arXiv Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · arXiv Science

Search arXiv Science

Search indexed arXiv papers on artificial intelligence, large language models, computer vision and robotics. Read source abstracts and follow links to arXiv.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 109 records · Page 6Linked to original sources
arXiv2026

A Formal Limitation on Learning Human Language From Textual Corpora

Can a listener recover what a speaker means from the form of an utterance alone? We answer this question information-theoretically, and for a listener given by any featurizer of text, including the hidden states of contemporary large language models. Modeling language use as a joint distribution over meanings, contexts, and utterances, we derive upper bounds on the probability that a decoder recovers a speaker's intended meaning from a representation of the utterance. The bounds are governed by the uncertainty that form leaves about meaning, which splits into an irreducible part and a part that only (extralinguistic) context, but never the utterance alone, can resolve. Because these quantities are intrinsic to language, no representation, however much text or supervision produced it, can surpass them. The bounds apply, moreover, to meaning spaces that are discrete or continuous. We provide empirical evidence in support of the theory through experiments on artificial languages, Mandarin zero-pronoun resolution, and color reference.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Verbalizing Multi-Token Concepts in LLMs

Lens methods inspect model computation by mapping intermediate activations to vocabulary tokens. Yet the concepts humans need to read out often span multiple tokens---entities, phrases, intermediate objects---making token-level readouts incomplete. Reliable multi-token readout with little model-specific preparation remains challenging. We introduce Concept Lens: token-level lens clues guide candidate concept search, then the model derives a representation for each candidate and scores it against the original activation. Across 2,400 multi-hop clozes on five LLMs (8B--70B), Concept Lens instantiated with J-lens and R-lens achieves average Rank@10 scores of 36.6\% and 54.5\%, respectively, compared with 21.7\% for Template Lens. Concept-swap interventions on derived concept representations shift model answers toward those associated with the replacement concepts. Further experiments show that Concept Lens can also reveal what a model recognizes along the way, beyond what appears in its final answer. Our code is available at https://github.com/XijieGo/c-lens

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

How Do Language Models Choose Between Context and Memory?

When contextual information conflicts with knowledge stored in model parameters, activation directions can be used to decode and steer which source the model follows. However, successful steering does not establish that the unedited model uses those directions to choose between sources, or that they remain effective across tasks. To test these possibilities, we vary the stated authority of contextual claims while holding their content fixed. We first estimate authority directions from prompts in which context and parametric knowledge agree, then test their causal contribution when the two sources conflict. Interchanging naturally occurring activation values along these directions between matched high- and low-authority prompts reproduces 30--68% of the authority-induced shift in source choice across Qwen, Llama, and OLMo models, whereas matched controls reproduce almost none. We next ask what transfers across tasks: the learned direction versus the activation values exchanged along it. Using a direction learned on another task closed 9% of the source-choice gap, compared with 57% when learned on the task being evaluated. Both interventions exchanged activation values from the evaluated task. In a separate experiment, we kept its learned direction but exchanged values taken from another task, which closed 68% of the gap. These results show that authority-related activation values can causally influence source choice across tasks when inserted along directions learned for the task being evaluated.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

Margins, Not Windows: Training-Free Per-Step Lossy Speculative Decoding

Speculative decoding accelerates LLM inference by drafting candidate tokens and verifying them in parallel. Tree-attention drafters such as EAGLE-3 are widely adopted, yet typically hold two decisions fixed: (1) a strict token-match verification rule and (2) a static draft-tree shape. Prior work relaxes each in isolation under limiting assumptions: long draft chains for training-free lossy verification, and adaptive tree shaping under a fixed token budget. We introduce AdaptiveSpec, a training-free per-step speculative decoding method that adapts both decisions from internal signals already produced during decoding. A per-step margin rule promotes a mismatched draft-proposed token when the ratio of the target's probability on the drafted token to its top-1 probability exceeds a threshold with no dependence on draft length or underlying drafter architecture. A per-step tree policy adjusts the draft tree's depth, width, and node count directly from a fused signal of draft top-1 confidence and a rolling acceptance history capturing recent draft-target agreement, allowing the total draft count to vary rather than only be redistributed. The two adaptations operate on orthogonal axes and compound in effect. Implemented on the SGLang production-grade serving engine, AdaptiveSpec improves throughput over the state-of-the-art autoregressive speculative decoding method EAGLE-3 by up to 56%, recovering 93% to fully lossless task accuracy across GSM8K, MATH-500, and HumanEval on three target models (DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-8B, Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct, Qwen3-8B).

