ICLR 2026 论文列表

Robot learning increasingly relies on simulation to advance complex ability such as dexterous manipulations and precise interactions, necessitating high-quality digital assets to bridge the sim-to-real gap. However, existing open-source articulated object datasets for simulation are limited by insufficient visual realism and low physical fidelity, which hinder their utility for training models mastering robotic tasks in real world. To address these challenges, we introduce ArtVIP, a comprehensive open-source dataset comprising high-quality digital-twin articulated objects, accompanied by indoor-scene assets.Crafted by professional 3D modelers adhering to unified standards, ArtVIP ensures visual realism through precise geometric meshes and high-resolution textures, and physical fidelity is achieved via fine-tuned dynamic parameters. Meanwhile, the dataset pioneers embedded modular interaction behaviors within assets and pixel-level affordance annotations. Feature-map visualization and optical motion capture are employed to quantitatively demonstrate ArtVIP's visual and physical fidelity, with its applicability validated across imitation learning and reinforcement learning experiments. Provided in USD format with detailed production guidelines, ArtVIP is fully open-source, benefiting the research community and advancing robot learning research.

Evaluating modern machine learning models has become prohibitively expensive. Benchmarks such as LMMs-Eval and HELM demand thousands of GPU hours per model. Costly evaluation reduces inclusivity, slows the cycle of innovation, and worsens environmental impact. To address the growing cost of standard evaluation, new methods focused on efficient evaluation have started to appear. The typical approach follows two steps. The typical approach follows two steps. First, select an anchor subset of data. Second, train a mapping from the accuracy on this subset to the final test result. The drawback is that anchor selection depends on clustering, which can be complex and sensitive to design choices. We argue that promoting diversity among samples is not essential; what matters is to select samples that *maximise diversity in model responses*. Our method, **Diversifying Sample Condensation** **(DISCO)**, selects the top-k samples with the greatest model disagreements. This uses greedy, sample-wise statistics rather than global clustering. The approach is conceptually simpler. From a theoretical view, inter-model disagreement provides an information-theoretically optimal rule for such greedy selection. **DISCO** shows empirical gains over prior methods, achieving state-of-the-art results in performance prediction across MMLU, Hellaswag, Winogrande, and ARC.

The tendency to find and exploit "shortcuts" to complete tasks poses significant risks for reliable assessment and deployment of large language models (LLMs). For example, an LLM agent with access to unit tests may delete failing tests rather than fix the underlying bug. Such behavior undermines both the validity of benchmark results and the reliability of real-world LLM coding assistant deployments. To quantify, study, and mitigate such behavior, we introduce ImpossibleBench, a benchmark framework that systematically measures LLM agents' propensity to exploit test cases. ImpossibleBench creates "impossible" variants of tasks from existing benchmarks like LiveCodeBench and SWE-bench by introducing direct conflicts between the natural-language specification and the unit tests. We measure an agent's "cheating rate" as its pass rate on these impossible tasks, where any pass necessarily implies a specification-violating shortcut. As a practical framework, ImpossibleBench is not just an evaluation but a versatile tool. We demonstrate its utility for: (1) studying model behaviors, revealing more fine-grained details of cheating behaviors from simple test modification to complex operator overloading; (2) context engineering, showing how prompt, test access and feedback loop affect cheating rates; and (3) developing monitoring tools, providing a testbed with verified deceptive solutions. We hope ImpossibleBench serves as a useful framework for building more robust and reliable LLM systems.

When language models are trained on textual data, they acquire both knowledge about the structure of language as well as knowledge of facts about the world. At inference time, their knowledge of facts can be leveraged to solve interesting problems and perform useful knowledge work for users. It is well known that language models can verbatim memorize long sequences from their training data. However, it is much less well understood how language models memorize facts seen during training. In this work, we propose a new dataset to specifically empower researchers to study the dual processes of fact memorization and verbatim sequence memorization. The dataset consists of synthetically-generated, webtext-like documents about fictional events, as well as question-answer pairs about the events. We conduct training experiments showing how synthetic data about fictional events can be effective in teasing apart different forms of memorization. We also document the challenges in effectively building realistic, fictional synthetic data.

