arXiv subjects

Mrinmaya Sachan

Publications and source records attributed to Mrinmaya Sachan.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

DAPS: Dependency-Aware Premise Selection for LLM Theorem Proving

LLM-based theorem proving in Lean 4 has advanced rapidly, but provers are difficult to leverage newly contributed lemmas, because retrieval skews toward popular foundational lemmas, leaving the right premises buried among hundreds of thousands of candidates. Existing neural selectors rank candidates by semantic similarity, with three intrinsic limitations: frequency-skewed retrieval, isolated pairwise ranking, and degradation on out-of-distribution queries such as competition problems and informal language. Given that mathematics is structured by dependencies rather than similarities, we restore this signal to both the training data and the model. We curate two underused dependency resources. We conduct the first systematic mining of 53 Lean Blueprint projects, a previously untapped corpus of 3,805 manually curated informal+formal nodes that capture rare, research-level premises absent from Mathlib4. We further pair it with the extraction of comprehensive, typed, multi-level Mathlib4 dependencies. We then introduce DAPS, a dependency-aware premise selector with a structural neighborhood encoder, a group-level contrastive objective, and a Mathlib-then-Blueprint adaptation procedure. DAPS reaches mean Recall@32 of 89.25 on Mathlib4-Heldout (+11.41 over the strong selector LeanHammer), and maintains this lead on two out-of-distribution benchmarks. Further experiments demonstrate that DAPS premises improve theorem proving on miniF2F and IMO-ProofBench. Project page: https://daps-eth.github.io/.

cs.LO↗

arXiv2026

Same Beliefs, Different Policies: Learning Reusable Representations for Early Stopping in LLM Reasoning

Reasoning LLMs often continue reasoning after reaching a correct answer, wasting computation and sometimes replacing it with an incorrect one. Deciding when to stop is a metareasoning problem: the model must weigh what further reasoning could achieve against its cost, given what it can already answer. Direct utility training learns a stopping representation at a chosen token price; supporting new prices can require additional controller training. We introduce BELT (BELief-based Termination), which separates outcome prediction from stopping control. It learns beliefs about current and future answers from a frozen LLM's hidden states, then fits a linear stopping policy on the frozen features. The prediction targets are independent of token price, so one probe supports different accuracy-cost trade-offs through CPU policy refitting or threshold adjustment. Averaged over five out-of-distribution (OOD) math benchmarks, BELT reduces generated tokens by 41% on Qwen3-1.7B and 51% on OLMo-3-7B-Think without loss of accuracy. The same math-trained BELT transfers to coding and agentic tasks without training on code or agentic data. In all three domains, its accuracy-cost trade-offs are competitive with or better than those of end-to-end controllers. On OLMo3, its probe has 21.2x fewer parameters than one checkpoint of the strongest baseline, OS-Pruner, and needs 55x fewer training GPU-hours than OS-Pruner's five price-specific checkpoints.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

SkillEval: Learning Interpretable Ability Profiles of LLMs via Cognitive Diagnosis Models

Current evaluation of LLMs on benchmarks typically aggregates performance over individual examples into a single scalar score. This approach is overly coarse and ignores the diverse scope of skills covered by benchmark datasets. To address this limitation and better exploit benchmark data, we propose SkillEval, a new evaluation framework that performs cross-model, skill-level analysis. The framework integrates advances from two areas: (1) it leverages the meta-cognitive capabilities of LLMs to automatically discover interpretable skills from questions, and (2) it applies cognitive diagnosis models (CDMs) from psychometrics to estimate per-skill abilities of LLMs. We conduct experiments on 3,811 LLMs evaluated on 9,523 items across five benchmarks spanning diverse domains (MATH, BBH, GPQA, MuSR, IFEval). Compared to the traditional average-based evaluation paradigm, SkillEval produces reliable, more calibrated and informative yet concise model profiles that more accurately predict model behavior on unseen items. We also demonstrate the utility of SkillEval in two downstream tasks: (1) LLM routing, which dynamically assigns each query to a capable but efficient model, reducing inference cost by over 60% while achieving improved performance, and (2) Computerized Adaptive Testing (CAT), where an unseen model can be efficiently evaluated using a trained CDM. Furthermore, we show that these skill profiles provide useful insights, for example, how benchmarks share skills and how instruction-tuned models differ from their base models.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

