Multi-agent debate (MAD) improves the reasoning capabilities of large language models by having multiple agents iteratively refine their responses through discussion. However, MAD suffers from a critical vulnerability known as shared misconception: when a majority of agents initially converge on an incorrect answer, the debate process tends to amplify rather than correct the error. Existing methods primarily address peer skew but leave the agents' inherently biased concept priors unaddressed. To mitigate this systematic weakness, we propose R$^2$-MAD (Remember and Reweight for Multi-Agent Debate), a framework that equips agents with an experience memory accumulated from past debates. R$^2$-MAD intervenes on both failure modes through two complementary mechanisms: A debate-state-aware retrieval policy dynamically calibrates the concept prior by retrieving relevant historical evidence based on the current consensus level. Then these retrieved experiences provide a basis for estimating per-agent reliability, yielding confidence weights to modulate peer influence. Experiments on various benchmarks show that R$^2$-MAD achieves consistent improvements over existing single-agent and MAD baselines.
Reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards (RLVR) drives chain-of-thought reasoning in large language models, yet its binary outcome reward cannot distinguish among correct trajectories. Existing dense reward alternatives, from surface heuristics to process reward models, either ignore the expert solutions already present in training corpora or require expensive offline annotation. We propose Gradient-Aligned Reward (GAR), which operates in the policy's own gradient space: truncated backpropagation through the output projection layer extracts a compact gradient vector for each rollout, and cosine similarity with an expert-anchor gradient yields a dense, reasoning-aware reward with less than 9% wall-clock overhead. We prove that this cosine admits a multiplicative decomposition into prediction-error and activation-pattern factors, providing a concrete characterization of what the alignment signal measures. On Qwen3-4B and Qwen3-8B, GAR consistently improves over GRPO and other baselines on competition-level math benchmarks and transfers to GPQA Diamond and MMLU-Pro without domain-specific data. Code and data are available at https://github.com/LQgdwind/GAR.
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) improves large language model reasoning, but its practical scaling is constrained by expensive on-policy rollouts and the cost of obtaining reliable targets at scale. Existing methods address sample selection, incomplete supervision, or noisy labels separately, often entangling supervision logic with distributed training and hindering controlled comparison and reuse. We present DE-Venus, a unified framework for data-efficient RLVR that treats supervision as evolving state across data preparation and policy optimization. It organizes this lifecycle into three modules: Active Data Selection allocates training and annotation budgets; Weak Supervision Construction derives learning signals from unlabeled examples; and Training-Time Supervision Refinement filters or corrects unreliable supervision. DE-Venus supports seven representative methods and a data-selection pipeline by expressing method-specific decisions as offline dataset transitions or online transformations of targets, rewards, batches, and advantages while preserving verl's distributed execution contracts. Across public benchmarks and three business scenarios, separate configurations preserve or improve model quality with only 10% of labels or as little as 13% of relevant data; selected business configurations also reduce observed convergence steps by 63%--75%. DE-Venus thus reduces annotation and training costs without sacrificing scalable RL execution.
Ucchwas Talukder Utsha, Sakib Mostafa, James Zou +1cs.LG
Networks describe systems in biology and beyond, from protein interactions and social relationships to power grids and citation records. Reasoning about such systems requires understanding their structure: which elements are central, which connections bridge separate communities, and how it changes when elements are removed. Although large language models (LLMs) excel at natural language, they struggle with such questions when networks are given as edge lists, sentences or measurement tables, because their structural meaning must be inferred. Here we introduce BioGlyph, which compiles network topology into an interpretable and transferable language of structural roles. BioGlyph combines graph partitioning and structural measurements to identify roles such as hubs, community cores and cross-community connectors, and fixed rules to translate them into a universal vocabulary. The representation describes each element through its structural role, supporting evidence and semantic consequences, leaving both the network and the LLM unchanged. Across twenty networks spanning five domains, BioGlyph substantially improves open LLMs' ability to answer structural reasoning questions, outperforming edge-based, numerical and learned representations by up to 26 percentage points in system accuracy. Ablations show that the gain comes from explicitly encoding structural roles in semantically interpretable terms. The gain is more prominent in dense, community-structured networks and diminishes in sparse networks whose topology is more readily inferred from text. In a budding-yeast protein-interaction network, BioGlyph exposes biological organization: cross-community connectors are enriched for essential genes, whereas peripheral proteins are depleted. BioGlyph thus provides an interpretable representation for both language models and scientists to reason about network structure.
