Instruction-Tuned Large Language Models

Language models can learn from experience, but raw solution trajectories are often too long and noisy to provide effective guidance. In this work, we propose Learning to Coach (L2C), a framework that trains a dedicated LLM-as-a-Coach to extract actionable experiential knowledge from an actor model's previous trajectory. The actor remains frozen, while the LLM-as-a-Coach is trained to maximize a reward given by the correctness of the actor's guided response. We study two such rewards: a same-instance reward, which improves subsequent responses on the original problem, and a cross-instance reward, which elicits knowledge that transfers to other instances. Across mathematical reasoning and interactive text-games, L2C consistently outperforms self-refinement and an untrained LLM-as-a-Coach. Running experiential learning for more iterations further improves accuracy and uses additional inference compute more effectively than enlarging the actor's decoding budget. The trained LLM-as-a-Coach also transfers to out-of-distribution tasks and adapts its guidance to the specific actor it coaches.

Prompt echoing is a recognized failure mode of instruct language models, in which a model instead of generating a response, mirrors the provided prompt, even though it did not receive a specific instruction to do so. Is this phenomenon a sign of the model leaking the content of its training dataset, or is it rather caused by a misaligned behavior of the internal induction/copying mechanisms? We investigate prompt echoing small language models from different families (Gemma, Llama, Qwen, SmolLM and OLMo) and show that echoing prompts are likely to have partial overlap with the training dataset but the phenomenon is primarily driven by the model's induction heads.

Instruct-TTS systems expand structured style labels into natural-language training instructions through LLM rewriting, yet we find that over 40% of unconstrained rewrites contain semantic drift that corrupts supervision and weakens generalization. We formalize this problem as instruction supervision instability and propose a data-centric stabilization recipe that jointly improves coverage and fidelity through three mechanisms: controllable instruction diversification for systematic expansion, LLM-based drift filtering for quality control, and attribute-aligned supervision that grounds prosody control in acoustic perturbations. On the Chinese split of InstructTTSEval, our recipe raises instruction-following from 34.5% without fine-tuning and 51.0% with naive fine-tuning to 56.4%, while constrained rewriting reduces drift from 40.4% to 15.4%. Ablations confirm the three mechanisms are complementary, and the drift taxonomy may generalize to instruction-driven generation beyond TTS.

Diffusion Large Language Models (dLLMs) generate text via bidirectional iterative denoising, naturally supporting user-specified constraints anchored at arbitrary output positions, a paradigm known as In-place Prompting (IPP). We formalize this as the In-place Instruction Following (IIF) task and construct IIF-Bench, a hierarchical benchmark spanning literal, style, and discourse-function constraints, paired with a rubric-based local-global evaluation protocol. An inference-time attention-bias probe suggests that vanilla dLLMs often under-prioritize constraint spans during denoising. We then propose GRAFT, an IPP-oriented post-training framework combining constraint-aware SFT and preference optimization. On four representative dLLMs, GRAFT raises the average IIF score from 57.75 to 73.10 (+15.35 points), with absolute gains of 15.91 and 15.57 points on literal and discourse-function constraints, while preserving general generation ability.

Evolutionary prompt optimizers such as GEPA suffer from prompt bloat: each iteration appends rules and caveats, producing prompts up to 3$\times$ longer yet no more accurate. We trace this to three deficiencies - incomplete error observation, limited search diversity, and unreliable selection - and propose ESPO (Error-Structured Prompt Optimization), which decomposes prompt optimization into three phases: Diagnose clusters all training errors into structural patterns in one round; Propose generates candidates via four complementary strategies with independent biases; Select applies bootstrap stability selection. On seven public NLP benchmarks - Tweet, MMLU, GSM8K, HotpotQA, ScoNe, HoVer, and PUPA - ESPO improves average accuracy by $+$3.76 pp over the state-of-the-art (74.67% vs 70.91% for GEPA), matching or exceeding GEPA on every dataset while producing prompts 47% shorter (1,004 vs 1,878 chars) and faster at inference. Cross-model experiments across four additional student models (Gemma 3 12B, Mistral 14B, Qwen3 32B, Claude Haiku 4.5) show ESPO yields the best average accuracy on every model tested, with the largest gap on Qwen3 GSM8K (15.00% $\to$ 91.40%). A generalization bound (Appendix) grounds each phase in a corresponding term of the test-time gap, and the ablation confirms a key prediction: adding diversity without bootstrap selection actually hurts performance ($-$1.20%).

Procedural instruction following is a basic requirement for controllable language-model systems, especially when generated trajectories are inspected or repaired downstream. We introduce instruction duplication, a minimal black-box inference-time control that repeats only the procedural instruction, without retraining or decoding changes. Across seven instruction-tuned models, 300 medical multiple-choice questions, eight placement conditions, and 16,800 scheduled generations, moving from one to two copies raises the deterministic All-8 diagnostic--responses passing all eight observable tests--from 90.22% to 93.17% (+2.95 percentage points), eliminating 30.2% of the failures remaining after one copy. Pre-provisional TF-IDF recall rises from 73.44% to 74.81% (+1.38 points; Holm-adjusted p < .001), while final-answer accuracy remains exactly 60.21%. Premature commitment increases from 1.52% to 2.30% (p_Holm = .00536). A blinded challenge audit yields 10/30 directional confirmations, 20/30 perceptual ties, and no reversals; its prespecified 28/30 confirmation criterion is not met. Yet this distinction can matter operationally when a downstream system acts on the generated trajectory. In Answer Engineering (AE), where explicit trajectory state determines local repair, the published reason-first no-editing SSNHL endpoint was 25.1%; system-only AE was later reproduced at 84.2%, and the same trailing duplicate raised it to 97.1%. For conductive diagnostic branch preservation, the corresponding values are 58.9% published without editing, 78.6% with reproduced AE, and 73.8% with AE plus duplication--a within-AE decrease, but still 14.9 points above the no-editing baseline. Instruction duplication is therefore a low-complexity, placement-sensitive control whose practical value can emerge through the downstream system that consumes the exposed trajectory.

Many NLP tasks, such as summarization and extractive question answering, reduce to retrieving relevant content from documents under two constraints: coverage, retaining enough pertinent information to achieve some goal, and conciseness, removing as much irrelevant information as possible. Conformal prediction methods have been used to guarantee coverage, and must be optimized for conciseness through design of a score function. State-of-the-art scoring functions use hand-engineered LLM prompts asking the model to rate the importance of content, but manual prompt engineering is labor-intensive and task-specific. We introduce the Conformal Relevance framework which uses in-context learning example curation and ensembling to create a score function which maintains coverage while improving conciseness with minimal manual input. We demonstrate this framework's application on seven NLP tasks, and also theoretically study the impact of diversity for ensembled conformal scores, giving a complementarity condition that characterizes when ensembling improves worst-case sentence scores, and a saturation bound on ensemble improvement.

Despite their strong performance, large language models remain highly sensitive to prompt formulation. Prior work addresses this through refined data construction or through dedicated robustness objectives. We reproduce and compare these strategies under controlled conditions, and measure how effective they are in addressing models' prompt sensitivity. We find the current robustness fine-tuning methods improve over standard fine-tuning and in-context learning, but the best-to-worst prompt gap remains as high as 40-57% of performance. Moreover, the recent robustness-enhancing methods we test - CoIN for contrastive alignment and PPCL for consistency regularization - often fail to outperform the simplest data construction strategy: training on one template per batch. Our diagnostics explain these results. The auxiliary objectives move the quantity they penalize, but do not generalize beyond it. Additionally, data construction strategies differ due to the conflicting signs of per-template gradients on 57-64% of parameters. Thus, batches that mix formulations force the optimizer to reconcile competing updates instead of finding a shared, prompt-agnostic one.

