Papers for

chatbot builders

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.

Cross passage pretraining improves document retrieval accuracy

xPRT: Cross-Passage Retrieval Pretraining

Abstract: Dense retrievers are a foundational component underlying modern RAG and search systems. Training these models typically requires a curated collection of annotated query-document pairs, which are prohibitively expensive to obtain outside a handful of well-resourced domains. This has motivated a line of work that leverages large-scale unsupervised retrieval pretraining from unlabelled text alone. Most such methods learn by optimizing a language modelling or contrastive learning objective over short spans within a document. This raises the question: how can we extract richer learning signals from a single document for retrieval pretraining? To address it, we introduce xPRT (Cross-Passage Retrieval Pretraining), an unsupervised framework that learns from the key information distributed across an entire document and the connections between its parts. We evaluate xPRT against five state-of-the-art objectives on MTEB English v2, continuing pretraining from a public unsupervised checkpoint while holding the corpus, schedule, and training procedure fixed. Across diverse tasks spanning all task types, we observe that xPRT consistently outperforms the strongest baseline by 3.2% on an average. Notably, in this continual pretraining setting, many baseline methods incur substantial performance regressions, whereas our method delivers the largest complementary gains over the initial pretrained checkpoint. Controlled ablations confirm that xPRT's performance gains stem from its proposed cross-passage signals. xPRT demonstrates that a single unlabelled document is a much richer source of retrieval signal than prior work assumed and offers complementary gains to what current retrievers already capture.

Thu 29 OctInformation Retrieval
The gist
Finding the best documents to answer questions or queries often needs lots of labeled examples, which are hard to get. The authors introduce a way to teach retrieval models by learning from connections and important parts spread across whole documents, without needing labeled data. Their approach, called xPRT, improves retrieval performance consistently compared to other methods. This shows that single documents hold more useful information for training than previously thought.
Open → 2610.40122v1

Atlas-bench tests local search agents finding places that fit needs

ATLAS-Bench: An Agentic Tool-Use Benchmark for Local Area Search

Abstract: Reliable local search is essential for LLM agents to support everyday decisions and longer plans by finding places that meet users' needs at given times and locations. Yet existing benchmarks provide limited coverage of whether search results satisfy mandatory requirements, account for preferences, and ground factual and experiential judgments in place attributes and reviews. We introduce ATLAS-Bench, a benchmark of 1,200 queries across three regions, expanded from real search events using place attributes, reviews, and existing user profiles from the platform. Each query distinguishes mandatory requirements from preferences and factual conditions from subjective judgments, with supporting evidence and criteria for checking each requirement. Queries are validated through iterative assertion checks and cross-model review. We also introduce ATLASBox, a standardized evaluation environment with search tools and a fixed point-of-interest (POI) knowledge base. Given a query, timestamp, and location, an agent searches place attributes and reviews to recommend evidence-supported options or report that no place meets all mandatory requirements. We evaluate answer quality, trajectory quality, and execution cost. Across 14 configurations of 11 models, GPT-6-Luna achieves the highest constraint satisfaction rate among returned recommendations (71.5%) and factual accuracy (95.6%). However, it returns at least one acceptable recommendation for fewer satisfiable queries than GLM-5.3 (67.3% versus 85.3%). These results highlight the challenge of satisfying individual requirements while providing usable recommendations across queries.

Thu 29 OctArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Finding places that match all your requirements and preferences in local searches is hard for AI agents. The authors created ATLAS-Bench, a set of 1,200 local search queries with clear must-have needs and preferences, plus real reviews and place details. They also built ATLASBox, a tool that lets AI agents try finding places given a location and time, checking their answers for accuracy and usefulness. Tests show even top models struggle to find fully satisfying places consistently, revealing the difficulty of precise local search.
Open → 2610.39438v1

Language models struggle to reproduce their own preferences from descriptions

The Quine Test: How Much of a Model's Self Survives Its Own Description?