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has emerged as a powerful paradigm for large language model (LLM) post-training, but its reliance on coarse outcome rewards leads to limited guidance on intermediate reasoning processes. Existing approaches such as process reward modeling and on-policy distillation introduce additional constraints, such as reliance on a specialized reward model or assuming identical reasoning patterns between teacher and student. Nevertheless, we observe that once a reasoning process first goes wrong, evaluating the subsequent reasoning provides limited additional information, as it is already conditioned on an invalid prefix. Therefore, we propose Cliff, a reward shaping strategy that utilizes an off-the-shelf LLM as a teacher to identify the first mistake in each rollout. As a result, the rollout is naturally decomposed into two parts: a correct prefix and an incorrect suffix. Cliff then converts this signal into token-level advantages, assigning positive advantages for the correct prefix and negative feedback afterward. Experiments across 12 different scenarios demonstrate that Cliff consistently improves reasoning performance, outperforming on-policy distillation by 15% and standard GRPO by 7%, even with teachers of modest capability. Furthermore, we analyse the role of ``ground truth'' in Cliff and investigate its training dynamics. These results establish Cliff as a simple, general and effective approach for improving RLVR with richer, fine-grained supervision.
Francisco Galuppo Azevedo, Clarissa Lima Lourescs.LG
Injecting frozen relational-encoder embeddings as soft tokens into a large language model (LLM) is a conceptually appealing fusion strategy: the encoder handles multi-table structure, the LLM handles language and reasoning, and no lossy text serialization is required. We test this hypothesis concretely by injecting embeddings from a frozen Relational Transformer (RT) into Qwen3.5-4B via a learned MLP projection and LoRA adaptation, trained first with supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on chain-of-thought reasoning traces and then with group-based reinforcement learning (GSPO). We evaluate across 10 binary classification tasks on 6 relational databases from RelBench, under four supervision regimes: single-task (ST), within-dataset (WD), cross-dataset (CD), and all-task (ALL). The hybrid model does not consistently outperform standalone RT: it is frequently below random, highly sensitive to serialization format and relational-token budget, and unstable under RL training. We report these negative results and analyze the failure modes, arguing that soft-token fusion requires stronger alignment objectives and schema-aware design before it can serve as a reliable route to relational prediction.
Path-finding over knowledge graphs has become an effective way to ground LLM reasoning on multi-hop questions. However, biomedical QA introduces two distinct challenges that general-domain methods are not designed for: (i) queries do not expose intermediate reasoning and can be answered through multiple valid pathways, and (ii) biomedical knowledge graphs are densely connected, so path-finding methods easily take wrong turns. To address these challenges, we propose AdaPath, a path-finding framework that retrieves query-adaptive meta-paths from Path-Bank, which captures both query semantics and biomedical knowledge graph structure. AdaPath provides the missing cues in biomedical queries while effectively pruning dense knowledge graph neighborhoods during multi-hop reasoning. We further release BioStrat-QA, a biomedical KGQA benchmark that stratifies multi-hop queries by how much intermediate reasoning they expose. Across biomedical KGQA benchmarks, AdaPath consistently outperforms baselines, sustaining meaningful path-finding even when multi-hop queries expose less surface information. The source code is available at https://github.com/Jun-Hyeong-Kim/AdaPath.
Large language models (LLMs) achieve strong reasoning performance, which depends critically on inference-time decisions. Yet these decisions are commonly handled by static, one-size-fits-all policies, limiting adaptation to diverse tasks and reasoning stages. Recent adaptive methods partially address this limitation, but they primarily adapt either decoding stochasticity (how the model explores) or reasoning compute (how long the model reasons) in isolation, leaving their interaction within a single reasoning trajectory unmodeled. To address this challenge, we shift toward a within-trajectory joint control view, and instantiate it in AutoCRAT, a decoder-side controller for frozen backbones. Using only signals available during decoding, AutoCRAT jointly adjusts sampling stochasticity and reasoning budget during generation. AutoCRAT operates over a discrete action space and updates control decisions only at semantic boundaries, improving stability while remaining responsive to the evolving reasoning process. Comprehensive evaluation across 6 benchmarks demonstrates that AutoCRAT (I) uses 13.8-52.7% fewer inference tokens on average than recommended static configurations, (II) surpasses recommended static and adaptive baselines by 1.5-4.5% in relative accuracy, and (III) enjoys strong cross-backbone transferability.