Rubric-based reinforcement learning decomposes open-ended instructions into prompt-specific, flexible rubrics, making it better suited than reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards for post-training LLMs on open-ended tasks. However, static rubrics are inevitably hacked as the policy evolves, and existing dynamic approaches introduce new problems: undirected rubric extraction, unreliable hack detection, and unbounded rubric proliferation. We propose $\textbf{CARE}$ ($\textbf{C}$ontrastive $\textbf{A}$nchor-based $\textbf{R}$ubric $\textbf{E}$volution), which grounds every rubric evolution step in a high-quality anchor response generated by a frontier model conditioned on the prompt and its rubrics. At each training step, CARE contrasts the highest-scoring rollout against the anchor, enabling two complementary mechanisms: an Adaptive branch that reactively repairs reward misspecification; and a Chase branch that proactively converts frontier-level quality gaps into sharper rubrics. Together, the two branches $\textbf{maintain discriminative accuracy in the high-reward region}$---the precise region where reward over-optimization mostly originates. Experiments on WildChecklist-9K with Qwen2.5-7B-Base and Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct show that CARE achieves state-of-the-art performance on Arena-Hard-2.0, InfoBench, and FollowBench, and is the $\textbf{only}$ method whose win rate against GPT-4.1 anchor responses shows sustained improvement throughout 300 training steps; additional results on Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct and Qwen3-8B further indicate that CARE generalizes across model families.

Safety alignment is essential for deploying large language models, requiring systems to prevent harmful compliance while preserving helpfulness on benign requests. Activation steering offers a training-free inference-time approach to safety control, but effective safety steering requires addressing two coupled questions: when to intervene and how generation should be shaped after intervention. However, existing safety steering methods remain limited along both dimensions, as their triggering mechanisms can be unstable across domains and refusal-oriented steering often yields rigid refusals rather than constructive safe guidance. To address these limitations, we propose ALTSTEER, an inference-time framework that couples selective intervention with refusal-anchored constructive redirection within a single inference pass. ALTSTEER uses an internal refusal-relevant signal to decide when to steer, and applies staged steering to shift generation from refusal-oriented control toward constructive alternatives. Evaluations on Llama-3.1 and Qwen2.5 show that ALTSTEER preserves benign utility while improving constructive safe-completion behavior, especially on models that otherwise tend to produce short refusals for harmful requests.

Instruction-tuned language models achieve strong performance across a range of generation tasks, but have also recently been shown to exhibit verbalized overconfidence. In question answering, verbalized model overconfidence may be associated with the consistency of the generated supporting rationales. In this paper, we study whether corresponding changes in the lexical diversity of generated answer rationales accompany changes in model confidence induced by instruction tuning. We evaluate three matched base and instruction-tuned models across question-answering benchmarks and find that instruction tuning consistently alters answer confidence, despite limited changes in predictive accuracy and decreases in likelihood-based calibration. Secondly, we observe a non-uniform effect of instruction tuning on rationale diversity: cross-rationale diversity consistently decreases, whereas surface-level lexical diversity varies in both direction and magnitude across models and benchmarks. Finally, we find that these differences persist after controlling for answer selection and rationale length, confirming that confidence and rationale diversity capture distinct effects of instruction tuning.

Large language models (LLMs) remain vulnerable to harmful requests and jailbreak attacks. Parameter-efficient safety alignment methods based on prompt tuning typically rely on a single global prompt or externally selected prompt modules. Such static designs struggle to maintain a cross-category safety boundary while generating constructive responses tailored to specific risks and avoiding over-refusal of benign inputs. To address these limitations, we propose HiRoute, an input-adaptive hierarchical prompt-tuning framework that separates category-agnostic safety control from category-specific response guidance. HiRoute first trains a lightweight hierarchical router on representations extracted from a frozen LLM to jointly detect harmful intent and predict multi-label risk scores. It then freezes both the backbone model and the router and uses preference optimization with alternating gradient updates to learn a shared coarse-grained prompt and a set of fine-grained prompt experts as continuous embeddings. At inference time, benign inputs bypass the safety branch, whereas risky inputs are processed using the shared prompt together with a router-weighted mixture of risk-specific prompt experts. Experiments across three instruction-tuned models show that HiRoute achieves high safety rates across multiple safety benchmarks while preserving safe-response helpfulness, reducing over-refusal, and maintaining competitive performance on general-purpose tasks.

Enterprise RAG deployments face a critical reliability gap: while LLMs satisfy 80% of individual constraints, only 26.8% of responses meet all requirements simultaneously, revealing a 57-point orchestration gap. Existing benchmarks assume clean retrieval with simple queries, failing to capture production conditions where noisy documents and multi-dimensional constraints coexist. We introduce EnterpriseRAG, a benchmark of 983 expert-validated samples across six domains that systematically simulates three failure modes absent from prior work: retrieval noise, knowledge gaps, and factual conflicts, coupled with complex instructions. Evaluation of 13 state-of-the-art LLMs reveals a severe instruction adherence collapse, where high per-constraint satisfaction masks low holistic compliance. Critical findings expose deep barriers under knowledge gaps and factual conflicts, even with reasoning-enhanced inference, indicating production RAG requires explicit context-aware protocols and calibrated judgment. EnterpriseRAG provides a reproducible foundation for measuring and closing these gaps, directly informing deployment decisions for enterprise-scale RAG systems. We will release the benchmark and evaluation framework upon publication.

Evolutionary optimization of LLM prompts and agentic programs (e.g., GEPA) is dominated by fitness evaluation: scoring each candidate runs an answering LLM over a validation set, so the evaluator's price tier dictates total search cost. We restructure that search by decoupling the three roles an LLM plays, running the high-volume answering role on the cheapest tier, reserving a strong model for the rare reflection/variation operator, then exploiting upward cross-tier transfer to deploy the cheaply evolved prompt on a stronger target. We contribute a cost-controlled characterization of when cheap-tier search substitutes for target-tier search, and where it fails. Across four tasks (HotpotQA, IFBench, LiveBench-Math, HoVer) and eleven models in four model families, the resulting prompt matches or exceeds same-tier optimization while placing over 96% of search tokens on the cheapest tier, at 5.6-14x lower search cost, rising to 25-54x where reasoning tiers emit long chains of thought on every fitness call.

Although existing instruction data selection methods have introduced various metrics, the inherent complexity of real-world datasets makes it impractical for any single metric to generalize across all scenarios. Developers are thus often forced to manually inspect data and craft heuristic rules for each new application---a tedious and error-prone process. In this paper, we propose a paradigm shift from manual configuration to automated orchestration via the Instruction Data Selection Agent (DataMaster), which interprets user intent and autonomously composes optimal selection strategies. By allowing users to specify data needs through natural language descriptions, DataMaster simplifies data curation and removes the burden of manual strategy design. Extensive experiments across the math, medical, and code domains show that DataMaster outperforms static baselines in most settings and surpasses full-pool training in a substantial number of cases. The implementation of DataMaster and the scripts needed to reproduce the reported pipeline are publicly available at https://github.com/nju-websoft/DataMaster.