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Random Attention: Rethinking KV Cache Eviction for Efficient Reasoning

Large language models achieve superior performance on tasks that require extended reasoning, but long chains of thought make the KV cache a severe memory bottleneck. Existing KV cache compression methods share one paradigm: score each cached token by some estimate of how much it will matter later, and keep the top-scoring ones. We show that the selection signal contributes almost nothing. Random Attention keeps the prompt and evicts uniformly at random within each attention head, computing no score at all; across four models and six reasoning tasks, it matches the strongest baseline in task performance while delivering 32-43% higher throughput than that method when deployed with vLLM. Controlled experiments explain this by showing that 1) the prompt is the fragile part of the cache, and most of the gap between selectors is just whether their selection signal happened to keep it; 2) the reasoning trace protects itself against eviction with redundancy at two levels, in the text (the model restates what it still needs as it works) and across attention heads (each keeps its own copy of the trace), so once the prompt is safe, a random draw retains enough copies of what the model still needs, and no score is required to pick them. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/SalesforceAIResearch/Random-Attention.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Compression Beyond the Uncompressed: A Two-Stage Training Recipe for Soft Context Compression in RAG

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) improves knowledge-intensive generation by conditioning language models on retrieved documents, but processing these documents becomes increasingly expensive as retrieval depth grows. Soft context compression reduces this cost by encoding documents into compact continuous representations that can be precomputed and reused across queries. However, many existing methods train compressed models by distilling from a full-context teacher. When the teacher is wrong, such distillation can reinforce its errors, while teacher imitation provides no direct signal for improving beyond the teacher. We propose DEX-Comp, a two-stage training recipe that separates reliable imitation from targeted exploration. Pure Distillation learns only from teacher-correct questions to mitigate error propagation, while Hard Exploration applies outcome-based reinforcement learning to teacher-failed questions to directly optimize answer correctness. Across five open-domain QA benchmarks and retrieval depths from top-$5$ to top-$30$, DEX-Comp at $16\times$ compression outperforms all evaluated compression baselines and surpasses the untuned full-context RAG model in average accuracy, while reducing time-to-first-token by $4.4\times$--$23.7\times$. Evaluations across additional datasets and backbones further demonstrate its generalization.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Q2D-Web: A Large-Scale Benchmark for Retrieval in Agentic RAG Systems

Evaluating first-stage retrievers in large-scale production RAG requires a benchmark that pairs a large-scale corpus with a large set of agent-reformulated search queries based on real user queries and their conversation threads, and that labels many relevant documents per query. No existing public benchmark evaluates this setting: large-scale collections typically provide only a small number of evaluation queries, whereas benchmarks with many queries generally contain only millions of documents. Moreover, most benchmarks assess human-written queries, while the first-stage retrievers in agentic RAG pipelines serve machine-written reformulations whose distribution differs from human search behavior. To overcome these evaluation gaps, we introduce Q2D-Web (Query2Doc-Web), a large-scale agentic retrieval benchmark consisting of a 190M-document web corpus and 70k agentic search queries in ten languages, reformulated from real-world user queries in production systems. Q2D-Web provides three sets of fixed relevance judgments: agent citations, production rankings, and a combined set that unions both signals and adds LLM-based judgments of unlabeled pooled documents to reduce false negatives. We benchmark 13 retrievers including lexical, dense, and late-interaction models and find that their relative ordering is largely insensitive to the choice of judgment set, while diverging substantially across topical domains, query languages, and query types. To enable fast evaluation, we also study subcorpus sampling as an approximation to full-corpus evaluations. Retaining a third of the corpus, selected by reciprocal rank fusion over pooled retriever runs, preserves the full-corpus model ranking under the combined judgments while raising absolute Recall@1000 only by 4 to 7 points. The public leaderboard is accessible under: https://huggingface.co/spaces/perplexity-ai/q2d-web-leaderboard