Large language models (LLMs) perform strongly on many language tasks but still struggle with complex multi-step reasoning across disciplines. Existing reasoning datasets often lack disciplinary breadth, reasoning depth, and diversity, as well as guiding principles for question synthesis. We propose DESIGNER: a DESIGN-logic-guidEd Reasoning data synthesis pipeline that leverages naturally available, extensive raw documents to generate multidisciplinary questions. The central insight is the notion of Design Logic, a form of reusable meta-knowledge that encapsulates the structured process human experts use to transform knowledge into complex exam questions, enabling LLMs to generate new questions with the same complex reasoning patterns from entirely different source texts with explicit control over difficulty, diversity, and question types. We use LLMs to reverse-engineer and abstract over 120,000 Design Logics from existing questions across various disciplines. By designing a two-stage retrieve-and-generate mechanism to match these Design Logics with raw corpus, we synthesized two large-scale reasoning datasets that span 75 disciplines: DLR-Book (3.04 million questions from the book corpus) and DLR-Web (1.66 million questions from the web corpus). Data analysis indicates that the questions synthesized by our method exhibit greater difficulty and diversity compared to those in the baseline datasets. Supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on Qwen3 and Llama3 with our data substantially improves multidisciplinary reasoning and outperforms baseline datasets. Notably, by applying SFT on the base versions of these models using only our data, we even surpass their official final models that have undergone the full post-training.

Quantifying cell morphology using images and machine learning has proven to be a powerful tool to study the response of cells to treatments. However, the models used to quantify cellular morphology are typically trained with a single microscopy imaging type and under controlled experimental conditions. This results in specialized models that cannot be reused across biological studies because the technical specifications do not match (e.g., different number of channels), or because the target experimental conditions are out of distribution. Here, we present CHAMMI-75, a dataset of heterogeneous, multi-channel microscopy images with 2.8M multi-channel images from 75 diverse biological studies. We curated this resource from publicly available sources to investigate cellular morphology models that are channel-adaptive and can process any microscopy image type. Our experiments show that training with CHAMMI-75 can improve performance in multi-channel bioimaging tasks, opening the way to create the next generation of cellular morphology models for biological studies.

Formal models are essential to specifying large, complex computer systems and verifying their correctness, but are notoriously expensive to write and maintain. Recent advances in generative AI show promise in generating certain forms of specifications. However, existing work mostly targets small code, not complete systems. It is unclear whether AI can deal with realistic system artifacts, as this requires abstracting their complex behavioral properties into formal models. We present SysMoBench, a benchmark that evaluates AI's ability to formally model large, complex systems. We focus on concurrent and distributed systems, which are keystones of today's critical computing infrastructures, encompassing operating systems and cloud infrastructure. We use TLA+, the de facto specification language for concurrent and distributed systems, though the benchmark can be extended to other specification languages. We address the primary challenge of evaluating AI-generated models by automating metrics like syntactic and runtime correctness, conformance to system code, and invariant correctness. SysMoBench currently includes eleven diverse system artifacts: the Raft implementation of Etcd and Redis, the leader election of ZooKeeper, the Spinlock, Mutex and Ringbuffer in Asterinas OS, etc., with more being added. SysMoBench enables us to understand the capabilities and limitations of today's LLMs and agents, putting tools in this area on a firm footing and opening up promising new research directions.

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning has proven effective in enhancing large language models by encouraging step-by-step intermediate reasoning, and recent advances have extended this paradigm to Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs). In the medical domain, where diagnostic decisions depend on nuanced visual cues and sequential reasoning, CoT aligns naturally with clinical thinking processes. However, Current benchmarks for medical image understanding generally focus on the final answer while ignoring the reasoning path. An opaque process lacks reliable bases for judgment, making it difficult to assist doctors in diagnosis. To address this gap, we introduce a new M3CoTBench benchmark specifically designed to evaluate the correctness, efficiency, impact, and consistency of CoT reasoning in medical image understanding. M3CoTBench features (1) a diverse, multi-level difficulty dataset covering 24 examination types, (2) 13 varying-difficulty tasks, (3) a suite of CoT-specific evaluation metrics (correctness, efficiency, impact, and consistency) tailored to clinical reasoning, and (4) a performance analysis of multiple MLLMs. M3CoTBench systematically evaluates CoT reasoning across diverse medical imaging tasks, revealing current limitations of MLLMs in generating reliable and clinically interpretable reasoning, and aims to foster the development of transparent, trustworthy, and diagnostically accurate AI systems for healthcare.