Prompt optimizers automate the search for prompts that improve language-model performance, but existing methods rely on a predefined optimization procedure: the algorithm determines which candidates to explore and how the search progresses, while the language model generates or refines prompt proposals. We introduce RLMOpt, a prompt optimizer that makes the search policy itself language-model-driven through a recursive language model (RLM). The RLM agent operates over a tool-based environment, inspecting task information, analyzing failures, generating candidates, allocating evaluation budget, and deciding when to stop. A deterministic harness complements the agent by enforcing objective scoring, Pareto-based selection, and regression constraints. We evaluate RLMOpt across four benchmarks spanning structured clinical information extraction (Chia), multi-hop question answering (HotpotQA), verifiable instruction following (IFBench-2025), and multi-turn tool-calling agents (BFCL). In a matched comparison at a single seed, RLMOpt obtains the best held-out score on all four benchmarks and leads the four-task mean (0.610 against 0.589 for GEPA). Repeating each benchmark across seeds yields 11 matched benchmark-seed comparisons, in which RLMOpt outperforms GEPA in 9 cases. Across all 11 runs, it never produced a prompt that underperformed its seed, whereas GEPA fell below its starting point twice. It is also more efficient, achieving these results with fewer search rollouts while producing prompts that are 27-79% the size of those produced by GEPA. Our results further show that optimization gains are determined primarily by the headroom available in the seed prompt, rather than by the search budget. Efficient optimization therefore depends on reaching the available headroom reliably and with minimal search

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly expected to follow long lists of constraints in complex instructions, and synthesizing instructions from a reference document (i.e., back-translation) is a widely used method to measure/enhance LLMs' ability to follow complex instructions. However, this method introduces a critical loophole: the constraint synthesis model copies text from the reference as a very specific constraint and the evaluated LLM trivially satisfies the constraint by copying its text in the response. To address these issues, we propose UNSPECIFIC, a novel framework that synthesizes constraints common to two similar reference articles to reduce copy-pasting, selectively hardens only trivially satisfied constraints to balance difficulty and naturalness, and evaluates satisfaction on both the generated article and its summary to penalize superficial instruction following. Consequently, we built the UNSPECIFIC benchmark on news, story, and blog domains to analyze the copy-pasting behavior of LLMs. Our results show that our synthesized constraints are not only more challenging (e.g., the satisfaction rate of GPT-5 Mini drops from 90% to 78%) and natural (LLM win-rate gap improves by 30%) from a human perspective but also mitigate the copy-pasting. We also find that a large portion of constraints are satisfied superficially (i.e., not satisfied in the core narrative of the article). The code and datasets are released at https://github.com/JeetDSharma/UNSPECIFIC.

Aligning Large Language Models (LLMs) for open-ended tasks is challenging because responses must satisfy multidimensional criteria without following a single correct generation trajectory. Existing rubric-based reinforcement learning (RL) methods compress fine-grained criterion-level feedback into scalar rewards, making persistent capability gaps difficult to target under limited on-policy exploration. We propose $\textbf{RISE-RL}$ (Rubric-Informed Selective Exploration), which uses repeatedly missed rubric criteria to elicit privileged trajectories that are difficult to discover through unguided exploration alone. RISE-RL retains only trajectories whose complete-rubric reward exceeds the mean reward of natural rollouts, and then re-evaluates them under the original prompt to emphasize behaviors that remain weakly supported by the natural policy. The resulting guidance signal is optimized through a separate auxiliary objective and removed once its additional benefit diminishes. Experiments with 4B and 14B models across writing, chat, health, and science show that RISE-RL achieves the highest mean score on every evaluated benchmark under guidance-free evaluation. Compared with standard Rubric-RL, it improves the average score by 1.3 points at the 4B scale and $\textbf{3.3 points at the 14B scale}$, including a $\textbf{6.0-point}$ gain on CreativeWriting-V3. It also improves creative-writing diversity and yields gains on objectively scored medical and scientific benchmarks. These results indicate that selective internalization through reward filtering and policy support shaping is effective for open-ended reinforcement learning.

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting remains the standard baseline for evaluating models' reasoning abilities. Originally, this technique was introduced to elicit step-by-step reasoning from large language models (LLMs), which would otherwise tend to directly output the final answer. However, many modern LLMs produce CoT-style responses \textit{natively} when presented with reasoning tasks, which made us revisit the effectiveness of standard CoT prompting. We evaluate several modern mid-sized language models on a math problem-solving task and find that models specialized for reasoning achieve better performance in a simple zero-shot setting than when using few-shot CoT examples - significantly surpassing officially reported results at no additional cost (e.g., from $\sim$77% to $\sim$84% for Mathstral on GSM8K). For the tested general-purpose model, a zero-shot CoT prompt is also sufficient to outperform a few-shot CoT baseline. We attribute this to a `guidance-distraction' tradeoff: standard CoT prompting also demands style adaptation, formatting compliance, and potentially undesired contextualization, which can distract models from the core reasoning task. Our findings suggest that using standard CoT prompting increasingly acts as a source of distraction as models grow stronger.

Post-training Large Language Models (LLMs) with Reinforcement Learning (RL) has become an important tool for improving model capabilities, but the LLM action-space structure introduces challenges distinct from classical RL, with implications for inducing exploration. New methods are required that leverage the broad knowledge and flexibility of pre-trained LLMs to deliberately generate diverse experience at training time. We propose Instruction-Conditioned Exploration (ICE), which appends one of a small fixed set of instructions to task prompts during training, using the same set for every problem, increasing the coverage of behaviours attempted. To facilitate ICE, we combine RL on the instruction-conditioned policy with self-distillation of its correct rollouts into the unconditioned test-time policy. ICE with this objective improves Qwen3-1.7B held-out pass@1 performance at 4K response length on mathematical reasoning tasks by $5.0\%$ relative to training with DAPO, with improvement persisting at a longer 8K context. The improvement does not appear for Qwen3-4B at 4K, where the instructions do not expand base-model coverage.

Large language models (LLMs) generate text by auto-regressively sampling the next token. This inherently leads to a many-to-many mapping between prompts and responses, complicating the task of inferring prompts from observed outputs. Prior work on LLM inversion frames prompt recovery as a semantic reconstruction task. They rely on fine-tuning pretrained sequence-to-sequence models on large external datasets--and requiring access to model weights or logits--to generate semantically plausible prompts. In contrast, we present a functional approach to inverting a given LLM in a black-box setting, without auxiliary aids. We train an explicit inverse language model entirely from scratch on data synthetically generated from the target LLM itself. Analogous to forward next-token prediction, our inverse model is trained using previous-token prediction, establishing a generative link between the forward and inverse processes that enables faithful prompt reconstruction. Moreover, it naturally supports diverse prompt reconstructions through sampling, whereby all such prompts induce similar responses under the forward, target LLM. Our approach generalises across datasets and exhibits transferability in reconstructing prompts from responses generated by different LLMs. Further, across the set of token based evaluation metrics for prompt and response reconstructions, our approach outperforms prior work.

Production prompts rarely carry a single instruction. One system message may require valid JSON, a word limit, three citations, and a fixed tone at the same time. We study how instruction-following degrades as such constraints accumulate. We introduce a benchmark that stacks 24 verifier-checked instructions, one to twenty at a time, and evaluate three production-tier LLMs (Claude Sonnet 4.6, GPT-5-mini, Gemini 2.5 Flash). Instruction-following degrades non-linearly: the follow rate falls from ~96% to as low as 20%, driven by a structured and reproducible set of pairwise conflicts. A single "output JSON" constraint, for example, is jointly unsatisfiable with nine others. We then evaluate a training-free remedy: an instruction compiler that rewrites the stacked prompt in a single LLM call and is reused across queries. Its benefit is capability-graded. It recovers up to +11 points of follow rate for weaker models, which are also the models most often deployed at scale, while leaving stronger models, which already internalise the same structure, essentially unchanged. Cluster-robust tests, same-baseline controls, and a within-family scaling ladder attribute the gain to the rewrite itself rather than to additional tokens, reordering, or measurement headroom. We release the benchmark, verifiers, and cached runs for full reproduction.

Instruction-following ability is critical for deploying large language models in real-world applications, where downstream components depend on the output satisfying specific constraints. Modern deployments increasingly handle the full task in a single LLM call, with one prompt specifying a layered output whose overall artifact, structural sections, and nested fields must each satisfy concrete constraints. Existing instruction-following benchmarks treat the constraint set as a flat list applied uniformly to the response, so they cannot scope a check to a particular section of the output. We introduce IFHierBench, a hierarchical instruction-following benchmark of 600 prompts stratified across four constraint-tree depths and 35 distinct constraints, each prompt paired with a deterministic checker that verifies satisfaction at every scope. Evaluating seven leading proprietary and open-weight models, we find that even the strongest model only marginally exceeds 50% prompt-level accuracy and that accuracy degrades sharply as constraint depth grows. Reliably following nested constraints remains a substantial gap for current LLMs, motivating future training methods that consider constraint adherence at finer granularity to achieve better instruction-following ability.

