arXiv subjects

Daniel Khashabi

Publications and source records attributed to Daniel Khashabi.

At least 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources

arXiv2026

GOLD PANNING: Strategic Context Shuffling for Needle-in-Haystack Reasoning

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit pronounced position bias in long-context needle-in-haystack problems, systematically prioritizing the location of information over its relevance. While current mitigations rely on white-box access, this is effectively impossible for many state-of-the-art models. We introduce GOLD PANNING, a black-box Bayesian framework that performs inference-time active search over long contexts by (i) reordering documents to concentrate high-belief items in highly diagnostic positions (signal anchoring) and (ii) updating beliefs over document relevance from model outputs. Unlike conventional active learning, which prioritizes uncertainty reduction, GOLD PANNING leverages anchoring -- once flagged, keep it in sight -- to preserve weak cues. We implement this using iterative assignment derived from the model's diagnosticity profile, which provably identifies a target among $N$ documents in $O(\log N)$ rounds, ensuring scalability to many-document settings.On needle-in-a-haystack retrieval and long-context QA, GOLD PANNING matches Permutation Self-Consistency's target identification with $30--65%$ fewer queries and remains effective under calibration mismatch, suggesting coarse positional ordering drives performance gains. These results demonstrate that inherent model biases need not be failures, but can be used as tools for control.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Principled Context Engineering for RAG: Statistical Guarantees via Conformal Prediction

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) enhances factual grounding in large language models (LLMs) by incorporating retrieved evidence, but LLM accuracy declines when long or noisy contexts exceed the model's effective attention span. Existing pre-generation filters rely on heuristics or uncalibrated LLM confidence scores, offering no statistical control over retained evidence. We evaluate and demonstrate context engineering through conformal prediction, a coverage-controlled filtering framework that removes irrelevant content while preserving recall of supporting evidence. Using both embedding- and LLM-based scoring functions, we test this approach on the NeuCLIR and RAGTIME collections. Conformal filtering consistently meets its target coverage, ensuring that a specified fraction of relevant snippets are retained, and reduces retained context by 2-3x relative to unfiltered retrieval. On NeuCLIR, downstream factual accuracy measured by ARGUE F1 improves under strict filtering and remains stable at moderate coverage, indicating that most discarded material is redundant or irrelevant. These results demonstrate that conformal prediction enables reliable, coverage-controlled context reduction in RAG, offering a model-agnostic and principled approach to context engineering.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Hidden in the Haystack: Smaller Needles are More Difficult for LLMs to Find

Large language models (LLMs) face significant challenges with needle-in-ahaystack tasks, where relevant information ("the needle") must be drawn from a large pool of irrelevant context ("the haystack"). Previous studies have highlighted positional bias and distractor quantity as critical factors affecting model performance, yet the influence of gold context size, the length of the answer-containing document, has received little attention. We present the first systematic study of gold context size in long-context question answering, spanning three diverse benchmarks (general knowledge, biomedical reasoning, and mathematical reasoning), eleven state-of-the-art LLMs (including recent reasoning models), and more than 150K controlled runs. Our experiments reveal that LLM performance drops sharply when the gold context is shorter, i.e., smaller gold contexts consistently degrade model performance and amplify positional sensitivity, posing a major challenge for agentic systems that must integrate scattered, fine-grained information of varying lengths. This effect persists under rigorous confounder analysis: even after controlling for gold context position, answer token repetition, gold-to-distractor ratio, distractor volume, and domain specificity, gold context size remains a decisive, independent predictor of success. Our work provides clear insights to guide the design of robust, context-aware LLM-driven systems.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Query Decomposition for RAG: Balancing Exploration-Exploitation

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems address complex user requests by decomposing them into subqueries, retrieving potentially relevant documents for each, and then aggregating them to generate an answer. Efficiently selecting informative documents requires balancing a key trade-off: (i) retrieving broadly enough to capture all the relevant material, and (ii) limiting retrieval to avoid excessive noise and computational cost. We formulate query decomposition and document retrieval in an exploitation-exploration setting, where retrieving one document at a time builds a belief about the utility of a given sub-query and informs the decision to continue exploiting or exploring an alternative. We experiment with a variety of bandit learning methods and demonstrate their effectiveness in dynamically selecting the most informative sub-queries. Our main finding is that estimating document relevance using rank information and human judgments yields a 35% gain in document-level precision, 15% increase in α-nDCG, and better performance on the downstream task of long-form generation.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

