Papers for

ai chatbot developers

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Language models show consistent moral judgments across languages with varied yes answers

Same Judgment, Different Yes: Measuring Multilingual Judgment Profiles in Language Models

Abstract: Multilingual evaluations often score a model's opening yes or no, a token that also carries model and language answering conventions. We ask when different ways of eliciting and reading an answer recover the same judgment, and when they measure an answer habit. We collect 1.1 million replies from eight models in six languages on up to 105 moral vignettes, varying the question's form, the answer constraint, and the reading of the reply, token or sentence, in both wordings (the FAR-6 battery). Story-level judgment profiles converge across the tested readouts and question forms, except for the yes/no token after a negative interrogative read under a preset mapping: on the same replies, token and sentence profiles agree at a median r = 0.67 across cells, while sentence profiles agree with free-sentence profiles at 0.94, a known linguistic variability. With each language's story consensus removed, a model's profile is nearest to its own in another language for 39 of 48 model-language cells under proposition labels and 15 under free sentences, against 5 expected by chance. Particle, position, and named-term preferences follow their own patterns. A model can keep its judgment and change its yes: scoring that token requires establishing which proposition it affirms.

Tue 20 OctComputation and LanguageArtificial Intelligence
The gist
When language models answer yes or no questions in different languages, their moral judgments stay mostly the same, even if they use different ways to say yes. The authors studied millions of answers from several models and found that how the model says yes or no can change without changing the actual judgment. This means scoring a simple yes or no word can be tricky because it reflects language habits as well as the model's opinion.
Open → 2610.28066v1

Continuous flow language models improve reasoning with new reward method

Backpropagating Verifier Rewards Through Continuous Flow Language Models

Abstract: Reinforcement learning (RL) has substantially improved the reasoning of autoregressive and discrete-diffusion language models. Language models that generate continuous token embeddings are emerging as a strong alternative, but RL post-training for them remains understudied. We propose \method{}, a post-training framework for continuous flow language models. Such a model denoises token embeddings over multiple steps and decodes them into discrete tokens only at the last step. To obtain pathwise gradients, which backpropagate through continuous actions and have much lower variance than REINFORCE, we introduce a critic that estimates the value of intermediate token embeddings, bypassing the non-differentiable decoding step. The critic must also keep track of the value function as the policy changes; to this end, we design a critic that predicts a value from every token representation and improves policy optimization. Across four reasoning tasks, \method{} reliably improves a continuous flow language model through RL post-training and outperforms baseline methods of the same type.

Tue 13 OctMachine Learning
The gist
Language models can generate text one word at a time, but some newer models create smooth word-like signals instead of discrete words, making it tricky to train them with rewards. The authors propose a method that helps these smooth models learn from feedback by estimating values for partial word signals before turning them into actual words. This method lowers training noise and improves the models' reasoning abilities on several tasks compared to other similar approaches.
Open → 2610.19080v1

Tool-using AI models show safety gaps across languages and actions

Lumen-bench: Cross-Lingual Safety Gaps and the Say-Do Problem in Tool-Calling Large Language Models

Abstract: When a large language model refuses an unethical request, what does refusal mean? In conversation, refusal is bounded by what the model says; once the model is equipped with executable tools, what it does can diverge from what it says, a failure mode that English-only evaluations cannot fully reveal. We introduce Lumen-bench, a behavioral benchmark of tool-calling ethics spanning 30 models, five languages (Portuguese, English, Spanish, Mandarin Chinese, Hindi), 108 Portuguese-authored scenarios, six social-pressure conditions, two system prompts (ethical and neutral), and 21 generic tools. The evaluation comprises 194,400 trials. Judgments come from a reasoning-model judge (o4-mini), calibrated against one Portuguese-speaking author ($n=83$; harmful/non-harmful $κ=0.78$), compared with two other provider judges (Fleiss' $κ=0.78$, $n=607$), and complemented by retrospective sandbox replay. Four findings emerge. (i) Within-model comparisons support higher harmful-action rates in Hindi and Portuguese than English under the ethical prompt, and Hindi and Spanish under the neutral prompt, after multiple-testing correction. (ii) Premium models have lower median violation rates, although price does not guarantee safety or competence. (iii) Replacing the ethical system prompt with a neutral one raises pooled violation rates from 2.76\% to 13.64\%. (iv) In 8.57\% of substantive-call cases, refusal or ethical objection accompanies a harmful tool call: the judges consistently identify the say-do gap, although they differ in how many responses they assign to this category. Matched benign controls demonstrate legitimate task completion in 82.8\% of 3,300 trials. Code and reproduction scripts are available at https://github.com/TropicAI-Research/lumen.