Instruction hierarchies are a core safety assumption of language model deployment: higher priority inputs, such as system prompts, should override conflicting lower priority inputs from users or tools. Yet frontier LLMs often violate this hierarchy. We introduce V-Steer, a training-free inference time method that restores privileged influence by editing cached value vectors at prompt positions. Using direct logit attribution on the first next token prediction, V-Steer identifies heads where lower priority spans dominate privileged ones, then boosts privileged spans and suppresses conflicting lower priority spans through in-place multiplicative edits to cached V tensors. Since the method acts only on cached values, it remains compatible with fused attention backends and adds only a one time prefill overhead. Across models from 7B to 70B, this attribution guided intervention raises primary constraint accuracy from under 18% up to 92% on controlled role conflict benchmarks, and on broader instruction hierarchy evaluations substantially outperforms prompt only baselines while matching or exceeding SoTA training based methods on 3 of 4 scales of LLMs, with negligible decoding-speed overhead. The code is available at https://github.com/cindy2000sh/v-steer.

Syntactic convergence (the tendency of speakers to adapt in language towards the grammatical profiles of their interlocutors) is a well-documented feature of human dialogue widely considered to operate below conscious awareness. Whether large language models exhibit analogous syntactic convergence toward human users relative to human baselines and across a broad range of syntactic constructions remains an open question. Using substitution-paradigm data in which model generations replace one speaker's turns in pre-existing human dialogues, this study measures turn-adjacent reuse of context-free grammar (CFG) rules across sixteen open-weight Llama and Gemma models (1B-70B, pretrained and instruction-tuned) at 1,901 matched positions per model. Every model showed greater CFG-rule overlap with the preceding human turn than with a sampled unrelated human prime, and in every model this actual-versus-random difference was larger for lower-frequency rules. Each instruction-tuned model also showed greater natural-output overlap with the actual prime than the human response it replaced, and all eight matched architecture pairs exhibited greater actual-prime overlap after instruction tuning. However, relative to pretrained variants, instruction-tuned outputs overlapped more with unrelated primes, showed a smaller actual-versus-random increment, and had lower conditional rule-reuse odds once target rule-set size was held constant. In exploratory analyses, each model exhibited greater mean lexical and semantic similarity to the preceding turn than the matched human responses did. Instruction-tuned models additionally produced responses with greater mean semantic similarity than their pretrained counterparts in all eight architecture pairs, whereas the lexical similarity results were more heterogeneous.

Silicon sampling uses language models as proxies for human survey respondents, treating each model call as an independent draw from the persona's response distribution. We show this draw does not exist: instruction-tuned models do not sample from distributions, they collapse to a single output. The same persona on the same question returns the same answer on more than half of items in a public-opinion benchmark, and the model's internal probabilities concentrate on a single option. The failure is associated with, and amplified by, instruction-targeted post-training: instruction-tuned models are worse than their own bases in every family we can compare, the gap widens at each successive post-training stage and with the size of the tuning update, and continued pretraining on non-instruction tokens leaves it unchanged. Yet the knowledge survives: the same model that cannot sample from a distribution can describe it accurately in a single call. We call this gap the KNOWS/DOES split. Exploiting the split, a single call that asks the model to describe the response distribution more than halves the error against human survey data compared to persona aggregation. When per-persona outputs are required, we propose Prompt-Perturbed Argyle (PPA), which reduces the same error by 21%, spreading each persona's answers to mirror real population differences at no added cost.

As the inference phase of Large Language Models (LLMs) requires handling long context windows, the Key-Value (KV) cache initially appears to address this challenge but eventually becomes a significant bottleneck as the context window continues to grow. Low-rank compression has recently been studied as an effective approach to reduce KV cache memory while maintaining model performance. However, only a few existing methods treat the Key and Value caches differently, despite their distinct roles. Moreover, these methods typically employ fixed attention-head grouping, which may not fully exploit the structural similarity among attention heads. In this paper, we propose an improved low-rank KV cache compression framework. For the Key cache, we dynamically group attention heads based on Centered Kernel Alignment (CKA) similarity and allocate the rank budget adaptively under a parameter budget. For the Value cache, we adopt the same approach as ReCalKV, refining the low-rank decomposition through offline calibration to improve reconstruction quality. Experimental results on three instruction-tuned LLMs show that our method reduces the number of Key cache parameters while maintaining competitive accuracy. We further observe that the proposed strategy is particularly effective for Multi-Head Attention (MHA) models, whereas it should be applied more conservatively to Grouped-Query Attention (GQA) models, especially in long-context settings.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly controlled through system prompts that specify roles, formats, and safety requirements. However, models follow these prompts only implicitly through in-context learning, which can be insufficient for complex or compositional prompts. Existing approaches often require model tuning or response-level reranking, limiting their practicality for lightweight inference-time control. We introduce SyRuP, a decoding-time framework for improving system-prompt adherence while keeping the base LM frozen. SyRuP trains a cross-attention reward head from system-prompt-conditioned preference pairs, treating the system prompt as a separate memory to produce token-level adherence scores. At inference, SyRuP reranks the base LM's top-k candidates by combining base logits with both the learned reward signal and a contrastive signal that captures system-induced logit shifts. Experiments on system-prompt following benchmarks show that SyRuP consistently outperforms prompting and decoding-time baselines with moderate inference overhead. These results suggest that explicit token-level guidance is an effective and practical mechanism for reliable system-prompt following.

Instruction tuning has become the standard method for adapting large language models to follow human intent, yet existing instruction datasets are dominated by English-language general-knowledge tasks and lack coverage of specialized pedagogical domains. This paper presents IKS-Instruct, a dataset of 24,795 instruction-response pairs for teaching language models to deliver educational content grounded in Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS). The dataset spans seven languages (English, Hindi, Sanskrit, Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, and Malayalam), covers 41 pedagogical techniques from the Vedic oral and mathematical traditions, and is aligned with the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) curriculum for classes 6 through 12. The pairs are derived from six source types: classical text corpora (Bhagavad Gita, Thirukkural, Sangam literature, Vedic texts), curriculum-aligned pedagogical templates, Vedic mathematical sutra demonstrations, bilingual instruction pairs, technique-grounded multi-turn dialogues, and cross-tradition comparative analyses. Quality is assessed through a multi-judge evaluation framework in which independent language models score responses on 12 dimensions including technique fidelity, pedagogical quality, factual accuracy, and IKS cultural depth. Under a uniform five-judge external panel (median aggregation over 1,201 stratified items), the strongest IKS-Instruct fine-tune of a compact 7B model reaches a median judge score of 6.39, within 0.15 of a strong general-purpose reference model (Nemotron-Nano at 6.54) at a fraction of its deployment cost, while the base model without IKS fine-tuning scores near zero on the IKS-specific dimensions. Model quality does not increase monotonically with data curation, a result we report together with the corresponding data-quality gains.

Large language models (LLMs) deployed in educational settings often behave as direct answerers: they disclose target concepts in the opening turn instead of guiding students through progressive inquiry, as Socratic pedagogy prescribes. We present HeuristicEdu, a two-phase pipeline that aligns Qwen2.5-7B toward Socratic tutoring via supervised warm-up and Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO). Training uses SocraticEdu, 797 multi-turn Chinese children's science dialogues reconstructed from a live platform, with a heuristic reward over cognitive depth (R_cog), curiosity engagement (R_eng), and directness (R_dir), together with a K_query correction for student-introduced terms. We introduce Scaffolding Effectiveness (SE) and Conversation Depth (CD) to evaluate outcomes beyond surface fluency. On 30 held-out questions, the best GRPO variant improves SE from 30.0% to 63.3% and lowers keyword leakage from 30.0% to 13.3%. Notably, this best variant omits the directness penalty during optimization, suggesting that explicit anti-leakage terms can conflict with gradient-based behavioral alignment. An unaligned Qwen-72B baseline reaches 0% SE and 96.7% leakage, showing that scale alone does not induce Socratic behavior.