Large language models (LLMs) often produce fluent but weakly grounded conclusions when reasoning over non-interactive, long-form narratives. A central failure mode is that unsupported intermediate hypotheses can enter the reasoning trajectory and contaminate subsequent inference, especially when evidence is scattered across distant parts of the story. To address this problem, we propose EVAR, an evidence-validated hypothesis admission framework for budget-aware narrative reasoning. EVAR first compiles the narrative into an immutable evidence store of source-linked atomic claims and assigns an instance-specific inference budget from unresolved gaps and uncertainty signals. During refinement, EVAR directly proposes candidate hypotheses for unresolved gaps, constructs hypothesis-conditioned validation challenges, and verifies each candidate against the locked store before admission: supported hypotheses enter the answer-supporting state, unverifiable ones are quarantined, and contradictory ones are discarded. A sufficiency-based stopping mechanism further avoids unnecessary refinement. Experiments on NarraCrime and multiple public reasoning benchmarks show that EVAR improves both task performance and evidence faithfulness while maintaining controllable inference cost.
Post training a language model to reason means updating its weights. Supervised finetuning and reinforcement learning both place the acquired capability inside the model where it cannot be inspected cannot be checked step by step and cannot be moved to another model. We argue that for tasks whose intermediate steps admit verification, reasoning is better placed outside the base models weights as an explicit program composed from deterministic and neural primitives. We introduce PLVR (Program Learning with Verifiable Rewards): a post training method that learns such programs directly from input-output examples. Its mechanism is symbolic backpropagation: each program layer carries a typed ontology a loss is computed at the output against ground truth and required input ontologies are propagated backward by type inference over primitive signatures: an analogue of the chain rule in which credit assignment is a derivation rather than an estimate. Where RLVR verifies a terminal outcome, PLVRs reward is a per step contract verdict dense over program structure. On LiveCodeBench v6 and Tau2Bench, 30B base models with PLVR outperform RL at matched budget by 27.8 points on average and frontier models an order of magnitude larger by 13.6 points. A single primitive library serves two benchmarks, so the marginal cost of a new task is 100 examples of program search and no new finetuning data. Replacing the loss guided search with uniform sampling over the same type admissible space at equal budget collapses the median program from 65.6 to 17.5, identifying the backward pass rather than the type system as the source of the advantage. We release the symbolic backpropagation library and a conformance checker so the method can be applied to primitive libraries other than our own.
The ever-expanding volume of the chemical literature offers unprecedented opportunities to generate novel and impactful hypotheses. However, the bottleneck lies in efficiently navigating this vast knowledge base to formulate high-quality, experimentally meaningful insights. While Large Language Models (LLMs) show promise for this task, existing methods often rely on static inspiration corpora, predefined heuristics, or laborious human-in-the-loop pipelines and decision-support frameworks that limit scalability and novelty. In this work, we propose an automated approach, a Memory-augmented, Adaptive, Incremental, and Literature-grounded (MAIL) framework for hypothesis generation in chemistry. Our MAIL method formulates hypothesis generation as a temporally grounded, memory-driven reasoning process, where hypotheses emerge from an evolving conceptual path that continuously accumulates and reinterprets prior knowledge. We evaluated the MAIL framework on a public TOMATO-Chem dataset and a newly curated and disseminated high-novelty nature/science challenge (HN-NS) dataset. Across both datasets, MAIL generates structurally coherent and mechanistically plausible hypotheses, achieves the highest MIOS and MPOS by more effectively recovering the central ideas and methodological elements of the historical target hypotheses, and obtains the highest overall expert-evaluation scores for scientific quality. These results demonstrate the potential of LLMs to autonomously explore chemical domains and generate hypotheses that are both innovative and chemically plausible.
Test-time scaling improves language-model reasoning by generating additional candidate solutions, but allocating the same inference budget to every problem is computationally wasteful. Existing adaptive stopping methods commonly rely on confidence, agreement, or answer stability, implicitly assuming that stronger current evidence indicates that further computation is unnecessary. We show that this assumption can fail: checkpoint-level correctness evolves non-monotonically, and observable evidence may strengthen before an answer collapses or weaken before it recovers. Motivated by this mismatch, we introduce Adaptive Evidence Residual Allocation (AERA), a sequential controller that learns whether additional computation is likely to recover a better answer from checkpoint-observable evidence. AERA characterizes cumulative response prefixes using answer-distribution, temporal, re-solving, semantic, and compute features, and repeatedly decides whether to stop or allocate the next response block. Future checkpoint correctness is used only to construct offline supervision and is never available to the controller at inference time. Across GSM8K and GPQA Diamond, AERA identifies question-specific residual opportunities while substantially reducing inference computation. In a frozen-threshold incremental-generation evaluation on 300 untouched GSM8K questions, AERA achieves 92.61% accuracy versus 93.01% with 128 responses while reducing completion tokens by 95.99%. These results suggest that adaptive reasoning should estimate the future value of computation rather than equating present confidence with correctness.
Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) significantly improves LLM reasoning but often causes a drop in policy entropy, leading to narrowed reasoning coverage and degraded pass@$k$ for large $k$. While existing methods mitigate this entropy collapse through algorithmic regularizations, cross-model non-parametric perturbation is also neglected. In this work, we propose a simple yet effective approach to preserve the generative diversity of LLMs during RLVR. Instead of relying solely on internal exploration, we force the target model to generate answers based on partial reasoning trajectories generated by a smaller, weaker language models. These unfamiliar prefixes effectively disrupt over-confidence and encourage the exploration of distinct reasoning paths. We empirically study the potential of outer prefixes, revealing the mechanism of the impact of distributional discrepancy to the exploration dynamics in RLVR training. Experiments across multiple mathematical benchmarks show that our method consistently outperforms vanilla RLVR. Notably, the performance gain becomes increasingly pronounced as $k$ scales up, demonstrating a substantial expansion of reasoning coverage. Furthermore, our approach efficiently mitigates entropy collapse without requiring additional SFT, intricate reward designs, or complex prompting.
Evolution Strategies (ES) have recently emerged as a memory-efficient post-training paradigm for LLM reasoning. However, the optimization behavior of ES remains understudied, making it hard to define its advantage scope compared to mainstream post-training paradigms (e.g., Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO)). By systematically investigating ES dynamics and mechanisms, this paper first identifies a performance advantage of ES over GRPO, theoretically and empirically showing that ES can lead to broader reasoning coverage, thereby better exploiting the reasoning capabilities of pretrained LLMs. Theoretically, we show that verifier-projected Jensen-Shannon diversity across the ES population is helpful to higher Pass@K performances. Empirically, unlike GRPO, which exhibits entropy collapse, ES improves Pass@1 while attaining higher Pass@K than GRPO. We further develop a sequential GRPO-ES training strategy that combines GRPO's strength in Pass@1 with ES's gains in Pass@K. Second, we find that despite substantial whole-model parameter drift, the task-performance gains of ES are only contributed to a sparse subset of larger-magnitude updates. This functional sparsity suggests that large parameter movement need not imply widespread functional change, and held-out evaluations further show that it does not necessarily lead to catastrophic forgetting. Finally, we study how hyperparameter design affects the effectiveness of ES, demonstrating that ES requires a smaller population size in a larger LLM. These findings position ES as a distinct reasoning post-training paradigm rather than a less effective, memory-efficient alternative to GRPO.
Correcting flawed reasoning traces remains a significant challenge for Large Language Models (LLMs), whose autoregressive generation can propagate early mistakes into subsequent reasoning. We introduce DCGC, a Masked Diffusion Model (MDM) framework for global correction that uses an imperfect solution draft from an upstream solver as auxiliary context. DCGC combines task-specific Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) with a novel inference-time mechanism called Dynamic Dual-CFG. This mechanism separates problem-only and joint problem-draft branches and scales the draft-conditioned residual using a relative confidence gap. Across math, code, and knowledge reasoning benchmarks, DCGC outperforms standard sampling and simpler CFG variants, with additional results suggesting transfer to different diffusion backbones. In test-time setting where ground-truth failure labels are unavailable, DCGC improves full test set accuracy by correcting low-consensus upstream outputs, highlighting its utility as a verifier-free global correction module for difficult reasoning instances.
Scaling test-time reasoning has substantially improved the problem-solving ability of large language models (LLMs), but standard autoregressive decoding still executes long reasoning traces sequentially, creating severe latency for difficult tasks (up to days and weeks). Parallel reasoning offers a natural remedy. However, prior systems primarily focus on Subtask Parallelism, where the model learns to decompose a high-level task into smaller chunks that can be solved independently. This approach overlooks another pervasive form of parallelism: Trial Parallelism, where multiple speculative attempts explore, verify, and aggregate competing hypotheses in parallel. In this paper, we introduce Parason, which reveals and learns both forms of parallelism in LLM reasoning. Our analysis identifies Trial Parallelism as the majority of parallelizable reasoning computation (65.5% in DeepSeek-V4's reasoning steps in HLE), and it becomes increasingly dominant on hard problems. Guided by this taxonomy, Parason converts sequential reasoning traces into structured parallel trajectories with a context-free grammar, then trains models with Parallelism-Aware Group Relative Policy Optimization (PA-GRPO), whose reward jointly balances accuracy, latency, and the two parallelism ratios. At inference time, Parason executes the learned parallel structure through tool calls, translating theoretical savings to real-world wall-clock acceleration. Experiments on mathematical reasoning benchmarks including AIME24 and AIME25 show that Parason achieves an average acceleration about 1.7$\times$ while maintaining competitive accuracy.