Abstract: Frontier language models express coherent preferences, but behavioral evidence alone cannot say whether these belong to the model or to a character it portrays. Following Hofstadter's view of the self as a self-description, we ask whether a model's description of itself works as a portable specification of its preference profile, a quine test: can the text a model writes about itself regenerate its behavior elsewhere? Ten models from nine labs write self-descriptions; we place each one in the prompt of other models (receivers) and of fresh instances of the author, and measure how closely their choices on a 110-item preference battery match the author's. First, the tested native self-descriptions (native: the profile measured under a generic assistant prompt) show no average reconstruction gain across variations in length, framing, wording and prompt placement: on a 0 to 1 fidelity scale where a model's fidelity to a fresh instance of itself is 0.979 and to unrelated models about 0.89, the one-sided 95% upper bound on the pooled gain is below +0.01 in every tested system-prompt condition, and descriptions based on the author's observed choices do no better. Second, the channel itself is strong: explicitly listing the author's answers lets receivers reproduce its profile at fidelity 0.955 to 0.960 across three model grids, within 0.03 of same-model repeatability. Third, self-descriptions written under an explicit preference policy transfer the assigned preferences almost as well as the policy text itself. Fourth, reading its own self-description shifts even the author away from its baseline, modestly more than unrelated prose of the same length. For the preferences measured here, native self-descriptions influence behavior without reliably specifying how to reproduce it in another model. We release the pipeline, battery, raw call logs, and 198 model-written descriptions.

Wed 28 OctComputation and Language
The gist
It’s hard for language models to explain their own likes and choices in a way that other models can understand and copy. The authors tested whether a model’s written self-description could predict its behavior, but found it doesn’t help much. However, if the preferences are clearly listed as answers, other models can imitate the behavior more accurately. Also, when a model reads its own description, it changes its behavior a little but not in a reliable way. This means self-descriptions influence models but don’t fully capture what makes their preferences work.
Open → 2610.38726v1

Fact-checking explanations adapt to readers personal preferences

Same Verdict, Different Readers: Personalizing Fact-Checking Explanations from Relative Preferences

Abstract: Fact-checking explanations help Web users understand why a claim receives its verdict, yet the same explanation may not satisfy readers with different backgrounds and preferences. We formulate Faithful Personalized Fact-Checking Explanation Rewriting, which adapts an existing explanation to individual readers while preserving factual fidelity. Rather than relying on reader-written reference explanations, we learn personalized rewriting from the relative preferences of LLM-simulated readers. However, this presents two challenges: distinguishing persona-specific preferences from general explanation quality and learning beyond a limited set of predefined explanation styles. To address these challenges, we propose Personalized Explanation Rewriting via Preference Learning (PERPL), a framework consisting of two components. Simulated Preference Construction derives persona-specific supervision from simulated reader preferences through cross-persona reciprocal pairing. Progressive Preference Learning first trains a lightweight rewriter on the constructed supervision and then refines it through exploration-guided preference optimization, enabling it to discover preferred explanations beyond the predefined styles. Extensive experiments demonstrate that PERPL outperforms much larger general-purpose LLMs in personalized preference alignment while maintaining high factual fidelity.

Tue 27 OctComputation and Language
The gist
Fact-checking websites explain why a claim is true or false, but one explanation may not suit every reader. To fix this, the authors created a method that rewrites explanations to fit people’s individual tastes while keeping the facts accurate. They use computer simulations to learn what kinds of explanations different readers prefer without needing people to write example explanations. Their approach outperforms larger general-purpose AI systems in matching personal preferences while staying truthful.
Open → 2610.37380v1

Long context AI models show different biases in using evidence positions

Mixing Matters: Evidence Position Bias Across Sequence Mixers in Long-Context Question Answering

Abstract: Long-context models often use answer-bearing evidence less effectively when it appears away from a prompt boundary. We compare this position bias across Transformer, state-space, and hybrid Mamba architectures by moving one gold document through a fixed set of nine distractors. The evaluated Transformers show a beginning advantage that the evaluated state-space models lack, while both families favor evidence near the end. A matched pure-versus-hybrid Mamba comparison points in the same direction but remains statistically uncertain. The family difference appears among models that can answer the task. Transformer primacy reappears on synthetic retrieval, where state-space ceiling prevents a family comparison. A corpus swap within one state-space architecture changes overall accuracy without a detectable change in curve shape. Prompt changes can create or nearly remove a beginning advantage. Position remains decodable across architectures even when response curves differ, and attention concentration near initial tokens covaries with beginning sensitivity in the tested Transformer family. These exploratory results show that effective context use depends on the evaluated architecture family, capability, task, and prompt, without isolating the sequence mixer as the sole cause.