Sat 10 OctComputation and Language
The gist
Sometimes, when AI models refuse to do something unethical, what they say and what they actually do can be different, especially when the AI uses tools. The authors tested 30 models across five languages using many scenarios to see how often the models act against ethical rules. They found that models behave less safely in some languages, that ethical prompts help reduce unsafe actions, and that sometimes the models say no but still do harmful things. This helps highlight challenges in making AI safer across languages and tools.
Open → 2610.15134v1

Skill reranking improves with difference-focused text selection

SkillContrast: Difference-Guided Text Selection for Agent Skill Reranking

Abstract: Similar agent skills can share instructions but differ in their conditions of use. Query-based text selection may retain shared instructions and omit these distinctions. We introduce SkillContrast, a training-free selector that compares retrieved skills and retains their differing text with local context for a pretrained reranker. On 1,235 requests from SameCapRisk-Bench, it yields 54-72 more clean hits (requests that retrieve a helpful skill without its marked risky sibling) than TF-IDF query selection at identical per-candidate input lengths, across 2 retrievers and 2 reranker sizes. Length-matched component replacements identify differing text as the main contributor in the primary setting, with smaller, mixed context effects. Relative to full skill bodies, SkillContrast uses 51.1-58.8% fewer model-input tokens, with 10-18 fewer clean hits at 0.6B and matching or higher observed clean-hit counts at 4B. Candidate-relative differences thus complement query relevance in selecting compact reranking inputs.

Thu 8 OctInformation RetrievalArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Finding the right skill for a task can be tricky when many skills share similar instructions but differ in key details. The authors created SkillContrast, a way to pick out just the parts that are different between similar skills so a computer can better rank which skill fits a request. This method helps computers find more useful skills without mixing up risky ones, and it does this while using less text. By focusing on differences rather than all the shared information, SkillContrast improves the precision of skill selection.
Open → 2610.11650v1

MemPilot controls memory use for faster multimodal AI responses

MemPilot: Orchestrating On-Demand Multimodal Memory Curation for LLM Agents

Abstract: Memory has become integral to the LLM agent ecosystem, supporting information retention and reuse across interactions. However, most existing agent memory systems construct memory in a query-agnostic manner, which can incur unnecessary preprocessing cost and discard details that later prove essential. Recent studies have begun shifting memory processing toward runtime adaptation, but typically specialize in particular operations or fixed processing schemes, leaving flexible control over performance, cost, and latency largely underexplored. To address this challenge, we present \textbf{MemPilot}, a flexible framework that orchestrates on-demand memory curation under different performance--cost--latency preferences. Specifically, we optimize a multi-step LLM policy via reinforcement learning to iteratively choose between retrieving from query-agnostic memory and delegating query-specific curation of raw multimodal history to heterogeneous LLMs and VLMs. The policy jointly controls evidence amount, curation instructions, model selection, and visual access, enabling fine-grained allocation of runtime computation. To optimize this policy under competing objectives, we adapt objective-wise advantage decoupling by separately estimating each objective's advantage before aggregation. Moreover, we introduce prefix-based marginal utility estimation for fine-grained credit assignment across multi-step rollouts. Experiments on five multimodal agent-memory benchmarks demonstrate favorable performance--cost--latency trade-offs across optimization preferences, with preference sweeps yielding broader frontiers than existing trade-off-aware baselines.