The Translation Barrier Hypothesis: Multilingual Generation with Large Language Models Suffers from Implicit Translation Failure

Multilingual generation with large language models (LLMs) is often of poor quality for mid- to low-resource languages, but the causes for this are not well-understood. We first demonstrate the existence of an implicit task-solving-->translation pipeline for generation, whereby the model first solves the required task in a largely target-language-agnostic manner, and subsequently translates answer concepts into the intended target language. We hypothesize that the failure of the translation stage, despite task-solving success, is an important culprit for the observed low quality of final outputs, and formalize this as the translation barrier hypothesis. We quantify the extent to which either stage in the pipeline is responsible for final failure for a word translation task across 108 language pairs, and find that the translation barrier explains a dominant portion of error for a majority of language pairs, and is especially severe for low-resource target languages. Our results highlight an important bottleneck for end-to-end multilingual generation, relevant for future work seeking to improve multilinguality in LLMs.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Self-Consistency Falls Short! The Adverse Effects of Positional Bias on Long-Context Problems

Self-consistency (SC) improves the performance of large language models (LLMs) across various tasks and domains that involve short content. However, does this support its effectiveness for long-context problems? We challenge the assumption that SC's benefits generalize to long-context settings, where LLMs often struggle with position bias, the systematic over-reliance on specific context regions-which hinders their ability to utilize information effectively from all parts of their context. Through comprehensive experimentation with varying state-of-the-art models, tasks, and SC formulations, we find that SC not only fails to improve but actively degrades performance on long-context tasks. This degradation is driven by persistent position bias, which worsens with longer context lengths and smaller model sizes but remains invariant to prompt format or task type. Unlike short-context tasks, where SC diversifies reasoning paths, long-context SC amplifies positional errors. These comprehensive results provide valuable insight into the limitations of current LLMs in long-context understanding and highlight the need for more sophisticated approaches.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Feedback Friction: LLMs Struggle to Fully Incorporate External Feedback

Recent studies have shown LLMs possess some ability to improve their responses when given external feedback. However, it remains unclear how effectively and thoroughly these models can incorporate extrinsic feedback. In an ideal scenario, if LLMs receive near-perfect and complete feedback, we would expect them to fully integrate the feedback and reach correct solutions. In this paper, we systematically investigate LLMs' ability to incorporate feedback by designing a controlled experimental environment. For each problem, a solver model attempts a solution, then a feedback generator with access to near-complete ground-truth answers produces targeted feedback, after which the solver tries again. We evaluate this pipeline across a diverse range of tasks, including math reasoning, knowledge reasoning, scientific reasoning, and general multi-domain evaluations with state-of-the-art language models including Claude 3.7 with extended thinking. Surprisingly, even under these near-ideal conditions, solver models consistently show resistance to feedback, a limitation that we term Feedback Friction. To mitigate this limitation, we experiment with sampling-based strategies like progressive temperature increases and explicit rejection of previously attempted incorrect answers, which yield improvements but still fail to help models achieve target performance. We analyze Feedback Friction and find that models' confidence on specific questions, measured by semantic entropy, predicts feedback resistance: high-confidence predictions remain resistant to external correction. We hope that highlighting this issue in LLMs will help future research in self-improvement.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Challenging the Evaluator: LLM Sycophancy Under User Rebuttal

