Qingcheng Zeng

As large language model agents tackle increasingly complex long-horizon tasks, effective post-training becomes critical. Prior work faces fundamental challenges: outcome-only rewards fail to precisely attribute credit to intermediate steps, estimated step-level rewards introduce systematic noise, and Monte Carlo sampling approaches for step reward estimation incur prohibitive computational cost. Inspired by findings that only a small fraction of high-entropy tokens drive effective RL for reasoning, we propose Critical Step Optimization (CSO), which focuses preference learning on verified critical steps—decision points where alternate actions demonstrably flip task outcomes from failure to success. Crucially, our method starts from failed policy trajectories rather than expert demonstrations, directly targeting the policy model’s weaknesses. We use a process reward model (PRM) to identify candidate critical steps, leverage expert models to propose high-quality alternatives, then continue execution from these alternatives using the policy model itself until task completion. Only alternatives that the policy successfully executes to correct outcomes are verified and used as DPO training data, ensuring both quality and policy reachability. This yields fine-grained, verifiable supervision at critical decisions while avoiding trajectory-level coarseness and step-level noise. Experiments on GAIA-Text-103 and XBench-DeepSearch show that CSO achieves 37% and 26% relative improvement over the SFT baseline and substantially outperforms other post-training methods, while requiring supervision at only 16% of trajectory steps. This demonstrates the effectiveness of selective verification-based learning for agent post-training.

Autonomous agents based on large language models (LLMs) are rapidly evolving to handle multi-turn tasks, but ensuring their trustworthiness remains a critical challenge. A fundamental pillar of this trustworthiness is calibration, which refers to an agent’s ability to express confidence that reliably reflects its actual performance. While calibration is well-established for static models, its dynamics in tool-integrated agentic workflows remain under-explored. In this work, we systematically investigate verbalized calibration in tool-use agents, revealing a fundamental confidence dichotomy driven by tool type. Specifically, our pilot study identifies that evidence tools (e.g., web search) systematically induce severe overconfidence due to inherent noise in retrieved information, while verification tools (e.g., code interpreters) can ground reasoning through deterministic feedback and mitigate miscalibration. To robustly improve calibration across tool types, we propose a reinforcement learning (RL) fine-tuning framework that jointly optimizes task accuracy and calibration, supported by a holistic benchmark of reward designs. We demonstrate that our trained agents not only achieve superior calibration but also exhibit robust generalization from local training environments to noisy web settings and to distinct domains such as mathematical reasoning. Our results highlight the necessity of domain-specific calibration strategies for tool-use agents. More broadly, this work establishes a foundation for building self-aware agents that can reliably communicate uncertainty in high-stakes, real-world deployments.

Code-switching is a pervasive linguistic phenomenon in global communication, yet modern information retrieval systems remain predominantly designed for, and evaluated within, monolingual contexts. To bridge this critical disconnect, we present a holistic study dedicated to code-switching IR. We introduce CSR-L (Code-Switching Retrieval benchmark-Lite), constructing a dataset via human annotation to capture the authentic naturalness of mixed-language queries. Our evaluation across statistical, dense, and late-interaction paradigms reveals that code-switching acts as a fundamental performance bottleneck, degrading the effectiveness of even robust multilingual models. We demonstrate that this failure stems from substantial divergence in the embedding space between pure and code-switched text. Scaling this investigation, we propose CS-MTEB, a comprehensive benchmark covering 11 diverse tasks, where we observe performance declines of up to 27%. Finally, we show that standard multilingual techniques like vocabulary expansion are insufficient to resolve these deficits completely. These findings underscore the fragility of current systems and establish code-switching as a crucial frontier for future IR optimization.

Current large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated emerging capabilities in social intelligence tasks, including implicature resolution and theory-of-mind reasoning, both of which require substantial pragmatic understanding. However, how LLMs acquire this pragmatic competence throughout the training process remains poorly understood. In this work, we introduce ALTPRAG, a dataset grounded in the pragmatic concept of alternatives, to evaluate whether LLMs at different training stages can accurately infer nuanced speaker intentions. Each instance pairs two equally plausible yet pragmatically divergent continuations and requires the model to (i) infer the speaker’s intended meaning and (ii) explain when and why a speaker would choose one utterance over its alternative, thus directly probing pragmatic competence through contrastive reasoning. We systematically evaluate 22 LLMs across three key training stages: after pre-training, supervised fine-tuning (SFT), and preference optimization, to examine the development of pragmatic competence. Our results show that even base models exhibit notable sensitivity to pragmatic cues, which improves consistently with increases in model and data scale. Additionally, SFT and RLHF contribute further gains, particularly in cognitive-pragmatic scenarios. These findings highlight pragmatic competence as an emergent and compositional property of LLM training and offer new insights for aligning models with human communicative norms.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) have recently demonstrated impressive capabilities in complex reasoning tasks by leveraging increased test-time computation and exhibiting behaviors reminiscent of human-like self-reflection. While LRMs show a clear capacity for valuable self-reflection, how this ability interacts with other model behaviors remains underexplored. We investigate this connection by analyzing verbalized confidence, how models articulate their certainty, as a lens into the nature of self-reflection in LRMs. We find that supervised fine-tuning on reasoning traces (i.e., distillation) and reinforcement learning can improve verbalized calibration in reasoning-intensive settings in a progressive, laddered fashion. However, our results also indicate that reasoning models may possess a diminished awareness of their own knowledge boundaries, as evidenced by significantly lower "I don’t know" response rates on factuality benchmarks. Moreover, we examine the relationship between verbalized confidence and reasoning chains, finding that models tend to express higher confidence when providing shorter or less elaborate reasoning. Our findings highlight how reasoning-oriented training can enhance performance in reasoning-centric tasks while potentially incurring a reasoning tax, a cost reflected in the model’s reduced ability to accurately recognize the limits of its own knowledge in small-scale models. More broadly, our work showcases how this erosion of knowledge boundaries can compromise model faithfulness, as models grow more confident without a commensurate understanding of when they should abstain.

