arXiv subjects

Kaijian Zou

Publications and source records attributed to Kaijian Zou.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

SWE-VERIFIER: Selective Verification for Cost-Efficient Coding Agents

Coding agents spend substantial computation generating actions and processing long interaction histories. Poor action choices can steer agents into low-value states, wasting computation and increasing API costs. Sampling and verifying alternative actions can improve the agent's decisions, but applying this procedure at every step adds substantial overhead. We introduce SWE-Verifier, a lightweight generative model that selectively triggers candidate sampling and verification. It scores the coding agent's proposed action to determine when additional candidate sampling is needed, then ranks the resulting actions before execution. We train SWE-Verifier from Qwen3.5-4B using preference data that groups contrasting actions with their resulting environment observations and rubric-guided teacher scores. Using the mini-swe-agent harness, SWE-Verifier improves resolution from 75.47% to 77.20% on MiniMax-M2.7 at 1.09 times cost and generalizes to DeepSeek-V4-Flash without training on its actions, improving resolution from 72.60% to 74.27% at 1.13 times cost. Across both models, SWE-Verifier verifies fewer than 4% of steps and achieves comparable or higher resolution than the trajectory and all-step baselines at substantially lower cost. These results demonstrate that selective candidate sampling and lightweight verification provide complementary gains in coding-agent performance and inference efficiency. Our model, code, and data are available at https://github.com/zkjzou/SWE-Verifier.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Predicting Privileged Information Effectiveness for On-Policy Self-Distillation

On-policy self-distillation (OPSD) enables large language models (LLMs) to learn from privileged information (PI) without a separate teacher model. However, prior work largely treats PI as a fixed design choice, leaving the effects of its content and construction poorly understood. This challenge is particularly important in multi-turn agentic settings, where trajectories contain actions, observations, and reasoning that can be transformed into PI in many ways. We systematically evaluate 16 PI configurations across three multi-turn agentic benchmarks and three student models that vary in scale and reasoning mode. We find that PI effectiveness depends on its content, generation source, and the student model. Information-dense trajectories and PI produced by more capable generators generally yield larger gains, whereas thinking models benefit less consistently. To assess PI before training, we compare PI utility with two KL-based metrics: sampled-token reverse KL ($D$) and error-step KL contrast ($Δd^{-}_{\mathrm{err}}$). The KL-based metrics track post-training performance more consistently than PI utility, which can be distorted by information leakage. Empirically, selecting each task's PI by $Δd^{-}_{\mathrm{err}}$ also improves post-training performance over random selection, most when the PI candidates differ widely. Finally, effective PI remains beneficial when combined with GRPO, allowing the combined objective to outperform a strong GRPO baseline. Overall, our results provide practical guidance for constructing and evaluating PI in OPSD training.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

LiveOIBench: Can Large Language Models Outperform Human Contestants in Informatics Olympiads?

Competitive programming problems are increasingly used to evaluate the coding capabilities of large language models (LLMs) due to their complexity and ease of verification. Yet, current coding benchmarks face limitations such as a lack of exceptionally challenging problems, insufficient test case coverage, and reliance on online platform APIs that limit accessibility. To address these issues, we introduce LiveOIBench, a large-scale competitive programming benchmark featuring 403 expert-curated problems, averaging 60 official test cases each, drawn from 72 contests across 14 Informatics Olympiads held between 2023 and 2025. LiveOIBench has four key features: (1) expert-designed tasks with detailed subtask rubrics and extensive test cases; (2) direct comparison to elite human contestants; (3) continuous updates to reduce contamination risk; and (4) a fully offline, reproducible evaluation system. Benchmarking 34 popular general-purpose and reasoning LLMs, we find that GPT-5 achieves an 81.76th percentile, still falling short of top human contestants, while among the open-weight models, GPT-OSS-120B reaches only the 60th percentile. Reasoning-trace analyses indicate that robust reasoning models prioritize precise problem analysis over excessive exploration. Finally, analyses across release dates, task familiarity, and code similarity find minimal evidence of data contamination in our benchmark. Our leaderboard, code, and data are available at: https://liveoibench.github.io/.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

