NeurIPS 2025 论文列表

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities, yet their extensive parameter scales pose significant challenges for practical deployment. Unstructured pruning has emerged as an effective model compression strategy with minimal performance loss, which introduces fine-grained sparsity for weight parameters. While existing methods employ a layer-wise pruning strategy to avoid the complexity of global pruning for billion-scale LLMs, they require appropriate sparsity allocation for the layer-wise pruning objectives and often lead to suboptimal solutions for the overall model. In this paper, we propose Lua-LLM ($\textbf{L}$earning $\textbf{u}$nstructured-sparsity $\textbf{a}$llocation in LLMs), a learning-based global pruning framework that explores the optimal unstructured sparsity allocation. Unlike existing pruning methods, which primarily focus on allocating per-layer sparsity, Lua-LLM achieves flexible allocation for both layer-wise and intra-layer sparsity. Furthermore, Lua-LLM leverages a soft Top-K operator to approximate the importance-based mask selection mechanism, enabling efficient binary mask learning. Experimental results on LLaMA and OPT families demonstrate significant performance improvements over existing methods.

Recent advances in reasoning techniques have substantially improved the performance of large language models (LLMs), raising expectations for their ability to provide accurate, truthful, and reliable information. However, emerging evidence suggests that iterative reasoning may foster belief entrenchment and confirmation bias, rather than enhancing truth-seeking behavior. In this study, we propose a systematic evaluation framework for *belief entrenchment* in LLM reasoning by leveraging the Martingale property from Bayesian statistics. This property implies that, under rational belief updating, the expected value of future beliefs should remain equal to the current belief, i.e., belief updates are unpredictable from the current belief. We propose the unsupervised, regression-based *Martingale Score* to measure violations of this property, which signal deviation from the Bayesian ability of updating on new evidence. In open-ended problem domains including event forecasting, value-laden questions, and academic paper review, we find such violations to be widespread across models and setups, where the current belief positively predicts future belief updates, a phenomenon which we term *belief entrenchment*. We identify the models, reasoning techniques, and domains more prone to belief entrenchment. Finally, we validate the Martingale Score by showing that it predicts ground-truth accuracy on problem domains where ground truth labels are available. This indicates that, while designed as an unsupervised metric that operates even in domains without access to ground truth, the Martingale Score is a useful proxy of the truth-seeking ability of a reasoning process.

The growing scale of evaluation tasks has led to the widespread adoption of automated evaluation using LLMs, a paradigm known as “LLM-as-a-judge”. However, improving its alignment with human preferences without complex prompts or fine-tuning remains challenging. Previous studies mainly optimize based on shallow outputs, overlooking rich cross-layer representations. In this work, motivated by preliminary findings that middle-to-upper layers encode semantically and task-relevant representations that are often more aligned with human judgments than the final layer, we propose LAGER, a post-hoc, plug-and-play framework for improving the alignment of LLM-as-a-Judge point-wise evaluations with human scores by leveraging internal representations. LAGER produces fine-grained judgment scores by aggregating cross-layer score-token logits and computing the expected score from a softmax-based distribution, while keeping the LLM backbone frozen and ensuring no impact on the inference process. LAGER fully leverages the complementary information across different layers, overcoming the limitations of relying solely on the final layer. We evaluate our method on the standard alignment benchmarks Flask, HelpSteer, and BIGGen using Spearman correlation, and find that LAGER achieves improvements of up to 7.5% over the best baseline across these benchmarks. Without reasoning steps, LAGER matches or outperforms reasoning-based methods. Experiments on downstream applications, such as data selection and emotional understanding, further show the generalization of LAGER.