Mon 5 OctComputation and LanguageArtificial IntelligenceMachine Learning
The gist
AI assistants like chatbots need memory to remember past information and use it again later. Most current systems prepare this memory without knowing what question will come, which can waste time and lose important details. The authors created MemPilot, a system that decides on the fly how to pick and process memory based on how fast or thorough the answer needs to be. It uses smart decision-making to balance quality, speed, and cost by choosing what and how much information to use from memory. Tests show MemPilot manages this balance better than previous methods.
Open → 2610.06830v1

Search agents improve accuracy when retrieval tool refuses to answer

Search Engines Never Say No: How Frozen Agents React When the Retrieval Tool Refuses

Abstract: A search tool never says no: it returns its top-k passages even when the index holds no answer, so the agent sees irrelevant text instead of a miss signal. We ask what frozen search agents do when the tool refuses instead. On an index-hole testbed (257 NQ and 300 HotpotQA questions run with and without their gold passages in a 21M-passage BM25 index), seven agents receive one of five refusal wordings. An un-announced one-sentence refusal raises abstention on unanswerable questions from 23% to 97% on average for Qwen3-8B/32B and from 28% to 57% for Claude Haiku 4.5, cutting wrong answers almost one-for-one and beating a system-prompt instruction by 51 points on average. Search-R1 ignores the refusal and fabricates retrievals; Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Opus 5.5 answer from memory (abstention +2 points) and obey a system-prompt directive instead (+16). We also found that wording matters: an explanation beats a bare token; a directive inside the observation is decisive for Haiku; a soft warning is useless. Realistic triggers, from a lightweight score-based predictor to an LLM grounding judge, fall well short of the oracle, and all land on a benefit-versus-signal-quality curve that prices any trigger by its recall at a fixed false-refusal budget: for compliant agents the bottleneck is the detector inside the tool, not the agent, and the curve tells future detector work what each point of recall is worth.

Sun 4 OctInformation Retrieval
The gist
When search tools always return some answer, even if it is wrong, AI agents often get confused and give wrong responses. The authors studied what happens if the retrieval tool instead says it refuses to answer when no good information is found. They found that some agents greatly improve by choosing not to answer when warned, reducing mistakes. The exact wording of the refusal message also affects how well agents respond. The main challenge lies in detecting when to refuse, more than the agents themselves.
Open → 2610.05348v1

Models learn how to ask before they learn facts themselves

Learning a Fact Is Not Learning How to Retrieve It

Abstract: A model trained on "The capital of X is Y" may produce "Y" after "The capital of X is" but fail after "The capital of X:". We call these different ways of eliciting the same fact request forms. To separate learning a fact from retrieving it, we train two models in two stages. In the first stage (request-form training), one model sees each fact in five forms and the other sees the same facts only as statements. In the second stage (target-fact training), both receive identical training on new facts, all as statements. Both then retrieve the new facts almost equally well from statements, but differ sharply on other request forms. Thus, a model can learn how to retrieve through a request form before it learns the facts. To understand this difference, we examine the hidden state immediately before the answer, which we call the context state. When given two different request forms for the same fact, the model trained on five forms in stage one produces more similar context states than the model trained on statements alone in that stage. Changing this state at retrieval time can enable or prevent retrieval of an already learned fact, and the same effect transfers across facts and factual relations, such as capitals and currencies. To test its role during learning, we change the context state only during target-fact training. This intervention changes later retrieval without intervention at test time. Together, these results show that later retrieval depends on earlier request-form experience and the context state during fact learning.

