arXiv Science⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Arman Cohan

Publications and source records attributed to Arman Cohan.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
arXiv2026

OC-OPD: Observation-coordinated Supervision for On-Policy Distillation

Reverse and forward Kullback--Leibler (KL) divergences provide complementary supervision in on-policy distillation: reverse KL refines the student's active token rankings, and forward KL allocates mass to teacher-supported candidates. At student-generated prefixes, we form a four-observation matrix by treating the student and teacher as both candidate sources and evaluators. The diagonal self-observations measure uncertainty, while source-centered cross-observations recover the two KL objectives. We establish an exact identity equating the Fisher inverse-metric coupling of their logit gradients with the sum of these contrasts, yielding a common local descent direction for distinct positive distributions. Observation-coordinated on-policy distillation (OC-OPD) uses observations to set preferences, closed-form bargaining to coordinate gradients, and distributional discrepancy to scale the update. Across three heterogeneous student settings (non-thinking generation, thinking generation, and base-model initialization), OC-OPD achieves strong gains in mathematical reasoning and transfers effectively to out-of-distribution scientific question answering and code generation. Our code is publicly available at: https://github.com/RuoranXu/OC-OPD.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

Better Answers, Weaker Evidence Control: Evidence Bypass in On-Policy Distillation

On-policy distillation (OPD) can improve answer accuracy while weakening responsiveness to supporting evidence. We investigate this separation in scientific-document question answering through matched document interventions that change the supported answer while preserving the question and unrelated context. We identify evidence bypass: a student retains an originally correct answer after the document changes to support a different one. On QASPER with a Qwen3-4B student, standard OPD raises original-document accuracy by 3.4 percentage points, lowers counterfactual accuracy by 5.3 points, and increases bypass by 15.7 points; the same directional pattern appears on PeerQA. Controlled perturbations localize the shift to answer-critical evidence, and bypass grows with the student's pre-distillation closed-book preference for the original answer. A factorized study of teacher targets, privileged information, divergence, and supervision density finds that explicitly supplying the teacher with annotated answer-critical spans yields the largest joint improvement in evidence response and claim support. These findings motivate Evidence-Paired OPD (EP-OPD), which combines on-policy supervision on matched documents supporting different answers to the same question with an answer-level margin that favors each document's supported answer over its paired alternative. Across both datasets and two student sizes, EP-OPD recovers 54-66% of standard OPD's counterfactual-accuracy loss while preserving 80-85% of its original-document accuracy gain. Our results establish evidence responsiveness as a distinct training and evaluation target alongside answer accuracy. Our code is publicly available at: https://github.com/RuoranXu/EP-OPD.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Learning to Be Monitored: Causal Bounds and Intervention-Aware Post-Training Recipes for Chain-of-Thought Monitorability

Chain-of-thought (CoT) monitoring aims to detect potentially harmful behaviors in large language models (LLMs) from their CoTs. Intervention-based evaluations measure this property by asking whether a monitor can detect the role of an intervention from the CoT when the targeted behavior occurs, typically using minimal-criterion sensitivity ($\mathsf{TPR_{mc}}$) proposed by~\citep{guan2025monitoring}. However, a target behavior observed under intervention is not necessarily caused by it, and we show that this metric can overestimate how often a monitor detects target behaviors actually caused by the intervention. Specifically, we establish $\mathsf{TPR_{mc}}$ as an upper bound on this causal detection rate and derive a complementary lower bound, which provides a tighter evaluation framework for CoT monitorability. With this framework, we study whether LLMs can be trained to make their CoTs easier to monitor. We first construct a training dataset of paired control--intervention tasks spanning multiple intervention types. Using the dataset, we design and apply three intervention-specific training methods based on off-policy self-distillation, reinforcement learning, and on-policy self-distillation to train separate variants of each base model. Across various model-monitor configurations, all three methods generally improve CoT monitorability over the corresponding base models under our extended evaluation framework. Our code is available at https://github.com/xinyue-lxy/learning-to-be-monitored.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

Herculean: An Agentic Benchmark for Financial Intelligence

As AI agents advance, the central question is no longer whether they can solve isolated financial tasks, but whether their capabilities generalize across complete professional workflows. Existing benchmarks cannot answer this question because they evaluate either static competencies or agents within a single interaction structure. We introduce Herculean, a benchmark of end-to-end agentic financial intelligence that crosses agent architecture, backbone model, and four structurally distinct workflows: Trading, Hedging, Market Insights, and Auditing. Each workflow is implemented as an MCP skill that preserves its native state, actions, constraints, and outcome criteria, allowing intact agent systems to be evaluated under matched external conditions. Across 30 architecture--backbone configurations, we find that agent capability is not globally ordered. Workflow rankings are weakly aligned, changing the architecture frequently reverses performance under the same backbone, and each architecture concentrates failure in different forms of workflow control. These results establish that agent performance is an interaction between architecture and workflow demand, rather than an intrinsic property of the underlying model. Consequently, success on a single financial workflow provides little evidence of dependable, general financial intelligence.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

