Daily Papers

Ensembling neural machine translation (NMT) models to produce higher-quality translations than the L individual models has been extensively studied. Recent methods typically employ a candidate selection block (CSB) and an encoder-decoder fusion block (FB), requiring inference across all candidate models, leading to significant computational overhead, generally Omega(L). This paper introduces SmartGen, a reinforcement learning (RL)-based strategy that improves the CSB by selecting a small, fixed number of candidates and identifying optimal groups to pass to the fusion block for each input sentence. Furthermore, previously, the CSB and FB were trained independently, leading to suboptimal NMT performance. Our DQN-based SmartGen addresses this by using feedback from the FB block as a reward during training. We also resolve a key issue in earlier methods, where candidates were passed to the FB without modification, by introducing a Competitive Correction Block (CCB). Finally, we validate our approach with extensive experiments on English-Hindi translation tasks in both directions.

A major technique in learning-augmented online algorithms is combining multiple algorithms or predictors. Since the performance of each predictor may vary over time, it is desirable to use not the single best predictor as a benchmark, but rather a dynamic combination which follows different predictors at different times. We design algorithms that combine predictions and are competitive against such dynamic combinations for a wide class of online problems, namely, metrical task systems. Against the best (in hindsight) unconstrained combination of ell predictors, we obtain a competitive ratio of O(ell^2), and show that this is best possible. However, for a benchmark with slightly constrained number of switches between different predictors, we can get a (1+epsilon)-competitive algorithm. Moreover, our algorithms can be adapted to access predictors in a bandit-like fashion, querying only one predictor at a time. An unexpected implication of one of our lower bounds is a new structural insight about covering formulations for the k-server problem.

We give a very general and simple framework to incorporate predictions on requests for online covering problems in a rigorous and black-box manner. Our framework turns any online algorithm with competitive ratio ρ(k, cdot) depending on k, the number of arriving requests, into an algorithm with competitive ratio of ρ(η, cdot), where η is the prediction error. With accurate enough prediction, the resulting competitive ratio breaks through the corresponding worst-case online lower bounds, and smoothly degrades as the prediction error grows. This framework directly applies to a wide range of well-studied online covering problems such as facility location, Steiner problems, set cover, parking permit, etc., and yields improved and novel bounds.

In peer mechanisms, the competitors for a prize also determine who wins. Each competitor may be asked to rank, grade, or nominate peers for the prize. Since the prize can be valuable, such as financial aid, course grades, or an award at a conference, competitors may be tempted to manipulate the mechanism. We survey approaches to prevent or discourage the manipulation of peer mechanisms. We conclude our survey by identifying several important research challenges.

Test-time scaling for large language models (LLMs) can involve generating multiple candidate solutions for selection or revising an earlier attempt. To guide selection and revision, we need a verifier that can estimate candidate correctness and provide evidence of failure. In competitive programming, however, official judging systems provide authoritative verdicts under finite submission budgets, without revealing failure explanations or failing inputs. To provide informative feedback without consuming official submissions, we formulate a task in which a model judges and diagnoses a candidate program using only the problem statement and source code, with generated counterexamples serving as checkable evidence. To evaluate this task, we build USACO-JUDGE from the USACO 2026 contests, using accepted and unaccepted programs written by human experts and multiple LLMs. We then train ARBITER, a 35B mixture-of-experts (MoE) agentic verifier, with reinforcement learning in a generic execution sandbox. Training raises counterexample success on incorrect programs from 40.61% to 62.67% and mean binary verdict accuracy on USACO-JUDGE from 71.41% to 87.41%, approaching frontier verification performance. Beyond verification, ARBITER outperforms baselines in both code selection and refinement. In an IOI 2026 case study, ARBITER-guided refinement raises GPT-OSS-120B's expected score above the gold-medal threshold under the official submission limit.

Multi-agent debate, where teams of LLMs iteratively exchange rationales and vote on answers, is widely deployed under the assumption that peer review filters hallucinations. Yet the failure dynamics of homogeneous debate remain poorly understood, therefore we report findings from a controlled empirical study of teams of N{=}10 homogeneous agents (Qwen2.5-7B, Llama-3.1-8B, Ministral-3-8B) across R{=}3 debate rounds on two high-difficulty benchmarks (GSM-Hard and MMLU-Hard). We compare peer debate against isolated self-correction and a stochastic noise control that injects rationales from unrelated problems. We decompose debate failure into three model-dependent pathways: sycophantic conformity, where agents uncritically adopt majority answers (modal adoption up to 85.5%); contextual fragility, where peer rationales destabilize previously correct reasoning (vulnerability rate up to 70.0%); and consensus collapse, where plurality voting discards correct answers already present in the generation pool (oracle gap up to 32.3 percentage points). Ablations over communication density (K in {2,4,9}) and sampling temperature (T in {0.4, 0.7}) show that conformity reaches high levels at minimal peer exposure (K{=}2) and intensifies with greater initial diversity. Across all configurations, debate consumes 2.1-3.4times more tokens (up to 28,631 tokens per problem) than self-correction for equal or lower accuracy. Our results indicate that, within the 7-8B parameter class, homogeneous teams without structured roles do not benefit from unguided peer exchange, and that isolated self-correction consistently offers a more favorable cost-accuracy tradeoff.

