#01Nov 12, 2026
cs.LG
Negative-Only Policy Optimization for One-Sided Verifiable Rewards
Jiacheng Xu, Shuo He, Fuxiang Zhang and 2 more
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) typically relies on a verifier that can reliably judge whether sampled solutions are correct. However, in many realistic settings, complete verification is generally unavailable, while cheap checks can only falsify failures. We formalize this regime as one-sided verifiability (OSV): verified negatives are reliable counterexamples, but verified positives are merely non-falsified candidates and may contain many false positives. This asymmetry makes standard RLVR unreliable, because reinforcing verified positives can directly reward shortcuts that pass partial checks. To address this issue, we propose Negative-Only Policy Optimization (NOPO), which treats verified positives as unlabeled and updates the policy only by suppressing trusted verified negatives. Specifically, NOPO combines a reference-relative negative suppression loss with a group-level adapter that scales each update by the proportion of non-falsified responses. Across unit-test, constraint-check, and LLM self-verifiers, NOPO improves pass@k over baselines on code, logic, and math benchmarks when oracle rewards are unavailable. These gains persist under inference-time scaling and cross-benchmark transfer.
#02Nov 12, 2026
cs.CV
Unbundling Multimodal Vision Encoding
Ellis Brown, Chris Hoang, Shengyi Qian and 9 more
How multimodal language models should encode visual input remains up for debate. Most models use a pretrained vision encoder, while some recent recipes train the encoder from scratch with the language model or remove it entirely. Vision encoders bundle together three design choices: a visual prior from upstream pretraining, dedicated vision capacity, and pre-fusion placement of that capacity (i.e., before the multimodal backbone). Because published models also differ in data, architecture, and compute, comparing them cannot isolate the effect of each choice. We disentangle these choices via a controlled framework where we pretrain all models from scratch on common data and compare them on visual question answering and language benchmarks at matched lifetime compute. We find that the visual prior is not necessary; an encoder trained jointly from scratch is on par with a pretrained one, without a separate training stage. What matters instead is dedicated vision capacity: an encoder-free model trails on visual understanding even when its backbone is enlarged by the encoder's parameter count. Yet that capacity need not precede multimodal fusion, as vision-only modules added in-fusion to early backbone layers perform comparably to a pre-fusion encoder and can lower time to first token. These results also hold across backbone sizes, when encoder pretraining is treated as free, and when starting from a pretrained language model. Overall, our findings favor dedicated vision capacity trained jointly with the backbone and placed early within it.
#03Nov 12, 2026
cs.CL
Learning When Diffusion Language Models Should Regenerate
Minhae Oh, Jeonghye Kim, Jinwoo Koo and 4 more
Remasking allows diffusion language models to revisit generated text, but effective correction requires knowing when and what to revise. Our diagnosis on Sudoku reveals two gaps. Hidden states contain error information that token confidence does not reliably expose, and remasking an isolated error usually reproduces it when the surrounding context remains fixed. These findings motivate DiVR , a verifier that predicts whether a partially generated sequence will reach a correct answer. Trained on the final correctness of the model's own trajectories, DiVR decides when to regenerate a block and which alternative to retain, while the generator itself stays unchanged. On five reasoning benchmarks with LLaDA-8B-Base, DiVR raises the average accuracy of the fine-tuned generator from 35.3\% to 43.4\% at $1.9$-$3.5\times$ the cost of greedy decoding, above search baselines that use $3.8$-$7.4\times$. It also complements post-training such as supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning, and generalizes to other generators, including Dream.
#04Nov 12, 2026
cs.CL
Goal Encoding in LLMs
Arnab Sen Sharma, Eric Todd, Sheridan Feucht and 7 more
We investigate whether and how LLMs encode goals: internal neural representations that precede and guide action, and that are flexible enough to be realized through many different execution paths. We construct a coding setting with multiple sub-tasks that allows us to evaluate goal-seeking behavior and the selection of sub-goals. In this setting, we localize an encoding of the next sub-goal in the outputs of a sparse set of attention heads. The same heads can be used to decode the LM's future actions in natural language (e.g., "I'm checking if a word is a palindrome"). We verify that this encoding is causal for next action and is plastic: transplanting it into a different environment, e.g., another programming language, triggers the same operation realized with a different sequence of tokens. The LM also sustains the encoding throughout the action's execution, which is puzzling because a transformer LM without recurrence cannot carry a state forward for more tokens than it has layers left. We propose that it does not need to. Under a non-recurrent goal-seeking (NRGS) account, the LM frequently re-reads the goal from the task specification, compares it with the progress visible in the growing context, and pursues what remains. We test the predictions of this account with targeted causal interventions.
#05Nov 12, 2026
cs.AI
AgentSSL: Can MLE Agents Leverage Unlabeled Data?
Ethan Lin, Akanksha Sarkar, Ziang Liu and 2 more
Applying machine learning systems to new domains introduces bottlenecks in both labeled data acquisition and manual pipeline engineering. While recent MLE agents show promise in automating pipeline design, they have been studied almost exclusively in fully supervised settings, leaving them untested in realistic regimes where labeled data is scarce but unlabeled data is abundant. In this work, we introduce Agentic Semi-Supervised Learning (AgentSSL), framing SSL as a program search problem and studying how agents navigate this space under limited supervision. We find that even under weak feedback and matched compute, agents can synthesize code that combines and adapts established SSL techniques, exceeding the strongest human-engineered baselines in 8 of 12 settings by up to +21.8%. However, our results identify program selection as a critical bottleneck in AgentSSL, where performance drops by as much as 47% when selecting based on the agent's feedback metric. To systematically study this bottleneck, we introduce ProgramSelectBench, a large-scale benchmark with a combined total of 16,977 agent-generated and human-engineered SSL programs, and evaluate both unsupervised and active program selection methods. We further evaluate AgentSSL on real-world ecology detection tasks, highlighting the opportunities and challenges of transferring agent-discovered strategies beyond controlled benchmarks.