We propose Sci2Pol-Bench and Sci2Pol-Corpus, the first benchmark and training dataset for evaluating and fine-tuning large language models (LLMs) on policy brief generation from a scientific paper. We build Sci2Pol-Bench on a five-stage taxonomy to mirror the human writing process: (i) Autocompletion, (ii) Understanding, (iii) Summarization, (iv) Generation, and (v) Verification. It features 18 tasks in multiple-choice and open-ended formats. Specifically, for the Generation stage, we show that BERTScore and ROUGE scores fail to capture the quality of brief writing, and introduce a new LLM-based evaluation metric aligned with expert judgement. Using this benchmark, we evaluate 13 leading open-source and commercial LLMs to uncover key limitations. To improve LLM performance on brief writing, we curate the Sci2Pol-Corpus for fine-tuning. We start by linking each cited scientific paper to its corresponding policy document, drawn from 5.6 million policy records. This produces 140,000 candidate pairs. We then employ an LLM-as-a-judge to filter high-quality examples, followed by in-context polishing using three expert-written samples as references. This process yields a final set of 639 new pairs. Finally, we fine-tune three models on Sci2Pol-Corpus: LLaMA-3.1-8B, Gemma-12B, and Gemma-27B. Fine-tuning leads to consistent performance improvements across Sci2Pol-Bench. Notably, after fine-tuning, Gemma-27B surpasses the much larger GPT-4o and DeepSeek-V3 (671B). These demonstrate the effectiveness of our corpus in bridging the gap between science and policy.

Modern large language models increasingly use smooth activation functions such as GELU or SiLU, allowing negative pre-activations to carry both signal and gradient. Nevertheless, many neuron-level interpretability analyses have historically focused on large positive activations, often implicitly treating the negative region as less informative, a carryover from the ReLU-era. We challenge this assumption and ask whether and how negative pre-activations are functionally utilized. We address this question by studying a sparse subpopulation of Wasserstein neurons whose output distributions deviate strongly from a Gaussian baseline and that functionally differentiate similar inputs. We show that this negative region plays a functional role rather than reflecting a mere gradient optimization side effect. A minimal, sign-specific intervention that zeroes only the negative pre-activations of a small set of Wasserstein neurons substantially increases perplexity and sharply degrades grammatical performance on BLiMP and TSE, whereas both random and perplexity-matched ablations of many more non-Wasserstein neurons in their negative pre-activations leave grammatical performance largely intact. Conversely, on a suite of non-grammatical benchmarks, the perplexity-matched control ablation is more damaging than the Wasserstein neuron ablation, yielding a double dissociation between syntax and other capabilities. Part-of-speech analysis localizes the excess surprisal to syntactic scaffolding tokens, layer-specific interventions show that small local degradations accumulate across depth, and training-dynamics analysis reveals that the same sign-specific ablation becomes more harmful as Wasserstein neurons emerge and stabilize. Together, these results identify negative pre-activations in a sparse subpopulation of Wasserstein neurons as an actively used substrate for syntax in smooth-activation language models.

Synthetic time series are vital for data augmentation, stress testing, and prototyping in quantitative finance. Yet in cryptocurrency markets, characterized by 24/7 trading, extreme volatility, and rapid regime shifts, existing Time Series Generation (TSG) methods and benchmarks often fall short, jeopardizing practical utility. Most prior work targets non-financial or traditional financial domains, focuses narrowly on classification and forecasting while neglecting crypto-specific complexities, and lacks critical financial evaluations, particularly for trading applications. To bridge these gaps, we introduce \textbf{CTBench}, the first \textbf{C}ryptocurrency \textbf{T}ime series generation \textbf{Bench}mark. It curates an open-source dataset of 452 tokens and evaluates models across 13 metrics spanning forecasting accuracy, rank fidelity, trading performance, risk assessment, and computational efficiency. A key innovation is a dual-task evaluation framework: the Predictive Utility measures how well synthetic data preserves temporal and cross-sectional patterns for forecasting, while the Statistical Arbitrage assesses whether reconstructed series support mean-reverting signals for trading. We systematically benchmark eight state-of-the-art models from five TSG families across four market regimes, revealing trade-offs between statistical quality and real-world profitability. Notably, CTBench provides ranking analysis and practical guidance for deploying TSG models in crypto analytics and trading applications. The source code is available at \url{https://anonymous.4open.science/r/CTBench-F5A3/}.

