Despite recent progress in 3D-LLMs, they remain limited in accurately grounding language to visual and spatial elements in 3D environments. This limitation stems in part from training data that focuses on language reasoning rather than spatial understanding due to scarce 3D resources, leaving inherent grounding biases unresolved. To address this, we propose 3D scene editing as a key mechanism to generate visual counterfactuals that mitigate these biases through fine-grained spatial manipulation, without requiring costly scene reconstruction or large-scale 3D data collection. Furthermore, to make these edits targeted and directly address the specific weaknesses of the model, we introduce DEER-3D, an error-driven framework that diagnoses grounding failures and generates targeted counterfactual training supervision via a structured "Decompose, Diagnose, Edit, and Retrain" loop. Specifically, given a grounding failure, DEER-3D first identifies the predicate-level error (e.g., attribute or spatial relation). It then performs minimal predicate-aligned scene edits, such as recoloring or repositioning, and constructs aligned question-answer pairs that explicitly target the failed predicate, forming targeted counterfactual training examples. We evaluate our editing pipeline across multiple benchmarks for 3D grounding and scene understanding tasks, consistently demonstrating improvements across all grounding datasets through iterative refinement (4-6% gains). DEER-3D underscores the effectiveness of targeted, error-driven scene editing in bridging linguistic reasoning with spatial grounding in 3D LLMs.
Current answering paradigms for Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) often fail to account for the fact that some questions may lie beyond the model's operational capability boundary, leading to long but unproductive reasoning. In this paper, we study whether LRMs expose early signals predictive of such cases, and whether these signals can be used to mitigate unproductive reasoning. In black-box settings, we find that reasoning expressions contain failure-predictive signals. In white-box settings, we show that the hidden states of the last input token contain information that is predictive of whether a question will not be solved correctly under our evaluation setup. Building on these observations, we propose two test-time monitoring strategies: reasoning expression monitoring and hidden states monitoring, that reduce token usage by 62.7-93.6%, substantially improving efficiency and reliability while largely preserving accuracy.
Qingjie Zhang, Yujia Fu, Yang Wang et al.· 0 citations
Understanding persuasion is critical for the safety and reliability of multi-agent systems built on large language models (LLMs). This paper studies persuasion dynamics by contrasting general LLMs with Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) that employ explicit ``thinking'' processes. Through large-scale experiments on objective (MMLU) and subjective (PersuasionBench and Perspectrum) tasks, we identify Persuasion Duality: reasoning enhances an agent's persuasive power while simultaneously increasing its resistance to persuasion. For LRMs, adding thinking content increases persuasion rates by 21 pp on average, yet reduces susceptibility to incorrect persuasion by up to 10 pp on objective tasks. Despite these gains, we uncover a critical vulnerability: persuasiveness often stems from superficial cues such as response length and repetition rather than logical validity. Non-semantic padding or repeated conclusions can match or exceed the persuasive effect of coherent reasoning, revealing a strong length bias in agents' judgments. We further show that persuasion propagates non-linearly in multi-hop agent chains, where intermediate agents may amplify or attenuate influence depending on task subjectivity. Finally, guided by attention analysis, we propose a prompt-level adversarial argument detection method that consistently improves agent robustness.
Haodong Zhao, Jidong Li, Zhaomin Wu et al.· 0 citations
The advent of large language models (LLMs) has sparked an evolution of autonomous web browsing agents: given a web browsing task and serialised user interface (UI) state, an LLM is expected to suggest input actions that incrementally solve the given task. The central challenge lies in serialising UI state for LLMs. Web agents have increasingly relied on grounded graphical UI (GUI) snapshots - screenshots augmented with visual cues - favoured for their modest input token footprint. Document object model (DOM) snapshots, serialised as HTML, represent a compelling alternative that leverages previously demonstrated HTML interpretation capabilities of LLMs. Their excessive token footprint, however, has precluded reliable deployment with web agents to date. We propose D2Snap, an algorithm to downsample the DOM, premised on preserving actionability and actionability-discriminating features. We evaluate D2Snap-downsampled DOM snapshots using a snapshot-variant web agent (GPT-4o) on a dataset sampled from Online-Mind2Web. Whilst 42% of raw DOM snapshots exceed the model context window (128 x 10^3 tokens), all D2Snap-downsampled DOM snapshots of our reference configuration fit, at a mean context utilisation of 16.5%. Against the 67% success rate of a grounded GUI snapshot baseline, our configuration attains 73% (+5.8%pt; 95% CI -13.6 to +26.0%pt; McNemar, p = 0.47), excluding a deficit (one-sided 95%) beyond 11%pt. Image input moreover appears to add little to snapshot utility; grounding text alone attains 62% (-5.8%pt; McNemar, p = 0.37).
