arXiv Science⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Minglai Yang

Publications and source records attributed to Minglai Yang.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
arXiv2026

TaxoSAE: Rethinking Sparse Autoencoders through Taxonomic Logic

Recent Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) decompose the representations of large language models (LLMs) into interpretable features, enabling precise readout and control of encoded knowledge. However, existing SAEs treat each feature as a standalone unit, whereas real-world knowledge is often taxonomically organized. As a result, readout carries no guarantee of taxonomic consistency, and control lacks the granularity to specify the scope of an edit. We propose TaxoSAE, which explicitly encodes taxonomical information, built on is-a (hypernym-hyponym) relations, into the SAE feature space. TaxoSAE mirrors a taxonomy with a stack of SAEs, one per taxonomy level, and introduces a taxonomic alignment loss that trains each concept to be active whenever one of its hyponyms is. On two factual QA taxonomies, one over biographical relations and one over animals, TaxoSAE enables (1) more accurate readout through the taxonomy with concentrated activations, e.g., +31.3 points in reading out the hypernyms of abstract concepts never queried in training; (2) more precise control, with +25.5 points in swap success, while suppressing a concept removes only its own answers (0-2% accuracy vs. 91-100% on other concepts); and, more importantly, (3) readout of unseen concepts through their hypernyms, with up to +37.9 points in hypernym readout accuracy.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

The Answer Lies Within: Self-Derived Rewards Enable Explainable Relation Extraction

Despite the remarkable reasoning capabilities of large language models, they still struggle with one-shot relation extraction without predefined relation labels. We identify two pitfalls: models are often misled by irrelevant tokens instead of relation-conveying semantics, and they often fail to align with the abstraction level human annotators expect. We introduce a novel framework that closes this gap with two components: (1) COGRE, a cognitively-inspired reasoning framework that structures RE into a series of processes mimicking human text-processing; and (2) HIT@DICT, a reinforcement learning intermediate reward strategy that encourages reasoning to align with relational labels by rewarding relation-relevant phrases in reasoning. The reward is derived on a credit dictionary automatically extracted from correct predictions. Our experiments show that our framework improves both accuracy and explanation quality by addressing these two pitfalls. For example, COGRE with Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct on One-shot NYT29 achieves 24.65% F1, surpassing prior reasoning-based designs. Optimizing this approach with RL using HIT@DICT further improves performance by +23.46% points. Finally, human evaluation shows that our best model generates relational phrases closely aligned with gold labels, increasing human explanation quality ratings by 54% (relative).

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Rubric Dropout: A Simple Way to Mitigate Reward Hacking in Rubric-Based RL

Rubric-based reinforcement learning, in which an LLM judge scores responses against prompt-specific criteria, has become a standard way to post-train language models on tasks without verifiable answers. The rubric, however, is only a proxy for response quality, and a policy trained against it long enough learns to exploit the difference. We train models with GRPO on medical and science rubrics and grade their responses on out-of-distribution (OOD) benchmarks throughout training with two judges: the training judge and a stronger OOD judge. The two scores first rise together and then diverge. The policy is learning to satisfy the training judge without writing better responses, which is a form of reward hacking. To mitigate it, we propose Rubric Dropout, which applies dropout to rubric criteria: at each training step, a random subset of each rubric's criteria is removed from the reward, so the rewarded subset of criteria is resampled at each step. All responses sampled for the same prompt are scored on the same subset, so their rewards remain comparable, and evaluation always uses the full rubric. We also introduce Block Dropout, which drops semantically similar criteria together so that a near duplicate of a dropped criterion cannot keep rewarding the same behavior. Across both benchmarks and models from 1.7B to 8B, dropout improves the gold judge's score on OOD benchmarks by up to 3 percent on HealthBench-Hard and 7 percent on ResearchQA, and it reduces both the gap between the two judges and over-crediting. It keeps in-domain reward close to the baseline, and dropout rates of 30-50 percent work best. Block Dropout improves the gold judge's OOD score further at the same dropout rate. Changing which criteria are rewarded at each step is a simple, inexpensive way to make rubric rewards harder to exploit.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