The growing volume of academic papers has made it increasingly difficult for researchers to efficiently extract key information. While large language models (LLMs) based agents are capable of automating question answering (QA) workflows for scientific papers, there still lacks a comprehensive and realistic benchmark to evaluate their capabilities. Moreover, training an interactive agent for this task is hindered by the shortage of high-quality interaction trajectories. In this work, we propose M4PQA, a human-annotated comprehensive paper QA dataset in the field of artificial intelligence, with 13,948 papers and 1,246 questions, that encompasses multi-task, multi-modal and instance-level evaluation. Furthermore, we propose ExTrActor, an automated framework for instruction data synthesis. With three LLM-based agents, ExTrActor can perform example generation and trajectory collection without human intervention. Evaluations of multiple open-source and proprietary models show that most models underperform on M4PQA, demonstrating its quality. Extensive experiments confirm that ExTrActor consistently improves the multi-turn tool-use capability of small models, enabling them to achieve performance comparable to larger ones.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to chemistry, tackling tasks such as molecular name conversion, captioning, text-guided generation, and property or reaction prediction. A molecule’s properties are fundamentally determined by its composition and structure, encoded in its molecular graph; thus, reasoning about molecular properties requires understanding and reasoning over the molecular structure. Yet, most existing benchmarks emphasize general chemical knowledge, rely on literature or surrogate labels that risk leakage or bias, or reduce evaluation to multiple-choice questions. We introduce MolecularIQ, a molecular structure reasoning benchmark focused exclusively on symbolically verifiable tasks. MolecularIQ spans three orthogonal axes — molecular complexity, multi-task load, and reasoning complexity — covering feature counting, index-based feature attributions, and constrained generation. MolecularIQ enables fine-grained evaluation of reasoning over molecular graphs and produces capability fingerprints that localize model failures to specific tasks and molecular regimes. This provides actionable insights into the strengths and limitations of current chemistry LLMs and guides the development of models that reason faithfully over molecular structure. On MolecularIQ, large MoE models with higher reasoning budgets lead across categories, while chemistry-tuned LLMs underperform their generalist bases, indicating limited transfer from narrow task fine-tuning.

Code evaluation and reinforcement learning rely critically on test cases. However, collecting golden test cases is hard and expensive, motivating the use of LLMs for automatic test case generation. This, in turn, raises a pivotal challenge: how can we rigorously evaluate the quality of the generated test cases? Existing benchmarks often evaluate the exclusion ratio on large, unstructured collections of wrong codes, leading to high computational costs and severe score inflation. Furthermore, they inadvertently reward generators that detect common, trivial bugs, while failing to penalize their inability to identify rare yet critical faults. In this work, we connect two fundamental questions: (1) What is the minimal set of wrong codes sufficient to represent the entire error space? and (2) What is the minimal set of test cases needed to distinguish them? We introduce a novel framework that formalizes benchmark construction as finding an optimal diagnostic basis in a binary code-test matrix, where rows represent wrong codes and columns represent test case results. The rank of this matrix plays a dual role. It specifies the minimal number of independent error patterns, which determines the size of wrong codes. It also provides a tight upper bound on the number of test cases required for complete fault coverage. Our objective is to identify a basis of size equal to the matrix rank that maximizes internal diversity, which is defined as the average pairwise Jaccard similarity of the codes' failure signatures (i.e., the matrix rows). To tackle this NP-hard problem, we propose WrongSelect, an efficient approximation algorithm combining pre-filtering and random-restart local search to select maximally diverse wrong codes. Applying this framework to millions of competitive programming submissions, we construct TC-Bench, a compact, diverse, and inflation-resistant benchmark. Extensive experiments show that even the most advanced test case generation methods achieve only ~60\% exclusion rates on TC-Bench, exposing a significant gap in their diagnostic power and highlighting substantial room for future improvement.

Standard benchmarks for optical flow, scene flow, and stereo vision algorithms generally focus on model accuracy rather than robustness to image corruptions like noise or rain. Hence, the resilience of models to such real-world perturbations is largely unquantified. To address this, we present RobustSpring, a comprehensive dataset and benchmark for evaluating robustness to image corruptions for optical flow, scene flow, and stereo models. RobustSpring applies 20 different image corruptions, including noise, blur, color changes, quality degradations, and weather distortions, in a time-, stereo-, and depth-consistent manner to the high-resolution Spring dataset, creating a suite of 20,000 corrupted images that reflect challenging conditions. RobustSpring enables comparisons of model robustness via a new corruption robustness metric. Integration with the Spring benchmark enables public two-axis evaluations of both accuracy and robustness. We benchmark a curated selection of initial models, observing that robustness varies widely by corruption type and experimentally show that evaluations on RobustSpring indicate real-world robustness. RobustSpring is a new computer vision benchmark that treats robustness as a first-class citizen to foster models that combine accuracy with resilience.