Large language models (LLMs) have developed rapidly and become valuable tools in everyday life. However, how to align LLMs to a particular set of human values is still an open problem. Recent studies show that instruction tuning has strong potential for zero-shot tasks and may serve as an effective approach to addressing value alignment. Nevertheless, although many datasets for instruction tuning already exist, they are not specifically designed around moral scenarios and behaviors. We construct a unified moral-value dataset that can be directly used for instruction tuning. This dataset is built upon existing moral-value datasets by merging them into a unified corpus and converting them into an instruction-response format. We show that training on a mixed dataset combining general task datasets with our dataset preserves general-task performance, and we report preliminary observations on how the mixing ratio affects value-oriented task performance. Our work provides a moral-value dataset for instruction tuning and offers a useful resource for further alignment research. The dataset is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/teohzzh/value-for-instruction-tuning.

Instruction tuning is meant to make language models follow user requests, yet it is unclear whether small models comply when an instruction conflicts with their usual task behavior. We study this across three tasks - multiple-choice question answering (MCQA), sentiment classification, and mathematical question answering - by pairing a standard instruction with a conflicting non-standard one (select an incorrect option, output the opposite sentiment, or return twice the answer). This cross-task design allows us to test whether resistance to conflicting instructions is tied to specific task characteristics or reflects a broader behavioral tendency. As all predictions are scored against the original ground truth, a model that ignores the non-standard instruction still appears accurate. Using standard accuracy, non-standard accuracy, and an Instruction-Following Failure Rate (IFFR), we evaluate instruction-tuned Qwen models across sizes. Both standard accuracy and instruction following generally improve with scale, although the pattern is not consistent across all tasks and datasets. Small models stay competent yet routinely ignore the non-standard instruction, while larger models show a clear gap between the two settings. These findings suggest that gains in task capability do not automatically provide reliable control over model behavior. Task competence and instruction following are therefore distinct abilities, and reporting only standard accuracy hides instruction-following failures.

Practitioners make three prompt-design decisions with almost no controlled evidence behind them: how to format instructions and context (markdown, plain text, prose, or tabular), how many simultaneous instructions a system prompt can carry before compliance degrades, and how much context a model can hold before recall and honesty degrade. We report two controlled experiments crossing all three factors on one held, contamination-free synthetic corpus (the "Book of Veyra," 8,780 uniquely-named entities, deterministically regenerable from a fixed seed), evaluated across five models. Experiment 1 (960 calls/model) measures instruction-following decay as rule count N grows from 10 to 160, crossed with four formats and system-prompt vs. user-turn placement. Perfect-response rate collapses to zero by N=80 for every model, format, and placement. Placement produces effects at least as large as format at N=160 in most models, but the direction is model-specific. No model shows a reliable markdown advantage; one 35B model favors plain text instead. Experiment 2 (5,520 calls/model) measures recall accuracy, false-premise sycophancy, and absent-fact fabrication across a 2k-to-512k-token context ladder in the same four formats. Recall stays near ceiling through 64-128k tokens, then degrades sharply and format-dependently: one model's accuracy spread reaches 48 points at 128k tokens. Fabrication never occurs (0/5,760 probes), and sycophancy stays negligible (<=8.3%). What rises sharply near each model's context ceiling is outright refusal to answer (0% to 79-90%), distinct from sycophancy or fabrication. Neither pre-registered format ordering holds, and token overhead (+22% to +37% over plain text) further changes which format is preferable where accuracy spread is genuine. We release the full harness, corpus generator, and raw results (VeyraBench): https://github.com/iNetanel/veyrabench

Progresses have been made on understanding emotion mechanisms of large language models (LLMs). However, how to explain emotion in LLMs, or even what constitutes good explanations, are less clear. Emotion representations, components, circuits are widely recoverable, but as explanations of a model's own computation they are circular; the emotion space dimensions tend to be arbitrary and non-terminating. A pressing question to ask is whether a more primitive set of internal variables does the work: the semantic primes of the Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM). Across four instruction-tuned LLMs (Llama-1B, Gemma-2B, Gemma-9B, OLMo-7B), experiments show that the NSM primes are (1) recoverable internal elements; and (2) on the reference model, intervening with a prime based direction controls emotion about three times as strongly, and twice as selectively, as the best appraisal based direction; and (3) the model treats a prime based explication as interchangeable with the corresponding emotion. These evidences suggest that NSM primes seem to be better explanans for emotion in LLMs than many alternative options according to scientific explanations criteria.

Model collapse is a central challenge in learning from synthetic data: as later-generation large language models (LLMs) are trained on an increasing proportion of model-generated data, performance can degrade due to narrowed coverage and accumulated bias. Existing work mainly studies how to bound this degradation. In iterative model evolution, however, the more meaningful objective is to ensure that each successive model improves over its predecessor, which requires diagnosing collapse at a granularity that is actionable for data curation. We study this problem in synthetic data self-improving for instruction tuning. We show that collapse in this setting is not simply uniform performance degradation, but can appear as a polarization of competence, where synthetic training reinforces already strong skills while further degrading weak ones. Motivated by this observation, we propose KITE (Knowledge-boundary Instruction Tuning via Exploration), a two-stage framework that combines failure-guided data generation with boundary-aware uncertainty curation. Experiments across several datasets and multiple open-source LLMs show that KITE yields more stable improvement than strong synthetic-data baselines.

Current benchmarks for language models primarily evaluate execution on fully specified tasks. However, real user tasks are often ambiguous. Users arrive with incomplete, exploratory, or even inconsistent goals, requiring the assistant to first determine the intended task before carrying it out. We study this problem as task alignment: the ability to align with a user on their intended task. We introduce a general framework for converting specified tasks into underspecified interactions, formalized as a POMDP in which the model must infer a latent task from partial and evolving user intent. We validate our user simulator post hoc with a human user study. Across shopping, coding, and professional work settings, we find that while models often perform well once the task is specified, models still struggle with task alignment: current models act prematurely, interact ineffectively, and fail to resolve ambiguous requests. Models on average recover the user's intended task only 22-32% of the time under ambiguity. In a human study in the same setting, humans reach 48%, outperforming all evaluated models. We show that post-training with supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning improves task alignment, but models still lag behind humans in resolving uncertainty through interaction. Together, our results suggest that current models still lack key interaction abilities required for reliable agency.