The Assistance Dilemma: Learning to Teach via Multi-Turn Reinforcement Learning

Large language models (LLMs) trained to answer questions are natively poor at teaching. Reinforcement Learning (RL) against a simulated student is a promising approach to improve their pedagogy, but existing RL-trained tutors reward the student's success on the tutored problem with the tutor's words still in context. The reward is then easiest to raise by telling the student the answer, and a tuned penalty is needed to reduce telling. Drawing on learning sciences, we introduce a masked near-transfer post-test: the student is tested on an unseen variant of the tutored problem with the tutor's utterances masked, so the reward can rise only through what the student wrote in its own turns. This discourages cognitive offloading by the student and allows the continuous penalty to be replaced by two binary reward gates (factual correctness of tutor response, no solution handover). A leave-one-out ablation shows that the learning-gain reward on its own does not separate teaching from telling: the gates reduce solution handover while the near-transfer post-test improves out-of-domain transfer. Using these reward designs we develop Eduardo, a multi-turn RL recipe for training LLM tutors, and use it to train 4B, 9B, 14B and 27B models from two distinct LLM architectures. Our post-trained Eduardo-27B model matches Gemini-3.1-Pro on MathTutorBench and Claude Opus 4.8 on TutorMoments at 2.4-6.2x fewer thinking tokens than frontier models, which matters for interactive tutoring. Without being named in the reward, the model more than doubles its use of the push-for-justification teacher move while support fading (e.g., assigning independent work), whose payoff lies beyond a single-problem dialog episode, is trained out. We open-source our training environment, an 8,671-problem near-transfer dataset, and trained models for further development.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

CroissantMiner: Automated Extraction and Validation of Croissant Metadata for ML Datasets

Croissant has emerged as a standard for machine-readable dataset metadata, yet populating its fields remains labor-intensive and requires careful reading of accompanying dataset documentation. We present the first benchmark enabling end-to-end evaluation of metadata extraction aligned with a community-standard schema. The benchmark comprises 602 papers, including 102 with human-validated gold annotations and 500 with LLM-generated silver annotations, covering the full Croissant schema with both core and Responsible AI (RAI) fields. Using this benchmark, we evaluate a range of extraction systems spanning frontier models, open-weight models, and agentic architectures, under a two-tier evaluation framework that combines rule-based scoring with an LLM judge selected via human audit. We find that single-pass extraction consistently outperforms the four agentic architectures we evaluate: across backbones, these decomposed variants achieve lower accuracy than a single full-context pass. The largest gap appears on long-form RAI fields, which require synthesizing and interpreting information scattered across a paper rather than copying it from a single location, a setting where current systems remain far from reliable. We release the benchmark, evaluation code, judge audit, a live demo, and a leaderboard open to new systems.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

What Makes Something Hard(er)? Explaining Question Difficulty in Natural Language

Difficulty is one of the most fundamental properties of a question: it determines whether the question can meaningfully discriminate between models of differing ability. Although a variety of methods can now estimate or predict difficulty automatically, they yield only a single descriptive number, with no account of the underlying factors that make a question difficult in the first place. In this work, we propose a data-driven approach that automatically generates and validates natural-language hypotheses explaining what makes one question harder than another. We first estimate each item's difficulty from the responses of a large pool of LLMs using Item Response Theory. We then sample contrasting sets of easy and hard questions and prompt an LLM to propose candidate explanations of the difference, which are subsequently validated and selected on held-out questions. Experimental results across three datasets spanning mathematical, logical, and commonsense reasoning show that our method produces interpretable and predictive hypotheses. On their own, they predict the difficulty of unseen questions competitively with, or better than, advanced black-box difficulty regressors; used as additional features, they further improve those regressors, implying that they discover difficulty signals that existing models fail to capture. Moreover, we demonstrate that editing questions according to a hypothesis can shift their measured difficulty in the expected direction, indicating that the discovered hypotheses are causally valid difficulty factors rather than post-hoc descriptions. Our approach thus turns a purely descriptive difficulty score into actionable statements.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Last Translation Benchmark