This paper measures hour-of-day effects, filter precision, fragility, and realised yield in a 15-day paper-traded deployment of an autonomous memecoin trading system on Solana decentralised exchanges. The 190-trade sample (March 29 to April 12, 2026) shows a 40.5 percent win rate, mean per-trade return of +0.62 percent, cumulative +117.7 percent (net SOL +0.039), skewness -1.21, excess kurtosis 6.61. A Mann-Whitney U test of three poorest-performing UTC hours (2, 13, 23) against the others yields U = 1,274, p = 0.22; directional but not significant at n = 190. The three hours were selected in-sample, so the comparison is exploratory, not confirmatory. A parallel counterfactual rejection-tracking system collected 4,874 forward-sample observations across 184 distinct rejection events. Of those events, 17.9 percent reached a 50 percent drawdown from reference within 24 hours; 26.0 percent of forward samples recorded the rejected token below half-reference. The filter stack avoided these realised drawdowns: evidence that the rejection criteria are net-positive against forward-market outcomes. Fragility is the principal caveat. Removing the top three trades (1.6 percent of sample) flips cumulative return unprofitable. Profitability rests on a small number of large winners and is structurally fragile. The dataset and audit script are deposited under CC-BY-4.0 (Zenodo DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20043302).

On-policy distillation (OPD) reduces train-test state mismatch by training a student on its own generated trajectories, but weak students may visit teacher-misaligned prefixes where supervision is less representative. We introduce SAKI (Supervision Allocation with KL-constrained Interpolation), which combines a KL-constrained teacher-guided rollout with maximal coupling and reuses realized accept/correction events to route token-level supervision. Accepted positions retain sampled-token reverse-KL supervision, while correction positions receive direct supervision on the teacher's highest-probability token. Under maximal coupling, the correction probability is exactly TV(p_t, q_t), so the same trust-region radius controls rollout deviation and upper-bounds intervention and specialized-supervision frequency. We further implement an engine-resident speculative verifier that preserves the exact-q trajectory distribution and coupling semantics while improving matched-workload rollout throughput by 4.22x. Across seven mathematical reasoning benchmarks, SAKI improves the matched teacher-guided baseline in Mean@8 and Pass@8 for both 1.7B and 0.6B students. Placement controls and fixed-prefix analysis further support correction-triggered routing as a conflict-adaptive supervision signal.

Continuous evaluation of LLM products relies on a strong LLM judge treated as ground truth: a cheap monitor scores every interaction and a team is paged when the score drifts down. But the judge is itself a model behind an API, and a silent version bump or scoring-prompt update changes how it scores -- so every drift alarm is ambiguous between a worse product and a changed judge. We resolve the ambiguity with a fixed, human-labeled anchor set that the current judge re-scores at a steady interleave, a second betting e-process on the judge-versus-human gap, and a guard-window rule returning a verdict in {none, system, judge}. We prove anytime-validity, one-way identification (only the judge can move the anchors), an attribution race whose design law is that the anchors must out-run the main process they guard, and process orthogonality. On two real judge changes, a silent version bump is detected as judge drift in 60/60 runs with zero judge-to-system misattribution, and a contaminating strict-prompt change is correctly attributed on 110 of 120 runs at guard width 300 -- while the industry-default rolling z-test false-alarms on 75% of drift-free streams. Every experiment replicates on a second domain (TL;DR summarization) with nothing re-tuned, and where the domains differ the differences are the ones the race predicts: the strict-prompt change shifts scores harder there, so the anchors fire faster and attribution becomes perfect (240/240). The monitor runs at approximately 0.64 of the cost of strong-judging every item, or 0.21 in a cheaper-but-deafer regime.

The online knapsack problem is a classic problem in the field of online algorithms. Its canonical version asks how to pack items of different values and weights arriving online into a capacity-limited knapsack so as to maximize the total value of the admitted items. Although optimal competitive algorithms are known for this problem, they may be fundamentally unfair, i.e., individual items may be treated inequitably in different ways. We formalize a practically-relevant notion of time fairness which effectively models a trade off between static and dynamic pricing in a motivating application such as cloud resource allocation, and show that existing algorithms perform poorly under this metric. We propose a parameterized deterministic algorithm where the parameter precisely captures the Pareto-optimal trade-off between fairness (static pricing) and competitiveness (dynamic pricing). We show that randomization is theoretically powerful enough to be simultaneously competitive and fair; however, it does not work well in experiments. To further improve the trade-off between fairness and competitiveness, we develop a nearly-optimal learning-augmented algorithm which is fair, consistent, and robust (competitive), showing substantial performance improvements in numerical experiments.