Measuring parameter importance is crucial for understanding and optimizing large language models (LLMs). Existing work predominantly focuses on pruning or probing at neuron/feature levels without fully considering the cooperative behaviors of model parameters. In this paper, we introduce a novel approach--Model Shapley to quantify parameter importance based on the Shapley value, a principled method from cooperative game theory that captures both individual and synergistic contributions among parameters, via only one gradient backpropagation. We derive a scalable second-order approximation to compute Shapley values at the parameter level, leveraging blockwise Fisher information for tractability in large-scale settings. Our method enables fine-grained differentiation of parameter importance, facilitating targeted knowledge injection and model compression. Through mini-batch Monte Carlo updates and efficient approximation of the Hessian structure, we achieve robust Shapley-based attribution with only modest computational overhead. Experimental results indicate that this cooperative game perspective enhances interpretability, guides more effective parameter-specific fine-tuning and model compressing, and paves the way for continuous model improvement in various downstream tasks.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable proficiency in mainstream academic disciplines such as mathematics, physics, and computer science. However, human knowledge encompasses over 200 specialized disciplines, far exceeding the scope of existing benchmarks. The capabilities of LLMs in many of these specialized fields-particularly in light industry, agriculture, and service-oriented disciplines-remain inadequately evaluated. To address this gap, we present SuperGPQA, a comprehensive benchmark that evaluates graduate-level knowledge and reasoning capabilities across 285 disciplines. Our benchmark employs a novel Human-LLM collaborative filtering mechanism to eliminate trivial or ambiguous questions through iterative refinement based on both LLM responses and expert feedback. Our experimental results reveal significant room for improvement in the performance of current state-of-the-art LLMs across diverse knowledge domains (e.g., the reasoning-focused model Gemini-2.5-Pro achieved the highest accuracy of 63.56% on SuperGPQA), highlighting the considerable gap between current model capabilities and artificial general intelligence. Additionally, we present comprehensive insights from our management of a large-scale annotation process, involving over 80 expert annotators and an interactive Human-LLM collaborative system, offering valuable methodological guidance for future research initiatives of comparable scope.

Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate advanced reasoning abilities, enabling robots to understand natural language instructions and generate high-level plans with appropriate grounding. However, LLM hallucinations present a significant challenge, often leading to overconfident yet potentially misaligned or unsafe plans. While researchers have explored uncertainty estimation to improve the reliability of LLM-based planning, existing studies have not sufficiently differentiated between epistemic and intrinsic uncertainty, limiting the effectiveness of uncertainty estimation. In this paper, we present Combined Uncertainty estimation for Reliable Embodied planning (CURE), which decomposes the uncertainty into epistemic and intrinsic uncertainty, each estimated separately. Furthermore, epistemic uncertainty is subdivided into task clarity and task familiarity for more accurate evaluation. The overall uncertainty assessments are obtained using random network distillation and multi-layer perceptron regression heads driven by LLM features. We validated our approach in two distinct experimental settings: kitchen manipulation and tabletop rearrangement experiments. The results show that, compared to existing methods, our approach yields uncertainty estimates that are more closely aligned with the actual execution outcomes. The code is at https://github.com/Firesuiry/CURE.

Gated Linear Units (GLUs) have become essential components in the feed-forward networks of state-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs). However, they require twice as many memory reads compared to feed-forward layers without gating, due to the use of separate weight matrices for the gate and value streams. To address this bottleneck, we introduce Masked Gated Linear Units (MGLUs), a novel family of GLUs with an efficient kernel implementation. The core contribution of MGLUs include: (1) the Mixture of Element-wise Gating (MoEG) architecture that learns multiple binary masks, each determining gate or value assignments at the element level on a single shared weight matrix resulting in reduced memory transfer, and (2) FlashMGLU, a hardware-friendly kernel that yields up to a 19.7$\times$ inference-time speed-up over a na\"ive PyTorch MGLU and is 47\% more memory-efficient and 34\% faster than standard GLUs despite added architectural complexity on an RTX5090 GPU. In LLM experiments, the Swish-activated variant SwiMGLU preserves its memory advantages while matching—or even surpassing—the downstream accuracy of the SwiGLU baseline.