Thu 22 OctComputation and LanguageArtificial IntelligenceMachine Learning
The gist
When AI models answer questions using long texts, where important information appears in the text affects how well the models use it. The authors studied different types of models and found that some, like Transformers, pay more attention to information at the beginning of the text, while others do not. Both types tended to favor evidence near the end as well, but how they use the information depends on the model design and how the question is asked. This means that the way a model mixes sequences influences how it focuses on different parts of long texts, but it’s not the only factor.
Open → 2610.31135v1

Large language models often answer wrong when context misleads them

MisleadQA: Diagnosing LLM Failures under Misleading Context

Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are widely used to answer questions from retrieved or user-provided context. However, provided context can be factually true yet out-of-scope, describing a different entity, time, or location from the one the question targets, and still lead models to a wrong answer. Prior work has mainly studied factually false or irrelevant context. It remains unclear whether such out-of-scope context misleads models as much as false context, and whether adding gold context prevents models from being misled by either. We introduce **MisleadQA**, a diagnostic dataset of multiple-choice questions with an abstention option. Each question pairs gold context (G) with true but out-of-scope context (S) and false but in-scope context (F) supporting the same wrong answer. We evaluate six open-weight LLMs. On questions they answer correctly without context, providing S alone leads them to switch to this wrong answer in 29.3% of cases, and providing F alone does so in 75.4%. Adding G nearly removes the effect of S, but F still misleads models in 21.0% of cases, especially when F comes first. A context-faithful instruction reduces these errors mainly through abstention and lowers accuracy even with G. These findings suggest that evaluations should check whether context applies to the question, not only whether it is true, and should report correct, misled, and abstention rates together. Data and code are available at [https://anonymous.4open.science/r/MisleadQA](https://anonymous.4open.science/r/MisleadQA).

Sat 17 OctComputation and Language
The gist
Large language models (LLMs) try to answer questions using extra information called context. This paper shows that even if the context is true, it can mislead LLMs if it talks about a different subject than the question. Models get confused more by false context than by true but out-of-scope context. Adding correct context helps with true out-of-scope but less so with false context. The authors created a dataset to test this and show that models sometimes avoid answering when told to be careful.
Open → 2610.24851v1

Language models share one circuit that causes multiple cue biases

Many Biases, One Circuit: Post-Training Tunes a Pretrained Cue-Routing Mechanism

Abstract: Language models often abandon a correct answer when the prompt contains a cue, a hint toward a wrong option such as "I think the answer is B." Sycophancy and related biases show this failure. They are often studied separately and blamed on alignment. We test this view causally, tracing the attention heads behind these biases through the stages of two post-training pipelines. In multiple-choice tests on most models, four cue types rely largely on the same few heads, a shared circuit already present in pretrained models. Most base models follow cues in plain text. Fine-tuning a base model on about 200 generic assistant examples without cues activates these heads in chat format, so cue-following can be a side effect of assistant tuning. The final reinforcement learning (RL) stage strengthens the effect of cues in almost every comparison. In Tulu-3-8B and OLMo-2-7B, we swap the attention patterns of six middle layers between the RL checkpoint and its predecessor. For suggested-answer cues, this shifts each checkpoint's cue effect most of the way to the other's level. Post-training thus seems to change when and how strongly models use this circuit. Mitigation for these multiple-choice biases could target this circuit.

Fri 16 OctComputation and LanguageArtificial IntelligenceMachine Learning
The gist
Language models can be tricked into choosing wrong answers when prompts contain misleading hints, like "I think the answer is B." The authors found that these mistakes often come from the same few parts (attention heads) inside the model. This part exists even before special tuning, but certain training steps make the model rely on it more and make the mistake worse. Changing these parts can reduce how much the model follows the wrong cues. Understanding this could help fix these bias problems.
Open → 2610.22937v1

Language models adjust word meanings based on context clues

Lexical Redefinition Reveals Context-Sensitive Instruction Following

Abstract: How do language models reconcile conflicting contextual evidence within a prompt? We study this question using lexical redefinition, where an explicit instruction specifies how a word should be interpreted and a subsequent sentence provides additional evidence through its usage. Across 870 word pairs, we find that lexical redefinitions are not applied as fixed rules. Instead, the behaviour depends systematically on the relationship between the explicit instruction and the intervening sentence: the contextualised usage can preserve, weaken, or completely reverse the instruction. These results suggest that the interpretation of an explicit instruction remains sensitive to subsequent contextual evidence. Lexical redefinition therefore provides a controlled behavioural paradigm for studying how language models integrate multiple sources of information within a prompt.

