Papers for

ai product engineers

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.

Large language models improve reasoning by testing own explanations

From Observation to Intervention: Distilling Self-Generated In-Context Demonstrations via Executable Causal Intervention

Abstract: Self-generated In-Context Learning (ICL) enables LLMs to synthesize their own few-shot demonstrations, often outperforming manual prompts. However, existing methods filter demonstrations by observation, assuming a rationale is high-quality if it leads to the correct output. We show such filtering suffers from \textit{observational equivalence}, whereby both faithful causal rationales and spurious post-hoc rationales can yield same outputs and are statistically indistinguishable from observation alone. Inspired by independent causal mechanisms, we argue that faithful rationales imply \textit{transfer invariance}, in which causal rationales should remain effective across logically similar samples. We instantiate this criterion as \textbf{E}xecutable \textbf{C}ausal \textbf{I}ntervention for \textbf{D}emonstrations \textbf{D}istillation (ECI2D), which abstracts language rationales into executable programs and applies the causal interventions ($do$-operator) on logically similar samples, retaining only those demonstrations that imply transfer invariance. Experiments on math, logical and commonsense reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that ECI2D consistently outperforms observation-based ICL while retaining far fewer demonstrations, with gains exceeding 7 points as the test distribution shifts.

Thu 15 OctComputation and Language
The gist
Large language models (LLMs) can write their own examples to learn from, often better than using examples made by people. The authors found that just checking if an example leads to the right answer isn’t enough because some explanations just look correct but aren’t truly helpful. They created a new way to test explanations by turning them into computer programs to see if they help solve similar problems too. This method keeps only truly useful examples and boosts the model’s reasoning, especially when facing new kinds of questions.
Open → 2610.21149v1

Ensemble gains in large language models depend on candidate comparison methods

Where Do LLM Ensemble Gains Come From? Decomposing Candidate Value, Diversity, and Aggregation

Abstract: LLM ensemble gains are often measured against a single baseline, but the value attributed to additional candidates can change with the comparison used. We study an LLM aggregator under four matched conditions: Direct (no candidates), Single-slot (one candidate in a multi-slot interface), Duplicate (one candidate repeated), and Multi-candidate (separately generated candidates). Under either non-diverse control, overall candidate gain (CIV) splits algebraically into an additional-candidate contrast (DSV) and a candidate-context contrast (CCV); the split, but not CIV, depends on the chosen control. On MultiHopRAG model diversity (k=2), the repetition gap Rep=-8.33 pp [-13.25, -3.75] quantifies the difference between gains measured against Duplicate and Single-slot. On a matched FRAMES stronger-panel extension (n=200, k=3, aggregator output limit 4096), paired Delta Rep=+9.67 pp [+6.00, +13.50]; within panels, Rep changes sign (original -6.33; stronger +3.33). In FRAMES evidence aggregation, candidate-context contrasts remain strongly negative under both non-diverse controls. Our results show why ensemble evaluations should state the reference control before attributing gains to additional candidates.

Tue 13 OctComputation and LanguageArtificial Intelligence
The gist
When people combine multiple responses from large language models (LLMs) to get better answers, the improvement seen can change based on how the comparisons are made. The authors studied different setups where candidates (model outputs) are repeated, singular, or multiple. They found that the way improvements are split depends on the baseline comparison, revealing hidden influences when measuring ensemble benefits. This means future evaluations should clearly state what the baseline is before claiming improvements come from more candidates.
Open → 2610.18786v1

Multimodal models learn to adapt thinking style and length for tasks

Adaptive Look, Flexible Thought: Learning How and How Long to Think in Multimodal Reasoning

Abstract: The introduction of long chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning and external tools has substantially improved the performance of multimodal large language models (MLLMs) on general and reasoning tasks. However, existing fast-slow reasoning paradigms mainly regulate textual reasoning length, while visual computation introduced by external tools or visual tokens is often treated as an auxiliary component. This separation prevents MLLMs from jointly optimizing visual perception and textual reasoning. To address this issue, we propose L2T (adaptive Look, flexible Thought), a unified reasoning framework that jointly optimizes the form and depth of computation. L2T first discretizes tool-produced visual states into visual tokens, bringing visual perception and textual reasoning into a shared autoregressive space. Based on this unified representation, L2T introduces a modality-aware routing reward to select appropriate reasoning modes and a difficulty-aware fast-slow strategy to adapt reasoning depth according to task complexity. Experiments on general perception and reasoning-intensive tasks demonstrate the effectiveness of L2T. Compared with explicit tool-calling approaches, L2T maintains competitive performance while achieving 1.7--3.6 times higher throughput.