The Wrong Kind of Right: Quantifying and Localizing Misfired Alignment in LLMs

Warning: This paper studies stereotypes and biases, and contains potentially disturbing examples, used for illustration purposes only. Our findings should not be interpreted as an argument against alignment. Instead, this paper highlights the need for principled approaches to more advanced alignment. Alignment aims to ensure that large language models (LLMs) behave safely and reliably, including by avoiding unsafe inferences. However, we show that such safety-oriented behaviors can misfire: models may reject warranted conclusions even when they are explicitly supported by context. We call this failure mode misfired alignment, where alignment-induced changes cause LLMs to override explicit evidence. To quantify this phenomenon, specifically on stereotype-related alignment, we introduce VETO, a benchmark consisting of 2,032 BBQ-derived contrastive pairs, and define a new metric, Misfired Alignment Rate (MAR), which measures on a 0 to 100 scale how often a model fails on a stereotype-related question but succeeds on its contrastive counterpart. We benchmark 25 LLMs on VETO, and show that all LLMs, including the most recent ones, exhibit non-trivial (4.7 to 18.9%) MARs while all human participants achieve 0.0% MAR. Controlled priming experiments further show that alignment-induced cues can substantially amplify MAR across LLMs, indicating that these failures are not merely artifacts of individual examples but can be induced by safety-related framing. Mechanistic analyses on open-weight LLMs reveal late-layer suppression of evidence-supported answers, and comparisons between instruct and base LLMs suggest that this suppression emerges after instruction training. These findings show that current alignment methods can overgeneralize surface-level safety cues, to the point of overriding objective evidence, motivating more work on alignment objectives that better preserve contextual grounding.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

On Many-Shot In-Context Learning for Long-Context Evaluation

Many-shot in-context learning (ICL) has emerged as a unique setup to both utilize and test the ability of large language models to handle long context. This paper delves into long-context language model (LCLM) evaluation through many-shot ICL. We first ask: what types of ICL tasks benefit from additional demonstrations, and how effective are they in evaluating LCLMs? We find that classification and summarization tasks show performance improvements with additional demonstrations, while translation and reasoning tasks do not exhibit clear trends. Next, we investigate the extent to which different tasks necessitate retrieval versus global context understanding. We develop metrics to categorize ICL tasks into two groups: (i) similar-sample learning (SSL): tasks where retrieval of the most similar examples is sufficient for good performance, and (ii) all-sample learning (ASL): tasks that necessitate a deeper comprehension of all examples in the prompt. Lastly, we introduce a new many-shot ICL benchmark, MANYICLBENCH, to characterize model's ability on both fronts and benchmark 12 LCLMs using MANYICLBENCH. We find that while state-of-the-art models demonstrate good performance up to 64k tokens in SSL tasks, many models experience significant performance drops at only 16k tokens in ASL tasks.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2023

Crossing the Aisle: Unveiling Partisan and Counter-Partisan Events in News Reporting

News media is expected to uphold unbiased reporting. Yet they may still affect public opinion by selectively including or omitting events that support or contradict their ideological positions. Prior work in NLP has only studied media bias via linguistic style and word usage. In this paper, we study to which degree media balances news reporting and affects consumers through event inclusion or omission. We first introduce the task of detecting both partisan and counter-partisan events: events that support or oppose the author's political ideology. To conduct our study, we annotate a high-quality dataset, PAC, containing 8,511 (counter-)partisan event annotations in 304 news articles from ideologically diverse media outlets. We benchmark PAC to highlight the challenges of this task. Our findings highlight both the ways in which the news subtly shapes opinion and the need for large language models that better understand events within a broader context. Our dataset can be found at https://github.com/launchnlp/Partisan-Event-Dataset.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2023

All Things Considered: Detecting Partisan Events from News Media with Cross-Article Comparison

Public opinion is shaped by the information news media provide, and that information in turn may be shaped by the ideological preferences of media outlets. But while much attention has been devoted to media bias via overt ideological language or topic selection, a more unobtrusive way in which the media shape opinion is via the strategic inclusion or omission of partisan events that may support one side or the other. We develop a latent variable-based framework to predict the ideology of news articles by comparing multiple articles on the same story and identifying partisan events whose inclusion or omission reveals ideology. Our experiments first validate the existence of partisan event selection, and then show that article alignment and cross-document comparison detect partisan events and article ideology better than competitive baselines. Our results reveal the high-level form of media bias, which is present even among mainstream media with strong norms of objectivity and nonpartisanship. Our codebase and dataset are available at https://github.com/launchnlp/ATC.

cs.CL↗