CyberArena: Benchmarking AI Agents in Live Symmetric Attack-and-Defense Combat

AI agents are demonstrating increasingly strong offensive and defensive cybersecurity capabilities in the real world. Current benchmarks mostly evaluate agents in isolation against static targets. Real cyber operations, however, are dynamic and coupled: security postures constantly change as attackers and defenders adapt to each other in real time. Static benchmarks quickly saturate and miss an agent's ability to attack and defend simultaneously under live pressure. To address this gap, we present CyberArena, a dynamic, symmetric adversarial benchmark built around multi-round attack-and-defense combat. In isolated sandboxes, two agents compete under identical rules, acting concurrently as both attackers and defenders over continuously changing services. This converts static targets into evolving, semi-open challenges, directly testing an agent's speed and precision in discovering, exploiting, and patching vulnerabilities. To sustain the benchmark's longevity, an automated agentic pipeline continuously generates, reviews, and validates new environments. Furthermore, because pairwise contests are notoriously hard to quantify, we introduce a dynamical model that maps match dynamics into unified, multidimensional scores across offensive, defensive, and domain-specific capabilities. Evaluating 12 frontier LLM agents across 40 challenges in 466 matches, CyberArena separates model capabilities where single-agent baselines hit a ceiling. The trajectories read like a fight rather than an exam: defenders patch one hole and miss the next and certify repairs on stale evidence, while capable agents think a move ahead, planting backdoors for later rounds and, in one case, writing their own packet sniffer to watch the opponent. Beyond a benchmark, CyberArena serves as an adaptable, scalable experimental platform for future research on cybersecurity agents.

cs.CR↗
arXiv2026

AlignSAE: Concept-Aligned Sparse Autoencoders

Large Language Models (LLMs) encode factual knowledge within hidden parametric spaces that are difficult to inspect or control. While Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) can decompose hidden activations into more fine-grained, interpretable features, they often struggle to reliably align these features with human-defined concepts, resulting in entangled and distributed feature representations. To address this, we introduce AlignSAE, a method that aligns SAE features with a predefined ontology through a "pre-train, then post-train" curriculum. After an initial unsupervised training phase, we apply supervised post-training to bind specific concepts to dedicated latent slots while preserving the remaining capacity for general reconstruction. This separation creates an interpretable interface where specific concepts can be inspected and controlled without interference from unrelated features. Empirical results on GPT-2 across synthetic biographical QA (1-hop, 6 concepts) and compositional relational reasoning (2-hop, 20 concepts) demonstrate that AlignSAE enables precise causal interventions, such as reliable concept swaps (94.8% success in 1-hop), by targeting single, semantically aligned slots. AlignSAE achieves disentanglement improvements of $9$--$\infty\times$ over standard SAEs (measured via Mutual Information Gap), and further supports multi-hop reasoning and a mechanistic probe of grokking-like generalization dynamics. Although our evaluation focuses on GPT-2, AlignSAE itself is model-agnostic.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

Evidence-First Agentic Verification

Long-horizon, semi-verifiable agentic tasks often rely on rubric-based evaluation, but the evidence needed to assess these tasks can be spread across the environment state and the execution trace. A judge may overlook this evidence or accept unsupported claims, including an agent's own reports of success. When rubric verdicts serve as reinforcement-learning rewards, such errors can reinforce undesirable behavior. We introduce Sauron, an evidence-first agentic verifier that investigates both state and trace and relies on a claim only after independently validating it against its source. Bounded queries and joint investigation of related criteria reduce context use and redundant work, and each verdict carries an auditable receipt of its supporting evidence. Across 2,586 human-labeled criteria from 100 personal-assistant episodes, Sauron achieves the highest F1 of five verifiers on all eight backbones tested while costing less than Gandalf, the strongest baseline. With GPT-5.6 Sol, it reaches 0.96 F1 versus Gandalf's 0.92 at 23% lower cost, with a wider margin on process criteria. On a paired fault-injection suite covering 13 families, several of which simulate reward hacking, Sauron detects 97% of injected failures while flagging only 2% of clean controls, outperforming baselines even when they are given the full trace. On TRAIL, a benchmark for detecting and localizing real agent errors, Sauron leads both Gandalf and TRAIL's own judge on all three quality metrics.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

From Copying to Composition: How Language Models Develop In-Context Learning

In-context learning (ICL) allows language models to adapt their behavior from instructions and demonstrations in a prompt, but accuracy alone does not reveal how contextual information controls their predictions. We study the acquisition and trainability of ICL with a controlled diagnostic that separates copying a nearby demonstration from integrating information across the prompt. Across 17 models, about a third prefer the copied answer, a few are undecided, and the rest prefer the rule-consistent answer, which goes with higher accuracy and with control by the requested value rather than the closest conflicting example. Checkpoint analyses show that models begin prioritizing task-relevant prompt tokens over conflicting examples long before their accuracy improves beyond chance level. In matched training experiments, synthetic documents that define endings and then query them shift models toward compositional responses on the controlled diagnostic, whereas fine-tuning on definition exercises built from rewritten real documents improves accuracy when prompts reassign label meanings. The results suggest that ICL is not acquired as a single, uniform capability. Instead, prompt control, answer preference, construction without candidates, and transfer can develop along distinct trajectories.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