Large Language Models (LLMs) often exhibit sycophancy, distorting responses to align with user beliefs, notably by readily agreeing with user counterarguments. Paradoxically, LLMs are increasingly adopted as successful evaluative agents for tasks such as grading and adjudicating claims. This research investigates that tension: why do LLMs show sycophancy when challenged in subsequent conversational turns, yet perform well when evaluating conflicting arguments presented simultaneously? We empirically tested these contrasting scenarios by varying key interaction patterns. We find that state-of-the-art models: (1) are more likely to endorse a user's counterargument when framed as a follow-up from a user, rather than when both responses are presented simultaneously for evaluation; (2) show increased susceptibility to persuasion when the user's rebuttal includes detailed reasoning, even when the conclusion of the reasoning is incorrect; and (3) are more readily swayed by casually phrased feedback than by formal critiques, even when the casual input lacks justification. Our results highlight the risk of relying on LLMs for judgment tasks without accounting for conversational framing.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Generative World Explorer

Planning with partial observation is a central challenge in embodied AI. A majority of prior works have tackled this challenge by developing agents that physically explore their environment to update their beliefs about the world state. In contrast, humans can $\textit{imagine}$ unseen parts of the world through a mental exploration and $\textit{revise}$ their beliefs with imagined observations. Such updated beliefs can allow them to make more informed decisions, without necessitating the physical exploration of the world at all times. To achieve this human-like ability, we introduce the $\textit{Generative World Explorer (Genex)}$, an egocentric world exploration framework that allows an agent to mentally explore a large-scale 3D world (e.g., urban scenes) and acquire imagined observations to update its belief. This updated belief will then help the agent to make a more informed decision at the current step. To train $\textit{Genex}$, we create a synthetic urban scene dataset, Genex-DB. Our experimental results demonstrate that (1) $\textit{Genex}$ can generate high-quality and consistent observations during long-horizon exploration of a large virtual physical world and (2) the beliefs updated with the generated observations can inform an existing decision-making model (e.g., an LLM agent) to make better plans.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2025

Jointly Reinforcing Diversity and Quality in Language Model Generations

Post-training of Large Language Models (LMs) often prioritizes accuracy and helpfulness at the expense of diversity. This creates a tension: while post-training improves response quality, it also sharpens output distributions and reduces the range of ideas, limiting the usefulness of LMs in creative and exploratory tasks such as brainstorming, storytelling, or problem solving. We address this challenge with Diversity-Aware Reinforcement Learning (DARLING), a framework that jointly optimizes for response quality and semantic diversity. At its core, DARLING introduces a learned partition function to measure diversity beyond surface-level lexical variations. This diversity signal is then combined with a quality reward during online reinforcement learning, encouraging models to generate outputs that are both high-quality and distinct. Experiments across multiple model families and sizes show that DARLING generalizes to two regimes: non-verifiable tasks (instruction following and creative writing) and verifiable tasks (competition math). On five benchmarks in the first setting, DARLING consistently outperforms quality-only RL baselines, producing outputs that are simultaneously of higher quality and novelty. In the second setting, DARLING achieves higher pass@1 (solution quality) and pass@k (solution variety). Most strikingly, explicitly optimizing for diversity catalyzes exploration in online RL, which manifests itself as higher-quality responses.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

ICL CIPHERS: Quantifying "Learning" in In-Context Learning via Substitution Ciphers

Recent works have suggested that In-Context Learning (ICL) operates in dual modes, i.e. task retrieval (remember learned patterns from pre-training) and task learning (inference-time ''learning'' from demonstrations). However, disentangling these the two modes remains a challenging goal. We introduce ICL CIPHERS, a class of task reformulations based on substitution ciphers borrowed from classic cryptography. In this approach, a subset of tokens in the in-context inputs are substituted with other (irrelevant) tokens, rendering English sentences less comprehensible to human eye. However, by design, there is a latent, fixed pattern to this substitution, making it reversible. This bijective (reversible) cipher ensures that the task remains a well-defined task in some abstract sense, despite the transformations. It is a curious question if LLMs can solve tasks reformulated by ICL CIPHERS with a BIJECTIVE mapping, which requires ''deciphering'' the latent cipher. We show that LLMs are better at solving tasks reformulated by ICL CIPHERS with BIJECTIVE mappings than the NON-BIJECTIVE (irreversible) baseline, providing a novel approach to quantify ''learning'' in ICL. While this gap is small, it is consistent across the board on four datasets and six models. Finally, we examine LLMs' internal representations and identify evidence in their ability to decode the ciphered inputs.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Evaluating the Evaluators: Are readability metrics good measures of readability?

