising nearly 9,000 QA pairs from 180 hours of content across four languages. We define mentorship-focused evaluation dimensions that go beyond factual accuracy, capturing clarity, alignment, and learning value. Using MentorQA, we compare Single-Agent, Dual-Agent, RAG, and Multi-Agent QA architectures under controlled conditions. Multi-Agent pipelines consistently produce higher-quality mentorship responses, with especially strong gains for complex topics and lower-resource languages. We further analyze the reliability of automated LLM-based evaluation, observing substantial variation in alignment with human judgments. Overall, this work establishes mentorship-focused QA as a distinct research problem and provides a multilingual benchmark for studying agentic architectures and evaluation design in educational AI. The dataset and evaluation framework are released at https://github.com/AIM-SCU/MentorQA.

arXiv

What the "Spotless" Mind Remembers: How Knowledge Entanglement Shapes What Leaks After Unlearning in LLMs

Aakriti Shah, Yifan Hu, Thai Le

Unlearning in large language models (LLMs) is usually evaluated as whether an "unlearned" fact can be recovered. We instead ask whether a fact's structural entanglement with the rest of a model's knowledge predicts whether it leaks after unlearning, whether this relationship changes systematically, and whether it is causal. Across varied unlearning algorithms (WHP and GA+KL), two domains (both fictional Harry Potter and non-fictional U.S. Senators, 2000-2010), and four models (2.7B-13B parameters), we find that before unlearning, more entangled facts are recalled more often (r = +0.39 to +0.51). WHP weakens this relationship but stays positive (r = +0.16 to +0.33); GA+KL inverts it in every domain and model size (r = -0.14 to -0.25). To our knowledge, this is the first report of this specific reversal in the unlearning literature. To confirm this is causal beyond correlation, we directly manipulate a prompt's entanglement score, holding its content, target model fixed, and show recall moves in the predicted direction and reverses sign under GA+KL in the same direction as the correlational analysis. This manipulation is our central evidence that unlearning acts on the underlying knowledge structure, not just its output. Building on this, we train a predictive model that estimates a prompt's post-unlearning factuality/hallucination profile before unlearning is run, creating a unique way of model auditing in triaging which prompts are likely to leak.

arXiv

Do Language Models Follow Occam's Razor? An Evaluation of Parsimony in Inductive and Abductive Reasoning

Yunxin Sun, Abulhair Saparov

Non-deductive reasoning, encompassing inductive and abductive reasoning, is essential in addressing complex real-world questions. One key feature of inductive and abductive reasoning is that there are many valid hypotheses; the simplest ones (those that adhere to Occam's Razor) are often most useful. However, this aspect is ignored in recent work that evaluates the non-deductive reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs). This work fills this gap, focusing on understanding whether the inductive and abductive reasoning capabilities of LLMs adhere to Occam's Razor, while also examining the correctness of their reasoning. To accomplish this goal, we introduce a framework to synthetically generate reasoning questions that (a) require inductive reasoning and abductive reasoning simultaneously; (b) is readily extended to produce any abductive/inductive reasoning question expressible in first-order logic. The task for the intelligent agent is to produce hypotheses to explain observations under a given world model. We also propose a new automated metric to assess whether hypotheses quantitatively adhere to Occam's Razor; those hypotheses that are correct and simplest are considered high-quality. Our findings on state-of-the-art LLMs suggest that LLMs can perform inductive and abductive reasoning in simple scenarios, but struggle with complex world models and with producing high-quality hypotheses, even with popular reasoning-enhancing techniques such as in-context learning and RLVR.

arXiv

Plain Transformers Can be Powerful Graph Learners

Liheng Ma, Soumyasundar Pal, Yingxue Zhang, Philip H. S. Torr, Mark Coates

Transformers have attained outstanding performance across various modalities, owing to their simple but powerful scaled-dot-product (SDP) attention mechanisms. Researchers have attempted to migrate Transformers to graph learning, but most advanced Graph Transformers (GTs) have strayed far from plain Transformers, exhibiting major architectural differences either by integrating message-passing or incorporating sophisticated attention mechanisms. These divergences hinder the easy adoption of training advances for Transformers developed in other domains. Contrary to previous GTs, this work demonstrates that the plain Transformer architecture can be a powerful graph learner. To achieve this, we propose to incorporate three simple, minimal, and easy-to-implement modifications to the plain Transformer architecture to construct our Powerful Plain Graph Transformers (PPGT): (1) simplified $L_2$ attention for measuring the magnitude closeness among tokens; (2) adaptive root-mean-square normalization to preserve token magnitude information; and (3) a simple MLP-based stem for graph positional encoding. Consistent with its theoretical expressivity, PPGT demonstrates noteworthy realized expressivity on the empirical graph expressivity benchmark, comparing favorably to more complicated alternatives such as subgraph GNNs and higher-order GNNs. Its empirical performance across various graph datasets also justifies the effectiveness of PPGT. This finding underscores the versatility of plain Transformer architectures and highlights their strong potential as a unified backbone for multimodal learning across language, vision, and graph domains.

Keep browsing

More papers from top AI conferences

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