Large Language Models (LLMs) often require carefully crafted prompts to unlock their full potential, which can be a barrier for non-expert users. This work addresses the challenge by introducing a Task-Aware Prompt Rewriter (TAPR), a model that reformulates user prompts into task-optimized prompts with the explicit goal of improving downstream LLM performance. We train TAPR using reinforcement learning with Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), where rewards are derived from LLM-as-judge evaluations of both the reformulated prompt and the corresponding task output. Experimental results on diverse tasks, such as question answering, summarization, and arithmetic reasoning, show that our method yields consistent gains over base models in prompt rewriting ability. Fine-tuning Phi-4-mini-instruct (as the base model for TAPR) produces prompts that contain clearer and more instructive language, leading to higher accuracy on established benchmarks such as Natural Questions and GSM8K. Our code is available at: https://github.com/OliverSavolainen/task-specific-prompt-rewriter

Prompt optimization adapts large language models (LLMs) without updating model parameters, but many automatic prompt optimizers remain heuristic search procedures over candidate instructions. This paper studies prompt optimization as Bayesian posterior sampling over discrete prompt tokens. We define a posterior distribution by combining a task likelihood term, which rewards prompts that explain input-output examples, with a language-model prior, which favors fluent instructions. This converts prompt optimization into an energy-based posterior sampling problem, for which gradients can be used to guide discrete Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) proposals over vocabulary tokens. We refer to our framework as BayesPO, short for Bayesian Prompt Optimization. In this paper, BayesPO is instantiated with Markov chain Monte Carlo: it uses a Metropolis-Hastings corrected Gibbs-with-Langevin (GwL) proposal and integrates parallel tempering for global exploration of rugged LLM-induced energy landscapes. The concrete sampler further adapts the GwL sampler to the practical constraints of non-weight-tied LLM embeddings. Experiments with Qwen2.5 models show that the sampler discovers semantically meaningful prompts on diagnostic tasks, that parallel tempering helps escape a local optimum in a poetry completion task, and that post-optimizing APE prompts on 24 instruction-induction subtasks improves average accuracy from 60.04% to 63.23%. The study also reveals two main limitations: energy minimization may overfit small optimization sets, and the current sampler remains computationally expensive. These findings position Bayesian prompt sampling as a principled post-optimization tool and point to a promising direction for probabilistic prompt optimization.

Reasoning language models (RLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance in domains such as mathematics and coding. These domains permit reliable verification of model outputs, which is important for enabling the reinforcement learning that drives RLM performance gains. However, training RLMs on domains that lack reliable verifiers remains challenging. Meanwhile, for both verifiable and unverifiable domains, large amounts of unused supervised fine-tuning data with human-written solutions exist. In this work, we show that these data can be used efficiently to further improve RLM performance. For this, we first use classic instruction tuning, supervised fine-tuning without reasoning traces, on the RLM. Next, we merge our instruction-tuned model with the original reasoning model, recovering its reasoning behavior on the target domain. Our extensive evaluation demonstrates that our technique improves RLM performance in both verifiable and hard-to-verify domains, including coding and text summarization, while preserving RLM capabilities across other domains. Importantly, our method is highly cost-effective, enabling such improvements for less than USD $3.

The rapid integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into K-12 and higher education has outpaced the development of reliable methods for evaluating their pedagogical quality. As the research community starts to explore the space of automating evaluation of AI tutors, we introduce FATE (FLC AI Tutor Evaluator), a specialized 8B-parameter language model designed to evaluate AI tutors. Aligned with the four core evaluation tracks from the BEA 2025 Shared Task, our model assesses pedagogical ability across Mistake Identification, Mistake Location, Guidance, and Actionability. Because pedagogical evaluation is a specialized task with limited labeled data, we leverage knowledge distillation from a frontier LLM to generate additional supervision, yielding absolute performance gains up to 22.63 percentage points. Finally, we demonstrate FATE's utility as an automated evaluator by benchmarking instructional responses generated by popular commercial models, including ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and DeepSeek. On average, we have found that Gemini 2.5 Flash perfomed best (82.88%), then ChatGPT 5.5 Instant (80.75%), followed by DeepSeek V4 Flash (80.13%) and Claude Sonnet 4.6 (74.00%).

Large language models process prompts by propagating activations through dozens of layers before generating a response. We ask whether the task-relevant information contained in an instruction prompt can be compressed into a single activation vector and re-injected into the model, replacing the original token sequence? We show this is achievable using a learned weighted sum of activations extracted at an intermediate layer and injected at an early layer of the target LLM. The compressed vector preserves task-relevant information, incurring an accuracy drop of under $2\%$ relative to full prompt processing. Beyond its practical implications, including reducing per-query computation for fixed instruction prompts without reprocessing the original token sequence, our analysis reveals structure in the activation space of LLMs: (i) mid-layer representations transfer meaningfully to early layers, suggesting a degree of cross-layer compatibility in how information is encoded; (ii) a single activation vector encodes a quantifiable and recoverable amount of semantic information; (iii) a weighted sum of activations is a robust representation compressor.

Synthesizing long-context supervised fine-tuning (SFT) data is a scalable way to enhance the long-context understanding of large language models (LLMs), yet existing approaches share three limitations: narrow task coverage, insufficient instruction difficulty, and a lack of faithfulness supervision. We propose \textbf{LongCrafter}, a structured synthesis framework that couples a hierarchical task taxonomy with an evidence-grounded pipeline. The taxonomy organizes long-context understanding into local/shallow and global/deep levels and yields 32 fine-grained task types that serve as a global generative prior. Guided by this taxonomy, LongCrafter constructs task-aligned long contexts, decomposes them into explicit evidence graphs that model cross-paragraph dependencies, and generates instruction--response pairs strictly grounded in the located evidence spans, ensuring both controllable difficulty and faithful, traceable reasoning. Models fine-tuned on LongCrafter data outperform all SFT baselines and even the official post-trained models on LongBench, LongBench~v2, and LooGLE across both Qwen2.5-7B and LLaMA-3.1-8B, with the largest gains on high-difficulty tasks. Further analysis shows that LongCrafter data is more diverse and better spread across difficulty levels, and that the trained models locate evidence robustly regardless of position, effectively mitigating the ``lost in the middle'' problem.

Code language models are now trusted collaborators in production workflows for debugging, refactoring, and iterative repair, and every benchmark that evaluates them assumes the instructions they act on are correct. We study what happens when that assumption breaks. We evaluate code language models across four experiments designed to assess whether models resist or obey incorrect instructions in single-pass and iterative repair settings, using the RunBugRun dataset of algorithmic Python problems with deterministic test cases. Our findings reveal a striking behavioral pattern: models correctly identify an incorrect instruction as wrong, then follow it anyway. This compliance unknowingly introduces errors beyond the original bug, and the corrupted code state cannot be recovered through subsequent self-guided iterative repair, which fails to converge across passes. We term this Blind Obedience, characterize the Ghost (Unknown) Errors it introduces, quantify the proportion of cases where semantic corruption proves irrecoverable, and show that extended reasoning cannot reverse it. These findings surface behavioral properties invisible to pass-rate evaluation, with direct consequences for code language models deployed in production settings.

Reinforcement learning (RL) for non-verifiable instruction following increasingly relies on LLM judges with prompt-specific rubrics as reward signals. While recent methods adapt these rubrics to the evolving policy during training, the training prompts themselves remain static, drawn from fixed corpora. This static approach often results in a critical misalignment between prompt difficulty and policy capability, leaving the judge unable to recover a discriminative reward signal when prompts fail to elicit quality variance among rollouts. To address this misalignment, we introduce LLM-as-a-Tutor, a framework that extends the LLM's role from judge to tutor: a single model serves as an examiner that pairwise-compares policy rollouts to detect non-challenging prompts, and as a generator that appends atomic constraints to them. This append-only design monotonically raises difficulty in step with the policy's capability, producing a self-calibrating training signal without external difficulty schedules. On three complex instruction-following benchmarks, our method consistently outperforms both policy-unaware baselines and prior policy-adaptive methods that adapt rubrics or rewrite prompts, suggesting prompt adaptation as a missing axis of policy-awareness in non-verifiable RL.

Romanized Code Mixing (RCM), where bilingual speakers fluidly blend local languages with English in Roman script, has emerged as the dominant form of communication across multilingual communities. While Large Language Models (LLMs) perform strongly on monolingual and native-script benchmarks, their ability to follow instructions and reason over RCM-based content remains largely unexplored. To this end, we introduce the Indi-RomCoM benchmark for facilitating systematic evaluation on Indic Romanized Code-Mixed instructions. Our benchmark spans seven instruction-following tasks, four widely spoken Indic languages, and three controlled code-mixing intensity levels. We extensively evaluate a suite of LLMs covering proprietary, open-weight, and Indic-focused models under zero- and few-shot settings. LLMs consistently underperform on RCM instructions, with performance degrading as code-mixing density increases. Furthermore, reasoning tasks suffer less degradation than detection tasks (e.g., Toxicity) because the generated explanations offer necessary context. We believe Indi-RomCoM helps the community in developing inclusive multilingual systems.