Plain Language Summarization (PLS) aims to distill complex documents into accessible summaries for non-expert audiences. In this paper, we conduct a thorough survey of PLS literature, and identify that the current standard practice for readability evaluation is to use traditional readability metrics, such as Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL). However, despite proven utility in other fields, these metrics have not been compared to human readability judgments in PLS. We evaluate 8 readability metrics and show that most correlate poorly with human judgments, including the most popular metric, FKGL. We then show that Language Models (LMs) are better judges of readability, with the best-performing model achieving a Pearson correlation of 0.56 with human judgments. Extending our analysis to PLS datasets, which contain summaries aimed at non-expert audiences, we find that LMs better capture deeper measures of readability, such as required background knowledge, and lead to different conclusions than the traditional metrics. Based on these findings, we offer recommendations for best practices in the evaluation of plain language summaries. We release our analysis code and survey data.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Hell or High Water: Evaluating Agentic Recovery from External Failures

As language model agents are applied to real world problems of increasing complexity, they will be expected to formulate plans across large search spaces. If those plans fail for reasons beyond their control, how well do language agents search for alternative ways to achieve their goals? We devise a specialized agentic planning benchmark to study this question. Each planning problem is solved via combinations of function calls. The agent searches for relevant functions from a set of over four thousand possibilities, and observes environmental feedback in the form of function outputs or error messages. Our benchmark confronts the agent with external failures in its workflow, such as functions that suddenly become unavailable. At the same time, even with the introduction of these failures, we guarantee that the task remains solvable. Ideally, an agent's performance on the planning task should not be affected by the presence of external failures. Overall, we find that language agents struggle to formulate and execute backup plans in response to environment feedback. While state-of-the-art models are often able to identify the correct function to use in the right context, they struggle to adapt to feedback from the environment and often fail to pursue alternate courses of action, even when the search space is artificially restricted. We provide a systematic analysis of the failures of both open-source and commercial models, examining the effects of search space size, as well as the benefits of scaling model size in our setting. Our analysis identifies key challenges for current generative models as well as promising directions for future work.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Can A Society of Generative Agents Simulate Human Behavior and Inform Public Health Policy? A Case Study on Vaccine Hesitancy

Can we simulate a sandbox society with generative agents to model human behavior, thereby reducing the over-reliance on real human trials for assessing public policies? In this work, we investigate the feasibility of simulating health-related decision-making, using vaccine hesitancy, defined as the delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccines despite the availability of vaccination services (MacDonald, 2015), as a case study. To this end, we introduce the VacSim framework with 100 generative agents powered by Large Language Models (LLMs). VacSim simulates vaccine policy outcomes with the following steps: 1) instantiate a population of agents with demographics based on census data; 2) connect the agents via a social network and model vaccine attitudes as a function of social dynamics and disease-related information; 3) design and evaluate various public health interventions aimed at mitigating vaccine hesitancy. To align with real-world results, we also introduce simulation warmup and attitude modulation to adjust agents' attitudes. We propose a series of evaluations to assess the reliability of various LLM simulations. Experiments indicate that models like Llama and Qwen can simulate aspects of human behavior but also highlight real-world alignment challenges, such as inconsistent responses with demographic profiles. This early exploration of LLM-driven simulations is not meant to serve as definitive policy guidance; instead, it serves as a call for action to examine social simulation for policy development.

cs.MA↗

arXiv2025

RATIONALYST: Mining Implicit Rationales for Process Supervision of Reasoning

The reasoning steps generated by LLMs might be incomplete, as they mimic logical leaps common in everyday communication found in their pre-training data: underlying rationales are frequently left implicit (unstated). To address this challenge, we introduce RATIONALYST, a model for process-supervision of reasoning based on pre-training on a vast collection of rationale annotations extracted from unlabeled data. We extract 79k rationales from web-scale unlabelled dataset (the Pile) and a combination of reasoning datasets with minimal human intervention. This web-scale pre-training for reasoning allows RATIONALYST to consistently generalize across diverse reasoning tasks, including mathematical, commonsense, scientific, and logical reasoning. Fine-tuned from LLaMa-3-8B, RATIONALYST improves the accuracy of reasoning by an average of 3.9% on 7 representative reasoning benchmarks. It also demonstrates superior performance compared to significantly larger verifiers like GPT-4 and similarly sized models fine-tuned on matching training sets.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