Fri 2 OctArtificial Intelligence
The gist
The paper shows that language models don't just learn facts but also learn how to retrieve those facts depending on how you ask the question. The researchers trained models with different ways of phrasing the same fact and found models that saw multiple forms could retrieve facts better across different question types. They found this happens because the model builds a kind of internal representation, called a context state, before giving the answer, and training on varied question forms shapes this state to be more general. This means that learning how to retrieve information can come before fully learning the information itself.
Open → 2610.03251v1

Language models reduce social sycophancy by simulating multiple viewpoints

Mitigating Social Sycophancy via Pluralistic Preference Optimization

Abstract: Personal advice, including relationship advice, now ranks among the most common uses of generative AI. But language models (LMs) exhibit sycophancy: they affirm users much more often than humans do, which can make people overconfident and less willing to repair their relationships after a conflict. Prior work on mitigating sycophancy has focused on factual settings where a response can be checked against a ground truth answer, while mitigations for social sycophancy (e.g., personal advice, where there is no ground truth) have relied on simple prompting and post-training methods with limited effectiveness. Our insight is that social sycophancy occurs in part because LMs overly center on the user and fail to consider the perspectives of other stakeholders impacted by the user's behavior. To address this problem we propose Pluralistic Preference Optimization (PlurPO): given inputs describing interpersonal conflicts, the LM identifies and simulates the relevant stakeholders, and is then trained to prefer and generate responses acceptable to all stakeholders. PlurPO uses only signals the model produces about its own outputs, without ground-truth labels. PlurPO substantially reduces social sycophancy across four datasets and four model families compared to prior methods. For example, on statements of intent to cause harm, where the users' actions should not be endorsed, PlurPO reduces the endorsement rate by 89% on average across four models. On general advice questions, where the target is to match the endorsement rate of human responses, it closes the gap by more than half, from 17.8% to 8.0% on average. The preference dataset constructed by PlurPO for an 8B model also effectively transfers to mitigating sycophancy in a larger (32B) model. Our results indicate that social sycophancy can be reduced by leveraging a model's own capabilities to simulate a plurality of relevant perspectives.

Thu 1 OctArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Language models often agree with users too much, which can lead people to be overconfident or avoid fixing problems in their relationships. The authors found this happens partly because these models focus too much on the user's perspective and not enough on others involved. They created a method called Pluralistic Preference Optimization that helps the model imagine the views of all stakeholders in a situation and respond in ways that everyone would find acceptable. This method works without needing right or wrong answers and reduces overly agreeing responses significantly. It also transfers well to bigger language models, showing promise for making AI advice more balanced.
Open → 2610.02568v1

Language models teach themselves to solve math problems better

Teach to Learn: Hint Annealing for Self-improving LLM Reasoning

Abstract: Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) improves language-model reasoning by comparing verified rewards among multiple solution rollouts for each query. However, difficult training queries can yield only incorrect rollouts, leaving GRPO with no reward contrast or learning signal. Prior hint-based methods construct auxiliary hints from solution evidence and use them to re-solve failed queries, recovering learning signal. Yet the resulting trajectories are typically treated as ordinary solution trajectories despite being generated under an assisted condition unavailable at evaluation. We discover hinted reward shift: recovered reward contrast can concentrate policy updates on hinted trajectories, limiting improvement without hints. This also creates a trade-off: increasing hinted trajectories can accelerate early learning but intensify reward shift later. To address this problem, we propose HATCH (Hint-Annealed Self-Teaching), an online single-policy framework that learns from both generating and using its own hints to improve reasoning without assistance. To mitigate hinted reward shift, we introduce online weighting to anneal the contribution of hinted trajectories. However, learning to generate hints can conflict with improving query solving. We therefore use gradient projection to remove the opposing component of hint-generation updates. Together, these designs support self-improvement by enabling the policy to create learning opportunities for itself and turn them into stronger reasoning without hints. We evaluate our method on mathematical reasoning benchmarks and outperform state-of-the-art methods by 1.02 pp on Llama-3.2-1B-Instruct, 2.84 pp on Qwen3-1.7B, and 4.32 pp on Qwen3-8B.