The rapid proliferation of Large Language Models (LLMs) and diverse specialized benchmarks necessitates a shift from fragmented, task-specific metrics to a holistic, competitive ranking system that effectively aggregates performance across multiple ability dimensions. Primarily using static scoring, current evaluation methods are fundamentally limited. They struggle to determine the proper mix ratio across diverse benchmarks, and critically, they fail to capture a model's dynamic competitive fitness or its vulnerability when confronted with sequential, high-stakes tasks. To address this, we introduce the novel Competitive Swiss-System Dynamics (CSD) framework. CSD simulates a multi-round, sequential contest where models are dynamically paired across a curated sequence of benchmarks based on their accumulated win-loss record. And Monte Carlo Simulation (N=100,000 iterations) is used to approximate the statistically robust Expected Win Score (E[S_m]), which eliminates the noise of random pairing and early-round luck. Furthermore, we implement a Failure Sensitivity Analysis by parameterizing the per-round elimination quantity (T_k), which allows us to profile models based on their risk appetite--distinguishing between robust generalists and aggressive specialists. We demonstrate that CSD provides a more nuanced and context-aware ranking than traditional aggregate scoring and static pairwise models, representing a vital step towards risk-informed, next-generation LLM evaluation.

Reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards (e.g. GRPO) is the engine behind today's reasoning models, yet it grades only the final answer. On hard problems this trains models to write more rather than to think better, since the trace itself is never graded and no label for good thinking exists. We introduce Agon, which makes two competing models each other's graders. Both attempt the same problem; in alternating roles, one drafts a solution and the other reads it while solving, and each is rewarded for out-solving the other. To win, a model must out-reason a rival that has seen its work, so reasoning is judged implicitly during training, with no process labels and no reward model. Because both models are optimized, each faces a progressively stronger rival, which single-model RL cannot provide. The two need only be comparably strong and behaviorally different. At inference the pair deploys as it trains, a two-stage cascade in which one model drafts and the other answers after reading the draft. On the hard split of DeepMath with Qwen3, this doubles GRPO's pass@1, roughly eight times the gain of an untrained Mixture-of-Agents pass over the same base. The ordering replicates on competitive-programming code and across model families (Qwen3.5, Gemma 4). For now the models talk in text; the next step is to let them reason together in latent space.

Moving ML-mediated decision making onto privacy-preserving clients decentralises the economic decision along with the inference. Shared budget constraints then depend on information that cannot be globally current, creating an information-structure failure that conventional pacing is not designed to solve. We study this information misalignment in an auction-logic-faithful on-device simulation with 36 campaigns and 50 devices. Accounting is in dimensionless integer score units; no currency semantics are claimed. Across 30 paired demand paths, proportional Even pacing overspends 17.77% after one tick of staleness and 1,669.31% after 50 ticks under the original 20-times budget pressure. The effect does not depend on that severe a budget: at two-times pressure, 50-tick overspend remains 106.95%. A visible-budget no-sale guard makes zero-lag compliance exact at this score-unit granularity, yet leaves 11.88% overspend at one tick because other devices' debits remain invisible. A declared bursty, heterogeneous-device sweep retains a strictly increasing mean lag curve. We derive a finite-window expected excess-debit bound under conditional charge caps and find positive paired slack in every bounded-value cell. A second, incentive misalignment arises when the ML/pacing score transformation is allowed to change payment units: 98.23% of rival auctions at one tick admit a profitable deviation. An executable implementation-level counterexample isolates the runner-up's multiplier in the winner's price. Critical-base-bid payment is per-auction DSIC conditional on current multipliers, but does not establish dynamic truthfulness and does not repair base-value ranking disagreement.

Network routers that enforce Quality-of-Service (QoS) guarantees must decide, at every clock cycle, which expiring packet of information to transmit, even when the value of the packet is unknown until it is processed. We frame this problem as the Online Packet Scheduling with Deadlines (OPSD) problem under Partial Feedback: packets arrive at every clock cycle, with different deadlines, but the weights are only observed after execution. Under a stochastic assumption on the unknown weights, we explore different variants of the OPSD problem with bandit feedback. We establish a connection between our setting and the sleeping bandits problem, and set our learning goal to α-regret minimization. We provide algorithms with provable α-regret guarantees under different spans of slackness, distinguishing systems allowing for randomization and systems that do not. In every scenario, our algorithms achieve an α-regret upper bound of mathcal{O}left(KTright), matching the lower bound for the standard bandit setting. In the practically relevant case of 2-bounded deadline instances, where the deadline is set at most one clock cycle away from the arrival, our deterministic algorithm achieves the provably tightest possible competitive ratio. Remarkably, when the number of distinct packet types Kge 2 is finite, it is possible to break the well-established Φ= 1+sqrt{5}{2} competitive ratio barrier and attain a tighter competitive ratio θ_K ranging in [2, Φ).