Large language models (LLMs) hallucinate numerical values when generating high-stakes meteorological text, posing risks for weather communication. We present AFDBench, an AI meteorologist that generates professional Area Forecast Discussions (AFDs) by reasoning through structured AI weather forecast data from Google's WeatherNext 2. We introduce AFDBench, the first benchmark for evaluating generative meteorological reasoning, comprising 7,732 expert written discussions from 13 National Weather Service (NWS) offices paired with real AI weather forecast inputs, and three complementary metrics: Met-Align (numerical accuracy), Style-Align (professional dialect adherence), and Input-Grounding (fidelity to source weather data). Zero-shot evaluations reveal that open-source LLMs achieve low Style-Align (~0.33) and moderate Input-Grounding (~0.88), failing to write in the professional NWS register or faithfully use their input data. We apply Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) with domain-specific rewards targeting temperature accuracy, synoptic correctness, and format compliance. On 1,033 held-out samples from two unseen NWS offices, GRPO nearly doubles Style-Align from 0.318 to 0.619 and improves Input-Grounding from 0.881 to 0.940, demonstrating that reinforcement learning teaches a 7B-parameter model to write like a professional meteorologist and faithfully interpret AI weather data.
Penghui Qi, Xiangxin Zhou, Wee Sun Leecs.LG cs.AI cs.CL
Group-based reinforcement learning methods such as GRPO for large language models avoid training a critic by sampling multiple responses for each prompt. A reliable critic could instead estimate token-level advantages from one response, but standard critic-based training recipes are often unstable. We study this instability and develop \textbf{Best-Practice Critic Optimization (BPCO)}, a recipe that combines DPPO, value predictions bounded to the reward range, Monte Carlo value targets, unnormalized policy advantages, and length-adaptive generalized advantage estimation. Because the critic is used only during training, BPCO can also condition it on reward-defining information, such as a reference answer or grading rubric, that is hidden from the policy. Controlled experiments isolate the effect of each design choice. Across mathematical reasoning tasks with models ranging from 1.5B parameters to 30B-A3B mixtures of experts, BPCO improves a strong critic-based baseline consistently, and matches or exceeds a group-based baseline while sampling one response per prompt. The same recipe also improves learning with rubric-based rewards. These results show that a carefully designed critic provides a reliable alternative to group-relative advantage estimation. Code is available at https://github.com/QPHutu/golden_critic
Large Language Models (LLMs) recognise patterns but do not natively track the path of exclusions that a coherent discourse demands. When an input rests on a fabricated authority, a misapplied mechanism, or a surreptitious analogy, an unsteered LLM tends to engage with it as if it were grounded, and to reify the misstep into any structured output it generates. Logic-Augmented Generation (LAG) with POLANYI++, an LLM-steering method that uses heuristics, ontologies and problem solving methods for tacit knowledge extraction, produces an Extended Knowledge Graph (XKG) in OWL2, but inherits the same vulnerability: a sophisticated nonsensical input is reified into the graph alongside the legitimate triples, and is hardly detectable by automated reasoners since the XKG is generated jointly with the wrong assumptions. We introduce DARKSIDE, a coherence auditing method on top of POLANYI++. It formalises the trail as an explicit data structure of accumulated exclusions over discourse time, complemented by a warrant axis that classifies each named referent as Warranted, Unattested, Misattributed or Fabricated, with an escalation rule that pushes the DelegationRiskAssessment to UNSAFE when the fabricated rate is positive or the unsupported rate exceeds a threshold. We evaluate DARKSIDE as a steering layer over a Gemini 3 on BSBench, a 100-item adversarial corpus of sophisticated-sounding nonsense across software engineering, finance, healthcare, physics and law, with Claude Sonnet 4.6 as an independent judge. The empirical evidence supports an architectural claim: when an LLM forward pass is wrapped in an ontology-mediated negative-trail apparatus, the structural pattern-vs-path gap can be partially scaffolded. The XKG functions as the missing memory, and the warrant axis as an epistemic firewall.