For scientific progress, we need benchmarks that test the limits of state-of-the-art models, and evaluation methods that inform us about failure cases. As models get stronger, standard benchmarks for machine translation are approaching saturation. Further, automatic translation metrics are unreliable, opaque, and vulnerable to reward-hacking. Even gold human evaluation is not problem-free, because it often lacks reproducibility, objectivity, and scalability. Overall, this prevents us from tracking progress in the field and identifying pathways for improvement. We introduce the Last Translation Benchmark, a collection of human-authored and peer-reviewed examples (texts, images, audio, videos) that break leading machine translation models. We also present a new evaluation approach: each example comes with handcrafted verification rules describing concrete failure cases on that example, therefore allowing reliable and actionable future evaluation. The Last Translation Benchmark is a live dataset that accepts ongoing contributions. The latest version is LTBv1, containing accepted contributions prior to September 1st 2026, with future releases planned as new data is continuously collected.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Can LLMs Model Incorrect Student Reasoning? A Case Study on Distractor Generation

Modeling student misconceptions in a realistic manner is critical for AI in education. In this work, we examine how large language models (LLMs) reason about misconceptions when generating distractor answers for multiple-choice questions (MCQs), a task that requires producing answers that are incorrect, yet plausible. We introduce a taxonomy over reasoning strategies for distractor generation that is grounded in learning-science literature and empirical observation, which we apply to LLM-generated reasoning traces across math and science MCQs. On the math dataset, we find that models follow a misconception-based process with potentially high diagnostic value: they recover the correct solution, articulate student errors, simulate them, and select plausible candidates. On the science dataset, on the other hand, they tend to follow a less robust approach based on semantic similarity to the correct answer. We find the most frequent failure modes to be that the model is unable to generate a correct solution or that it discards plausible distractor candidates when performing selection. Providing the correct solution in the prompt yields a relative improvement of 6.4% in alignment with human-authored distractors, highlighting the critical role of anchoring distractor generation to the correct solution. Together, our findings offer an interpretable view of how LLMs model incorrect student reasoning.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Do LLMs Exhibit Coherent Knowledge Structures in Mathematical Reasoning? A Perspective from Knowledge Space Theory

Human knowledge is inherently structured and interdependent: mastery of a concept requires prior mastery of its prerequisites, a principle formalized by Knowledge Space Theory (KST). While LLMs achieve strong performance on complex reasoning tasks, it remains unclear whether they exhibit coherent, human-like knowledge structure. We introduce a KST-grounded framework for evaluating LLM knowledge structure in mathematical reasoning, using it as a normative framework to analyze whether LLM behavior adheres to principled knowledge dependencies. Evaluating eight open- and closed-source LLMs against real human learners, we find that (1) LLMs do not adhere to human knowledge structure -- they frequently violate knowledge dependencies and fail to leverage related knowledge provided in context to improve performance on dependent questions; (2) LLMs do not share a consistent knowledge structure among themselves, as reflected by low overlap in their knowledge distributions. Furthermore, these structural deficiencies remain largely invisible to accuracy-based and LLM-as-judge evaluations. Together, our results provide behavioral evidence that current LLMs knowledge does not follow a human-like structure.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

SWIM: Student Writing Simulation via Proficiency-Conditioned Generation

Writing proficiency manifests in how students develop content, organize ideas, choose words, and use language. Despite growing interest in LLM-based student simulation, whether LLMs can reproduce such multidimensional variation in extended writing remains largely unexplored. In this work, we explore if language models can realistically simulate student writing, and introduce SWIM, a task that formulates Student Writing sIMulation as proficiency-conditioned essay generation. We evaluate prompting, supervised fine-tuning (SFT), and reinforcement learning (RL) methods for writing simulation using automated essay scoring as a measure of profile alignment. Extensive experiments reveal that prompting provides limited proficiency control, even for strong proprietary LLMs with rubric-grounded strategies. In particular, while models can adjust content-oriented traits, they struggle to reproduce the lexical, grammatical, and organizational variation in different proficiency levels. SFT substantially improves alignment, while RL with the proposed proficiency-alignment reward yields further gains across all writing traits and essay prompts. Our findings suggest that explicit supervision enables substantially stronger profile alignment than prompting alone, while authentic low-proficiency writing remains challenging to reproduce.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Dynamically Allocating Evaluation Effort for Model Ranking

