Daily Papers

Parametric language models (LMs), which are trained on vast amounts of web data, exhibit remarkable flexibility and capability. However, they still face practical challenges such as hallucinations, difficulty in adapting to new data distributions, and a lack of verifiability. In this position paper, we advocate for retrieval-augmented LMs to replace parametric LMs as the next generation of LMs. By incorporating large-scale datastores during inference, retrieval-augmented LMs can be more reliable, adaptable, and attributable. Despite their potential, retrieval-augmented LMs have yet to be widely adopted due to several obstacles: specifically, current retrieval-augmented LMs struggle to leverage helpful text beyond knowledge-intensive tasks such as question answering, have limited interaction between retrieval and LM components, and lack the infrastructure for scaling. To address these, we propose a roadmap for developing general-purpose retrieval-augmented LMs. This involves a reconsideration of datastores and retrievers, the exploration of pipelines with improved retriever-LM interaction, and significant investment in infrastructure for efficient training and inference.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have become foundational to modern AI agent systems, enabling autonomous agents to reason and plan. In most existing systems, inter-agent communication relies primarily on natural language. While this design supports interpretability and human oversight, we argue that it introduces fundamental limitations in agent-to-agent coordination. The semantic space of natural language is structurally misaligned with the high-dimensional vector spaces in which LLMs operate, resulting in information loss and behavioral drift. Beyond surface-level inefficiencies, we highlight a deeper architectural limitation: current LLMs were not trained with the objective of supporting agentic behavior. As such, they lack mechanisms for modeling role continuity, task boundaries, and multi-agent dependencies. The standard next-token prediction paradigm fails to support the structural alignment required for robust, scalable agent coordination. Based on this, we argue that two core questions deserve careful examination: first, given that AI agents fundamentally operate in high-dimensional vector spaces, should they rely on a language system originally designed for human cognition as their communication medium? Second, should we consider developing a new model construction paradigm that builds models from the ground up to natively support structured communication, shared intentionality, and task alignment in multi-role, multi-agent environments? This paper calls for a reconsideration not only of how agents should communicate, but also of what it fundamentally means to train a model that natively supports multi-agent coordination and communication.

Reinforcement learning (RL) fine-tuning of large language models (LLMs) often suffers from instability due to the numerical mismatch between the training and inference policies. While prior work has attempted to mitigate this issue through algorithmic corrections or engineering alignments, we show that its root cause lies in the floating point precision itself. The widely adopted BF16, despite its large dynamic range, introduces large rounding errors that breaks the consistency between training and inference. In this work, we demonstrate that simply reverting to FP16 effectively eliminates this mismatch. The change is simple, fully supported by modern frameworks with only a few lines of code change, and requires no modification to the model architecture or learning algorithm. Our results suggest that using FP16 uniformly yields more stable optimization, faster convergence, and stronger performance across diverse tasks, algorithms and frameworks. We hope these findings motivate a broader reconsideration of precision trade-offs in RL fine-tuning.

Recent LLMs have significantly improved reasoning capabilities, primarily by including an explicit, lengthy Thinking process as part of generation. In this paper, we question whether this explicit thinking is necessary. Using the state-of-the-art DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen, we find that bypassing the thinking process via simple prompting, denoted as NoThinking, can be surprisingly effective. When controlling for the number of tokens, NoThinking outperforms Thinking across a diverse set of seven challenging reasoning datasets--including mathematical problem solving, formal theorem proving, and coding--especially in low-budget settings, e.g., 51.3 vs. 28.9 on ACM 23 with 700 tokens. Notably, the performance of NoThinking becomes more competitive with pass@k as k increases. Building on this observation, we demonstrate that a parallel scaling approach that uses NoThinking to generate N outputs independently and aggregates them is highly effective. For aggregation, we use task-specific verifiers when available, or we apply simple best-of-N strategies such as confidence-based selection. Our method outperforms a range of baselines with similar latency using Thinking, and is comparable to Thinking with significantly longer latency (up to 9x). Together, our research encourages a reconsideration of the necessity of lengthy thinking processes, while also establishing a competitive reference for achieving strong reasoning performance in low-budget settings or at low latency using parallel scaling.