With Large Language Model (LLM) pre-training and fine-tuning shifting its focus from data volume to data quality, quality data selection has emerged as a critical research topic. Existing online data selection methods for LLM training are typically "batch-constrained", limiting optimization to local utility within random batches. To overcome this, we propose GAIA (Global Adaptive Instruction tuning via GAussian processes), a framework that formulates data valuation as a global estimation process. GAIA employs Gaussian Process regression to model continuous utility manifolds across the semantic space, utilizing an adaptive strategy fusion mechanism to dynamically prioritize high-utility samples. By casting the strategy-posterior update as an instance of the classical fixed-share Hedge framework for tracking the best expert, we inherit a dynamic-regret guarantee that characterizes GAIA's robustness under non-stationary quality scores during training. Empirical evaluations on three datasets demonstrate that GAIA significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines like \greats, establishing our method as a scalable and robust solution for efficient instruction tuning.

Large Language Models (LLMs) often fail to maintain instruction hierarchies (IH) when processing multi-source inputs with varying role-level priorities, paradoxically adhering to lower-priority directives during conflicts. While existing defenses mitigate this issue, they are largely restricted to single-turn scenarios and require expensive fine-tuning. In this paper, we formalize this failure mode in multi-turn contexts via a Jensen-Shannon Divergence (JSD) framework, uncovering a pervasive role-influence inversion phenomenon where subordinate inputs override superior roles. To rectify this without training, we propose IHDec (Instruction Hierarchy-steered Decoding). IHDec leverages JSD to automatically detect token-level hierarchy violations and dynamically executes contrastive decoding to suppress misaligned subordinate roles. Extensive evaluations demonstrate that IHDec outperforms training-based baselines in multi-turn conflicts while fully preserving general response quality. Furthermore, IHDec strengthens safety against adversarial prompt injections and exhibits a robust scaling synergy with larger models. The Code is available at https://github.com/nxcolelxu/IHDec.git

Human adults can often perform a novel task correctly on the first attempt after only receiving verbal or written instructions. This rapid instructed task learning (RITL) is a hallmark of human cognitive flexibility, yet its mechanisms and parallels in artificial systems remain under-explored across disciplines. In this position paper, we argue that humans possess an evolved instruction-following bias -- an inductive bias shaped by evolution to interpret and execute linguistic instructions which critically enables fast generalization of behavior from language. This bias functions analogously to the way large language models (LLMs) leverage instruction tuning to achieve zero-shot task performance. We synthesize evidence from cognitive science, neuroscience, and machine learning research to support this hypothesis. While instruction-following in AI is currently achieved via specialized training protocols, we posit that in humans it arises as an innate cognitive architecture feature. We outline testable predictions and call for more interdisciplinary research to investigate Instruction-Following as a unifying mechanism enabling rapid task learning in both natural and artificial neural networks.

In recent times, Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being used for legal case judgement summarization. Most prior works have tried traditional extractive and abstractive summarization of case judgements. However, hybrid or extractive-abstractive techniques have not been explored much. In this work, we propose a novel tree-of-thoughts inspired extractive-abstractive summarization approach for legal judgement summarization. We conduct experiments using two popular LLMs, DeepSeek and LLama, and compare among extractive, abstractive and extractive-abstractive summarization. Our experiments show that the proposed extractive-abstractive prompt provides better summaries compared to other types of LLM prompts.

Prompt injection is the top security risk for LLM-integrated applications, yet every defense proposed so far has been broken. We prove this is not a coincidence: in shared-embedding architectures that lack enforced control-data separation, perfect prompt-injection prevention is mathematically impossible. We formalize prompted systems as Prompted Action Models whose outputs include control-authoritative actions: refusal decisions, tool authorization, policy routing, and memory writes. We define Semantic-Faithful Control (SFC), the property that such behavior depends only on the meaning of untrusted input, not on how it is encoded. We then prove SFC is unachievable within the shared pipeline, via three results: a provenance-recovery impossibility (shared representations make trusted and untrusted content statistically inseparable, bounded by total variation distance); control-path exposure (untrusted tokens enter control-relevant computation through the same attention value-aggregation that determines outputs); and a finite-coverage invariance gap (finite training cannot certify invariance over infinite semantic-equivalence classes). We ground each quantity in measurements on production tokenizers and models. The result is structural, not a gap in current defenses. It mirrors the code-data confusion in Von Neumann machines that gives rise to buffer overflows, a vulnerability class that took decades of layered defenses (DEP, Write-XOR-Execute, ASLR, stack canaries, and ultimately memory-safe languages) to contain, because no single mechanism sufficed. The implication is the same: prompt injection cannot be eliminated by better in-pipeline classification or alignment alone. It requires architectural separation of instruction and data channels. We identify the root cause and the class of solution it demands.

We argue that safety classifiers should model user intent as an explicit signal between the prompt and the final label. To study this, we introduce AIMS, a human-annotated dataset of 1,724 difficult safety prompts, each paired with an intent description and harm label. We use AIMS to evaluate intent-aware training across supervised fine-tuning, preference learning, reasoning distillation, and reinforcement learning. Despite its size, AIMS enables competitive safety classifiers across training regimes: DPO from model-generated intent errors improves over SFT, and intent-conditioned distillation outperforms reasoning-only distillation in most teacher-student pairs. Most notably, directly rewarding intent faithfulness with GRPO yields the strongest average performance across five external safety benchmarks, while our intent-aware models form the inference latency-F1 Pareto frontier. These results show that faithful intent modeling is a compact, high-quality supervision signal for more robust safety classifiers.

Distilling reasoning capabilities from strong to weak language models typically involves imitating specific solution trajectories, effectively transferring what to answer rather than how to reason. This trajectory-level imitation encourages memorization of instance-specific steps rather than acquisition of transferable problem-solving skills, limiting generalization to novel problems. We propose Strategy-Guided Policy Optimization (SGPO), which replaces instance-level trajectory imitation with reusable strategy distillation. SGPO extracts structured strategy descriptions from strong-model responses and, for each problem, constructs both autonomous and strategy-guided trajectories to enable direct comparison of the model's behavior with and without strategic guidance. The framework then addresses two key questions. For how to distill, a token-level forward-KL objective selectively transfers the distributional shift induced by strategy conditioning into the unguided policy, with proximal constraints ensuring stability. For when to distill, adaptive instance-level weighting strengthens guidance when autonomous exploration falls short and reduces it as the model's own competence grows. Experiments on four mathematical benchmarks across two model families show that SGPO consistently outperforms SFT, on-policy RL, and hybrid-policy baselines, improving the average score by 2.2 points over the strongest baseline on Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct. Analysis reveals that the forward-KL objective provides an inherently selective distillation signal that outperforms direct trajectory imitation, and that strategy distillation exhibits complementary scaling with base model capability.

Large language models have demonstrated significant capabilities in generating diverse and context-aware responses for empathetic dialogue. However, their computational demands severely limit their deployment in resource-constrained environments. While knowledge distillation offers a promising compression solution, it often fails to transfer the nuanced understanding essential for empathy, as it overlooks the implicit contextual cues that guide human connection. To bridge this gap, we propose a \textbf{pr}ivileged \textbf{i}nformation-enhanced knowledge \textbf{d}istillation method for \textbf{e}mpathetic dialogue generation (PRIDE). Our method leverages privileged information, such as expert psychological annotations or future event summaries, which is available exclusively during training but unavailable at inference time. This allows us to transfer the teacher model's empathetic reasoning to smaller models without relying on extra inputs during deployment. Specifically, PRIDE has three key components: (1) An empathy-reasoning prompt that guides the teacher to explicitly decompose the empathetic process into understanding feelings and analyzing situations step-by-step; (2) A multi-source attention mechanism that directs the student to effectively integrate privileged information; (3) A dual-alignment loss that combines reversed Kullback-Leibler divergence and maximum mean discrepancy to ensure robust knowledge transfer at both logit and feature levels. Experiments on multi-modal and text-only datasets demonstrate that our method achieves competitive performance, and in some cases matches or even surpasses larger teacher models in terms of accuracy and semantic relevance.

