Role-playing agents (RPAs) require balancing multiple objectives, such as instruction following, persona consistency, and stylistic fidelity, which are not always perfectly aligned across different dimensions. While prior work has primarily relied on supervised fine-tuning or reinforcement learning with scalarized rewards, these approaches do not explicitly address the coordination of multiple reward dimensions during optimization. We present **MOA** (**M**ulti-**O**bjective **A**lignment), a reinforcement-learning framework that enables multi-dimensional, fine-grained rubric optimization for general RPAs. MOA introduces a novel multi-objective optimization strategy that trains simultaneously on multiple fine-grained rubrics to boost optimization performance. Besides, to address the issues of model output diversity and quality, we have also employed thought-augmented rollout with off-policy guidance. Experiments on PersonaGym and RoleMRC show that MOA consistently improves multi-dimensional role-playing performance over supervised and standard RL baselines. Under identical evaluation protocols, an 8B model trained with MOA reaches performance competitive with strong closed-source models across multiple evaluation dimensions. These results suggest that MOA provides a practical framework for training more capable general-purpose role-playing agents.

In-context learning (ICL) leverages demonstrations to enhance the performance of large language models (LLMs). However, traditional ICL struggles with complex reasoning mainly due to superficial, example-level implicit imitation. To address these limitations, we introduce **ThoughtICR**, an automated **Thought**-level **I**n-**C**ontext **R**easoning paradigm that shifts from surface-level examples to more guidance-oriented thought patterns. Specifically, we first define atomic reasoning actions and construct thought patterns on small-scale seed data using Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS). During inference, we dynamically select appropriate thought patterns based on target problem attributes, providing explicit guidance for model reasoning. Thanks to its automated and strategic design, our method enables seamless plug-and-play integration with various post-training techniques. Experimental results demonstrate that our method improves performance across different model sizes and generalizes effectively across reasoning domains. Using only small-scale seed data, we achieve 80.6% accuracy on MATH and 62.5% on AMC, surpassing GPT-4o’s 77.2% and 57.5%, respectively. Moreover, compared to test-time scaling methods, our approach reduces computational costs by over 10. Our code is available at https://github.com/jinyangwu/ThoughtICR.

Catastrophic forgetting remains a formidable obstacle to building an omniscient model in large language models (LLMs). Despite the pioneering research on task-level forgetting in LLM fine-tuning, there is scant focus on forgetting during pre-training. We systematically explored the existence and measurement of forgetting in pre-training, questioning traditional metrics such as perplexity (PPL) and introducing new metrics to better detect entity memory retention. Based on our revised assessment of forgetting metrics, we explored low-cost, straightforward methods to mitigate forgetting during the pre-training phase. In addition, we carefully analyzed the learning curves, offering insights into the dynamics of forgetting. Extensive evaluations and analyses on forgetting of pre-training could facilitate future research on LLMs.

The few-shot natural language understanding (NLU) task has attracted much recent attention. However, prior methods have been evaluated under a disparate set of protocols, which hinders fair comparison and measuring the progress of the field. To address this issue, we introduce an evaluation framework that improves previous evaluation procedures in three key aspects, i.e., test performance, dev-test correlation, and stability. Under this new evaluation framework, we re-evaluate several state-of-the-art few-shot methods for NLU tasks. Our framework reveals new insights: (1) both the absolute performance and relative gap of the methods were not accurately estimated in prior literature; (2) no single method dominates most tasks with consistent performance; (3) improvements of some methods diminish with a larger pretrained model; and (4) gains from different methods are often complementary and the best combined model performs close to a strong fully-supervised baseline. We open-source our toolkit, FewNLU, that implements our evaluation framework along with a number of state-of-the-art methods.