How Good Are Frontier Models at Physics? Expert Re-Grading Reveals Broken Evaluations and Near-Saturation of Leading Benchmarks

Low reported scores on leading physics benchmarks, including those featured in the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index (2026), suggest that frontier language models still struggle with advanced physics, a demanding test of their scientific reasoning and quantitative problem-solving abilities. Yet this impression does not always align with domain experts' experiences using these models in their work. We revisit these reported findings by evaluating frontier models on six widely used physics benchmarks and auditing them with experts, focusing on text-only problems with verifiable final answers. For each subfield of physics, faculty and graduate researchers with relevant expertise carefully review problem statements, reference solutions, and model responses to distinguish genuine model errors from grader errors, incorrect reference solutions, and ambiguous or underspecified questions. Most audited cases initially evaluated as incorrect reflect these benchmarking issues rather than errors in the models' physics reasoning. We then ask experts to address these benchmarking issues by correcting erroneous reference solutions and repairing or excluding flawed questions. We find that GPT-5.6-Sol's measured mean@4 rises from 47.3% to 78.7% on HLE-Physics and from 61.0% to 87.2% on CMT-Benchmark, while its corrected pass@4 reaches 94.4% on the 54 retained CritPt challenges. Corrected scores are computed on the retained evaluation subsets following expert review. Scores on the audited subsets of UGPhysics, PRISM-Physics, and PHYBench also rise substantially after correction. These findings suggest that current benchmarks substantially understate frontier models' ability to solve well-posed physics problems. Near-saturation on these closed-ended tasks highlights the need for more demanding, expert-validated evaluations.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

AI Scientists for Building Virtual-Cell Models

Autonomous agents, from virtual laboratories to biological data-analysis agents and co-scientists, have begun to turn scientific goals into hypotheses. Whether they can go further and convert real, noisy and complex biological data into executable model hypotheses and architectures that encode testable assumptions remains unclear. Predicting how cells respond to genetic and chemical perturbations is a natural test of this ability: it is central to decoding disease mechanisms and therapeutic discovery, yet it demands cross-disciplinary expertise rarely concentrated in a single research group. Here, we introduce CellForge, an organized team of autonomous agents for single-cell perturbation modeling. Given a dataset and a task, it surveys the literature, parses the data, identifies relevant baselines, and formulates a model hypothesis through critic-mediated discussion among agents specialized in data modeling, single-cell biology, and deep learning. It then writes the training code, runs the experiments, and returns a trained predictor including architecture, code, and validation results. The architecture itself is the hypothesis: CellForge produces it end-to-end, with no human specifying the design, loss, or training protocol. Across six perturbation datasets spanning transcriptomic, epigenomic, and proteomic contexts, CellForge yields models that are competitive with hand-crafted state-of-the-art results on established tasks and extends the same workflow to paired multi-omic readouts. Blinded human evaluators rate CellForge's research plans as more scientifically sound and innovative than those from single LLMs or deep-research systems. In summary, we show autonomous agents can complete the full hypothesis-to-validation cycle in single-cell biology, with an AI effectively building another AI, in a complex setting that currently requires a team of human experts.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

StepSafe: Learning Timely Intervention with Context-Aware Safety Reasoning

Safety in agentic systems is inherently sequential: whether an action is safe depends on prior actions, tool outputs, information disclosures, and interactions among agents. Recent work has shifted agent safety guardrails from post-hoc trajectory-level assessment toward step-level action diagnosis and proactive risk prediction, yet existing training objectives provide limited supervision for how step evidence accumulates over time and when it becomes sufficient to justify intervention. We propose \methodlong~(ASPO): a training framework for step-level timely intervention. Pre-fix level stage alignment allows crediting each decision at its own step: it compares each response with the other responses sampled at the same prefix and rewards the action that fits the stage, continuing before the risk is visible, asking while clarification can still avert harm, and stopping before harm is irreversible. Adaptive feedback self-distillation further credits the reasoning behind each decision, with the model itself as a teacher that sees the step annotations on intervention steps and rules mined from its own false alarms on safe steps. Its training data carry a violation taxonomy and an intervention window at every step and are extended through self-evolving multi-agent red-teaming. Finally we present \textsc{StepSafe}, a step-level reasoning guardrail with timely intervention, that achieves the state-of-the-art peformance among open-source guardrails across five agent-safety benchmarks on safety-utility pareto curve with Youden's $J$ of 53.0 (4B) against 46.2.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Physics: Benchmarking Foundation Models on University-Level Physics Problem Solving