RSI-Forge: From Research Papers to Environments for Recursive Self-Improvement

Environments are the foundation of recursive self-improvement: they provide the problems agents work on and the feedback used to evaluate progress. Yet constructing challenging research environments with reliable evaluation still depends on domain experts, limiting their scale and disciplinary coverage. We introduce RSI-Forge, a multi-agent pipeline that turns published papers into executable environments for self-improvement. Three agents coordinate construction, reproduction, and review to produce tasks with automated evaluators; each paper's method is independently reimplemented to establish a baseline score. We present 210 environments across 18 fields, including 90 reviewed by independent human domain experts. Both experts and agent judges give high ratings to the potential for improving the provided starting solutions and the evaluators' ability to distinguish solution quality, whereas experts are more critical of shortcut resistance, faithfulness to the source paper, and whether a single idea can exhaust a task. To validate their use for repeated improvement, we evaluate four models over 3 successive attempts on 120 environments, with each attempt inheriting prior code and notes while model weights remain fixed. At least one model improves after the first attempt in 84% of environments. Models also outperform the reproduced paper methods in 68 of the 120 environments, demonstrating room for gains beyond these baselines. Transcript analysis identifies work beyond parameter tuning in 95% of these successful attempts. Analysis of the resulting trajectories shows that models scoring lower on these tasks explore less, more often accept gains smaller than the reported standard error, and rely more heavily on tuning to the development set. RSI-Forge provides a scalable approach to constructing research environments for training and evaluating self-improving agents.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

READY or Not: Reliable Enterprise Agent Deployment

An AI agent can perform well on benchmarks and still be unsuitable for deployment. Existing AI-agent benchmarks measure whether an agent can complete realistic professional work, whereas enterprise deployment asks a different question: whether an agent can meet a required reliability level, under acceptable human oversight, and at tolerable cost. We introduce Reliable Enterprise Agent Deployment (READY), a framework for qualifying AI agents for deployment on enterprise workflows. READY preserves each workflow's own definition of successful execution while applying a common qualification procedure. Given an agent, a workflow, and a class of candidate oversight policies, READY measures the reliability and operating cost of the human-AI system, selects the minimum-cost policy that satisfies a specified reliability target, and statistically qualifies it on held-out cases. The resulting deployment profile characterizes the supported operating point: reliability, human-oversight burden, and cost. READY is implemented as an open testbed that decouples workflow specification, execution, evaluation, and qualification, and runs on existing agent-evaluation infrastructure. In an end-to-end clinical-audit case study spanning 16 agent systems and 750 cases, READY reveals differences hidden by autonomous performance: two systems separated by only 0.3 points in autonomous accuracy (72.8% vs. 72.5%) require 39.2% versus 29.6% human review, respectively, to qualify at the same 76% reliability target under the evaluated oversight policy. READY thus shifts enterprise agent evaluation from how well can the agent perform the work? to under what conditions, and at what cost, can it be reliably deployed? By making those conditions explicit and statistically testable, READY provides a basis for comparing agent systems, setting oversight requirements, and making evidence-based deployment decisions.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Spine-Branch Coordination for Multi-agent Computer Use

Computer use agents (CUAs) are increasingly deployed as multi-agent systems that decompose a task into multiple subtasks executed across parallel virtual machines (VMs). However, a critical physical bottleneck is that the state of two VMs cannot be merged. Previous systems handle this ad-hoc rather than treating it as a first-class concern. We propose Spine-Branch Coordination for multi-agent computer use, a framework that decomposes a task into a "spine-branch" graph, where the spine carries the main task flow with continuous VM state and branch tasks execute in parallel to collect information the spine needs to complete the task. Branch VMs are discarded once their tasks finish, so no VM merging ever occurs. Experiments show that on 200 long-horizon tasks from Odysseys and across three CUA backbones, Spine-Branch improves success rate over the baseline system by 6.0% to 16.5%, while reducing per-task cost by 34% to 70%, indicating that explicitly modeling VM-state merging constraint enables multi-agent computer use to scale efficiently.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Knowledge Index of Noah's Ark

