Papers for

automation 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.

Exploration guided prompt scaffolding improves multimodal reinforcement learning

Not All Prompts Are Equal: Exploration-Guided Prompt Scaffolding for Multimodal Reinforcement Post-Training

Abstract: Training prompts in online reinforcement learning (RL) differ substantially in how informative they are for the current policy: some are already saturated while others are too difficult to yield reliable learning signals, yet both receive equal rollout budget under standard training. We propose an exploration-guided prompt scaffolding framework that adapts the training prompt distribution dynamically throughout RL post-training of multimodal large language models (MLLMs). Central to our approach is the $\textit{Exploration Potential Score} (EPS)$, a lightweight rollout-based proxy for prompt utility derived from KL-regularized policy improvement theory, computable directly from on-policy rollout statistics without additional overhead. Rather than discarding low-utility prompts, we use a teacher model to generate scaffolded rewrites that preserve the original task intent while making subsequent training more informative, reframing teacher supervision as training-data refinement rather than output imitation. Integrated with GRPO on Geo3K and MMK12, our method consistently outperforms the baseline on both in-domain and out-of-distribution benchmarks, achieving up to 9.7\% relative improvement in-domain and gains of 11.5\% on MathVision and 11.1\% on MMMU-Pro.

Mon 14 SeptMachine LearningArtificial IntelligenceComputation and Language
The gist
This paper looks at how some training prompts used in teaching AI systems to learn actions are either too easy or too hard, which makes learning inefficient. The authors introduce a way to score how useful a prompt is during training and to change prompts dynamically for better learning. Instead of dropping difficult prompts, a teacher AI rewrites them to keep the main idea but make learning easier. Their method helps AI models learn better on tests inside and outside their usual tasks.
Open 2609.15051v1

Large language models often break markdown boundaries in generated text

LatentMD: Benchmarking Markdown Boundary Failures in LLM-Generated Text

Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) increasingly generate Markdown that is consumed by renderers, agents, code extractors, and structured downstream pipelines. Yet existing evaluations often conflate content quality with format adherence, leaving Markdown boundary failures under-measured. We introduce LatentMD, a benchmark and evaluation protocol for diagnosing CommonMark-level fence-boundary failures in LLM-generated Markdown. LatentMD separates content correctness from boundary correctness, enabling detection of outputs that are content-correct but boundary-broken. The benchmark contains 4,179 prompts and a CLI for scoring arbitrary model outputs. Across 9 LLMs and roughly 37,600 generations, we find that Markdown boundary failures are widespread: 38.0% of valid main-grid outputs are content-correct but boundary-broken, with substantial boundary breakage under unspecified prompts and in a small human-authored validation set. Ablations show that failures are driven primarily by same-family symmetric-delimiter collisions rather than nesting alone, are only partially mitigated by prompt hints, and generalize to Python triple-quote docstrings while JSON remains robust as an asymmetric-delimiter control. LatentMD provides a reproducible diagnostic target for parser-sensitive LLM evaluation.

Mon 7 SeptSoftware EngineeringComputation and LanguageMachine Learning
The gist
Large language models (LLMs) are used to create Markdown text for computers to read and process, but sometimes the models mess up the special formatting boundaries while keeping the content correct. The authors created LatentMD, a test set and tool that can spot when the Markdown formatting is broken even though the content is right. They tested nearly 38,000 generated examples across 9 models and found that over a third had correct content but broken formatting boundaries. The mistakes mostly happen because of confusing similar delimiter marks and are not fully fixed by giving hints in prompts.
Open 2609.06993v1