#01Oct 20, 2026
cs.CL
Benchmarking Arabic Dialects for Math Problems
Noor Abo Mokh, Teresa Lynn, Nizar Habash and 5 more
Mathematical reasoning remains underexplored for low-resource languages, including Dialectal Arabic. To bridge this gap, we introduce the DAR-MGSM (Dialectal Arabic Multilingual Grade School Math) Benchmark, the first manually curated benchmark for evaluating mathematical reasoning in Dialectal Arabic. DAR-MGSM consists of math word problems (MWPs) requiring multi-step reasoning and covers five major Arabic dialects alongside Modern Standard Arabic (MSA). The benchmark comprises two parallel versions: translated-only and translated & culturally localized. The latter version adapts entities and references to regional varieties. We evaluate eleven Arabic-centric and multilingual large language models on DAR-MGSM. The results show that the performance generally declines on the localized version, highlighting the challenges introduced by culturally grounded adaptations. However, the magnitude of this effect varies across models, with Arabic-centric models exhibiting different levels of sensitivity to localization. A mechanistic interpretability analysis shows that translated and localized variants of the same MWPs often induce distinct internal reasoning trajectories, even when aggregate accuracy remains similar. Overall, our results show that mathematical reasoning performance depends on both linguistic variety and cultural context.
#02Oct 20, 2026
cs.AI
Humans Correct Their Judgments Through Debate, but Weaker AI Models Do Not
Maria Victoria Carro, Denise Alejandra Mester, Facundo Nieto and 14 more
How can we effectively oversee AI systems that surpass human intelligence? AI Safety via Debate proposes that two AI systems argue opposing positions and a judge, either a human or a weaker model, decides which is correct. By facilitating supervisors in providing high-quality training signals, debate aims to encourage truthful and safe behavior from AI systems whose capabilities exceed our own. However, human judgment is not neutral: people often rely on biases which advanced AI systems may learn to exploit. Drawing on insights from collective intelligence and social cognition, this paper investigates whether debate can guide human and LLM supervisors toward the truth despite their prior beliefs. We evaluate several protocol configurations. We also explore setups inspired by the wisdom of the crowd such as the number and diversity of judges, as well as interaction mechanisms including deliberation and voting. Overall, we find that debate increases accuracy relative to prior beliefs for human judges, whereas the consultancy baseline, in which a single expert argues for one answer, does not. For weaker language models, however, the results are mixed: debate provides no comparable gains in most settings and can even reduce accuracy. Among multi-judge protocols, weighted voting produces the highest accuracy for human supervisors, whereas for LLMs none of them significantly improves group accuracy, even as the number of judges increases. Notably, the behavior of minority judges in non-diverse deliberation protocols suggests that, under symmetric settings, incorrect positions could be more persuasive than correct ones. These findings support debate as a viable path toward scalable human oversight, but cast doubt on its benefits for weaker AI supervisors, raising concerns about fully automated training and control pipelines in high-stakes settings.
#03Oct 20, 2026
cs.AI
Beyond the Sequentiality Bottleneck: A Hybrid Diffusion-Autoregressive Framework for Efficient Multimodal Reasoning
Wei Cai, Jian Zhao, Yuchen Yuan and 1 more
Autoregressive models (ARMs) face a "Sequentiality Bottleneck" in reasoning, while diffusion language models (DLMs) offer parallelism but lack semantic coherence. To addresses both limitations, we propose Collaborative Reasoning Asymmetric Learning (CoRAL), a hybrid framework via an Asymmetric Planner-Executor (APE) architecture: a DLM Planner generates K diverse reasoning trajectories in parallel, while a large ARM Executor selects the optimal plan and synthesizes the final answer. To train the Planner effectively, we introduce Reward-Guided Denoising for CoT (RDC), which integrates outcome-based rewards into the diffusion process to steer it toward goal-directed reasoning. Experiments on vision-language benchmarks show that CoRAL significantly outperforms prior diffusion-based methods and achieves competitive performance against strong ARMs, achieving both superior efficiency and quality.
#04Oct 20, 2026
cs.AI
OptScientist: Automated Discovery of Optimization Laws
Ma ZhenYao, Yue Liang, Jian-Qiao Zhu
Many scientific phenomena are best understood as outcomes of underlying optimization problems, yet automated scientific discovery has largely focused on recovering equations that describe observed input-output patterns. We introduce OptScientist, a novel automated framework for discovering compact symbolic optimization laws directly from data. OptScientist comprises (i) a model that infers symbolic optimization problems by first learning to represent data as an optimization problem and then extracting its symbolic form, and (ii) an LLM agentic system embedding the model in a discovery process that integrates theoretical priors from scientific literature, discovers candidate laws, abstracts their underlying mechanisms, and suggests new data to collect. We first evaluate OptScientist on OptFeynman, a novel benchmark of 99 physics-derived optimization problems, where OptScientist recovers ground-truth laws for over 80% of the problems and remains robust to noisy contextual information, while substantially outperforming machine-learning, symbolic, and LLM-based model-discovery baselines. On human risky choice and central-bank monetary policy, OptScientist discovers compact symbolic optimization laws that achieve held-out predictive performance competitive with leading baselines, while using few parameters and substantially fewer tokens than LLM baselines. Overall, OptScientist extends automated scientific discovery to uncovering optimization laws that generate observed phenomena, enabling automated theory building across the physical, biological, behavioral, and social sciences.
#05Oct 20, 2026
cs.AI
Sage-A1.5: From Long-Horizon Execution to Scientific Exploration with Capability Composition
Wenjie Lou, Tianshuo Peng, Shiyang Feng and 96 more
In this report, we introduce Sage-A1.5, a 35B Mixture-of-Experts agentic model that builds on A1 to advance long-horizon problem solving through adaptive capability composition. Compared with A1, Sage-A1.5 learns not only to solve individual tasks, but also to organize work and revise its approach during execution. Sage-A1.5 highlights three improvements: agentic orchestration, verification, and open scientific discovery. First, agentic orchestration extends single-agent execution through task delegation and parallel collaboration among subagents with isolated contexts, enabling complex tasks to be decomposed and addressed concurrently and supporting efficient execution while reducing interference across concurrent subagents. Second, agentic verification strengthens long-horizon reliability through progress checking, evidence validation, and reflective strategy revision, allowing the agent to recognize unproductive search paths and pursue alternative approaches. Third, open scientific discovery extends agentic capabilities beyond answering predefined questions to conducting exploratory research, connecting scientific inquiry with interactive analysis and inspectable research artifacts. We showcase these capabilities through complicated agentic tasks and multidisciplinary scientific applications. Besides, we hope Sage-A1.5 provides the community with an accessible foundation for open scientific discovery, offering a practical path from long-horizon task execution to collaborative, verifiable, and inspectable scientific exploration.