cs.IR↗
arXiv2026

Beyond Parallel Blindness: Information Floors and Model Gaps in Block Drafting

Block drafters propose several tokens in one forward pass, before earlier target tokens are realised. Their rejection mixes two losses: missing within-block path information and imperfect modelling of observable information. Accepted length cannot distinguish them. We separate the two with an information floor, the minimum expected rejection at a specified conditioning order; rejection above this floor is the model gap. Measurements across four domains and four open-weight targets, plus floor estimates on a frontier API target, yield three findings. First, the all-parallel floor reaches $0.286$ at the final slot on Qwen3-4B, limiting even the best proposal to $71\%$ per-slot acceptance. Second, one realised token removes $86$--$100\%$ of this floor, a locality also recovered by an independent mutual-information analysis. Third, current drafters remain far above their floors: the final-slot model gap accounts for $43$--$64\%$ of DFlash rejection and $85$--$92\%$ of DSpark's oracle-conditioned rejection. Guided by this separation of short-range conditioning from proposal quality, we replace a context-independent predecessor correction with a prefix-attention head that reads committed context conditional on the predecessor. With supporting backbone components, the resulting Qwen3-4B drafter improves mean serving accepted length by $3.93\%$ over the released DSpark checkpoint across nine tasks, without increasing the conditioning order. Code and data: https://github.com/tie-pilot-qxw/specfloor; drafter checkpoints: https://huggingface.co/TIE-Pilot/dspark-attnconv-block7-qwen3-4b.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

MLLMs Hallucinate when Information Distribution Drifts in Synergy Heads

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) often struggle with hallucinations, thus hindering their reliable practical applications. Existing attention-based mitigation methods mainly rely on indirect signals (e.g., attention weights) that fail to accurately reflect the actual information shift underlying hallucination generation. In this paper, we propose HEAL, Head-lEvel information disentAnglement and caLibration for identifying and mitigating hallucinations. HEAL first employs causal noise intervention on multi-head outputs to filter out causally redundant heads. Subsequently, it disentangles information distribution within the remaining heads via the counterfactual Difference-in-Differences, categorizing heads into four types. Through analysis, we observe: hallucinations happen when information distribution drifts away from a healthy equilibrium in synergy heads, not strongly correlated with the quantity or strength of modality-specific heads. Motivated by this insight, HEAL injects dynamic information calibration factors into the value vectors of synergy heads and actively regulates visual-language dependencies, steering the output distribution towards factual evidence. Extensive experiments demonstrate that HEAL effectively reduces hallucinations across multiple MLLMs, offering a simple and interpretable pathway to enhance model trustworthiness.

cs.CV↗
arXiv2026

PARSER: Read in Parallel, Reason in Depth for Long-Context LLM Agents

Sequential memory agents process long documents by reading chunks one after another while maintaining a compact memory state, coupling document traversal to reasoning depth. This coupling introduces sensitivity to evidence placement and ties inference latency linearly to document length. We introduce PARSER, which decouples reading from reasoning. A bank of lightweight subagents each bound to a single chunk read the entire document in parallel, while a lead agent reasons in depth through iterative scatter--gather rounds: at each round it broadcasts a query to all subagents, aggregates the returned evidence, and formulates a deeper follow-up query conditioned on what has been found so far. This decoupled design concentrates all learnable behavior in the lead agent, which is optimized with reinforcement learning, while the subagents remain frozen off-the-shelf models. On multi-hop QA with contexts ranging from 7K to 896K tokens, PARSER with a 4B backbone outperforms the strongest sequential memory baseline by 5.7 points on average and by 12.0 points at 896K tokens. Scaling to a 9B backbone, PARSER surpasses DeepSeek-V4-Pro by 6.3 points. Controlled experiments confirm that PARSER is robust to perturbations in evidence position, order, and distance, conditions that cause large accuracy swings in sequential methods, while reducing inference latency by up to 11x.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

CausalVerify: End-to-End Verification of Causal Analyses by Language Models

Language models increasingly perform empirical analyses end to end, yet existing evaluations assess the written explanation or whether generated code executes, not whether the executed workflow recovers the intended causal estimand. We introduce CausalVerify, an execution-grounded benchmark for end-to-end causal analysis that follows a model from research-context interpretation to estimand recovery. It scores this workflow at four distinct layers: method recognition, design specification, executable implementation, and estimand recovery. It combines 259 real-paper contexts, 100 fixed-seed synthetic scenarios with executable reference estimates, and 23 paper-twin pairs in which a model commits to a design before seeing the data and its executed analysis is scored against a canonical estimator on the same realised dataset. Execution is not correctness. Among 426 model-written workflows that run without error, 15.5% fail verification, and a keyword score of the effect direction stated in the text is a poor proxy for recovery. In a 23-pair, nine-model paired study, replacing a model's committed design with the reference design and its execution conventions raises joint recovery of the point estimate and standard error from 15.0% to 51.5%; yet 48.5% of eligible seeds still fail under the reference design. The direction replicates on six pairs built afterwards under a frozen construction protocol, although on the two newest pairs the gain is confined to models from the family that built the references. Design specification is consequential but not sufficient: a plausible method and runnable code do not guarantee recovery, and even supplying the reference design and its conventions leaves substantial downstream failure. CausalVerify evaluates the executed workflow rather than its surface plausibility, and every reported number is recomputed from frozen artifacts by a single script.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