Sun 11 OctComputer Vision and Pattern RecognitionArtificial IntelligenceComputation and Language
The gist
Multimodal large language models, which understand both pictures and text, usually handle visual and textual reasoning separately. This separation limits how well they can work together on complex tasks. The authors created a method called L2T that treats visual and text reasoning as one process, deciding how much and in what way to think based on the task. Tests show L2T performs as well as current methods but can work 1.7 to 3.6 times faster.
Open → 2610.15810v1

Metropolis-Hastings improves policy mixing for large language models

Metropolis-Hastings Dominates Importance Resampling for Policy Composition

Abstract: Post-training a large language model (LLM) often requires exploring trade-offs between multiple rewards, but retraining for each trade-off is expensive. Decoding-time policy composition allows these trade-offs to be adjusted by combining reward-specific policies at inference time. This composition targets a weighted product of the policies' probabilities over complete responses, but standard implementations combine their next-token probabilities, generally introducing sampling bias. We analyze a known iterative correction based on independence Metropolis-Hastings (MH). Our main result shows that, for every rollout budget, MH produces an output distribution at least as close to the target as sampling-importance-resampling (SIR) with the same budget, as measured by every convex f-divergence. We also derive a lower bound on MH's improvement over the uncorrected decoder in a consensus objective measuring agreement with the supplied policies. We further characterize the correction's sampling error in two asymptotic regimes: when the reward-specific policies approach agreement, and when the log ratio between target and uncorrected-decoder probabilities fluctuates increasingly widely, as can happen for long responses. We complement our analysis with experiments in enumerable and LLM-scale settings.

Fri 2 OctMachine Learning
The gist
Combining different ways for a language model to choose words can help balance various goals without retraining the model each time. The authors show that using a special method called Metropolis-Hastings to mix these choices produces results that are as close or closer to the ideal combination than a common method called importance resampling. They also study where this method works best and test it on small and large models.
Open → 2610.03480v1

Language models improve answers by comparing good and bad prompts

Beam Search as Test-Time Self-Distillation via Counterfactual Contexts

Abstract: Self-Distillation Fine-Tuning (SDFT) enables a language model to act as its own teacher: by conditioning on a demonstration, the model produces an implicit reward via pointwise mutual information, which guides on-policy learning without external supervision. However, SDFT operates at training time: it requires gradient updates and access to expert demonstrations, making it inapplicable at inference. We propose test-time self-distillation, a decoding-time method that extracts a steering signal from the self-distillation framework without any parameter updates, reward models, or training data. Our key insight is that counterfactual contexts, i.e. fixed textual templates that hypothetically prime the model for excellent versus poor reasoning, can substitute for the demonstration. The log-odds ratio of a candidate answer under these two counterfactual conditions defines a new reward signal. We derive the optimal KL-regularized policy under this reward, which takes the form of a Gibbs reweighting of the base distribution. Crucially, this reweighting is global: it cannot be decomposed into independent per-token operations without ignoring future trajectory quality. We therefore approximate the target distribution via beam search. Experiments on mathematical reasoning (MATH500), code generation (HumanEval), and graduate-level science QA (GPQA) across multiple model scales show that test-time self-distillation improves over standard sampling, low temperature, beam search and power sampling baselines on average, demonstrating that the self-distillation principle can be operationalized at inference time.