Existing methods typically address either aleatoric uncertainty due to measurement noise or epistemic uncertainty resulting from limited data, but not both in a balanced manner. We propose CLEAR, a calibration method with two distinct parameters, $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$, to combine the two uncertainty components and improve the conditional coverage of predictive intervals for regression tasks. CLEAR is compatible with any pair of aleatoric and epistemic estimators; we show how it can be used with (i) quantile regression for aleatoric uncertainty and (ii) ensembles drawn from the Predictability–Computability–Stability (PCS) framework for epistemic uncertainty. Across 17 diverse real-world datasets, CLEAR achieves an average improvement of 28.2\% and 17.4\% in the interval width compared to the two individually calibrated baselines while maintaining nominal coverage. Similar improvements are observed when applying CLEAR to Deep Ensembles (epistemic) and Simultaneous Quantile Regression (aleatoric). The benefits are especially evident in scenarios dominated by high aleatoric or epistemic uncertainty.

As large language models (LLMs) become increasingly integrated into daily life, there is growing demand for AI assistants that are not only reactive but also proactive and personalized. While recent advances have pushed forward proactivity and personalization individually, their combination remains underexplored. To bridge this gap, we introduce ProPerSim, a new task and simulation framework for developing assistants capable of making timely, personalized recommendations in realistic home scenarios. In our simulation environment, a user agent with a rich persona interacts with the assistant, providing ratings on how well each suggestion aligns with its preferences and context. The assistant’s goal is to use these ratings to learn and adapt to achieve higher scores over time. Built on ProPerSim, we propose ProPerAssistant, a retrieval-augmented, preference-aligned assistant that continually learns and adapts through user feedback. Experiments across 32 diverse personas show that ProPerAssistant adapts its strategy and steadily improves user satisfaction, highlighting the promise of uniting proactivity and personalization.

With the advent of DeepSeek-R1, a new wave of reinforcement learning (RL) methods has emerged that seem to unlock stronger mathematical reasoning. However, a closer look at the open-source ecosystem reveals a critical limitation: with sufficiently many draws (e.g., $\texttt{pass@1024}$), existing base models already solve nearly all questions on widely used math benchmarks such as MATH-500 and AIME 2024. This suggests that the RL fine-tuning methods prevalent in the LLM reasoning literature largely sharpen existing solution modes rather than discovering entirely new ones. Such sharpening stands in contrast to the broader promise of RL: to foster exploration and to acquire new skills. To move beyond this plateau, we introduce MATH-Beyond (MATH-B), a benchmark deliberately constructed to defeat common open-source models of up to 8B parameters even under large sampling budgets. Improving performance on our benchmark via RL requires methods that learn to reason in ways that go beyond base model capabilities in repeated sampling. Since the problems are drawn from subsets of DAPO-Math-17K and DeepScaleR datasets, they remain topically equivalent to standard high-school math. Validating our premise, RL fine-tuned models such as Nemotron-Research-Reasoning-Qwen-1.5B and DeepScaleR-1.5B-Preview perform poorly on MATH-B at $\texttt{pass@1024}$, showing how existing approaches fall short on tackling harder instances. We hope MATH-B will catalyze exploration-driven RL approaches that elicit deeper reasoning capabilities.

As AI systems progresses, we rely more on them to make decisions with us and for us. To ensure that such decisions are aligned with human values, it is imperative for us to understand not only what decisions they make but also how they come to those decisions. Reasoning language models, which provide both final responses and (partially transparent) intermediate thinking traces, present a timely opportunity to study AI procedural reasoning. Unlike math and code problems which often have objectively correct answers, moral dilemmas are an excellent testbed for process-focused evaluation because they allow for multiple defensible conclusions. To do so, we present MoReBench: 1,000 moral scenarios, each paired with a set of rubric criteria that experts consider essential to include (or avoid) when reasoning about the scenarios. MoReBench contains over 23 thousand criteria including identifying moral considerations, weighing trade-offs, and giving actionable recommendations to cover cases on AI advising humans moral decisions as well as making moral decisions autonomously. Separately, we curate MoReBench-Theory: 150 examples to test whether AI can reason under five major frameworks in normative ethics. Our results show that scaling laws and existing benchmarks on math, code, and scientific reasoning tasks (fail to) predict models' abilities to perform moral reasoning. Models also show partiality towards specific moral frameworks (e.g., Benthamite Act Utilitarianism and Kantian Deontology), which might be side effects of popular training paradigms. Together, these benchmarks advance process-focused reasoning evaluation towards safer and more transparent AI.