Recent Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have shown substantially improved reasoning capabilities over traditional Large Language Models (LLMs) by incorporating extended thinking processes prior to producing final responses. However, excessively lengthy thinking introduces substantial overhead in terms of token consumption and latency, which is particularly unnecessary for simple queries. In this work, we introduce Large Hybrid-Reasoning Models (LHRMs), the first kind of model capable of adaptively determining whether to perform thinking based on the contextual information of user queries. To achieve this, we propose a two-stage training pipeline comprising Hybrid Fine-Tuning (HFT) as a cold start, followed by online reinforcement learning with the proposed Hybrid Group Policy Optimization (HGPO) to implicitly learn to select the appropriate thinking mode. Furthermore, we introduce a metric called Hybrid Accuracy to quantitatively assess the model's capability for hybrid thinking. Extensive experimental results show that LHRMs can adaptively perform hybrid thinking on queries of varying difficulty and type. It outperforms existing LRMs and LLMs in reasoning and general capabilities while significantly improving efficiency. Together, our work advocates for a reconsideration of the appropriate use of extended thinking processes and provides a solid starting point for building hybrid thinking systems.

Can we design effective recommender systems free from users, IDs, and GNNs? Recommender systems are central to personalized content delivery across domains, with top-K item recommendation being a fundamental task to retrieve the most relevant items from historical interactions. Existing methods rely on entrenched design conventions, often adopted without reconsideration, such as storing per-user embeddings (user-dependent), initializing features from raw IDs (ID-dependent), and employing graph neural networks (GNN-dependent). These dependencies incur several limitations, including high memory costs, cold-start and over-smoothing issues, and poor generalization to unseen interactions. In this work, we propose AlphaFree, a novel recommendation method free from users, IDs, and GNNs. Our main ideas are to infer preferences on-the-fly without user embeddings (user-free), replace raw IDs with language representations (LRs) from pre-trained language models (ID-free), and capture collaborative signals through augmentation with similar items and contrastive learning, without GNNs (GNN-free). Extensive experiments on various real-world datasets show that AlphaFree consistently outperforms its competitors, achieving up to around 40% improvements over non-LR-based methods and up to 5.7% improvements over LR-based methods, while significantly reducing GPU memory usage by up to 69% under high-dimensional LRs.

On-policy self-distillation (OPSD) trains a large language model using supervision from a teacher instantiated from the same model as the student. The teacher is conditioned on privileged information (PI), such as verified solutions. The student, which does not observe PI, learns from the teacher's next-token distributions along its own sampled responses. However, PI can bias supervision toward shortcut reasoning with limited verification or reconsideration, accompanied by a sharp drop in the entropy of the output distribution. To address this challenge, we introduce self-distillation with verbal regularization (VRSD), which uses system prompts to regulate how the teacher uses PI, thereby encouraging rethinking and exploration to counteract premature commitment. Theoretically, we model prompting as attenuating the influence of PI on the teacher distribution and derive conditions for entropy preservation. Across three models and four tasks, VRSD improves Pass@1 over OPSD in 11 of 12 model-task settings, by 3.9 percentage points on average, while generally maintaining higher token entropy.

In the early 2000s, renowned chef Heston Blumenthal formulated his "food pairing" hypothesis, positing that if foods share many flavor compounds, then they tend to taste good when eaten together. In 2011, Ahn et al. conducted a study using a dataset of recipes, ingredients, and flavor compounds, finding that, in Western cuisine, ingredients in recipes often share more flavor compounds than expected by chance, indicating a natural tendency towards food pairing. Building upon Ahn's research, our work applies state-of-the-art collaborative filtering techniques to the dataset, providing a tool that can recommend new foods to add in recipes, retrieve missing ingredients and advise against certain combinations. We create our recommender in two ways, by taking into account ingredients appearances in recipes or shared flavor compounds between foods. While our analysis confirms the existence of food pairing, the recipe-based recommender performs significantly better than the flavor-based one, leading to the conclusion that food pairing is just one of the principles to take into account when creating recipes. Furthermore, and more interestingly, we find that food pairing in data is mostly due to trivial couplings of very similar ingredients, leading to a reconsideration of its current role in recipes, from being an already existing feature to a key to open up new scenarios in gastronomy. Our flavor-based recommender can thus leverage this novel concept and provide a new tool to lead culinary innovation.