Background: Automating clinical guideline-based decision-making with large language models (LLMs) remains challenging because of reliability, hallucination, and limited interpretability. We compared the performance of LLMs and reasoning strategies for automated Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) classification from free-text pelvic ultrasound reports. Methods: In this retrospective study, consecutive patients with ovarian masses who underwent pelvic ultrasound were included. Eight LLMs were tested with three reasoning strategies: implicit-knowledge end-to-end, rule-informed end-to-end, and a feature-based hybrid architecture that decoupled feature extraction from rule-based classification. The reference standard was O-RADS categorization established by expert consensus. Results: A total of 310 women with 390 ovarian masses were evaluated. The feature-based hybrid architecture using Gemini 3.6 Flash demonstrated the best performance, achieving an accuracy of 99.2% (387 of 390) and almost perfect agreement with the reference standard (weighted kappa = 1.00; 95% CI: 0.99-1.00). Its performance surpassed that of original clinical reports (accuracy, 87.7% [342 of 390]; weighted kappa = 0.94; 95% CI: 0.91-0.96) and end-to-end LLM strategies (accuracy range, 65.6% [256 of 390] to 95.9% [374 of 390]). For structured feature extraction, Gemini 3.6 Flash demonstrated higher overall accuracy than Claude Fable 5 (98.9% vs 97.8%; P < 0.001). The hybrid architecture reduced misclassification errors and mitigated the overstaging tendency observed in original reports. Conclusion: The feature-based hybrid LLM architecture that separates clinical feature extraction from deterministic guideline execution enables highly accurate, reliable, and interpretable automated O-RADS classification, providing a promising approach for standardized, guideline-based clinical decision-making.
Multi-agent debate can improve large language model reasoning by eliciting diverse hypotheses and critiques, yet its performance is often constrained by weak moderation. Common pipelines rely on fixed budgets, agreement-based stopping, or untrained judges, leading to redundant deliberation and unreliable evidence aggregation. We cast moderation as a meta-cognitive process, monitoring debate utility, controlling deliberation, and adjudicating a final answer, and introduce Meta-Moderator, a learnable framework that dynamically regulates debate and decides when to finalize an answer. Meta-Moderator is trained independently of the debaters via outcome-driven policy optimization, making debate regulation an explicit capability rather than an incidental effect of prompting. Across five benchmarks, Meta-Moderator outperforms widely used decision layers and transfers across tasks and system configurations. Further analyses show that it allocates debate more selectively and reduces mis-aggregation after informative hypotheses appear.
Spatial multi-omics technologies jointly profile gene expression, surface proteins, and histology at each tissue spot, yet most spatial domain discovery methods provide only cluster assignments, without indicating assignment reliability, modality contributions, or why a domain decision should be trusted. We present OmicSync, a reliability-aware spatial multi-omics framework that couples unsupervised domain clustering with evidence-constrained LLM reasoning using model-derived per-spot signals, including assignment confidence, epistemic routing uncertainty, and modality-routing weights. These signals are converted into structured evidence dictionaries and used to generate standard, stepwise, counterfactual, contrastive, and uncertainty-focused explanations. OmicSync integrates a KAN-GCN backbone with spatial encoding, cross-modal fusion, uncertainty-aware routing, cell-type supervision, and missing-modality imputation. We further introduce OmicSync-R, which closes the reasoning-clustering loop by using automatically computed reasoning-quality scores as REINFORCE rewards, allowing reasoning coherence to shape the latent structure without backpropagating through the language model. Across four 10x CytAssist FFPE spatial proteomics benchmarks, OmicSync achieves the best average rank on Human Tonsil (1.44), Glioblastoma (1.78), and Tonsil Add-on (1.22), and second-best on Human Breast Cancer (2.33). OmicSync-R further improves ARI on Human Breast Cancer from 45.73 to 46.72 and outperforms existing methods on six of nine clustering metrics. Together, OmicSync and OmicSync-R enable reliability-aware, spot-level auditable spatial domain discovery guided by evidence-constrained reasoning.