Large language models (LLMs) achieve strong performance across many tasks, but their high computational cost limits deployment in resource-constrained environments. Knowledge Distillation (KD) offers a practical solution by transferring knowledge from a teacher model of a larger size to a smaller student model. While prior work has mainly examined task-specific or small-scale settings, the post-training stage for building general instruction-following models has received limited attention. In this paper, we conduct a systematic study of KD in post-training using the large-scale Tulu 3 dataset. We find that KD outperforms supervised fine-tuning (SFT) in low-data regimes, but its advantage diminishes as more training data is added. Distilling from a stronger instruction-tuned teacher restores substantial gains even with abundant data, indicating that KD remains effective when the teacher provides knowledge that the student cannot easily acquire from the training data alone. We further study domain-specific, low-resource scenarios and propose a two-stage KD strategy that leverages synthetic teacher-labeled data followed by refinement on human annotations. This method consistently improves student performance, providing practical guidance for building compact models in data-scarce environments.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate fluent Arabic text, their ability to reliably control readability levels remains unclear. We propose a multi-dimensional evaluation framework for Common European Framework of Reference for Language (CEFR)-controlled Arabic text generation, assessing whether instruction-following LLMs can serve as reliable generators for adaptive language learning. Our framework integrates controlled prompting, automatic readability prediction using a validated Taha-19 model, lexical constraint validation, and syntactic complexity profiling. Results show that structured prompting substantially improves CEFR alignment. In particular, CEFR-guided prompting with lexical constraints achieves the highest conformity to reference linguistic profiles (0.91 cosine similarity) and near-perfect agreement with predicted readability levels (0.99), while unconstrained prompting exhibits weak control. These findings establish an empirical foundation for integrating readability-aware Arabic text generation into adaptive educational systems.

Optimizing the training data distribution for Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) dictates the capability of Large Language Models (LLMs). While existing data curation methods excel at accelerating training under constrained budgets, they are less suited to elevating the capability upper bound. The challenge here is no longer to identify a smaller subset that preserves performance, but to refine the data distribution toward instances most capable of improving the final model. To address this problem, we explore instance-level data attribution using Influence Functions (IF). We identify that standard IF formulations struggle in this setting due to two structural limitations: a proximity gap caused by off-policy validation targets, and a severe bias towards gradient norm. We propose DRIFT (Data Refinement via On-Policy Influence Functions for Supervised Fine-Tuning). Instead of relying on external reference data, DRIFT utilizes the model's on-policy rollouts as validation targets, which empirically minimizes the parameter proximity gap and better aligns with the local neighborhood assumption of IF. It further applies signed weighting based on trajectory correctness and debiases influence scores against the gradient hacking issue, allowing a small set of validation queries to act as reliable anchors for attributing the full dataset. Experiments on 7B-parameter instruction and reasoning models show that DRIFT consistently raises the performance ceiling on both, outperforming existing data curation baselines.

Large language models often struggle with sensitive prompts. They may refuse outright, provide generic safety boilerplate, or fail to address the user's legitimate informational needs that can be answered safely. We introduce SHARD, a self-reframing distillation method to improve safe-helpfulness. It first rewrites sensitive prompts to surface benign intent using philosophical guidelines, then reframes its original responses into safe, more helpful ones, and finally fine-tunes the model on its self-reframed responses. Across DNA and the English subset of LINGUASAFE, SHARD improves helpfulness for most model families while preserving safety. It also remains competitive with distillation from a larger teacher model, suggesting that models can internalize safe and helpful behavior elicited from their own. Warning: This paper contains content that may be offensive or harmful.

Decoding-time truthfulness methods -- layer-contrast decoding, inference-time intervention, and learned logit adapters -- have demonstrated 10-30 point gains on TruthfulQA when applied to base language models. However, modern instruction-tuned LLMs already achieve substantially higher baselines (61-76%), raising the question of whether these methods remain effective in practice. We design a six-control evaluation framework -- out-of-distribution training, multi-judge validation, simple decoding baselines, confound controls, bootstrap confidence intervals, and seed variance -- and apply it across 5 models (1B-70B), 3 benchmarks, and 15 methods. We find that previously reported gains shrink substantially under strict controls: on the full TruthfulQA benchmark (N=817), no token-level method achieves statistically significant improvement, and the best learned adapter scores -2.0 points below greedy (p=.23). We identify five evaluation sensitivities -- contamination, judge choice, missing baselines, confounds, and statistical noise -- that individually or jointly account for these discrepancies. Cross-benchmark validation on HaluEval QA and TriviaQA confirms that these patterns extend beyond TruthfulQA. Deliberative prompting methods (chain-of-thought, self-critique) appear more robust in the evaluated regime, with CoT achieving +5.6-19pp across benchmarks as a training-free, single-pass method. We release a seven-point evaluation checklist and discuss implications for future truthfulness research.

Benchmark scores often misrepresent a large language model's (LLM's) knowledge, because they rely, e.g., on the model's ability to follow specific formatting requirements. This especially penalizes base models that may know the correct answers but lack the ability -- typically introduced in post-training -- to structure them as instructed. To overcome this, we propose soft-prompt tuning, an efficient, fair, and architecture-agnostic model evaluation. By optimizing only 10 soft-prompt vectors (roughly 0.0006% parameters for a 7B model) over a short tuning period, we adapt models to specific benchmark formats, closing gaps in format-following and ensuring that underlying knowledge is accurately reflected in benchmark scores. This allows one to fairly compare different base models -- trained with various pre-training recipes -- on benchmarks without the need for full post-training. We evaluated soft-prompt tuning across 7 models and 7 datasets. The results show that (a) soft-prompt tuning saturates format-following within 80 steps (~640 samples) making it highly efficient, (b) soft-prompt tuning significantly outperforms zero- and few-shot prompting, surfacing base model knowledge that standard prompting misses, that (c) even post-trained models can benefit from soft-prompts to maximize format compliance, and that (d) soft-prompted base model performance predicts post-trained model rankings more reliably than zero- and few-shot baselines, offering a low-cost proxy for downstream model quality. Our contributions include (1) metrics which disentangle format-following and knowledge accuracy, (2) a fairer benchmarking protocol of LLM knowledge, and (3) a cost- and memory-effective recipe to identify optimal pre-training strategies early in LLM development.

Large language models are now widely used for everyday learning, but the underlying interactions are typically unstructured chats rather than following a curriculum. Unlike formal online learning systems, these interactions carry no prior record of the student, so any estimate of what the student already knows must be inferred from the dialogue itself. We show that this gap is not closed by scaling models alone. Frontier and education-tuned LLMs perform poorly when asked to tutor a student over an extended session, because doing so requires three things at once. The tutor must sequence a curriculum, conduct Socratic dialogue, and infer the student's knowledge state from that dialogue. We propose separating these responsibilities. Given a student query, our system constructs a prerequisite knowledge graph in which subtopics are nodes and dependencies are edges, and frames tutoring as deciding which node to teach next and how many dialogue turns to spend on it before moving on. A lightweight PPO policy handles this sequencing decision, while an LLM conducts the Socratic exchange at the chosen node and returns a signal of student progress. Across held-out STEM and non-STEM topics, our PPO-paired tutor outperforms heuristic baselines, frontier general-purpose models, and a model specialised for Socratic dialogue: on both the rate at which students reach full curriculum mastery and the number of turns required. Explicit curriculum structure delivers gains that scaling the underlying model does not.