Task-oriented dialogue systems often face difficulties when user utterances seem semantically complete but lack necessary structural information for appropriate system action. This arises because users frequently do not fully understand their own needs, while systems require precise intent definitions. Current LLM-based agents cannot effectively distinguish between linguistically complete and contextually triggerable expressions, lacking frameworks for collaborative intent formation. We present STORM, a framework modeling asymmetric information dynamics through conversations between UserLLM (full internal access) and AgentLLM (observable behavior only). STORM produces annotated corpora capturing expression trajectories and latent cognitive transitions, enabling systematic analysis of collaborative understanding development. Our contributions include: (1) formalizing asymmetric information processing in dialogue systems; (2) modeling intent formation tracking collaborative understanding evolution; and (3) evaluation metrics measuring internal cognitive improvements alongside task performance. Experiments across four language models reveal that moderate uncertainty (40-60%) can outperform complete transparency in certain scenarios, with model-specific patterns suggesting reconsideration of optimal information completeness in human-AI collaboration. These findings contribute to understanding asymmetric reasoning dynamics and inform uncertainty-calibrated dialogue system design.

Self-distillation is a promising recipe for self-improvement in language models. In this setting, a model can serve as its own teacher when given privileged information, such as a solution to a math problem. This seems especially appealing for thinking models, which can use test-time reasoning to absorb the privileged information. Surprisingly, we show that privileged self-distillation degrades thinking models on long reasoning traces: across five Qwen3 and OLMo thinking models evaluated on AIME24, AIME25, and HMMT25, privileged-context distillation causes a relative drop of up to 17% in avg@16 accuracy. The degradation scales with the amount of privileged context withheld from the student and is most pronounced at long rollout budgets, where thinking models otherwise obtain their largest gains. This failure mode is not specific to self-distillation: on-policy distillation (OPD) improves thinking models, but privileged OPD reverses these gains. Our diagnostics link this failure mode to how privileged teacher context reshapes learning at high-entropy forking positions, where multiple continuations remain plausible and may lead to different reasoning paths. Privileged context lowers fork rates in thinking-model rollouts but not in instruction-model rollouts. This leads to an interesting dichotomy, where privileged context can help instruction-tuned models but hurts stronger thinking models. The effect is visible when the student begins a self-correction branch, where privileged OPD penalizes sampled reconsideration tokens that vanilla OPD supports. Thinking models trained with a privileged teacher produce fewer verification, backtracking, and hedging markers, even after length normalization. These findings indicate that self-distillation for strong thinking models requires attention to token-level signal, especially around correction and reasoning steps.

Memory, planning, reflection, and tool use are often compared as feature labels, obscuring the control semantics that determine how an agent actually runs. This review connects ten historical cognitive architectures, eight language-agent runtime families, and forty-two mechanism-focused modern systems. We reconstruct each mechanism through state, control, transition, persistence, failure, learning, and resource governance, then code evidence relation (E1-E4) separately from migration depth (D0-D4). The resulting landscape is uneven. Modern agents have operationalized substantial parts of adaptive memory, failure recovery, dynamic team selection, workflow search, skill induction, resource scheduling, and uncertainty-conditioned action, although often through independent convergence rather than documented inheritance. The strongest remaining opportunities lie in couplings among mechanisms. Closest-baseline screening closes one proposed gap: GraSP already combines calibrated multi-skill selection, typed compilation, verification, bounded repair, and replanning or ReAct fallback. Five residual bundles remain: activation with latency and action utility; typed impasse with isolated substates and resolution compilation; bounded content competition with broadcast and admission learning; persistent intention with reconsideration and live method authority; and uncertainty with resource allocation, interruption, and stopping. We contribute a distinctive-mechanism catalog, an auditable evidence-depth framework, and a falsifiable agenda for testing these bundles as composable runtime invariants.

Large language model (LLM) agents can keep scientific experiments running for months with little human supervision, but reliable autonomous research also requires scientific judgment. Evaluating scientific judgment is difficult because research decisions are open-ended and depend on project context. We construct SciΠvot, a 248-case benchmark of scientific judgment based on human corrections. The benchmark draws on records from six months of research in which senior researchers ran LLM agents on 26 projects across six scientific fields and repeatedly intervened to correct the agents' research judgments. In each case, an agent chooses between the original LLM plan and the human-corrected alternative, using only the project record available before the correction as context. We compare LLM and human performance and examine the effects of reasoning effort, access to the project record, and reconsideration. At medium reasoning effort with the project record, models systematically prefer the original LLM plan over the human-corrected alternative. Four of five frontier models perform below chance on the selected cases. The highest accuracy in the project condition across the tested models and reasoning effort settings is 63.5%, compared with 73.4% for fresh researchers. At medium effort, every model achieves lower accuracy with the project record than without it, and reconsideration does not consistently improve overall accuracy. Even with a human-corrected alternative available, frontier models struggle with the selected research decisions, while SciΠvot supports systematic evaluation of scientific judgment for LLM agents.