Delayed outcomes are ubiquitous in online experimentation: treatment can affect whether an outcome occurs, when it occurs, and its realized value. To accommodate staggered entry while remaining robust to environmental nonstationarity and unit-level heterogeneity, we adopt a design-based perspective and target the sample cumulative reward in each arm as a function of calendar time. Our confidence sequences allow practitioners to continuously monitor the counterfactual incremental reward, such as revenue, that would have been realized by calendar time t had all entered units been assigned to treatment rather than control. The main technical challenge is the choice of design-based filtration, complicated by the presence of asynchronous potential outcome times. We show that the IPW treatment-effect estimation error is not a martingale with respect to any filtration, while each arm-specific IPW estimation error is a martingale with respect to a carefully chosen arm-specific event-time filtration. We therefore construct a confidence sequence for the treatment effect by combining two arm-level confidence sequences with a union bound, and further demonstrate that this can outperform the traditional design-based variance upper bound. Finally, we characterize the class of augmentations for which the per-arm AIPW estimation error remains a martingale.

We study the problem of convergence to a stationary point in zero-sum games. We propose competitive gradient optimization (CGO ), a gradient-based method that incorporates the interactions between the two players in zero-sum games for optimization updates. We provide continuous-time analysis of CGO and its convergence properties while showing that in the continuous limit, CGO predecessors degenerate to their gradient descent ascent (GDA) variants. We provide a rate of convergence to stationary points and further propose a generalized class of alpha-coherent function for which we provide convergence analysis. We show that for strictly alpha-coherent functions, our algorithm convergences to a saddle point. Moreover, we propose optimistic CGO (OCGO), an optimistic variant, for which we show convergence rate to saddle points in alpha-coherent class of functions.

We consider the problem of fairly allocating a sequence of indivisible items that arrive online in an arbitrary order to a group of n agents with additive normalized valuation functions. We consider both the allocation of goods and chores and propose algorithms for approximating maximin share (MMS) allocations. When agents have identical valuation functions the problem coincides with the semi-online machine covering problem (when items are goods) and load balancing problem (when items are chores), for both of which optimal competitive ratios have been achieved. In this paper, we consider the case when agents have general additive valuation functions. For the allocation of goods, we show that no competitive algorithm exists even when there are only three agents and propose an optimal 0.5-competitive algorithm for the case of two agents. For the allocation of chores, we propose a (2-1/n)-competitive algorithm for n>=3 agents and a square root of 2 (approximately 1.414)-competitive algorithm for two agents. Additionally, we show that no algorithm can do better than 15/11 (approximately 1.364)-competitive for two agents.

Multi-agent large language model (LLM) debate is often evaluated by whether final answers improve, but movement is not necessarily improvement: the same discussion can rescue an initially wrong majority or destroy an initially correct one. Standard final-accuracy evaluations conflate these opposing mechanisms. We introduce an auditable protocol for homogeneous debate on multiple-choice questions (MCQs) that records each run as a transition ledger over collapse, correction, onset, and signed intervention utility. On 6,925 MMLU-Pro debates, the protocol identifies 253 collapses and a parallel correction ledger that changes how interventions should be judged. Replay experiments reveal the central tradeoff: a leave-one-model-out probe-gated freeze prevents 29 collapses but loses 108 corrections under equal weights, so collapse prevention alone can recommend the wrong policy. A compact pre-debate 8-probe screen is a triage signal: its unadjusted family-level association with conditional-collapse risk is high (G=7, Spearman rho=0.893, exact two-sided p=0.0123), but initial-majority accuracy is a close comparator (rho=0.821; family partial rho=0.767, p=0.0877), so we do not treat it as calibrated or capability-adjusted prediction. Round-level traces localize many collapses to the first debate round, where early disagreement can precede both harmful cascades and useful recovery. We release replayable schemas, coders, audits, cost cards, and zero-API rebuild scripts so future model-scaffold rows can be compared under the same denominators and signed utility ledger.

Writing competitive programming problems is exacting. Authors must: set constraints, input distributions, and edge cases that rule out shortcuts; target specific algorithms (e.g., max-flow, dynamic programming, data structures); and calibrate complexity beyond the reach of most competitors. We argue that this makes for an ideal test of general large language model capabilities and study whether they can do this reliably. We introduce AutoCode, which uses multiple rounds of validation to yield competition-grade problem statements and test cases. On held-out problems, AutoCode test suites approach 99% consistency with official judgments, a significant improvement over current state-of-the-art methods like HardTests, which achieve less than 81%. Furthermore, starting with a random seed problem, AutoCode can create novel variants with reference and brute-force solutions. By cross-verifying these generated solutions against test cases, we can further filter out malformed problems. Our system ensures high correctness, as verified by human experts. AutoCode successfully produces novel problems judged by Grandmaster-level (top 0.3%) competitive programmers to be of contest quality.