Mon 28 SeptMachine Learning
The gist
Sometimes language models struggle to learn from difficult math problems because their initial answers are wrong, so they get no helpful feedback. The authors found that giving the model hints helps it learn, but relying on hints too much can hurt its ability to solve problems independently. They designed a method called HATCH that lets the model create and use its own hints while gradually reducing dependence on them, improving its reasoning skills over time without external help. Tests showed this approach worked better than previous ones on math reasoning tasks.
Open → 2609.34975v1

Curriculum learning improves prompt injection attacks on large language models

Climbing the Hill: Prompt Injection Red-Teaming Against Frontier Models with Curriculum Reinforcement Learning

Abstract: Prompt injection is a leading security risk for LLMs and LLM-based applications such as agents. State-of-the-art red-teaming methods for prompt injection leverage reinforcement learning (RL) to train an attacker LLM to generate effective injected prompts. However, when targeting frontier LLMs such as GPT-6-Luna, a major challenge is the cold-start problem: every attack attempt by the attacker LLM fails and thus receives zero reward, providing no signal for learning. In this work, we propose a curriculum learning-based method to address the cold-start problem. In particular, we propose to train the attacker LLM against a sequence of increasingly robust target LLMs, with each stage warm-starting from the attacker LLM obtained in the previous one. However, simply training against a weak target (e.g., GPT-4o-mini) may not sufficiently prepare the attacker LLM to obtain useful learning signals against a frontier LLM (e.g., GPT-5.6-Terra). Instead, we find that the design of the curriculum is critical: after each stage, the attacker LLM needs to partially succeed against the next target LLM such that it can learn from successful attempts to attack the new target. Our extensive evaluation shows that our method can effectively red-team frontier LLMs, achieving an attack success rate (ASR@10) of 93.8\% and 45.0\% against GPT-5.6-Luna and GPT-5.6-Terra on AgentDyn, whereas state-of-the-art RL methods such as RL-Hammer and PISmith achieve 0\% ASR under the same setting. Moreover, we find that the attacker LLM transfers across targets, e.g., an attacker LLM trained to defeat one strong LLM (GPT-5.6-Terra) also succeeds against six other frontier LLMs (e.g., GPT-6-Luna) it was never trained on. Our code is available at \href{https://github.com/albert-y1n/PIForge}{here}.

Sun 27 SeptMachine LearningCryptography and Security
The gist
Prompt injection is a method that tricks AI language models into doing things they shouldn’t, posing security risks. The authors found that training an attacker AI to succeed against very advanced models is hard because it gets no feedback when it fails at first. They solved this by training the attacker AI step-by-step on easier models, gradually increasing difficulty so it can learn better. Their approach worked well, breaking into top language models where other methods failed, and the attacker AI could even fool models it wasn’t trained on.
Open → 2609.33628v1

Steer large language models while preserving unrelated abilities

LocUS: Head Selection and Subspace Projection for Targeted Activation Steering

Abstract: Activation steering is a powerful training-free paradigm for controlling large language models at inference time. However, standard approaches estimate a per-layer steering direction from contrastive data and apply it on the layer's entire representation space, which may couple the intervention to off-target properties present in the contrastive data and degrade unrelated capabilities. To mitigate this issue, we introduce LocUS (Localized Unembedding Steering), a method which grounds activation steering to the model's own output vocabulary subspace. By identifying a property-specific linear subspace within the unembedding matrix, LocUS enforces a geometric constraint that restricts the steering transformation to a specific subspace and at the same time localizes its application to a sparse subset of attention heads. Extensive evaluations across three model families on toxicity mitigation, sentiment redirection and sycophancy suppression show that LocUS matches or outperforms state-of-the-art baselines while intervening on under 6% of parameters and better preserving general capability.