We introduce Physics, a benchmark for evaluating foundation models on advanced physics problem solving. It contains 1034 annotated, open-ended problems from PhD-qualifying exams across six core physics domains. Solving these problems requires applying domain-specific knowledge to physical setups and carrying out multi-step mathematical reasoning. Each problem includes a worked solution and independently checked reference answers. An LLM-based grading protocol evaluates individual answers and complete multi-part problems, supporting numeric, symbolic, and text responses. We evaluate 53 proprietary and open-weight models. On test problems without figures, high accuracy is concentrated in a small group of thinking models, with the strongest open-weight models approaching proprietary performance. Most open-weight models still solve fewer than half of these problems. Our analysis of Qwen3.5-9B reveals failures in applying physics knowledge and interpreting figures, with misread figures affecting several subquestions.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Reinforcement Learning with Metacognitive Feedback Elicits Faithful Uncertainty Expression in LLMs

Metacognition is a critical component of intelligence that describes the ability to monitor and regulate one's own cognitive processes. Yet LLMs exhibit systemic deficiencies in key metacognitive faculties: they hallucinate with high confidence, fail to recognize knowledge boundaries, and misrepresent their internal uncertainty--undermining trustworthiness and reliability. Since monitoring task performance and adapting behavior accordingly are central to metacognition, we posit that models capable of accurately judging their own performance are better positioned to improve it. We operationalize this idea via two novel mechanisms: reinforcement learning with metacognitive feedback (RLMF), a paradigm to refine completion rankings during preference optimization based on the quality of a model's self-judgments of performance, and metacognitive data selection, which uses similar self-judgments to identify high-value training examples, outperforming naive active learning. We apply these innovations to the problem of faithful calibration (FC), a task that is itself fundamentally metacognitive: the goal is to align expressed with intrinsic uncertainty, difficult even for frontier LLMs. We adopt a two-stage, decoupled approach, first using these methods to calibrate the faithfulness of models' self-reported confidence scores, then mapping to natural, context-adaptable linguistic uncertainty via targeted output editing. Extensive experiments show RLMF achieves generalizable, state-of-the-art FC on diverse tasks while preserving accuracy. Further, RLMF surpasses standard RL by up to 63% while enhancing models' ability to assess and express their own capability limits. This positions RLMF as a promising paradigm to enhance LLM metacognition toward improved abilities and alignment, and suggests metacognitive performance as an effective RL signal to overcome limits of prior intrinsic feedback methods.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

IdeaAnchor: Teaching LLMs to Turn Literature into Research Ideas

Scientific research often begins by synthesizing ideas from a set of related papers to identify gaps and formulate new directions. However, training language models to perform this form of literature-grounded ideation remains challenging, as existing approaches based on prompting or feedback lack structured supervision for how papers should be synthesized. We introduce IdeaAnchor, a paradigm for training LLMs to perform research ideation using structured specifications as privileged signals. Each IdeaAnchor instance encodes how each input paper should be synthesized into a successful idea, including their functional roles, relationships, and target synthesis criteria. We build this paradigm by mining instances from published papers, capturing how real ideas emerge from prior literature. We then train models via demonstration, self-distillation, and reinforcement learning, and further enhance generation with retrieval at inference time. Experiments show consistent improvements in ideation quality. Our analysis reveals a functional decomposition: anchor-based training strengthens creative synthesis, retrieval enhances detail elaboration, and combining both yields the best performance.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Balancing Memory Pathways: Analyzing and Improving Memory Utilization in Hybrid LMs