While human evaluation is the gold standard in many NLP tasks, it suffers from prohibitive costs and poor scalability. When identifying top-performing models, typical evaluation protocols waste effort by exhaustively evaluating all models on the entire benchmark, a safe but inefficient approach. In this work, we formalize multi-model human evaluation as a best-arm identification problem in a multi-armed bandit setup with correlated arms, where pulling an arm corresponds to human-evaluating a model. By sampling adaptively based on the intermediate model rankings obtained on the samples so far, we can focus the annotation budget on the most competitive models. We prove the optimality of the proposed algorithms and show that it improves discrimination between top-performing models. This makes evaluations faster, cheaper and more aligned with large-scale competition evaluation goals.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

When AI Benchmarks Plateau: A Systematic Study of Benchmark Saturation

Artificial intelligence benchmarks are an important mechanism to measure model progress and guide deployment decisions. However, benchmarks quickly "saturate", making it difficult to differentiate models and diminishing their long-term value. In this study, we define benchmark saturation and analyze it across 60 language model benchmarks using 14 properties that relate to saturation. We find that nearly half of our benchmarks exhibit saturation, with rates increasing with age. Further, we find that resilience to saturation is impacted by expert-curation, not by public test data. Our results suggest that design choices can extend benchmark longevity and inform more durable evaluation approaches.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Fluid Reasoning Representations

Frontier large language models increasingly solve complex tasks involving abstract concepts through extended test-time thinking. Yet we lack a mechanistic account of how extended thinking changes hidden-state representations over the course of a reasoning trace. We introduce \textit{Fluid Reasoning Representations} (FRRs), a representation-level account of how LLMs organize action and predicate concepts during self-generated reasoning, and test them on obfuscated planning, symbolic, and mathematical tasks where task-relevant words are replaced while problem structure is preserved. Across open-weight base, instruction-tuned, and extended-thinking LLMs, representations of the same action or predicate become more similar across wordings and move toward the corresponding unobfuscated concepts over the reasoning trace. Causal probes show that these representations affect behavior: cross-naming steering improves held-out accuracy beyond Gaussian and shuffled controls, symbolic patching retains more action information than shuffled patching, and subtracting refined directions degrades accuracy; together, these results suggest that extended thinking strengthens a representation dynamic already present at lower magnitude in base and instruction-tuned LLMs. Our codebase is open-sourced \href{https://github.com/AI4Collaboration/Fluid-Reasoning-Representation}{here}.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Unveiling the Visual Counting Bottleneck in Vision-Language Models

While Large Vision-Language Models (VLMs) excel at interpolation, they suffer catastrophic failures in systematic generalization, most notably in visual counting. In this work, we investigate this extrapolation bottleneck by deconstructing visual counting into three cognitive stages: visual individuation, magnitude awareness, and symbolic mapping. Using synthetic Go boards and linear probes, we demonstrate that visual backbones maintain robust, linearly separable representations of quantity well into the extrapolation regime, ruling out perceptual failure. Furthermore, models retain latent magnitude awareness, successfully performing comparative reasoning on quantities they fail to enumerate. We pinpoint the collapse to the symbolic mapping stage, where the model fails to project valid visual magnitudes onto symbolic tokens. Our findings support a frac tured magnitude hypothesis: VLMs fail to acquire a universal number space, instead learning disjoint, modality-specific statistical manifolds that prevent cross-modal grounding for unseen quantities. Validated on the state-of-the-art foundation model, our results suggest that bridging this gap requires inductive priors enforcing unified representations, as data scaling alone is insufficient.

cs.MM↗

arXiv2026

Efficient Hallucination Detection for LLMs Using Uncertainty-Aware Attention Heads