Thassilo M. Schiepanski, Nicholas Pi\"el· 0 citations
Reach audiences
Advertise in front of researchers, engineers, and readers.
In psychological counseling, effective support is not always delivered through long, information-rich responses. Minimal responses, such as backchannel cues and concise empathic statements, help convey attentive listening, express empathy, and encourage clients to continue expressing themselves. However, existing counseling dialogue systems and evaluation frameworks often favor explicit, content-rich replies, overlooking the interactional value of brief counselor utterances. This paper presents a systematic cross-lingual analysis of minimal responses across multiple counseling dialogue datasets. We develop a two-stage filtering method based on utterance length and content, followed by contextual verification using a large language model (LLM). Our analysis shows that minimal responses are common in human-collected datasets but substantially underrepresented in LLM-generated ones. We further evaluate current LLMs in manually curated dialogue contexts where human counselors used minimal responses. The results show that strong commercial LLMs are capable of generating minimal responses when explicitly instructed, but still struggle to determine when such responses are appropriate. Counseling-specific models trained on synthetic data perform particularly poorly, tending instead to produce longer and more information-rich responses. Moreover, LLM-based response-quality evaluation may undervalue minimal responses, even when they are interactionally appropriate.
Personalized text generation for authors and literary writing is essential for applications such as adaptive writing assistants, creative support tools, and computational literary analysis. However, existing approaches to author modeling and personalization often represent writing behavior as independent labels, requiring large-scale corpus collection or fine-tuning for each author or stylistic category. Such formulations are costly, difficult to interpret, and poorly suited for generalizing across authors. Inspired by the Big Five model's dimensional view of personality, we propose LiteraryBigFive, a framework that reframes authorial writing characteristics as coordinates within a unified and interpretable space. In this space, we derive each interpretable axis (e.g., Classicism, Emotionality) from activation-space contrasts between author-written and neutral passages, yielding distinct stylistic dimensions that allow texts or authors to be positioned within a five-dimensional system. Beyond localizing different authors, we further introduce an interpretable steering mechanism, which adaptively guides text generation toward target coordinates to perform author-personalized writing. Experimental results show that LiteraryBigFive improves authorial expressiveness while preserving semantic fidelity. The derived author per-axis scores strongly correlate with real-world literary consensus, offering transparent and interpretable explanations of author-specific generation behavior: https://github.com/Znull-1220/LiteraryBigFive.
Jinghui Zhang, Lang Gao, Ao Li et al.· 0 citations
As authorship attribution systems are increasingly deployed to detect ghostwritten and AI-generated papers, their errors can support accusations against legitimate authors. These systems conflate stylistic similarity with individual identity. Researchers, however, study under advisors, and inherit their stylistic quirks. We build a corpus of arXiv authors with $\geq 2$ solo papers from the Mathematics Genealogy Project graph, giving $5{,}803$ total authors and $2{,}501$ ground-truth advisor-student pairings. Using embeddings from a fine-tuned model, advisors sit $39.9\%$ closer in cosine distance to their students than a random same-field author does. Using two open models, we reproduce the effect at $12.6\%$ and $14.5\%$. Academic siblings, two students of one advisor who may never have met, sit $30.4\%$ closer across $8{,}360$ pairs, even when they studied at different institutions. Pairs who share only institution and field show negligible similarity. Given a closed-set attribution task over the same corpus, the system's errors occur on the true author's advisor, student, academic sibling, or lab mate $11$ times more often than chance.
Achieving effective self-correction, where models verify and correct their own mistakes, remains a fundamental challenge for large language models (LLMs). In this work, we propose Self-Fix Step-DPO (SFS-DPO), a reinforcement learning based, two-stage framework for step-level self-verification and self-correction. The first stage strengthens step-level reasoning via step-level preference optimization, while the second stage explicitly trains models to self-verify and self-correct. We further introduce a teacher-assisted variant, SFS-DPO-R, which incorporates explanatory rationales for error verification to provide stronger corrective signals. Comprehensive in-domain and out-of-domain evaluations across multiple LLMs demonstrate that SFS-DPO and SFS-DPO-R consistently outperform prior step-level training baselines. Our analysis further reveals improvements in self-correction frequency and effectiveness, highlighting the importance of strengthening step-level reasoning for robust performance.