Recurrent-attention hybrid language models (LMs), which interleave attention and recurrent layers, are increasingly used to combine the efficiency of the recurrent layers with the strong performance of attention layers. Prior work suggests that attention and recurrent layers offer complementary pathways to use past information: attention supports precise memory recall from earlier tokens, while recurrent layers support consolidation of disparate information over long contexts. However, we observe that simply having access to both pathways does not mean that hybrid LMs are effectively using them. We find that they rely substantially more on attention than on the recurrent state. Standard supervised fine-tuning improves overall performance but does not improve how the two memory pathways are coordinated: the model becomes more reliant on information propagated by attention layers, while its use of information propagated by recurrent layers remains limited. To encourage better coordination between the two memory pathways, we add an auxiliary loss that limits attention's access to earlier context while the recurrent state propagates through the full sequence. This objective encourages the model to retain and use information through the recurrent pathway alongside attention. It improves overall performance, with particularly strong gains on tasks involving longer contexts or requiring information aggregation, consistent with the strengths of recurrent layers observed in analysis. Crucially, this imbalance and the benefit of our auxiliary loss generalize: they apply to multiple recurrent-attention LMs in question-answering and agentic tasks, as well as to attention-based LMs that combine different forms of memory. Together, our findings show that simply providing multiple memory pathways does not ensure their effective use, and that targeted supervision is needed to better coordinate them.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

BackTrend: Evaluating Scientific Weak-Signal Prediction via Backward Reconstruction

Scientific weak signals are early, low-visibility research directions that later become central to mature scientific topics, yet existing resources such as trend tracking, citation forecasting, and foresight reports rarely provide validated reference sets that link concrete early precursors to later paradigms. We introduce BackTrend, a retrospective benchmark in which, given a mature target topic and a temporal evidence constraint, systems must recover two types of precursors: problem-space signals, underrecognized research problems, and solution-space signals, emerging methods for known problems. BackTrend contains 25 mature target topics in artificial intelligence and machine learning and 66 human-validated weak signals, reconstructed from large-scale literature by grounding each candidate in its 2019-2024 publication-frequency trajectory. We evaluate frontier LLMs, RAG systems, and agentic research systems using semantic matching and coverage-based metrics. Current systems often generate plausible but misaligned precursors, exhibiting topic drift, granularity mismatch, near-miss matching, and incomplete coverage; the strongest system achieves only 10.1% F1, while Coverage10 reaches at most 18.5% of the reference signals. Our budget analyses show that additional retrieval and web-search evidence can improve performance up to a moderate budget, but does not by itself close the substantial performance gap.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

IdeaAMBIG: Benchmarking Implementation-Critical Gaps in Research-Idea Specifications

A research idea may be novel, coherent, and scientifically plausible, yet its proposed method may remain insufficiently specified for faithful implementation. We study the codification readiness of implementation-facing research-method specifications, defined by whether they provide sufficient methodological information for a competent implementer or coding agent to construct the intended method without unsupported assumptions. We construct evidence-grounded specifications and their supported resolutions from papers, codebases, issue threads, and reproduction artifacts. We introduce IdeaAMBIG, a benchmark of 660 evidence-grounded instances: 163 real-world gaps from reproducibility reports and GitHub issues, and 497 controlled synthetic gaps injected into codification-ready references. IdeaAMBIG evaluates three capabilities: codification-readiness assessment, defect localization, and clarification action generation. Defect localization receives only the specification, whereas clarification additionally receives the annotated defect. Across 13 LLMs, the best model achieves 9.6% Macro Defect Recovery Rate on real-world instances but 80.6% Macro Clarification Action Success Rate when given the defect. In an oracle study, supplying the gold resolution raises the downstream codification-ready rate from 14% to 98%. Across all evaluated models, defect localization is the main bottleneck, with stronger clarification given the defect.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

MedQA-MM: Shortcuts Behind Medical Visual Reasoning

A benchmark score credits final answers, but not the route by which an item can be answered. In medical multimodal multiple-choice questions (MCQs), this distinction matters because a correct answer can be supported by the intended image finding or by benchmark-preserved cues in the wording of answers, non-visual clinical text, visible image text, artificial annotations, or device/context artifacts. We call the resulting score-level overinterpretation reasoning inflation. Here, a route is an observable input path that can support answer selection, not a claim about the model's hidden cognition. Across six medical multimodal MCQ datasets, we separate candidate cues from behavioral evidence through prompt- and image-side audits, modality ablations, and matched repairs that preserve the medical target and answer key. In a 13-configuration open-model panel, full-input accuracy is 62.63%, while text-only and options-only settings achieve 53.96% and 29.71%, respectively. Removing length-gap, absolute/conspicuous, and spatial/prepositional cues lowers accuracy by 6.58, 3.50, and 4.77 percentage points. We also construct MedQA-MM, a 1,000-item shortcut-mitigated subset, where text-only and options-only accuracy fall to 5.21% and 12.33%. This does not imply that models never use images; it shows that medical image-reasoning claims require route-level evidence.