In RAG We Trust? Measuring Robustness of Retrieval-Augmented Generation Under Post-Retrieval Context Tampering

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) grounds a language model in retrieved documents, which reduces hallucination but creates a new attack surface: if retrieved text is tampered with, the model may repeat the falsehood. We study how much a small quantized model, Llama 3.1 8B, degrades when a fraction of its retrieved context is poisoned. Three corruption strategies are tested, entity swap, number swap, and negation, each applied to zero, one, two, or three of the three retrieved passages, over a factorial sweep of 588 runs on a fact-checking task built from FEVER. Accuracy falls from 77.9% on clean context to 43.5% when all three passages are corrupted. Entity swap flips the largest share of answers that were correct on clean context. Number-based corruption stays flat while poisoned passages are a minority and jumps once they form a majority, a pattern we re-check with query-level bootstrap intervals. The model rarely invents new falsehoods; its dominant reaction is to abstain, and a lexical overlap proxy of unsupported generation falls under attack rather than rising. The study is a small-scale measurement with coarse automated labels; we treat the strategy contrasts as suggestive until decoding is controlled and stronger adjudication is in place.

cs.CR↗
arXiv2026

Why Fine-Tuning Encourages Hallucinations and How to Fix It

Large language models are prone to hallucinating factually incorrect statements. A key source of these errors is exposure to new factual information through supervised fine-tuning (SFT), which can increase hallucinations w.r.t.~knowledge acquired during pre-training. Since these errors arise as a by-product of knowledge degradation, we explore whether established continual learning tools can mitigate them. We propose a self-distillation-based SFT method that facilitates effective factual learning while minimizing hallucinations w.r.t.~pre-existing knowledge by regularizing output-distribution drift. We also show that when new knowledge acquisition is unnecessary, suppressing factual plasticity by freezing parameter groups preserves task performance while reducing hallucinations. Lastly, we investigate the mechanism, contrasting capacity limitations, behavior cloning, and localized interference. Our experiments show that a main driver is interference among overlapping semantic representations, which self-distillation mitigates and an associative-memory model explains: forgetting grows with the overlap between new and stored facts.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Does On-Policy Distillation Really Distill? From Noisy Teacher to Self-Improvement

On-policy distillation (OPD) offers dense token-level supervision as an alternative to the sparse outcome-level advantages of reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR). However, the teacher scores student-generated trajectories that are inherently off-policy for it, so the reliability of its supervision, and hence the source of the student's improvement, remains unclear. We quantitatively analyze teacher supervision during OPD training and find substantial noise whose prevalence increases with teacher scale. Surprisingly, the student policy is insensitive to such noise, converging to comparable performance regardless of whether noisy supervision is retained or removed. Does OPD distill at all? By analyzing what drives its gains, we find that learning concentrates on low log-probability tokens, and using a single fixed negative advantage matches the performance of teacher-provided ones. This suggests that OPD works largely by suppressing low log-probability tokens, which requires no teacher. These findings motivate On-Policy Self-Adaptation (OPSA), a supervision-free method using entropy-adaptive negative advantages. It assigns stronger learning signals to high-entropy positions, suppressing tail tokens, and evenly redistributing probability mass among head tokens. Compared with the base \texttt{Qwen3-1.7B}, OPSA improves Avg@32 by 35.41 points on AIME24, corresponding to a 263\% relative gain, and more than doubles Pass@32 across all three benchmarks. It also outperforms OPD by 16.77 points in Avg@32 on AIME24. Extensive experiments and analyses across model families and tasks further demonstrate its effectiveness and generalizability.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

Calibration is the Bottleneck: An Action-Class Diagnostic of Multi-Turn Tool-Calling