A popular way to improve Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is to rewrite the user's question into several variants and search with all of them. We test whether this actually helps once the underlying search is already strong. Under one fixed, competitive pipeline (BGE dense retrieval, cross-encoder reranking, and MMR diversification), we compare four query-rewriting strategies (S1-S4) against two strong LLM baselines (HyDE, Query2Doc) on three datasets (HotpotQA, AmbigNQ, and the 512K-document EnterpriseRAG-Bench) over three seeds with paired-bootstrap significance tests. Our headline result is that rewriting alone is at best competitive with a strong baseline, but combining methods yields outsized gains because different strategies fail on different questions. A post-hoc union of four methods (S1+S3+S4+HyDE) improves HIT@10 over the baseline by +12.5 points on enterprise data (51.70 vs 39.22), and a five-method union reaches 52.98 (+13.8). Budget-matched controls capture only ~40% of this gain, confirming that complementarity, not retrieval budget, is the primary driver. On HotpotQA the union adds +1.6 to +1.8 points (p<0.001), saturating the all-method oracle; on AmbigNQ the same fusion hurts (-2.4 below the best solo, p<0.001), and we analyze when and why. Because rewriting is expensive, we evaluate in simulation a confidence-gated router that runs rewriting only when the baseline's own top-1 score is low. It captures about half of the enterprise full-merge gain (+4.3 HIT@10) while paying rewriting cost on <40% of queries, and automatically declines to rewrite on AmbigNQ. A downstream answer-quality evaluation confirms the router improves F1 by +1.92 (p<0.01) at roughly 40% of the expansion cost. In short: treat query rewriting as a complementary coverage source, applied through cost-aware routing, not as a standalone replacement for a strong baseline.

We study the online min-cost perfect matching with delay (MPMD) problem where m requests arrive in a metric space of n points. In MPMD, an algorithm can choose to match a request or to delay, and the objective is to minimise the sum of connection and delay costs. The connection cost of a match is the distance between the locations of two matched requests in the metric, and the increase of the delay cost is a function of the set of unmatched requests at every moment. In this paper, we study two different types of delay functions, size-based (MPMD-Size) and convex delays (MPMD-Convex). The study of MPMD-Size was initiated by Deryckere and Umboh (APPROX/RANDOM 2023) where the instantaneous delay increment is a non-negative monotone function of the number of unmatched requests. Our bounds are in terms of n, as opposed to Deryckere and Umboh's bounds that depend on m. Our results settle the deterministic competitive ratio (up to constants). At the heart of these results is a succinct encoding scheme of MPMD-Size on a given n-point metric as a metrical task system problem on a 2^{n-1}-point metric. We also consider MPMD-Convex proposed by Liu et al. (ISAAC 2018) where the delay cost incurred by each request is a uniform convex delay function of the time difference between its arrival time and the moment that it is matched by the algorithm. They focused on delay functions f that are unbounded, non-decreasing, continuous, and satisfy f(0)=f'(0)=0, and showed that the deterministic competitive ratio is Ω(n) for n-point uniform metrics. We show that, surprisingly, when f is a non-negative, monotone polynomial with f'(0)>0, there is an O(1)-competitive deterministic algorithm for uniform metrics. Our result completes our understanding of MPMD-Convex on uniform metrics for a broad class of functions.

Competitive programming problems increasingly serve as valuable benchmarks to evaluate the coding capabilities of large language models (LLMs) due to their complexity and ease of verification. Yet, current coding benchmarks face limitations such as lack of exceptionally challenging problems, insufficient test case coverage, reliance on online platform APIs that limit accessibility. To address these issues, we introduce LiveOIBench, a comprehensive benchmark featuring 403 expert-curated Olympiad-level competitive programming problems, each with an average of 60 expert-designed test cases. The problems are sourced directly from 72 official Informatics Olympiads in different regions conducted between 2023 and 2025. LiveOIBench distinguishes itself through four key features: (1) meticulously curated high-quality tasks with detailed subtask rubrics and extensive private test cases; (2) direct integration of elite contestant performance data to enable informative comparison against top-performing humans; (3) planned continuous, contamination-free updates from newly released Olympiad problems; and (4) a self-contained evaluation system facilitating offline and easy-to-reproduce assessments. Benchmarking 32 popular general-purpose and reasoning LLMs, we find that GPT-5 achieves a notable 81.76th percentile, a strong result that nonetheless falls short of top human contestant performance, who usually place above 90th. In contrast, among open-weight reasoning models, GPT-OSS-120B achieves only a 60th percentile, underscoring significant capability disparities from frontier closed models. Detailed analyses indicate that robust reasoning models prioritize precise problem analysis over excessive exploration, suggesting future models should emphasize structured analysis and minimize unnecessary exploration. All data, code, and leaderboard results will be made publicly available on our website.

Speculative decoding accelerates LLM inference by having a small drafter propose tokens that a larger target model verifies in parallel. Recent diffusion-based parallel drafters such as DFlash predict the full B-token block in one forward pass, enabling deeper drafters and longer accepted blocks. However, existing multi-token drafter objectives often use fixed position-dependent weighting schedules, such as head-dependent weights or block-position decays, which do not adapt as the positions limiting acceptance change during training. To address this, we derive per-position training weights from a differentiable surrogate of expected accepted draft length, matching the weight of each position to its log-probability gradient contribution. The resulting loss, D-PACE (Dynamic Position-Aware Cross-Entropy), shifts training signal toward positions that currently limit acceptance as the drafter improves. Across six benchmarks, two Qwen3-4B draft depths, two decoding temperatures, and two additional target models, D-PACE consistently improves both wall-clock speedup and average emitted length, with 2.3\% measured training-time overhead and no changes to the drafter architecture or inference procedure.