Jiaqian Zhu, Yang Zhang, Junhua Ding +1cs.CL cs.AI cs.LG
Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve strong reasoning performance, but their robustness to realistic lexical corruption remains poorly understood. We evaluate four open-weight instruction-tuned models and frontier models across four reasoning benchmarks under keyboard noise, character swaps, and filler insertion. Character-level perturbations substantially degrade accuracy, especially on multi-step reasoning tasks, while filler insertion has little effect. We trace this asymmetry to Attention Diversion: lexical corruption fragments subword tokenization, and the resulting fragments attract disproportionate attention mass, concentrated in middle and final transformer layers. Length-matched controls confirm that fragmentation, not prompt length, drives the loss. A factorial intervention then shows why the damage is hard to undo: fragmentation corrupts token content and attention allocation together, and the two are coupled. Restoring clean attention while the content remains corrupted is actively harmful, restoring content alone is insufficient, and only restoring both recovers a substantial share of the gap. This coupling explains why inference-time strategies, including chain-of-thought prompting, spell-checking, self-repair, and stronger repair models, fail to consistently recover performance: each addresses one channel at a time. Code and data are available at https://github.com/Jiaqian-Janelle/Attention-Diversion
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards has become the dominant recipe for improving large language model reasoning, yet it presumes large human-curated task collections. Zero-data self-play removes this dependency, but existing methods vet learnability only by probing candidates and rejecting post hoc, never learning where along an environment's difficulty axis to place a task, and credit the solver with sparse terminal rewards alone. We recast zero-data self-play as a pursuit-evasion game: in LURE, an LLM evader positions tasks along each environment's difficulty axis to stay one step ahead of a planner-executor pursuer that hunts it down through verifiable interaction. The evader is trained on a capture-frontier reward that peaks when the solver captures it on exactly half of its rollouts, turning barely catchable into a learned positioning strategy rather than a hand-tuned rejection band. The pursuer earns capture-anchored dense process credit, in which monotone verifier progress is group-normalized jointly with the terminal capture under a round-anchored KL that keeps the co-evolution stable. Across three verifiable reasoning environments and three backbone families, LURE outperforms advanced baselines under unified/specialist settings, while the unified model attains stronger aggregate OOD zero-shot accuracy than all trained baselines across nine held-out benchmarks from three task families.
Mehdi Azarafza, Faezeh Pasandideh, Ali Ehteshami Bejnordi +2cs.MA cs.CL cs.CV
Autonomous vehicles require robust perception and decision-making capabilities to operate in diverse and unseen scenarios. While reinforcement learning and rule-based methods can provide effective control and safety mechanisms, their performance may degrade in situations requiring contextual reasoning. Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong capabilities in understanding multimodal information and generating contextual reasoning, however, their use for direct vehicle control can introduce latency and hallucination risks. To address these limitations, a hybrid framework is proposed. This system uses an orchestrator to coordinate PPO-trained reinforcement learning and PID control, with LLM common-sense reasoning applied throughout the framework. LLM reasoning is further employed iteratively to refine the RL reward function for dynamic driving environments. The proposed framework is evaluated in highly randomized CARLA scenarios under diverse environmental and traffic conditions. The results demonstrate the potential of integrating LLM-based reasoning with conventional autonomous driving methods while retaining structured control and safety mechanism.
Last-mile delivery aims to handle dynamically arriving orders with couriers while modeling complex spatial and temporal correlations. Recent learning-based methods model spatiotemporal dependencies among orders to predict courier service sequences, but leave next-order decision making unexplained. Describing the current delivery state in language allows LLMs to reason explicitly about the spatial, temporal, and behavioral cues behind an individual decision. As direct predictors, however, LLMs remain sensitive to task presentation and often produce unreliable decisions. To address these challenges, we introduce ORBITER, an agentic Order Arbiter for next-order decision-making in last-mile delivery. ORBITER models courier service through decision points, each containing the courier's spatiotemporal state and visible orders and exposing local trade-offs for modeling and verification. Fixed proposers rank the candidates, and a structured report identifies where their rankings disagree. The LLM uses task-specific tools to gather evidence on the leading alternatives, while an independent critic checks the resulting decision against that evidence. We conduct extensive evaluations on data in four cities, where ORBITER outperforms existing state-of-the-art baselines by up to 9.2% on average showing its effectiveness.