Multi-turn tool calling is a core evaluation scenario for large language model (LLM) agents. On public tool-calling benchmarks, open-weight models now approach or even surpass closed-source frontier models in aggregate accuracy. However, this metric averages over many different multi-turn situations and obscures whether progress is balanced across them. We propose an action-class-oriented diagnostic framework that decomposes multi-turn failures into two orthogonal modes: action-class miscalibration and action-execution failure. The framework operates over a four-class action space (TOOL_CALL/ASK/REFUSE/CONFIRM) and introduces a self-revealing upper bound Acc <= GAR (Gold Action Recall); the two modes show up as bound violation (Acc > GAR, exposing state-grader masking of miscalibration) and large bound slack (GAR >> Acc, localizing execution failure within TOOL_CALL). We validate it on a panel of tool-calling models across multiple multi-turn benchmarks. Across our panel, the diagnostic reveals action-class miscalibration as a substantial failure mode the state grader cannot see. This gap inflates standing for heavily tool-trained families, which our diagnostic separates from families with context-appropriate action choice. Calibration is reshapable through context-only perturbations, but the reshape is heterogeneous: a single perturbation moves accuracy in opposite directions across families (up to +11.5 vs -21.0 pp on the same scenario), and its effect further depends on the perturbation mechanism. We argue that multi-turn tool-calling evaluations should supplement aggregate accuracy with action-class diagnostics that expose what the model actually does in each scenario.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Combating Instruction Conflict via Energy-Driven Latent Conflict Detection

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed with hierarchical instructions, yet they remain vulnerable to conflicts in which user directives override system-level constraints. Existing defense mechanisms predominantly focus on static input inspection and therefore fail to detect Response Drift, a phenomenon in which the model's final response violates system-level constraints despite seemingly compliant inputs. To bridge this gap, we introduce ELCD, a response-level latent conflict detector for post-generation, pre-delivery verification. Given the full generated output, ELCD constructs a composite hidden-state representation by concatenating the final-token embedding with the mean-pooled response embedding. It then optimizes a pairwise margin ranking objective to separate compliant and drifting responses in latent space. Extensive experiments across five mainstream LLMs ranging from 1.5B to 14B parameters demonstrate that ELCD significantly outperforms competitive baselines. Notably, it improves the PR-AUC on Llama-2-7B by approximately 30 percentage points and reduces the False Positive Rate at 95% TPR (FPR95) on Mistral-7B to 2.67%. These results suggest that ELCD provides a promising approach for latent instruction-conflict detection in open-weight or self-hosted LLM deployments.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

FormalTCS: Benchmarking End-to-End Frontier Formal Theoretical Computer Science Research of Large Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) have shown growing potential for automated theoretical computer science (TCS) research, yet existing benchmarks remain far from realistic research settings. We introduce \ourbenchmark, an expert-validated benchmark for evaluating LLMs on frontier, end-to-end TCS research. \ourbenchmark contains $143$ instances drawn from papers accepted to STOC, FOCS, SODA, and COLT in 2025-2026, preserving paper-specific definitions, assumptions, and proof dependencies, with expert-verified Lean formalizations and proofs. Evaluations of leading LLMs reveal that current models remain far from reliably completing the full research pipeline. In particular, autoformalization is the sharpest bottleneck: the best model achieves only $11.5$ on translating natural-language claims into formal theorem statements, compared with $28.6$ Pass@8 when proving human-provided formal statements. Building on \ourbenchmark, we further develop an automated TCS research framework that generates, formalizes, filters, and proves new claims. Of $64$ generated claims, only $6$ ultimately pass expert evaluation and proof verification, indicating that beyond formalization, limited research taste remains another major barrier to autonomous TCS research.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Beyond Information Seeking: Severity-Aware Question Supervision for Proactive Medical Dialogue

Proactive medical dialogue requires an agent to decide what to ask from incomplete patient information. Existing information-seeking approaches commonly prioritize questions that most reduce diagnostic uncertainty, but this criterion overlooks an important property of medical diagnosis: different diagnostic errors can carry substantially different consequences. The most informative question may therefore differ from the one most valuable for the downstream decision. We propose Expected-Severity-Risk (ESR), a consequence-aware question-supervision objective that values each candidate by its expected reduction in severity-aware terminal risk. Because questions must be selected before their answers are observed, ESR marginalizes over possible answers using train-only population statistics. Its rankings are then distilled into a prefix-only language policy, requiring no teacher-side risk computation at deployment. Across three matched Qwen3-4B training seeds on DDxPlus, ESR reduces mean high-severity diagnostic miss from 0.0645 to 0.0455 (29.5% relative reduction) and improves mean diagnostic accuracy from 0.9123 to 0.9320 while requiring only 0.14 additional questions per dialogue. Fixed-budget analyses show that the distinction persists when question count is controlled, while a matched expected-0/1-risk student control further isolates the contribution of asymmetric severity weighting. These results support moving proactive medical dialogue beyond uncertainty reduction toward consequence-aware evidence acquisition.

cs.CL↗