Hugging Face Trending Papers

Measuring in-context algorithmic reasoning in language models against an exact Bayes-optimal standard

Whether large language models perform genuine algorithmic reasoning or mere pattern completion is hard to test, because most benchmarks lack a ground truth for correct inductive inference. We introduce F-ICL, an in-context-learning benchmark that supplies one exactly.

arXiv AI
Aug 25

Measuring in-context algorithmic reasoning in language models against an exact Bayes-optimal reference

The paper introduces F-ICL, a benchmark that measures in‑context algorithmic reasoning in language models by exhaustively enumerating 86 million valid programs of length ≤13 on a Turing‑complete machine and computing the exact posterior under a bounded Levin–Solomonoff prior. Unlike typical benchmarks, F‑ICL provides a distributional reference rather than just answers, allowing the evaluation of models’ inductive priors. Across 105 configurations of models ranging from 0.8 B to 675 B parameters, models achieve up to 92 % accuracy, yet many still deviate from the Bayes‑optimal reference, and the study derives theoretical bounds on cumulative loss for predictors with positive prior weight on the reference.

By Luan Ozelim, Hector Zenil
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jun 1

Off-the-Shelf LLMs as Process Scorers: Training-Free Alternative to PRMs for Mathematical Reasoning

Selecting the best response from multiple small-model samples using a stronger scorer is a simple inference-time strategy, but fails when the small model has already committed to incorrect reasoning paths. PRM guided search avoids this by scoring candidate continuations during generation, but requires a reward model trained with step-level labels.

arXiv AI
Sep 7

Unifying ICL, SFT, KL-Regularized RL Through a Bayesian Lens

The paper presents a Bayesian framework that unifies several large‑language‑model training and evaluation paradigms—supervised fine‑tuning (SFT), few‑shot in‑context learning (ICL), and KL‑regularized reinforcement learning (RLHF/RLVR). It shows that each method can be viewed as a two‑step process: first constructing a Bayes or Gibbs posterior over outputs or actions using a prior and a utility signal, then approximating this posterior via a forward‑KL projection onto a parametric family. The authors formalize ICL and SFT as amortized weight projections, and demonstrate that reward‑weighted SFT, reward‑weighted ICL, and advantage‑weighted SFT are all special cases of forward‑KL projection onto reward‑induced posteriors, while also outlining where these equivalences hold and where they break down.

By Junxin Fan
arXiv Machine Learning
Aug 19

Thinking in a Low-Resource Language: What SFT Builds, What RL Fixes, What Accuracy Cannot See

The paper evaluates how three large mixture‑of‑experts models (Alibaba, OpenAI, NVIDIA) can be fine‑tuned to reason in a low‑resource language, specifically Greek. Accuracy metrics show little change, but the authors uncover significant qualitative improvements: after supervised fine‑tuning, models reason in Greek on ~98% of items, with better grammaticality and retained general ability. Reinforcement learning with pre‑registered rewards further eliminates reasoning‑channel leaks and format skips, while the Greek‑reasoning habit remains robust to an accuracy‑only gradient.

By Ayoub Kirouane, Christos Petrocheilos
arXiv AI
Aug 11

Reason Wide, Not Deep: Amortizing the Reasoning Premium into Distilled Skills

arXiv:2608. 07885v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reasoning modes of language models outperform their non-reasoning counterparts on multi-step agentic tasks, but pay a 3-6x premium in output tokens on every episode -- much of it spent re-deriving procedures that are shared across episodes of the same domain.

By Agamdeep Singh, Srishti Gautam, Priyanshu Gupta, Nikita Mehrotra, Tanmay Bakshi, Sumit Gulwani