Papers for

language ai 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 perform better with prompting on semantic focus tasks

Prompts and probabilities in the linguistic assessment of language models: Evidence from semantic focus-sensitivity

Abstract: As language models (LMs) have improved, an increasingly common means of evaluating their linguistic competence is through explicit prompting (e.g., "Which sentence is more acceptable?"). Prior work indicates that such prompting underperforms compared to standard token-probability-based methods in smaller models, but improves in larger models. We test this in a new domain: semantic focus-sensitivity, responsible for contrasts like "Lucy only SWAM yesterday" vs. "Lucy only swam YESTERDAY". Testing models of various sizes using text-based focus markers like boldface and italics, we find universal above-chance performance for token probabilities. Prompting results mostly align with previous findings, but in some larger models they outperform probabilities by a wide margin. We propose that this is because LMs are not prone to produce out-of-the-blue focus marking, which muddies results from token probabilities in a way that does not affect prompting. We test this by replacing standard focus markers with randomly generated ones; token probabilities still beat chance but show significantly greater performance decrease compared to prompting. These results suggest that metalinguistic prompting, while non-trivial for LMs, can also be more robust when testing stylistically atypical data. We argue that this has important consequences for the assessment of LMs' language competence, even if LMs do not perform metalinguistic judgments through human-like introspection.

Thu 29 OctComputation and LanguageArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Understanding how language models decide what parts of a sentence to emphasize is tricky. The authors found that using probabilities of words alone can tell if a sentence sounds right, but asking the model directly with prompts often works better, especially in bigger models. They also showed that when style cues in text are unusual, prompts help more than just looking at word probabilities. This means that getting language models to explain language choices explicitly might give clearer insights into how well they understand language.
Open → 2610.39923v1

Function-space method improves policy training in language model reasoning

Function-Space Temporal Self-Distillation for Policy Optimization

Abstract: Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) improves reasoning in language models, but scalar outcomes provide coarse supervision over response trajectories. Self-distillation offers denser token-level guidance by comparing an unassisted policy with a feedback-informed self-teacher, yet the teacher evolves with the student, creating unstable targets and motivating additional regularization. We introduce Function-Space Policy Optimization (FSPO), a single-policy framework that combines current privileged adaptation with function-space temporal consolidation. FSPO stores sparse historical next-token distributions as fixed temporal targets, providing temporal separation without maintaining a persistent teacher model. It further introduces privileged disagreement correction to explicitly suppress locally overvalued actions, reliability-adaptive grounding that strengthens reference supervision when self-generated evidence repeatedly fails, and quality and coverage-aware temporal memory that retains verified behaviors and improves privileged demonstrations. Across reasoning and tool-use benchmarks, FSPO achieves the highest average accuracy under a 5-hour training budget, improving over the strongest baseline by approximately 4% points on average while reducing peak memory from about 70 GB to 56 GB on Olmo3-7B-Instruct.

Wed 14 OctMachine LearningArtificial IntelligenceComputation and Language
The gist
Training language models to solve problems step-by-step can be tricky because feedback often gives only broad success or failure signals, making learning slow. The authors introduce a new way to help the model learn by remembering and comparing specific steps from earlier training, which helps stabilize learning and keep the model on track. Their approach also avoids keeping a separate teacher model and adjusts how much it trusts its own feedback versus external guidance. This results in more accurate reasoning and tool-use by language models within a limited training time and requires less computer memory.
Open → 2610.19687v1

Mixing public data improves private learning of sensitive tasks

Differentially Private Mixing of Public Datasets Improves Private Learning

Abstract: Many machine learning applications involve sensitive data and therefore require training under differential privacy (DP). However, DP training often degrades model utility. In some cases, first pre-training the model on "public" data before finetuning with DP on the sensitive data can reduce the drop in utility. However, the success of this depends on how relevant the selected public dataset is to the sensitive data. We introduce the first pipeline that privately learns the mixture of several public datasets to pretrain on for a given sensitive downstream task. Our key insight is that we can privately find the best mixture of multiple public datasets by privately learning a low-dimensional linear model. We tested our method on the NIH dataset for X-ray classification and the ENRON email dataset for language modeling. Applying our method to find tailored mixtures of X-ray datasets to pretrain on for diseases in the NIH ChestX-ray14 dataset, we improved macro AUC by up to 0.037 across privacy budgets compared to the baselines, with gains as large as +22.8% relative AUC on Cardiomegaly at $ε=1$. For DP training on the ENRON dataset, pre-training on our mixture of The Common Pile (a collection of public-domain text datasets) decreased test perplexity by 16% relative to the baseline mixtures.