Uncertainty quantification is essential for assessing the reliability and trustworthiness of modern AI systems. Among existing approaches, verbalized uncertainty, where models express their confidence through natural language, has emerged as a lightweight and interpretable solution in large language models (LLMs). However, its effectiveness in vision-language models (VLMs) remains insufficiently studied. In this work, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of verbalized confidence in VLMs, spanning three model categories, four task domains, and three evaluation scenarios. Our results show that current VLMs often display notable miscalibration across diverse tasks and settings. Notably, visual reasoning models (i.e., thinking with images) consistently exhibit better calibration, suggesting that modality-specific reasoning is critical for reliable uncertainty estimation. To further address calibration challenges, we introduce Visual Confidence-Aware Prompting, a two-stage prompting strategy that improves confidence alignment in multimodal settings. Overall, our study highlights the inherent miscalibration in VLMs across modalities. More broadly, our findings underscore the fundamental importance of modality alignment and model faithfulness in advancing reliable multimodal systems.

On July 13, 2024, an assassination attempt was made on Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump during a rally in Pennsylvania. This event triggered widespread discourses on social media platforms. In this study, we analyze posts from X (formerly Twitter) collected during the week preceding and following the incident to examine the short-term impact of this political shock on public opinion and discourse. Our investigation is guided by three central research questions. First (RQ1), we assess how public stance toward Donald Trump evolved over time and varied across geographic regions. Second (RQ2), we apply causal inference methods to determine whether the assassination attempt itself significantly influenced public attitudes, independent of pre-existing political alignments. Third (RQ3), we conduct topic modeling to identify shifts in dominant themes of online discussions before and after the event. Integrating large language model-based stance detection, difference-in-differences estimation, and topic modeling, our findings reveal a marked surge in sympathetic responses toward Trump in the immediate aftermath of the attempt, suggesting a unifying effect that temporarily transcended ideological and regional divides.

Prior work has explored the possibility of using the semantic information obtained from embedding representations to quantify social stereotypes, leveraging techniques such as word embeddings combined with a list of traits (Garg et al., 2018; Charlesworth et al., 2022) or semantic axes (An et al., 2018; Lucy et al., 2022). However, these approaches have struggled to fully capture the variability in stereotypes across different conceptual domains for the same social group (e.g., black in science, health, and art), in part because the identity of a word and the associations formed during pre-training can dominate its contextual representation (Field and Tsvetkov, 2019). This study explores the ability to recover stereotypes from the contexts surrounding targeted entities by utilizing state-of-the-art text embedding models and adaptive semantic axes enhanced by large language models (LLMs). Our results indicate that the proposed pipeline not only surpasses token-based methods in capturing in-domain framing but also effectively tracks stereotypes over time and along domain-specific semantic axes for in-domain texts. Our research highlights the potential of employing text embedding models to achieve a deeper understanding of nuanced social stereotypes.

Large pre-trained models have revolutionized natural language processing (NLP) research and applications, but high training costs and limited data resources have prevented their benefits from being shared equally amongst speakers of all the world’s languages. To address issues of cross-linguistic access to such models and reduce energy consumption for sustainability during large-scale model training, this study proposes an effective and energy-efficient framework called Green-PLM that uses bilingual lexicons to directly "translate" pre-trained language models of one language into another at almost no additional cost. We validate this approach in 18 languages’ BERT models and show that this framework is comparable to, if not better than, other heuristics with high training costs. In addition, given lightweight continued pretraining on limited data where available, this framework outperforms the original monolingual language models in six out of seven tested languages with up to 200x less pre-training efforts. Aiming at the Leave No One Behind Principle (LNOB), our approach manages to reduce inequalities between languages and energy consumption greatly. We make our codes and models publicly available at https://github.com/qcznlp/GreenPLMs.