WorldAPIs: The World Is Worth How Many APIs? A Thought Experiment

AI systems make decisions in physical environments through primitive actions or affordances that are accessed via API calls. While deploying AI agents in the real world involves numerous high-level actions, existing embodied simulators offer a limited set of domain-salient APIs. This naturally brings up the questions: how many primitive actions (APIs) are needed for a versatile embodied agent, and what should they look like? We explore this via a thought experiment: assuming that wikiHow tutorials cover a wide variety of human-written tasks, what is the space of APIs needed to cover these instructions? We propose a framework to iteratively induce new APIs by grounding wikiHow instruction to situated agent policies. Inspired by recent successes in large language models (LLMs) for embodied planning, we propose a few-shot prompting to steer GPT-4 to generate Pythonic programs as agent policies and bootstrap a universe of APIs by 1) reusing a seed set of APIs; and then 2) fabricate new API calls when necessary. The focus of this thought experiment is on defining these APIs rather than their executability. We apply the proposed pipeline on instructions from wikiHow tutorials. On a small fraction (0.5%) of tutorials, we induce an action space of 300+ APIs necessary for capturing the rich variety of tasks in the physical world. A detailed automatic and human analysis of the induction output reveals that the proposed pipeline enables effective reuse and creation of APIs. Moreover, a manual review revealed that existing simulators support only a small subset of the induced APIs (9 of the top 50 frequent APIs), motivating the development of action-rich embodied environments.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Jailbreak Distillation: Renewable Safety Benchmarking

Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly deployed in critical applications, raising urgent needs for robust safety benchmarking. We propose Jailbreak Distillation (JBDistill), a novel benchmark construction framework that "distills" jailbreak attacks into high-quality and easily-updatable safety benchmarks. JBDistill utilizes a small set of development models and existing jailbreak attack algorithms to create a candidate prompt pool, then employs prompt selection algorithms to identify an effective subset of prompts as safety benchmarks. JBDistill addresses challenges in existing safety evaluation: the use of consistent evaluation prompts across models ensures fair comparisons and reproducibility. It requires minimal human effort to rerun the JBDistill pipeline and produce updated benchmarks, alleviating concerns on saturation and contamination. Extensive experiments demonstrate our benchmarks generalize robustly to 13 diverse evaluation models held out from benchmark construction, including proprietary, specialized, and newer-generation LLMs, significantly outperforming existing safety benchmarks in effectiveness while maintaining high separability and diversity. Our framework thus provides an effective, sustainable, and adaptable solution for streamlining safety evaluation.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

SIMPLEMIX: Frustratingly Simple Mixing of Off- and On-policy Data in Language Model Preference Learning

Aligning language models with human preferences relies on pairwise preference datasets. While some studies suggest that on-policy data consistently outperforms off -policy data for preference learning, others indicate that the advantages of on-policy data may be task-dependent, highlighting the need for a systematic exploration of their interplay. In this work, we show that on-policy and off-policy data offer complementary strengths in preference optimization: on-policy data is particularly effective for reasoning tasks like math and coding, while off-policy data performs better on open-ended tasks such as creative writing and making personal recommendations. Guided by these findings, we introduce SIMPLEMIX, an approach to combine the complementary strengths of on-policy and off-policy preference learning by simply mixing these two data sources. Our empirical results across diverse tasks and benchmarks demonstrate that SIMPLEMIX substantially improves language model alignment. Specifically, SIMPLEMIX improves upon on-policy DPO and off-policy DPO by an average of 6.03% on Alpaca Eval 2.0. Moreover, it outperforms prior approaches that are much more complex in combining on- and off-policy data, such as HyPO and DPO-Mix-P, by an average of 3.05%.

cs.CL↗