arXiv:2606. 07532v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: RLHF-trained models are systematically biased toward agreement over accuracy, a structural property of the training process.
arXiv:2606. 07532v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: RLHF-trained models are systematically biased toward agreement over accuracy, a structural property of the training process.
arXiv:2608. 13069v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are predominantly aligned to function as passive, sycophantic assistants.
arXiv:2608. 07525v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Hallucination remains a persistent challenge for Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs), severely limiting their reliability in high-stakes applications.
Large language models (LLMs) are predominantly aligned to function as passive, sycophantic assistants. We challenge this default paradigm by empirically evaluating the cognitive plasticity of open-weight architectures when subjected to rigorous behavioral reprogramming.
arXiv:2607. 07646v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Does RL post-training merely amplify primitive skills already latent in a base model, or can it compose primitive skills into new higher-level strategies?
arXiv:2606. 24589v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Scaling adversarial evaluation of large language models requires both a method for generating hard inputs and a reliable way to confirm that resulting failures are real.
arXiv:2608. 05466v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: High-quality long-horizon training data for terminal agents is expensive to produce, often costing hundreds to thousands of dollars per task, because each task must keep the instruction, environment, reference solution, and verifier mutually consistent.
arXiv:2609.38409v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recent progress in large language model reasoning has been driven by benchmarks and reinforcement learning environments with automatically verifiable r...
arXiv:2607. 29283v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Training large language models (LLMs) to write register-transfer level (RTL) requires large corpora of paired specifications and code, and such data is scarce enough that most public corpora are now synthesized.
arXiv:2604. 16706v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Automated evaluation of tool-using large language model (LLM) agents is widely assumed to be reliable, yet this assumption is rarely validated against human annotation.
arXiv:2606. 01080v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models often improve on difficult tasks by spending inference-time compute on a reasoning trace before producing the final answer.
The paper introduces a three-level evaluation framework—behavioral deployment, LM-head readout, and probe recoverability—to distinguish whether a language model fails a syntactic test by not encoding structure or by failing to use it. Using a trilingual control-dependency benchmark, the authors find that probe recoverability consistently exceeds LM-head readout, which in turn exceeds behavioral deployment across seven models and three languages, with the largest gap observed in Qwen3-0.6B Instruct. Layer-localized activation patching shows that instruction tuning shifts the decoded layer later, suggesting decoding favors surface shortcuts and that behavioral evaluation understates what models encode while probing alone overstates what they deploy.