Speculative decoding accelerates autoregressive generation by drafting a block of tokens that the target model verifies left-to-right, committing only the longest accepted prefix. Block (DLM-style) drafters predict the whole block in parallel, which is fast but trained with a full-block cross-entropy that supervises every position against the gold continuation -- even though inference discards every token after the first rejection. Recent acceptance-aware objectives patch this by reweighting the full-block loss; we instead use teacher-forced learning as a motivation for how supervision should concentrate on the accepted prefix. A mask-only block drafter has no input-side channel for gold-prefix conditioning, so AUF approximates that prefix-sensitive supervision on the loss side by keeping the cross-entropy support only through the drafter's first predicted failure. AUF is a single, detached change to the CE support -- no auxiliary objective, no verifier rollouts, and no change to the inference pipeline or the exactness contract. Within fixed drafter backbones and serving settings on Qwen3-8B, AUF raises the DFlash drafter's average emitted length τ, averaged over six benchmarks, from 2.40 to 2.61, with a gain on every benchmark, and transfers to Domino's two-branch head (2.56 to 2.68). Two findings sharpen the picture: the decay-only baseline reaches higher token accuracy on the shared block mask yet decodes worse, and on DFlash, once AUF truncates the support, the standard exponential position-decay weighting becomes empirically inert.

A standard recipe for distilling the reasoning ability of large language models (LLMs) is to sample chains of thought from the model, keep those that reach the correct final answer, and fine-tune on the survivors. When sampling fails, a common fix shows the generator the gold answer and asks it to write a chain that reaches that answer. We show that this second step degrades the training data in a way that correctness filtering cannot catch. We run a controlled experiment that fixes the generator, the problem set, and the correctness filter, and varies only whether the chain is generated under answer-conditioning, the gold answer shown with a request to reach it. Training a strong instruction-tuned reasoning model on its own answer-conditioned chains sharply lowers its verifiable-reasoning accuracy. The loss grows with difficulty, reaching as much as about 27 points on the hardest competition problems. The mechanism is legible in the chains themselves, which rationalize backward from the shown answer instead of deriving it, with the early final-answer statement as the measurable symptom. The harm is a property of the data rather than the generator, read off unlabeled generations before any fine-tuning, ordering the penalty across eight thinking models from four families, and transferring across teacher families. A prompt ablation localizes it to the rationalize-toward instruction rather than the answer's bare visibility. The practical takeaway is to generate answer-blind, because no correctness filter can see this damage in the data.

Trader-facing dynamic fees are increasingly proposed for automated market makers (AMMs), but historical data do not identify how order flow would respond: trader-facing fees do not vary, trader types are latent, and a replayed tape is not a sequential decision environment. We therefore construct a minimal closed-loop simulator in which the missing signal exists by construction: two constant-product pools repriced by an equilibrium-inspired dynamic-fee rule, fee-sensitive noise flow, and closed-form CEX--AMM arbitrage. Equilibrium is used as a closure principle, not as an object the trader learns. Against a tuned benchmark ladder of schedule, planning, lookahead, and tabular policies, a small DQN is the only evaluated valid policy whose paired improvement over tuned one-step routing excludes zero. On a reserved final block of 1{,}000 seeds with completion forced to 1.0 for every policy, it reduces implementation shortfall under every tested intra-step ordering, by 13.3bps of order notional under the pre-specified agent-last ordering, and the edge is concentrated in, and learned from, dynamic-fee environments: under constant fees the paired difference is indistinguishable from zero. The result is model-conditioned counterfactual evidence about execution control in AMMs, not evidence about historical traders, equilibrium play, or deployable profit.

Arditi et al. (2024) has shown that refusal in safety fine-tuned chat models is mediated by a single linear direction in the residual stream, recoverable by a difference-in-means (DiM) of harmful and harmless activations. We compare DiM-based interventions (activation addition and directional ablation) with two interventions derived from Iterative Nullspace Projection (INLP) -- nullspace projection and counterfactual flipping -- on five open-weight chat models, asking whether INLP can match DiM at steering refusal and whether its richer parameterisation yields more tweakable interventions. INLP counterfactual flipping is competitive with DiM directional ablation on refusal suppression, while nullspace projection is consistently weaker. Restricting INLP to the leading directions of the extracted subspace preserves most of the suppression effect at near-baseline perplexity, giving a tunable capability. Geometrically, the two INLP interventions land in qualitatively different regions of activation space: nullspace projection collapses transformed activations between the harmful and harmless clusters, while counterfactual flipping moves them into the opposite cluster, suggesting that the model encodes the absence of a concept differently from its opposite -- an intriguing distinction that warrants further investigation in future work.