Measuring progress is fundamental to the advancement of any scientific field. As benchmarks play an increasingly central role, they also grow more susceptible to distortion. Chatbot Arena has emerged as the go-to leaderboard for ranking the most capable AI systems. Yet, in this work we identify systematic issues that have resulted in a distorted playing field. We find that undisclosed private testing practices benefit a handful of providers who are able to test multiple variants before public release and retract scores if desired. We establish that the ability of these providers to choose the best score leads to biased Arena scores due to selective disclosure of performance results. At an extreme, we found one provider testing 27 private variants before making one model public at the second position on the leaderboard. We also establish that proprietary closed models are sampled at higher rates (number of battles) and have fewer models removed from the arena than open-weight and open-source alternatives. Both these policies lead to large data access asymmetries over time. The top two providers have individually received an estimated 19.2% and 20.4% of all data on the arena. In contrast, a combined 83 open-weight models have only received an estimated 29.7% of the total data. With conservative estimates, we show that access to Chatbot Arena data yields substantial benefits; even limited additional data can result in relative performance gains of up to 112% on ArenaHard, a test set from the arena distribution. Together, these dynamics result in overfitting to Arena-specific dynamics rather than general model quality. The Arena builds on the substantial efforts of both the organizers and an open community that maintains this valuable evaluation platform. We offer actionable recommendations to reform the Chatbot Arena's evaluation framework and promote fairer, more transparent benchmarking for the field.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have enabled automated dataset labeling with minimal human supervision. While majority voting across multiple LLMs can improve label reliability by mitigating individual model biases, it incurs high computational costs due to repeated querying. In this work, we propose a novel online framework, Cost-aware Majority Voting (CaMVo), for efficient and accurate LLM-based dataset annotation. CaMVo adaptively selects a subset of LLMs for each data instance based on contextual embeddings, balancing confidence and cost without requiring pre-training or ground-truth labels. Leveraging a LinUCB-based selection mechanism and a Bayesian estimator over confidence scores, CaMVo estimates a lower bound on labeling accuracy for each LLM and aggregates responses through weighted majority voting. Our empirical evaluation on the MMLU and IMDB Movie Review datasets demonstrates that CaMVo achieves comparable or superior accuracy to full majority voting while significantly reducing labeling costs. This establishes CaMVo as a practical and robust solution for cost-efficient annotation in dynamic labeling environments.

LLM serving systems typically treat user prompts as monolithic inputs, optimizing inference through decoding tricks or inter-query batching. However, many real-world prompts contain *latent semantic parallelism*—decomposable structures where subtasks can be executed independently to reduce latency while preserving meaning. We introduce PARALLELPROMPT, the first benchmark for measuring intra-query parallelism in natural user prompts. Our dataset comprises over 37,000 real-world prompts from public LLM chat logs, each annotated with a structured schema capturing task templates, shared context, and iteration inputs. These schemas are extracted using LLM-assisted prompting with rule-based multilingual validation. To evaluate the benefits of decomposition, we provide an execution suite that benchmarks serial vs. parallel strategies, measuring latency, structural adherence, and semantic fidelity. Our results show that intra-query parallelism can be successfully parsed in over 75\% of curated datasets, unlocking up to *$5\times$ speedups* on tasks like translation, comprehension, and comparative analysis, with minimal quality degradation. By releasing this benchmark, curation pipeline, and evaluation suite, we provide the first standardized testbed for studying structure-aware execution in LLM serving pipelines.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in learning algorithms, evaluations, and optimization tasks. Recent studies have shown that using LLM-based optimizers to automatically optimize model prompts, demonstrations, predictions themselves, or other components can significantly enhance the performance of AI systems, as demonstrated by frameworks such as DSPy and TextGrad. However, optimizers built on language models themselves are usually designed by humans with manual design choices; optimizers themselves are not optimized. Moreover, these optimizers are general purpose by design, to be useful to a broad audience, and are not tailored for specific tasks. To address these challenges, we propose metaTextGrad, which focuses on designing a meta-optimizer to further enhance existing optimizers and align them to be good optimizers for a given task. Our approach consists of two key components: a meta prompt optimizer and a meta structure optimizer. The combination of these two significantly improves performance across multiple benchmarks, achieving an average absolute performance improvement of up to 6% compared to the best baseline.

LLMs have emerged as powerful evaluators in the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm, offering significant efficiency and flexibility compared to human judgments. However, previous methods primarily rely on single-point evaluations, overlooking the inherent diversity and uncertainty in human evaluations. This approach leads to information loss and decreases the reliability of evaluations. To address this limitation, we propose a novel training framework that explicitly aligns the LLM-generated judgment distribution with human evaluation distributions. Specifically, we propose a distributional alignment objective based on KL divergence, combined with an auxiliary cross-entropy regularization to stabilize the training process. Furthermore, due to limited human annotations, empirical human distributions are merely noisy estimates of the true underlying distribution. We therefore incorporate adversarial training to ensure a robust alignment with this true distribution, rather than overfitting to its imperfect approximation. Extensive experiments across various LLM backbones and evaluation tasks demonstrate that our framework significantly outperforms existing closed-source LLMs and conventional single-point alignment methods, with superior alignment quality, strong robustness, and competitive evaluation accuracy.