#01Nov 5, 2026
cs.CV
Where and Why is Grounded Reasoning Useful?
David Yan, Le Xue, Forrest Huang and 4 more
Grounded reasoning, where a model outputs text coordinates of relevant locations in chain-of-thought reasoning, is a common strategy for solving complex visual reasoning problems. However, the benefits and limitations of grounded reasoning are understudied. We study where and why grounded reasoning is most useful. To do so, we introduce a chain-of-thought analysis method to measure how much a model uses its outputted grounding in its thinking trace and perform a detailed ablation study of a grounded reasoning training recipe. We find that grounded reasoning improves counting but shows no significant gain over baselines without coordinate grounding across a wide range of spatial reasoning and perception benchmarks. Using several synthetic tasks, we show that grounded reasoning is most useful when a task requires undescribable references, which are visual concepts that are difficult to describe in language. However, we observe that many existing visual reasoning benchmarks are solvable with only describable text references. To close this gap, we introduce BrickVision, a new benchmark that requires undescribable visual references to solve.
#02Nov 5, 2026
cs.CL
Understanding AI from the Inside: The State of Mechanistic Interpretability for AI Safety
Fazl Barez, Tung-Yu Wu, Hunar Batra and 24 more
Neural networks are likely to be among the most consequential artefacts in human history. As these systems become more capable and autonomous, their potential to cause societal harm also grows, making AI safety one of the defining challenges of our time. Yet we continue to build increasingly powerful systems without fully understanding how they work, how they will behave in unfamiliar situations, or how to reliably control them. Mechanistic interpretability offers a path towards understanding these systems by studying their internal representations and computations, with the aim of evaluating, predicting, and controlling behaviour. We survey mechanistic interpretability for AI safety in order to answer the question: Does understanding how models work actually make them safer? We place mechanistic interpretability in the broader context of interpretability research and compare its mechanistic evidence with behavioural evaluation. We introduce the foundations of mechanistic interpretability, including features, polysemanticity, transformer computation, and circuits, and survey methods for feature extraction and analysis, circuit discovery and causal verification, explaining intermediate representations in natural language, learning dynamics, and training-data attribution. Beyond surveying existing methods, we propose a unified framework for evaluating mechanistic interpretability claims and characterise six research orientations by their goals, assumptions, and trade-offs. Finally, we examine how mechanistic understanding can support AI safety, including knowledge editing, steering, and monitoring, and assess its limitations, failure modes, open problems, and relationship to behavioural safety measures. We also release a repository of code notebooks with worked examples that reproduce key findings from surveyed methods, allowing readers to build intuition through hands-on experimentation.
#03Nov 5, 2026
cs.LG
Spectral and Subspace Dynamics of LoRA in Supervised Fine-Tuning and Reinforcement Learning
Chenruo Liu, Zihan Wang, Yijun Dong and 1 more
Low-rank adaptation (LoRA) is commonly used in both supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and reinforcement learning (RL), often under similar optimizer settings. Yet, how the different dynamics of the two stages manifest in the low-rank increment that LoRA optimizes remains unclear. Tracking the singular spectrum and subspaces of LoRA updates on mathematical reasoning tasks, we find that RL concentrates the spectrum at every learning rate, while SFT expands it at moderate learning rates; moreover, RL rotates the singular subspaces much faster than SFT at small learning rates. Interpolating between SFT and RL one ingredient at a time, we pinpoint group-mean baseline subtraction as the source of both contrasts. A quadratic multi-index model updated via LoRA unveils the underlying mechanism: group-mean baseline subtraction tilts the balance between two competing forces, coherent fitting and gradient noise, toward spectral concentration and faster subspace rotation, while forcing the risk-favorable learning rate to be low. Guided by these dynamics, we tailor LoRA updates to each stage: in SFT, we flatten the spectrum of the full update to spread adaptation across singular directions, whereas in RL, we flatten the part of the update outside the current LoRA increment span to promote subspace rotation. Experiments on mathematical reasoning tasks across multiple models show that the respective configurations for SFT and RL yield the best performance among the compared methods in most evaluated settings.
#04Nov 5, 2026
cs.AI
SwarmEvolve: Latent Agent Swarms for Evolutionary Discovery and Optimization
Qile Jiang, George Em Karniadakis
LLM-guided evolutionary search uses AI agents to improve programs for mathematical and computational problems by iteratively refining solutions and combining high-scoring methods. However, the process is often slow because the LLM generates a long textual chain of thought for each round and must repeat this generation many times to maintain population diversity. We present SwarmEvolve, a framework in which hundreds of low-cost agents per round work in swarms, reason in latent space without decoding to text, and share information by passing KV caches. Each swarm studies the problem from a different angle. A novelty filter keeps the most distinct agent ideas by directly measuring the distances between the agents' hidden state vectors. Crossover of ideas happens naturally in latent space, as a summarizer agent receives the combined KV caches of all swarm members. On 21 problems in mathematical discovery and scientific computing, SwarmEvolve gets the highest average score and needs a median of only 3 to 8 minutes to reach the best scores that other state-of-the-art frameworks reach in 60 minutes. On several problems, SwarmEvolve with Qwen3 8B improves on the solutions that AlphaEvolve first found with frontier LLMs. Our work shows that agent swarms that communicate in latent space offer a fast, low-cost approach to program search for scientific problems.
#05Nov 5, 2026
cs.CL
Label-Wording Augmentation in a Typed-Decision Encoder: Gains on Unfamiliar Words, Not on Abbreviations or Codes
Vladimir Beskorovainyi
Typed-decision models score options that the caller supplies at request time, so their accuracy depends on label wording that the model's developer does not control. We compare two releases of a 307M-parameter multilingual cross-encoder, Ru-Jev, trained on thirteen Russian-language tasks; the later release adds an augmentation that presents labels in several surface forms. Holding questions fixed and varying only how eighteen routing labels are worded, we evaluate ten label vocabularies, produced by three separate processes and checked for overlap with the training data, with five candidates per question and, for eight of them, also with eighteen. On held-out vocabularies made of ordinary or borrowed words (English-derived jargon, office slang, department names), the augmented release is more accurate in every setting, by up to 0.24. Eleven of these fourteen gains survive a Holm correction (slang with eighteen candidates and descriptive sentences with five do not), and for jargon on all labels the label-level interval excludes zero in both settings. On abbreviations and opaque codes it gives no usable gain: on abbreviations it is not better, and worse on the clean slice, and on opaque codes both releases stay at or below chance once labels related to training options are removed. In most cells where accuracy rises, the risk-coverage area falls, but with eighteen candidates confident errors rise on jargon and slang. On two datasets neither release saw, accuracy moves by -8.4 and +5.6 points. We also report four evaluation hazards from comparing the two releases.