Card games are widely used to study sequential decision-making under uncertainty, with real-world analogues in negotiation, finance, and cybersecurity. These games typically fall into three categories based on the flow of control: strictly sequential (players alternate single actions), deterministic response (some actions trigger a fixed outcome), and unbounded reciprocal response (alternating counterplays are permitted). A less-explored but strategically rich structure is the bounded one-sided response, where a player's action briefly transfers control to the opponent, who must satisfy a fixed condition through one or more moves before the turn resolves. We term games featuring this mechanism Bounded One-Sided Response Games (BORGs). We introduce a modified version of Monopoly Deal as a benchmark environment that isolates this dynamic, where a Rent action forces the opponent to choose payment assets. The gold-standard algorithm, Counterfactual Regret Minimization (CFR), converges on effective strategies without novel algorithmic extensions. A lightweight full-stack research platform unifies the environment, a parallelized CFR runtime, and a human-playable web interface. The trained CFR agent and source code are available at https://monopolydeal.ai.

Competitive programming is increasingly being used to evaluate the algorithmic reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs). However, existing benchmarks primarily focus on full-information tasks where all problem inputs are provided upfront. This overlooks a critical dimension of algorithmic reasoning: the ability of generated programs to operate when key information is not revealed upfront. Interactive problems, a distinctive component of competitive programming, embody this challenge. These problems require programs to engage in multi-round interaction with an interactor (a judge program) under strict protocol constraints and limited query budgets, with new information revealed only in response to queries. To address this gap, we introduce InteractBench, a benchmark comprising 322 high-quality interactive problems curated from Codeforces, AtCoder, IOI, and ICPC. Each problem is packaged with executable local interactors, enabling fully offline evaluation. Unlike existing benchmarks, InteractBench assesses whether model-generated code can acquire information and track state dynamically. Our evaluation reveals a significant interaction gap: even the most advanced reasoning models achieve limited success on interactive problems. Beyond success rates, we propose a fine-grained failure taxonomy to diagnose the root causes of these deficiencies. Although algorithmic logic errors remain dominant, protocol violations and query-budget overruns are frequent. Code is available at https://github.com/kmsgk0/InteractBench.

Stochastic optimization is one of the central problems in Machine Learning and Theoretical Computer Science. In the standard model, the algorithm is given a fixed distribution known in advance. In practice though, one may acquire at a cost extra information to make better decisions. In this paper, we study how to buy information for stochastic optimization and formulate this question as an online learning problem. Assuming the learner has an oracle for the original optimization problem, we design a 2-competitive deterministic algorithm and a e/(e-1)-competitive randomized algorithm for buying information. We show that this ratio is tight as the problem is equivalent to a robust generalization of the ski-rental problem, which we call super-martingale stopping. We also consider an adaptive setting where the learner can choose to buy information after taking some actions for the underlying optimization problem. We focus on the classic optimization problem, Min-Sum Set Cover, where the goal is to quickly find an action that covers a given request drawn from a known distribution. We provide an 8-competitive algorithm running in polynomial time that chooses actions and decides when to buy information about the underlying request.

Self-correction of large language models (LLMs) emerges as a critical component for enhancing their reasoning performance. Although various self-correction methods have been proposed, a comprehensive evaluation of these methods remains largely unexplored, and the question of whether LLMs can truly correct themselves is a matter of significant interest and concern. In this study, we introduce CorrectBench, a benchmark developed to evaluate the effectiveness of self-correction strategies, including intrinsic, external, and fine-tuned approaches, across three tasks: commonsense reasoning, mathematical reasoning, and code generation. Our findings reveal that: 1) Self-correction methods can improve accuracy, especially for complex reasoning tasks; 2) Mixing different self-correction strategies yields further improvements, though it reduces efficiency; 3) Reasoning LLMs (e.g., DeepSeek-R1) have limited optimization under additional self-correction methods and have high time costs. Interestingly, a comparatively simple chain-of-thought (CoT) baseline demonstrates competitive accuracy and efficiency. These results underscore the potential of self-correction to enhance LLM's reasoning performance while highlighting the ongoing challenge of improving their efficiency. Consequently, we advocate for further research focused on optimizing the balance between reasoning capabilities and operational efficiency. Project Page: https://correctbench.github.io/

Generative language models are increasingly used for contract drafting and enhancement, creating a scenario where competing parties deploy different language models against each other. This introduces not only a game-theory challenge but also significant concerns related to AI safety and security, as the language model employed by the opposing party can be unknown. These competitive interactions can be seen as adversarial testing grounds, where models are effectively red-teamed to expose vulnerabilities such as generating biased, harmful or legally problematic text. Despite the importance of these challenges, the competitive robustness and safety of these models in adversarial settings remain poorly understood. In this small study, we approach this problem by evaluating the performance and vulnerabilities of major open-source language models in head-to-head competitions, simulating real-world contract negotiations. We further explore how these adversarial interactions can reveal potential risks, informing the development of more secure and reliable models. Our findings contribute to the growing body of research on AI safety, offering insights into model selection and optimisation in competitive legal contexts and providing actionable strategies for mitigating risks.