Mon 5 OctMachine LearningArtificial IntelligenceCryptography and Security
The gist
Training AI models with private data often hurts how well they work because of privacy rules. The authors show that by first mixing different public datasets in a smart and private way, they can train better models for sensitive tasks. They developed a method to find the best mix of public data without risking privacy, which helps the final model perform better. They tested this on medical images and emails and saw clear improvements.
Open → 2610.06636v1

Multi-turn agents learn to avoid and fix early mistakes

PivotOPD: Learning to Recover from Pivotal Mistakes in Multi-Turn Agents

Abstract: On-policy distillation (OPD) is a promising approach for training language agents, providing dense teacher supervision on student-generated trajectories. However, in multi-turn interaction, an incorrect action changes the states the student encounters later, so errors compound across turns. In preliminary experiments across three Qwen3 models (8B to 235B), we find that more than half of the failed rollouts contain a pivotal mistake, an action that moves the agent farther from completing the task, and this mistake typically occurs early. These pivotal mistakes often remain recoverable: guiding the model for only a few turns after the pivotal turn can restore task success. We therefore propose PivotOPD, an on-policy distillation framework that jointly trains the student to prevent pivotal mistakes and to recover from the states they create. At each pivotal mistake, a teacher model provides a gold action and then names a recovery action at each of the next few turns. Preventive distillation uses the gold action with reverse KL to steer the student away from the pivotal mistake, while recovery distillation uses the recovery actions with forward KL to transfer recovery behaviors that the student rarely samples. Against 13 baselines on ALFWorld, WebShop, and Search-based QA, PivotOPD achieves the strongest average performance for both Qwen3-1.7B and Qwen3-8B students, improving over the strongest baseline on ALFWorld by +5.5% with the 1.7B student. The gains also transfer to another model family on the software engineering domain, where PivotOPD raises the resolve rate of a Nemotron-3.5 student on SWE-Bench Verified by +3.2%. Project page: https://research.nvidia.com/labs/lpr/pivotopd/

Wed 30 SeptArtificial Intelligence
The gist
When AI agents make mistakes early during tasks, these errors often cause more problems later, making it hard to complete the task. The authors found that some early errors, called pivotal mistakes, can often be fixed if the agent receives guidance soon after. To improve this, they created PivotOPD, a training method that teaches the AI both to avoid these critical mistakes and to recover from them quickly. This approach improved the agents’ success rates on several tasks and different AI models.
Open → 2609.40285v1

Corrupted graphs cause errors in language agent action verification

Who Verifies the Graph? Misspecification Attacks on Causal Action Verification for Language Agents

Abstract: Causal action verifiers gate an agent's state-changing tool calls by checking whether each proposed intervention is identifiable against a committed action-state graph, and they issue a certificate that carries the identification argument and a one-sided lower confidence bound. One such verifier, CIVeX, reports zero false executions on a confounded tool-use benchmark. We red-team it by corrupting only the committed graph. Omitting a single bidirected edge takes it from zero false executions to 15.3% at the benchmark's published confounding strength, with 91% of its executions harmful and utility falling from +2.27 to +0.35. Reversing one arrowhead, so that a mediator is committed as a confounder, gives 48.9% false executions and no correct ones. Every one of these actions carries an internally valid certificate. An attestation step that tests each observationally certified execution against a bounded randomised sample detected both attacks, with 2 false alarms in 555 executions on a truthful graph; refusing what fails the test, or cannot be tested, gave zero false executions in every setting we measured. It does not restore beneficial execution: at the published strength 97.1% of beneficial actions are still never executed, because the same misspecification rejects them before attestation runs. Those rejections carry certificates too, and auditing them works, but its cost scales with the number of rejections rather than the number of executions. Recovering safety costs 127 experiments per 1,050 actions; recovering the lost value costs 614 more, at which point the audited verifier makes the honest graph's decisions on every instance and spends exactly its experiment budget. An audit that inspects only executions protects against wrongful action. Wrongful inaction has to be paid for separately.

Wed 30 SeptArtificial IntelligenceMachine Learning
The gist
Language agents use graphs to check if their planned actions make sense and are safe. This paper shows that if these graphs have small mistakes or are tampered with, the agent can execute wrong or harmful actions without noticing. The authors tested a defense that spots these attacks by rechecking a random sample of actions, which catches errors but also rejects many good actions. Fixing these issues requires extra tests, making the system slower and less useful. Ensuring safety against wrong actions is easier than recovering lost good actions.
Open → 2609.40027v1

Reinforcement learning improved by on-policy self-teaching representation alignment

PR-OPD: Privileged Representation On-policy Self-Distillation for Agentic Reinforcement Learning

Abstract: Language-model agents are usually trained by reinforcement learning from one reward per episode, and privileged self-distillation enriches it by letting the same policy, given a skill, teach its skill-free self through token probabilities. However, we identify two phenomena that question this channel. Invisible Advantage: a skill in context lifts WebShop success from 42.2% to 56.2%, yet changes the probabilities of fewer than a quarter of the sampled tokens. Much to Align: a skill changes the hidden states of over 80% of response tokens, in a way that linear probes can trace back to the specific skill. To exploit this, we propose Privileged Representation On-policy Self-Distillation (PR-OPD). After a GRPO warm start, the policy writes a hindsight skill for each trajectory, re-reads its own responses with that skill as a stop-gradient teacher, and aligns its projected hidden states to the teacher's at every layer alongside the reward objective, with no external skill library, separate teacher, or inference overhead. On ALFWorld and WebShop with two backbones, PR-OPD achieves the best overall results in every setting, improving over GRPO by up to 4.7 points in ALFWorld success and 14.0 points in WebShop accuracy. Code is available at https://github.com/balibata/PR-OPD.

Tue 29 SeptMachine Learning
The gist
Training language agents often involves learning from rewards given after completing tasks, but this can miss important internal signals. The authors found that skills affect hidden states inside the agent more than they change output probabilities, which suggests there is more information to learn from. They developed PR-OPD, a method where the agent teaches itself during training by aligning its internal representations layer-by-layer without needing extra teacher models. This approach improved performance significantly on two language-based task environments compared to previous methods.
Open → 2609.36642v1