cs.CV↗
arXiv2026

ActReview: Rebuttal-Guided Training Data and Rubric Rewards for Actionable Peer Review Generation

As LLMs are increasingly used for pre-submission self-review, there is growing demand for feedback that not only identifies weaknesses but also guides authors toward concrete revisions. We study this as Actionable Peer-review Generation and decompose it into two subtasks: diagnostic claim generation and revision suggestion generation. We introduce ActReview, a rebuttal-guided post-training framework that connects paper-specific diagnoses to concrete, grounded revision plans. Our central insight is that author rebuttals reveal plausible actions for addressing reviewer concerns and can therefore provide latent supervision for revision-oriented feedback. From real review-rebuttal threads on OpenReview, we construct ActReview-40K by aligning reviewer weaknesses with author responses and grounding the resulting feedback in localized paper evidence. We post-train Qwen3-8B-Base with multi-task supervised fine-tuning followed by GRPO using candidate-aware, weakness-specific rubric rewards. We also introduce ActReview-Bench, a human-curated benchmark of 1,000 instances for evaluating diagnostic quality and revision usefulness. Experiments show that ActReview outperforms prior specialized review-generation models on actionability and grounding while remaining competitive with strong prompt-based LLMs. Human evaluation confirms improved revision usefulness while revealing a remaining gap in technical accuracy, and additional analyses support generalization to held-out papers and robustness across independent judges.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Small Language Models as Judges for Rubric-Based Reinforcement Learning

Rubric-based reinforcement learning extends RL beyond tasks with exact answers or rule-based verifiers by scoring responses against instance-specific criteria. However, this makes reward computation expensive: training requires repeated rubric judging, often with proprietary APIs or local generative LLM judges with 7B parameters or more. We study whether smaller language models can serve as efficient and reliable rubric-based judges. To make this question measurable, we construct PointRubric and RaR-Science-Static, two pointwise rubric-based evaluation datasets with instance-specific criteria and itemwise satisfaction labels. We compare three ways of extracting criterion-level judgments from small models: Generative verdicts, Yes/No Logprob margins, and Probe judges. Across both datasets, the Qwen3-1.7B Probe judge achieves the strongest criterion-level agreement among these methods, outperforming Generative and Logprob judges. Used as a GRPO reward model, it trains a policy from 0.232 to 0.643 on RaR-Science rubric score, compared with 0.594 for an 8B Generative judge baseline, while the baseline requires 10.7$\times$ more reward-judge time. Task and domain transfer experiments further suggest that Probe judges preserve criterion-level reward structure across settings.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Can Scientific Claims Be Removed from Large Language Models? A Systematic Evaluation of Claim-Level Unlearning

Language models (LMs) are trained on static scientific corpora, whereas scientific knowledge continuously evolves through correction and revision. Scientific claims encoded within these models may later become retracted, disproven, or updated by subsequent research, creating the risk of disseminating outdated information in scientific workflows. This creates a need for LMs to forget obsolete scientific claims. Machine unlearning offers a promising solution by enabling knowledge removal while maintaining overall model utility. Existing studies primarily investigate instance-level forgetting; however, scientific claims introduce additional challenges because they are interconnected, and continually evolving. To address this gap, we introduce the task of Scientific Claim Unlearning and present a new benchmark, SciUnlearn. We show that current unlearning approaches are unable to effectively eliminate claim-level knowledge and often achieve only superficial suppression, highlighting the need for specialized methods designed for structured knowledge removal.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

REVERE: Reflective Evolving Research Engineer

Existing prompt-optimization techniques rely on local signals, causing poor generalization across tasks. In addition, they also rely on weak update mechanisms, such as full-prompt rewrites or unstructured merges, which cause knowledge loss and unstable adaptation. These limitations are magnified in research-coding workflows, which involve heterogeneous repositories and weak feedback, limiting abstraction and learning across tasks. We introduce Reflective Evolving Research Engineer (REVERE), a lightweight, self-adapting agent framework that learns from a Global Training Context, distills recurring cross-repository failure modes into reusable heuristics, and applies targeted, code-based edits to agent prompts. REVERE is evaluated across settings ranging from long-horizon to single-shot benchmarks, and improves over prior expert-crafted instructions by 4.50% on SUPER, 1.3% on ResearchCodeBench, and 4.89% on ScienceAgentBench. It does so at nearly 10x lower cost and 2.7x faster adaptation than existing prompt-optimization baselines, demonstrating that self-adapting agents with continual learning and global memory consolidation can meaningfully evolve their capabilities over time.

cs.SE↗