Knowledge benchmarks for LLMs face three issues: scaling-driven designs that do not operationalize disciplinary representativeness; flat-payment annotation that permits lazy consensus; and unaudited ranking instability under bounded test budgets. We introduce KINA, an 899-item benchmark across 261 fine-grained disciplines, with two formal results. First, we cast representativeness as a coverage-style objective over expert-elicited anchors and operationalize disciplinary representativeness through a proxy, yielding a (1-1/e) greedy approximation (Proposition 1); the guarantee applies to the proxy, not to population representativeness. Second, we prove a bonus-on-bar tournament weakly FOSD-dominates flat payment in released-review quality, with incentive-compatibility threshold B > Delta C / Delta p_min (Theorem 1). Evaluating 42 models from 13 labs, the top model, Gemini-3.1-Pro-Preview, reaches 53.17%, followed by Claude-Opus-4.6 at 49.92% and GPT-5.4 at 48.55%, leaving substantial headroom below saturation. The full leaderboard shows a tiered structure rather than a smooth total order: a small frontier tier lies above 48%, a dense strong-model tier spans roughly 38-45%, and low-performing models remain only modestly above the 10% chance baseline. Tool augmentation adds up to 5.17 points across the five tool-use evaluations, with gains varying substantially across models. We report bootstrap ranking-stability statistics to make bounded-budget variance explicit and to discourage over-interpretation of adjacent ranks.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Dr. DocBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Expert-Level and Difficult Document Parsing

Document parsing and recognition are fundamental capabilities for vision-language models (VLMs) and document processing systems. However, existing Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and document parsing benchmarks are increasingly limited in coverage and difficulty: many focus on common document genres or uniformly sampled pages where modern parsers already perform strongly, while offering limited annotation for expert-domain structures such as chemical formula, music notation, complex tables, and cross-page layouts. We introduce Dr. DocBench, a difficulty-aware benchmark for expert-level document parsing. Built from a large-scale multilingual book corpus, Dr. DocBench spans 52 BISAC subject domains and selects challenging documents through parser-failure-based sampling, targeting cases where multiple state-of-the-art systems struggle. It contains 4,514 annotated pages from long documents averaging around 100 pages, with 65k high-quality page- and block-level annotations for layout, reading order, hierarchical relations, and domain-specific visual contents. Evaluations of pipeline-based parsers and general-purpose VLMs show that strong performance on existing benchmarks does not transfer to our expert-level document parsing. Our analysis reveals substantial failures across subjects, content types, and structural attributes, highlighting Dr. DocBench as a comprehensive testbed for diagnosing and advancing document intelligence.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Triaging Threats to Specialized Guardrails

Building robust safety guardrails is essential for deploying Large Language Models across diverse real-world applications. However, this goal remains challenging because safety risks span heterogeneous threat domains, while existing datasets cover only fragmented risk subsets and rely on inconsistent taxonomies. Consequently, it remains unclear whether current guardrails can generalize beyond narrow evaluation settings. To better understand the robustness of guardrail models, we first introduce GuardZoo, a unified human-annotated benchmark with 32,460 samples covering 15 distinct unsafe categories. Evaluation on GuardZoo reveals that monolithic guardrails suffer from task interference: different threat domains require distinct decision boundaries that are difficult to compress into a single model. We therefore propose RouteGuard, a router-expert framework that triages each conversation to specialized expert guardrails for threat-specific detection. Experiments show that RouteGuard improves fine-grained threat detection over strong guardrail baselines, generalizes better under out-of-domain evaluation, and supports flexible modular expansion to emerging threats.

cs.CR↗
arXiv2026

EchoRL: Reinforcement Learning via Rollout Echoing

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards is an effective route for post-training to strengthen the reasoning capability of large language models. However, as training proceeds, the learning signal can collapse thus makes the training gain become marginal and ineffective. Specifically, a growing fraction of prompts' rollouts become advantage-degenerated: all the self-generated rollouts show verified-success, making the standard deviation over their rewards be zero; accordingly each rollout's advantage becomes degenerated (zero) as well. Given such rollouts' advantages, the policy-gradient for model optimization eventually vanishes, capping the training performance. We argue that some of these rollouts still contain valuable learning signals but unfortunately omitted with the existing RLVR methods. In this paper, inspired through analyzing the entropy pattern behind golden trajectories produced by external expert models, we propose EchoRL for better exploiting the advantage-degenerated rollouts to further improve the training performance. EchoRL is a lightweight module that first identifies an EchoClip from verified-success rollouts based on their step-level entropy values, and then feeds this clip back as an auxiliary supervision signal in the RL objective. Extensive experiments across 10 benchmarks, 5 LLM backbones, and 4 popular RLVR post-training methods demonstrate that EchoRL consistently improves RLVR post-training with minimal overhead.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