Vu Duc Anh, Nhat M. Hoang, Do Xuan Long et al.· 0 citations
Emotion understanding in discourse requires reasoning beyond surface sentiment because speakers often convey affect through indirect, implicit, polite, ironic, or deliberately mismatched expressions. Existing emotion benchmarks mainly annotate surface polarity or final emotion categories, while lacking a structured account of how explicit expression, implicit affect, pragmatic intent, and fine grained emotion interact. This limitation makes current evaluations insensitive to cases where affective meaning is concealed, weakened, inverted, or pragmatically reshaped, thereby obscuring model failures in deeper emotion understanding. To address this gap, we introduce CUE Bench, a Chinese Unsaid Emotion benchmark that centers on Affective Stance and covers diverse communicative scenarios. CUE Bench constructs nine human interpretable affective stances from explicit implicit polarity interaction and further provides intent and fine grained emotion annotations for structured affective inference. Experiments show that incorporating Affective Stance improves fine grained emotion recognition by 3.1 percentage points and pragmatic intent detection by 8.1 percentage points over strong baselines.
Zhenyan Zheng, Yunyao Zhang, Junxi Sheng et al.· 0 citations
Chinese web pollution has surfaced in LLMs, motivating audits of upstream Chinese corpora. However, auditing such corpora faces three challenges: (1) their web-scale size makes full scan costly; (2) prior analyses are often too coarse to expose token-level pollution; (3) Chinese web pollution is implicit and rapidly changing. We propose Sampled-BPE, a lightweight token-level auditing pipeline that sample a small subset and train BPE tokenizer to surface polluted tokens. Experiments show that Sampled-BPE preserves usable estimates while substantially reducing runtime and memory: a 148.4 $\times$ speedup and a 35.8 $\times$ memory reduction induce only 4.25% relative error for pollution categories. We apply the pipeline to 11 open Chinese corpora and 6 Chinese Common Crawl snapshots from 2021 to 2026. The audit reveals widespread but uneven pollution across open corpora, as well as highly polluted and temporally shifting Chinese web content. We further release a hierarchical Chinese web token dataset with 660k+ token records, each with web context, category, and explanation fields, organized as trees to support review and tracing of pollution.
Qingjie Zhang, Ziqi Tang, Jie Zhang et al.· 0 citations
Large language models are increasingly used to simulate human opinions, but prior work reports conflicting results: some studies find promising alignment with human survey data, while others find persona collapse and weak demographic sensitivity. We propose that much of this conflict stems from conflating two distinct tasks. We call the first task emulation, in which models generate individual responses that aggregate into a population distribution. We call the second task estimation, in which models directly predict the population distribution. Evaluating six matched base and post-trained models on the Pew American Trends Panel, we find that base models are the stronger emulators: they produce response distributions closer to human ground truth and better preserve demographic structure. Post-trained models are generally the stronger estimators, producing more accurate distributional predictions when asked directly. We argue that model selection for human simulation should be guided by whether the task requires generating text or predicting distributions.
Seth Grief-Albert, Jessica Bo, Difan Jiao et al.· 0 citations
Large language models can answer a medical question correctly and still abandon that answer when a user pushes back. We study this failure as medical sycophancy and ask when models are most likely to give in. Across five open-weight models, 500 MedQuAD questions, and 1.2 million trials, we use a fully crossed design over four conversational factors: user role, user evidence, interaction structure, and grounding. Medical sycophancy is nearly three times more common when users challenge an answer the model has already given than when the false claim appears in the initial query. Models are also more susceptible to users presented as physicians or medical students. Most strikingly, fabricated evidence has opposite effects across interaction structures. It increases sycophancy in single-turn interactions but reduces it after the model has already answered. Grounding helps, but does not eliminate the behavior. Sycophancy varies more across medical questions than across models, making question selection an important part of benchmark design. Reasoning traces suggest that multi-turn failures are associated with models turning back toward their own prior answer, while fabricated evidence receives more scrutiny after an initial response. Together, the results show that medical sycophancy depends as much on how a model is challenged and evaluated as on which model is tested.
Kaike Ping, Buse \c{C}ar{\i}k, Caleb Wohn et al.· 0 citations