Tue 29 SeptMachine LearningArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Language models usually learn from training data with expert examples, but this paper finds a way to improve their answers during use without extra training. The authors show that by pretending the model is given either a great or poor example prompt and comparing the difference, they can guide the model to better answers. This method works during the answering process and uses a specialized search called beam search to find better responses. Tests on math, coding, and science problems show this approach improves performance over common decoding methods.
Open → 2609.37041v1

Machine unlearning improves forgotten knowledge without changing model weights

Test-Time Unlearning via Sparse Autoencoder

Abstract: Machine unlearning aims to remove specific knowledge from a trained large language model (LLM) without retraining from scratch. Existing methods modify model weights via gradient ascent and its advances. While effective on certain benchmarks, these weight-based approaches exhibit a sharp forget-utility trade-off, where stronger forgetting of target knowledge can degrade model utility, and unlearned knowledge may reappear under post-unlearning fine-tuning or prompt attacks. We propose ARIA (autoencoder-gated inference-time unlearning), a test-time unlearning method that leaves model weights intact and gates access to unwanted knowledge only when generation enters a forget-related state. ARIA uses sparse autoencoder (SAE) latents to train a lightweight linear detector, then applies an interpretable intervention on triggered states with negligible test-time overhead. Empirical evaluations on TOFU, R-TOFU, and WMDP show that ARIA improves the forget-retain trade-off over weight-based baselines across both a thinking model (DeepSeek-R1-Distilled-Qwen-1.5B) and an instruction model (Gemma-3-1B-it), e.g., reducing WMDP-cyber forget-set accuracy significantly while keeping MMLU within 1% of the pre-unlearning model. We further introduce three post-unlearning adversarial attacks targeting weight-space and decoding-space recovery, and find that ARIA remains robust under all three, with forgetting changing by less than 1% under attack. A feature-level case study leveraging the interpretability of ARIA suggests that some retain degradation may reflect response styles underlying the unlearning data rather than leakage of the targeted knowledge itself, highlighting a potential source of bias in unlearning task construction.

Mon 14 SeptMachine LearningComputation and Language
The gist
Removing specific information from large language models without fully retraining them is tough because changing the model weights can hurt their overall performance. The authors propose a new method called ARIA that doesn’t change the model itself but blocks unwanted knowledge only when the model starts to generate that information. This method uses a special tool called a sparse autoencoder to detect when to intervene, which keeps the model working well while forgetting the right things. The authors tested their method on several models and showed it forgets more accurately and resists attempts to recover the forgotten data.
Open → 2609.16229v1

Credit assignment improves large language model agents on long tasks

Granularity-Adaptive Credit Assignment for Long-Horizon LLM Agent Reinforcement Learning

Abstract: Reinforcement learning is now the standard way to train large language model agents on long-horizon tasks, where dozens of interdependent actions precede a single sparse reward. Critic-free, group-relative methods such as GRPO suit this regime, but they broadcast one trajectory-level scalar to every step and cannot say which decision drove the outcome. GiGPO recovers a step-level signal by grouping time steps that share an anchor state, yet it merges the step- and episode-level estimates under one fixed weight, spending the same resolution on a pivotal branching decision as on a routine, near-deterministic transition. We argue that the right resolution is state-dependent, and propose GACA, a critic-free estimator whose granularity follows an uncertainty-based criticality proxy. GACA scores every step by the negative log-likelihood its own rollout already records, then blends the two advantages with a per-step weight that grows with that score, so the gradient places more weight on the fine-grained signal at above-average NLL and on the episode-level signal below it. We derive an exact risk decomposition for the implemented mixture and show that sufficiently small modulation improves on fixed mixing under positive directional alignment. A separate conditional result bounds local action-value variation using expected NLL, while an error-projection analysis characterizes when mixing adds value beyond scalar uncertainty reweighting. On ALFWorld and WebShop, GACA improves task success over GRPO and GiGPO at both 1.5B and 7B scales.

Fri 11 SeptMachine Learning
The gist
Training AI agents to do tasks with many steps is hard because it’s unclear which steps lead to success. The authors propose GACA, a method that adjusts how much it focuses on individual steps based on how uncertain the agent is about each step’s outcome. This helps the AI learn better by giving more attention to important decisions and less to routine ones. They show that GACA works better than previous methods on two benchmark tasks involving complex, multi-step problems.
Open → 2609.12424v1