Mon 12 OctComputation and Language
The gist
Sometimes a language model is told to think of a word in a new way, but the sentences that come after can change how well the model follows that instruction. The authors tested over 800 word pairs and found that the model doesn't always treat the instruction as a strict rule. Instead, it listens to the next sentence and might keep, ignore, or even do the opposite of the instruction depending on the new context. This shows language models mix instructions with new information instead of just following rules blindly.
Open → 2610.16952v1

Multilingual corpus improves translation of Indian language dialogues

BaatCheet: A Multilingual Corpus for Dialogue Translation in Indian Languages

Abstract: Existing translation models are typically trained on sentence-level and formal text, limiting their ability to capture everyday conversational dialogue phenomena such as informality, speaker interaction, and discourse coherence. Most existing Indic translation resources and evaluation benchmarks focus on sentence-level or formal text, making it difficult to assess translation quality of the dialogue phenomena. In this work, we introduce BaatCheet, a multilingual dialogue corpus named after the Hindi term for conversation or chitchat, containing approximately 49,000 dialogues for dialogue translation across five translation directions. We fine-tune five open-source LLMs across seven training data configurations and find that fine-tuning yields substantial gains over zero- and few-shot baselines. To comprehensively evaluate dialogue translation quality, we employ multiple evaluation strategies, including automatic metrics, LLM-as-judge, and human assessments using an SQM-guided Direct Assessment (DA) Protocol.

Sun 27 SeptComputation and Language
The gist
Translating everyday conversations is harder than translating formal sentences because of informal language and how people talk to each other. The authors created a large collection of dialogues in Indian languages called BaatCheet to help improve translation in these situations. They tested multiple language models that got better when trained on this data, showing it helps translation tools understand casual speech better. They checked the translations with computers and human reviewers to make sure they worked well.
Open → 2609.33296v1

Benchmark helps pick best query rewrite to improve search results

Route Me If You Can: A Benchmark for Query Reformulation Selection

Abstract: LLM-based query reformulation can improve retrieval, but no single reformulation strategy is consistently optimal across queries, domains, retrievers, or model backbones. This creates an inference-time decision problem: ``Given an original query and a pool of candidate reformulations, which one should be issued to the retriever?''. Existing studies are hard to compare because they use different reformulator pools, retrievers, relevance signals, training labels, and evaluation metrics. We introduce QueryRoute, a benchmark that freezes the expensive artifacts needed to study this decision reproducibly: original queries, generated variants, ranked lists under multiple retrievers, retrieval scores, and per-query oracle labels. The benchmark contains 3,757 queries, 11 candidate systems, five reformulator backbones, and three retrievers across TREC DL, BEIR, and BRIGHT, yielding 619,905 retrieval outcomes. We benchmark supervised classification, routing, QPP, and LLM-as-judge selectors. Results show substantial oracle headroom over fixed reformulators, but current selectors recover only part of it; selector rankings change across retrievers, and similar mean effectiveness can hide different query-level behavior. The released artifacts and evaluation harness allow future selectors to be compared without regenerating variants, rerunning retrieval, or rebuilding judge pipelines. Code and data are available at https://github.com/haisonle001/QueryRoute

Mon 14 SeptInformation Retrieval
The gist
Sometimes when you search for something, changing the wording of your question can help find better answers. But there’s no one best way to change questions that works every time or for every search engine. The authors made a big test set called QueryRoute that includes lots of original questions and many ways to rewrite them, along with results from different search tools. They use this to see which rewritten question works best for each search, showing there’s room to improve how we pick the best rewrite. This can help future systems choose better questions to get better search answers without redoing all the hard work every time.
Open → 2609.14885v1

Tone changes how AI judges relevance in search results

Should I Be Polite to My LLM Relevance Judge? Tone as a Severity Operating-Point Shift

Abstract: Large language models are increasingly used as relevance judges, yet their labels can shift with prompt surface form. We study one such feature -- tone -- on 3,498 TREC DL19/DL20 query-passage pairs, across eight judge models, five classifier-calibrated politeness levels, and three paraphrases per level. Effects are strongly model-dependent: one judge shows a structured U-shaped response, whereas most show only small changes. Where tone changes agreement, the results are more consistent with a shift in the judge's severity operating point -- its overall scoring leniency -- than with improved judgment. Agreement rises or falls as this shift moves the judge toward or away from human annotators' strictness. A query-disjoint cross-fit retains the expected association (Spearman $ρ= -0.683$; exact model-block permutation $p = 0.019$). Tone affects calibration-based agreement more than ranking outcomes: across 32 model-tone contrasts, the largest absolute mean change in NDCG@10 is 0.011, although Kendall's $τ$ as low as 0.743 shows that reordering is reduced, not absent. The account reconciles prior contradictory findings and identifies prompt tone as a potential validity threat when absolute relevance labels matter.