Block-diffusion language models are served at hand-picked operating points, such as acceptance thresholds, buffer depth, schedule, checkpoint and precision, and each point is chosen by its mean benchmark accuracy. However, a mean does not tell an operator how often a faster configuration fails on prompts that the slower one answers correctly. On the serving engine and its decode traces, the default commit rule already commits every fully resolved block, a static skip rule captures nearly all of the compute that allocation can save, and self-distillation on engine-decoded targets adds speed at unchanged accuracy. Larger speedups come from lower thresholds, which commit tokens that are still uncertain. We therefore present Redline, a finite-sample procedure that selects operating points, hand-picked or learned, from the correctness of their answers on calibration prompts. Redline keeps the reference-relative risk, the joint probability that the reference answers correctly and a candidate configuration does not, within a user-chosen budget with high probability, and deploys the fastest configuration that passes. It speeds up math at a smaller risk budget than code in both model families, and at a budget of ten percent it deploys a LLaDA2 math configuration that commits over a third more tokens in each forward. It also applies without modification to the acceptance rule of speculative decoding and to weight quantization. On the same calibration data, Redline stays within its stated failure probability, whereas each tolerance of a mean-accuracy rule either gains less speed for some model and task or exceeds the risk budget far more often for another. Code is available at https://github.com/js-lee-AI/Redline.

Block drafters propose several tokens in one forward pass, before earlier target tokens are realised. Their rejection mixes two losses: missing within-block path information and imperfect modelling of observable information. Accepted length cannot distinguish them. We separate the two with an information floor, the minimum expected rejection at a specified conditioning order; rejection above this floor is the model gap. Estimating both from target rollouts across four domains, four open-weight targets, and a frontier API target yields three findings. First, the all-parallel floor reaches 0.286 at the final slot on Qwen3-4B, limiting even the best proposal to 71% per-slot acceptance. Second, one realised token removes 86--100% of this floor, a locality also recovered by an independent mutual-information analysis. Third, current drafters remain far above their floors: the final-slot model gap accounts for 43--64% of DFlash rejection and 85--92% of DSpark's oracle-conditioned rejection. These findings separate the value of short-range conditioning from proposal quality. Guided by this distinction, we replace a context-independent predecessor correction with a prefix-attention head that reads committed context conditional on the predecessor. With supporting backbone components, the resulting Qwen3-4B drafter improves mean serving accepted length by 3.83% over the released DSpark checkpoint across nine tasks, without increasing the conditioning order.

Adaptive rounding methods such as GPTQ, or equivalently Babai's nearest plane algorithm, round a real matrix to integers under a quadratic metric. They process the entries in a fixed order, one at a time, propagating each rounding error to the entries not yet processed through a triangular feedback matrix. We study the two-sided version of this task, in which fixed nonsingular basis matrices act on both the left and the right of the residual; the familiar one-sided case is the special case of an identity right basis. Vectorizing the matrix turns the two-sided objective into a quadratic metric whose Gram matrix is a Kronecker product, so the one-dimensional algorithm applies verbatim, but takes quartic time in the matrix dimension. We present GPTQ-2D, which produces the identical rounded matrix in cubic time. It rounds the entries anti-diagonal by anti-diagonal; entries on the same anti-diagonal are independent and are rounded in parallel.

Probably not, at least for meta-analyses in economics. In a pre-registered, identity-masked, within-paper experiment, the authors of 44 meta-analyses ranked three AI reports on their own paper by usefulness for improving it: a single pass by a frontier model against two multi-agent debate tools we built and expected to win. All reports were held to a common length and template. The authors preferred the single pass, by 0.66 rank points over mad-research (95% CI 0.32 to 1.00) and 0.57 over paper-workshop (0.16 to 0.95), though paper-workshop spent roughly thirty times the tokens. Authors who recalled their journal referee report usually placed it first and never last; in a separate exercise, three AI judges almost always placed the real journal referee report last. Among the three AI reports, Gemini (the judge whose model family wrote none of the reports) would have ranked paper-workshop first in the authors' place, reversing the single-pass preference. The reversal warns against substituting an AI judge for the author. We measure perceived usefulness for finished papers; whether AI should referee papers is a separate question.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems, widely used to improve the factual grounding of large language models (LLMs), are increasingly vulnerable to poisoning attacks, where adversaries inject manipulated content into the retriever's corpus. While prior research has predominantly focused on single-attacker settings, real-world scenarios often involve multiple, competing attackers with conflicting objectives. In this work, we introduce PoisonArena, the first benchmark to systematically study and evaluate competing poisoning attacks in RAG. We formalize the multi-attacker threat model, where attackers vie to control the answer to the same query using mutually exclusive misinformation. PoisonArena leverages the Bradley-Terry model to quantify each method's competitive effectiveness in such adversarial environments. Through extensive experiments on the Natural Questions and MS MARCO datasets, we demonstrate that many attack strategies successful in isolation fail under competitive pressure. Our findings highlight the limitations of conventional evaluation metrics like Attack Success Rate (ASR) and F1 score and underscore the need for competitive evaluation to assess real-world attack robustness. PoisonArena provides a standardized framework to benchmark and develop future attack and defense strategies under more realistic, multi-adversary conditions.