VEFX-Bench: A Holistic Benchmark for Generic Video Editing and Visual Effects

As AI-assisted video creation becomes increasingly practical, instruction-guided video editing has become essential for refining generated or captured footage to meet professional requirements. Yet the field still lacks both a large-scale human-annotated dataset with complete editing examples and a standardized evaluator for comparing editing systems. Existing resources are limited by small scale, missing edited outputs, or the absence of human quality labels, while current evaluation often relies on expensive manual inspection or generic vision-language model judges that are not specialized for editing quality. We introduce VEFX-Dataset, a human-annotated dataset containing 5,049 video editing examples across 9 major editing categories and 32 subcategories, each labeled along three decoupled dimensions: Instruction Following, Rendering Quality, and Edit Exclusivity. Building on VEFX-Dataset, we propose VEFX-Reward, a reward model designed specifically for video editing quality assessment. VEFX-Reward jointly processes the source video, the editing instruction, and the edited video, and predicts per-dimension quality scores via ordinal regression. We further release VEFX-Bench, a benchmark of 300 curated video-prompt pairs for standardized comparison of editing systems. Experiments show that VEFX-Reward aligns more strongly with human judgments than generic VLM judges and prior reward models on both standard IQA/VQA metrics and group-wise preference evaluation. Using VEFX-Reward as an evaluator, we benchmark representative commercial and open-source video editing systems, revealing a persistent gap between visual plausibility, instruction following, and edit locality in current models. Our project page is https://xiangbogaobarry.github.io/VEFX-Bench/.

cs.CV↗
arXiv2026

Justified or Just Convincing? Error Verifiability as a Dimension of LLM Quality

As LLMs are deployed in high-stakes settings, users must judge the correctness of individual responses, often relying on model-generated justifications such as reasoning chains or explanations. Yet, no standard measure exists for whether these justifications help users distinguish correct answers from incorrect ones. We formalize this idea as error verifiability and propose $v_{\text{bal}}$, a balanced metric that measures whether justifications enable raters to accurately assess answer correctness, validated against human raters who show high agreement. We find that neither common approaches, such as post-training and model scaling, nor more targeted interventions recommended improve verifiability. We introduce two methods that succeed at improving verifiability: reflect-and-rephrase (RR) for mathematical reasoning and oracle-rephrase (OR) for factual QA, both of which improve verifiability by incorporating domain-appropriate external information. Together, our results establish error verifiability as a distinct dimension of response quality that does not emerge from accuracy improvements alone and requires dedicated, domain-aware methods to address.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

Opening the Black Box: A Survey on the Mechanisms of Multi-Step Reasoning in Large Language Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable abilities to solve problems requiring multiple reasoning steps, yet the internal mechanisms enabling such capabilities remain elusive. Unlike existing surveys that primarily focus on engineering methods to enhance performance, this survey provides a comprehensive overview of the mechanisms underlying LLM multi-step reasoning. We organize the survey around a conceptual framework comprising seven interconnected research questions, from how LLMs execute implicit multi-hop reasoning within hidden activations to how verbalized explicit reasoning remodels the internal computation. Finally, we highlight five research directions for future mechanistic studies.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2025

How Is LLM Reasoning Distracted by Irrelevant Context? An Analysis Using a Controlled Benchmark

We introduce Grade School Math with Distracting Context (GSM-DC), a synthetic benchmark to evaluate Large Language Models' (LLMs) reasoning robustness against systematically controlled irrelevant context (IC). GSM-DC constructs symbolic reasoning graphs with precise distractor injections, enabling rigorous, reproducible evaluation. Our experiments demonstrate that LLMs are significantly sensitive to IC, affecting both reasoning path selection and arithmetic accuracy. Additionally, training models with strong distractors improves performance in both in-distribution and out-of-distribution scenarios. We further propose a stepwise tree search guided by a process reward model, which notably enhances robustness in out-of-distribution conditions.

cs.CL↗