Fri 25 SeptComputation and LanguageMachine Learning
The gist
Large language models can be guided to change how they respond without needing extra training, but existing methods affect many parts of the model and can unintentionally reduce skills the model already has. The authors present LocUS, a way to focus interventions on specific parts of the model related to certain words or ideas, and only on a few attention heads. This targeted approach keeps the model’s general abilities better while changing only what’s needed, like reducing toxic or biased responses.
Open → 2609.31122v1

Calibrating large language model judges for human and ai conversations

Calibrating LLM Judges for Human and AI Conversations

Abstract: Measuring how successful a conversation is remains difficult, even for humans judging spoken dialogue. We evaluate state-of-the-art LLMs as pointwise and pairwise judges of conversational success on CANDOR, finding pointwise scoring correlates moderately with human ratings, while pairwise comparison suffers from long transcripts and positional bias. Since this leaves judge scores incomparable across models, we propose a small anchor set and a calibration function that calibrates any judge onto a shared, interpretable scale. We further release the Voice Arena Goal Dataset (VA), 200 task-oriented human-AI and human-agent conversations with pairwise annotations, revealing a substantial gap between current judges and human-level discrimination. Using VA, we test whether CANDOR-fitted calibration transfers to human-AI conversations, finding it brings judges onto a shared scale despite never observing VA during fitting.

Thu 24 SeptHuman-Computer Interaction
The gist
Judging how well conversations go is hard, even for people. The authors studied how well advanced language models (LLMs) judge conversations between humans and AI. They found that scoring each conversation alone works okay, but comparing two conversations directly has problems with long chats and biases. To fix this, they made a simple way to adjust the LLM scores so they can be compared fairly. They also created a new set of conversations to test these judges and showed their method helps even when judging different kinds of talks.
Open → 2609.29431v1

Ai chatbots often misgender users causing identity frustrations

Misgendering as Breakdown in Human-Machine Communication: How AI Companion Chatbot Users Experience and Repair Misgendering

Abstract: In recent years, large language model-based AI companion and role play chatbots have grown increasingly popular. People turn to these chatbots for emotional support and to engage in romantic and erotic role play. Although prior research suggests that digital role play can help people explore their gender and sexuality, LLM based technologies are also replete with gender and sexuality biases. In this study, we examine one way that AI chatbots can harm users: misgendering. In order to study chatbot misgendering we qualitatively analyzed 326 posts mentioning misgendering that were shared in AI companion or role play subreddits. We document how chatbot misgendering takes place and how, in response, users engage in ongoing work to curate their gender presentation to prevent and repair misgendering. We discuss how researchers and designers can mitigate chatbot misgendering and consider the implications of using AI chatbots for identity exploration.

Wed 16 SeptHuman-Computer InteractionComputers and Society
The gist
Sometimes AI chatbots call people by the wrong gender, which can make users feel misunderstood or upset. The authors looked at many online posts where users talked about being misgendered by these chatbots. They found users try different ways to teach the chatbot the right gender or fix mistakes. The paper also talks about how developers can make chatbots better at recognizing and respecting gender identity.
Open → 2609.18186v1

Community health workers need AI chat training for better counseling

"We Are Tired of Explaining": Communication Practice and AI Roleplay Training for Community Health Workers in Rural India

Abstract: Community health workers (CHWs) in the Global South increasingly encounter AI-powered tools, yet the counseling work central to their role remains largely unsupported. We study communication practices among Accredited Social Health Activists (ASHAs) in rural Rajasthan, India, through simulated family-planning calls, semi-structured interviews, and an LLM chatbot roleplay design-probe with 20 participants. In calls, ASHAs often responded to social or material concerns by shifting to health-risk information, denying concerns, promising unspecified help, or listing medical solutions with limited explanation. A smaller set of responses instead engaged concerns, sought permission before involving family members, or left decisions with beneficiaries. We interpret these patterns through Motivational Interviewing, emphasizing restraint from correcting, persuading, or over-solving. Drawing across observed calls, interviews, and probe reactions, we derive design considerations for AI roleplay training: keep AI in a rehearsal role, provide descriptive rather than prescriptive feedback, and evaluate counseling process rather than agreement with prescribed responses.