While large language models (LLMs) have become highly capable, they remain prone to factual inaccuracies, commonly referred to as "hallucinations." Uncertainty quantification (UQ) offers a promising way to mitigate this issue, but most existing methods are computationally intensive and/or require supervision. In this work, we propose Recurrent Attention-based Uncertainty Quantification (RAUQ), an unsupervised and efficient framework for identifying hallucinations. The method leverages an observation about transformer attention behavior: when incorrect information is generated, certain "uncertainty-aware" attention heads tend to reduce their focus on preceding tokens. RAUQ automatically detects these attention heads and combines their activation patterns with token-level confidence measures in a recurrent scheme, producing a sequence-level uncertainty estimate in just a single forward pass. Through experiments on twelve datasets spanning question answering, summarization, and translation across nine different LLMs, we show that RAUQ consistently outperforms state-of-the-art UQ baselines. Importantly, it incurs minimal overhead, requiring less than 1\% additional computation. Since it requires neither labeled data nor extensive parameter tuning, RAUQ serves as a lightweight, plug-and-play solution for real-time hallucination detection in white-box LLMs.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

ThinkBooster: A Unified Framework for Seamless Test-Time Scaling of LLM Reasoning

Test-time compute (TTC) scaling has emerged as a powerful paradigm for improving large language model (LLM) reasoning by allocating additional compute during inference, e.g., via multi-sample generation and verifier-based reranking. Existing TTC scaling strategies and reasoning scorers remain fragmented, evaluated under inconsistent protocols, and are rarely analyzed through the lens of quality-cost trade-offs. We introduce ThinkBooster, a unified framework for seamless test-time compute scaling of LLM reasoning, which consists of (i) a modular Python library implementing state-of-the-art TTC scaling strategy and scorer families, (ii) a benchmark that jointly evaluates performance and computational efficiency, and (iii) a deployable OpenAI-compatible proxy service that enables drop-in integration of adaptive reasoning into real-world applications. We further provide a demo visual debugger for inspecting the reasoning trajectories, intermediate selection decisions, and alternative reasoning paths. Empirical results on mathematical and coding tasks reveal the performance-compute trade-offs of TTC scaling strategies and scoring methods and demonstrate that ThinkBooster provides practical gains in real-world tasks. The code is available online under an MIT license.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Tackling the Root of Misinformation by Teaching Laypeople about Logical Fallacies via Socratic Questioning and Critical Argumentation

Identifying logical fallacies in everyday discourse is challenging for many people. This challenge is amplified in the era of Large Language Models (LLMs), where malicious agents can deploy fallacious arguments to disseminate misinformation at scale. In this work, we explore the potential of LLMs as part of the solution. We introduce LFTutor, an intelligent tutoring system which uses LLMs to tutor laypeople and help them learn about logical fallacies. LFTutor integrates intent-driven Socratic questioning and critical argumentation principles to actively engage learners to reflect on their reasoning. Through both automatic and human evaluations, we demonstrate that LFTutor significantly outperforms baseline LLMs lacking these pedagogical strategies. This work highlights the promise of combining LLMs with pedagogical scaffolding to foster critical thinking and argument literacy in the age of AI.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Diversity Matters: Revisiting Test-Time Compute in Vision-Language Models

Test-time compute (TTC) strategies have emerged as a lightweight approach to boost reasoning in large language models (LLMs). However, their application and benefits for vision-language models (VLMs) remain underexplored. We present a systematic study of TTC across seven VLMs and six benchmarks, specifically analyzing feature-based scoring and majority voting methods. We find that feature heuristics fail and voting yields only modest gains in single-model settings. We theoretically show that this limitation stems from a lack of prediction diversity: when outputs are highly correlated, voting provides little benefit. In contrast, multi-model ensembles offer richer diversity, yet standard majority voting fails to account for varying model capabilities. To address this, we propose Entropy-based TTC (ETTC), which selects the most confident prediction based on predictive entropy. Our method reduces to majority voting in the single-model case, but in model ensembles, it leverages confidence disparities to prioritize stronger models. We prove that ETTC outperforms majority voting under mild assumptions and empirically demonstrate that it consistently surpasses both voting and the best individual model. Crucially, our results show that smaller models can synergistically enhance larger ones, unlocking ensembling gains not achievable with standard strategies.

cs.LG↗