Improving flight safety with flight data requires not only accurate detection of risk events, but more importantly, clear interpretation of their underlying causes at the level of pilot control behavior. Existing explainable AI techniques, such as feature importance maps, often require considerable domain knowledge to translate them into operationally meaningful explanations. Large Language Models (LLMs), which excel at language reasoning, bring a promising solution to this issue. However, applying LLMs in this domain presents key challenges such as modal inconsistency, limited classification ability, scarcity of task-specific data for fine-tuning, and lack of domain knowledge. To overcome these challenges, we propose FlightLLM, a prior-guided semantic LLM-based approach for interpretable flight safety analysis. Specifically, we first perform feature engineering to address modal inconsistency, combining statistical descriptors with physically meaningful flight indicators. This representation is further processed by a Semantic Discretization module, which converts abstract numerical patterns into qualitative descriptions that are more compatible with language reasoning. In addition, since LLMs are not inherently strong classifiers, CatBoost is incorporated as a statistical expert, and its prediction results are injected into the prompt as prior guidance. A contrastive few-shot learning strategy is further adopted to compensate for limited data. Finally, we design structured prompts to embed aviation-specific knowledge into the inference process. Using hard landing, a representative risk event with complex causal mechanisms, as an anchor point, we evaluate FlightLLM on a dataset of 704 real-world A320 flight samples. Experimental results show that the proposed approach achieves competitive classification performance while generating direct and reasonable explanations for event causes.
Reinforcement learning algorithms for Large Language Models (LLMs) are largely distinguished by their variance reduction strategy. Group-relative methods like GRPO reduce gradient variance by sampling multiple rollouts per prompt, but provide only sequence-level credit. Training is also blocked by straggler rollouts, reducing throughput and increasing off-policyness. Learned value functions theoretically address both problems, providing token-level advantages without requiring large groups. However, additional infrastructure engineering challenges combined with the practical success of critic-free methods have made it difficult to justify their inclusion in RL pipelines. We propose two complementary strategies to improve the performance of value function RL: 1) Privileged Value Functions (PVF) which provide an elegant mechanism to inject additional task-relevant token-level signal without biasing the policy objective; 2) TETHER, a baseline that adaptively interpolates between group-relative and value baselines depending on the value function accuracy. Across several reasoning tasks, both strategies consistently improve over the standard value function baseline, and are competitive with or outperform mean-baseline GRPO.
Cancer survival prediction supports treatment planning, risk stratification, and follow-up management. Existing methods use structured clinical variables, whole-slide images, genomic profiles, or multimodal inputs, while patient reports remain underexplored. We study report-centric survival prediction using reports that organize pathological, clinical, and molecular evidence. Large language models (LLMs) can reason over such reports, but case-wise time regression introduces two mismatches. First, a formulation mismatch arises because survival evaluation depends on ordering comparable patients, whereas independent time predictions do not enforce ranking consistency. Second, a supervision mismatch arises because a censored patient's observed time indicates survival beyond that point and cannot serve as an exact regression target, although it still implies orderings relative to patients who died earlier. To address these mismatches, we propose CACSurv, a Concordance-Aligned Comparative framework for report-centric survival prediction. CACSurv reformulates survival modeling as mini-cohort comparative reasoning, where an LLM predicts relative prognostic orderings. We introduce concordance-aligned rewards derived from comparable relations under right censoring, enabling censored outcomes to provide ranking supervision without exact event-time targets. At inference, Monte Carlo Reference Aggregation compares each patient with sampled references and aggregates positions into a cohort-level ranking. We establish TCGA-SurvReport, a benchmark covering six TCGA cancer cohorts. CACSurv achieves the highest C-index on all six cohorts and an average C-index of 0.722, outperforming the strongest published survival model by 6.5 percentage points and the strongest LLM time-regression baseline by 4.2 percentage points. Our code, models, and dataset will be available at https://github.com/xmed-lab/CACSurv.
Large language models can describe mechanisms, yet scalable post-training still depends on costly, manually curated biological reasoning traces. Here we show that cellular perturbation atlases can instead become reinforcement-learning environments, where measured gene responses provide computable rewards for biological reasoning. We introduce PertMind, which combines trusted-trajectory supervised initialization with gene-, pathway-, and format-level reinforcement signals. Trained only on forward perturbation-response prediction, PertMind improved response inference in unseen cellular contexts while retaining general language capabilities. It also transferred without task-specific post-training to reverse perturbation identification, double-perturbation reasoning, phenotypic-screen prioritization, and biological-process interpretation. PertMind further generated biological profiles that supported competitive gene, cell, and donor representations across multiscale downstream tasks. These results support the hypothesis that reinforcement on experimental endpoints can concentrate reusable biological strategies already accessible to pretrained models. More broadly, perturbation-derived reinforcement learning offers a scalable route for transforming expanding experimental atlases into training environments for general-purpose biological reasoning.