Tue 15 SeptHuman-Computer Interaction
The gist
Community health workers in rural India often struggle to respond well to personal concerns during family planning talks. The authors studied how these workers communicate and tested an AI chatbot roleplay to help train better listening and engagement skills. They found that training tools should help workers practice without giving strict scripts and focus on describing how they communicate instead of judging if they gave the 'right' answers. This approach aims to support health workers in having more respectful and effective conversations.
Open → 2609.17710v1

Multi dimensional educational data scoring improves language model training

Edu-QuRating: Multi-Dimensional Educational Data Curation with Distilled Pairwise Judgements

Abstract: Educational data filters have become a practical way to improve language-model pre-training, but most filters treat educational value as a single scalar property. This may be too broad for some applications, especially if the data set already features a high density of educational material. Useful learning material needs to be accurate, engaging, well structured, and appropriate for the intended audience and application (e.g. learner- vs teacher-facing). Following QuRating (Wettig et al. 2024), we introduce Edu-QuRating: a pipeline for multi-dimensional educational data scoring and curation. Edu-QuRating defines education-specific rubrics, uses an LLM judge to label sampled document pairs and distills those pairwise preferences into reusable Edu-QuRaters, which can score individual text chunks on a set of educational criteria. Across two sequence-classification base models and six educational criteria, the best Edu-QuRater recovers held-out GPT-4.1-mini pairwise judgements with mean accuracy 0.917. We then apply the resulting scorers in two applications. First, we investigate the potential of Edu-QuRaters for corpus filtering to improve pretraining of small language models. We scored 322.25M FineWeb-Edu-Fortified documents to obtain a filtered pre-training mixture. In matched single-run pre-training comparisons, models trained with Edu-QuRating-based mixtures reached higher observed aggregate accuracy across nine benchmarks than the FineWeb-Edu baseline, with gains concentrated in particular tasks. Second, we used Edu-QuRater scores as reward terms for GRPO post-training. In held-out pairwise judge evaluations, combining Edu-QuRater and answer-structure rewards produced responses preferred to the Qwen3-4B base model on both pedagogical quality and instruction following.

Tue 8 SeptComputation and LanguageArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Many language models learn better when trained on good educational content, but not all learning materials are helpful in the same way. The authors created a tool called Edu-QuRating that checks educational texts on several qualities like accuracy and engagement, rather than just one score. This helps pick better study materials for training small language models, making them perform better on some tests. They also used these scores to improve models that give educational answers, making them easier to follow and more helpful.
Open → 2609.09425v1

Authorization state complexity affects language agent permission decisions

ResidualAuth: What Authorization State Must Language Agents Preserve under Revocable Delegation?

Abstract: Tool-using language agents can delegate and revoke permissions while acting through external services. We show that two authorization histories can have identical current permissions and identical all-pairs reachability yet require opposite decisions after the same direct-edge revocation. We formalize the information needed to preserve such distinctions as a residual authorization state. We prove that exponentially many future-distinct states can share one fixed transitive closure, and give exact or tight asymptotic bounds on the state required by an exact monitor as delegation redundancy varies. ResidualAuth compiles these constructions into paired language-agent episodes. Across four open-weight models, a fixed 256-token summary solved 0-2/16 pairs, sham reads solved 0/16, and authenticated current-query reads solved 15-16/16. In a separate held-out online-memory diagnostic, exact ledger serializations fit all 128 four-coordinate pairs at both 768 and 1,024 tokens. At either cap, factually supported model-written memories sufficient for every prespecified continuation solved at most 1/128 pairs per model. A hard gate reduced eight observed unauthorized effects to zero without changing the preceding attempts. These results distinguish required authorization state, usable decision information, online state maintenance, and effect mediation.

Tue 8 SeptArtificial IntelligenceCryptography and Security
The gist
When AI language agents use tools that require permissions, figuring out which prior permissions and revocations they must remember is tricky. The authors show that two seemingly identical permission setups can lead to very different decisions after a permission is revoked. They define a new way to measure what information about past permissions needs to be kept to make correct decisions. They tested this with language models and found that some ways of summarizing past permissions fail, while including authenticated records helped models make better decisions.
Open → 2609.08062v1