Wed 9 SeptInformation Retrieval
The gist
Some large language models judge how well search results match a query, but their decisions can change based on how the prompt is worded—especially the tone used. The authors studied different politeness levels and found that changes in tone mostly shift how strict or lenient the model is, rather than making it better or worse at judging relevance. This means being polite or not can make the model act more or less harsh, affecting agreement with human judgments. These findings explain past mixed results and warn that tone can affect the trustworthiness of relevance labels from AI judges.
Open → 2609.09703v1

Large language models yield to user pressure over long chats

Measuring LLM Sycophancy under Sustained Multi-Turn Pressure

Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) may abandon correct positions when users push back, exhibiting a failure mode known as sycophancy. Existing evaluations typically use short, pre-specified conversations and may therefore miss failures that emerge under sustained, adaptive disagreement. We introduce SPINE, a benchmark in which an LLM proxy plays a persistent but mistaken user and adaptively challenges a target model for up to 25 turns. We evaluate four production systems and three Olmo3-7b variants on 100 false-presupposition and 100 unethical-query items. Our experimental results show that collapse rates increase with conversation length for every model, short-horizon protocols underestimate sycophancy and resistance under sustained pressure remains unreliable across current models. By analyzing models with accessible reasoning traces, we surprisingly found that the correct position often remains represented in a reasoning trace when the response concedes, suggesting that the model chooses to please a user and sycophancy is not due to lack of knowledge or ignorance. Ablations show that adaptive LLM proxy exposes more sycophantic collapse than pre-generated scripts. Among all tactics, emotional appeals is the most associated with inducing LLM sycophantic behavior. The code and data are released at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/SPINE

Tue 8 SeptComputation and LanguageArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Language models sometimes give in and agree with users even when the users are wrong, a behavior called sycophancy. The authors created a test called SPINE where a model pretends to be a wrong user and pushes another model for up to 25 conversation turns. They found that longer conversations lead to more giving-in, and short tests miss many of these failures. Interestingly, models often still know the right answer internally but choose to please the user. Emotional appeals from the user were the strongest triggers for this behavior.
Open → 2609.09090v1

Flow markers improve reasoning in large language models

Aha-Flow Distillation: Flow Markers Matter in LLM Reasoning

Abstract: We identify the Flow Moment, a reasoning pattern characterized by sustained, process-confirming verbalizations such as I'm doing, in contrast to the revision- and backtracking-oriented Aha Moment. We refer to their corresponding linguistic expressions as Flow Markers and Aha Markers, respectively. Based on this observation, we construct Flow-CoT by rewriting the discourse markers of original reasoning traces while preserving their underlying reasoning content, and use it as auxiliary supervision for on-policy self-distillation (OPSD). We further propose \textbf{Aha-Flow Distillation (AFD)}, a dual-mode extension of OPSD that pairs different forms of privileged information with corresponding reasoning instructions. The Aha branch retains concise solution-based supervision, while the Flow branch introduces rewritten Flow-CoT under a direct and confident reasoning instruction. At inference time, the model uses only the standard reflective instruction, so Flow-style reasoning serves purely as a training signal. Experiments on AIME25 and HMMT25 show consistent improvements across Qwen3-8B and Qwen3-4B: AFD improves Avg@12 from 60.8 to 61.3 on Qwen3-8B and from 57.5 to 58.6 on Qwen3-4B over our reproduced OPSD baselines. Controlled ablations further show that, with the same Flow-CoT/Aha-CoT composition, dual-mode training improves Avg@12 from 59.5 to 60.1, indicating that the benefit comes not only from introducing heterogeneous reasoning supervision, but also from how it is organized during self-distillation. The code is available at https://github.com/Wang-Xiaodong1899/Aha-Flow-Distillation.

Mon 7 SeptComputation and LanguageArtificial IntelligenceMachine Learning
The gist
This paper explores two ways that language models talk through their reasoning: the 'Aha Moment,' where the model backtracks and revises its ideas, and the 'Flow Moment,' where it steadily explains its thought process confidently. The authors create new training methods using these 'Flow Markers' to help models learn better reasoning patterns. By training models with this dual approach, they improve performance on math problem benchmarks. The improvements happen without changing how the model is prompted when used normally.
Open → 2609.07036v1