Legal QA benchmarks have predominantly focused on case law, overlooking the unique challenges of statute-centric regulatory reasoning. In statutory domains, relevant evidence is distributed across hierarchically linked documents, creating a statutory retrieval gap where conventional retrievers fail and models often hallucinate under incomplete context. We introduce SearchFireSafety, a structure- and safety-aware benchmark for statute-centric legal QA. Instantiated on fire-safety regulations as a representative case, the benchmark evaluates whether models can retrieve hierarchically fragmented evidence and safely abstain when statutory context is insufficient. SearchFireSafety adopts a dual-track evaluation framework combining real-world questions that require citation-aware retrieval and synthetic partial-context scenarios that stress-test hallucination and refusal behavior. Experiments across multiple large language models show that graph-guided retrieval substantially improves performance, but also reveal a critical safety trade-off: domain-adapted models are more likely to hallucinate when key statutory evidence is missing. Our findings highlight the need for benchmarks that jointly evaluate hierarchical retrieval and model safety in statute-centric regulatory settings.

Knowledge distillation (KD) is a widely adopted technique for transferring capabilities from large language models to smaller student models. However, conventional supervised KD often suffers from a distribution mismatch between training and inference. While on-policy KD approaches attempt to mitigate this issue by learning directly from student-generated outputs, they frequently encounter training instabilities and noisy teacher feedback during early optimization stages. These challenges manifest as pathological gradients in forward KL objectives when students encounter unfamiliar tokens, or as a collapse in distributional diversity within reverse KL regimes. To address these limitations, we propose Veto, an objective-level reformulation that constructs a geometric target distribution in logit space to emphasize agreement between the teacher and the student. By introducing a tunable parameter 𝛽, Veto serves as an Adaptive Gradient Veto that stabilizes optimization by suppressing harmful gradients on low-confidence tokens, while simultaneously acting as a Decisiveness Knob to balance reward-driven performance with output diversity. Extensive experiments across various reasoning and generation tasks demonstrate that Veto consistently outperforms supervised fine-tuning and existing on-policy baselines.

Improving the reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs) has largely relied on iterative self-training with model-generated data. While effective at boosting accuracy, existing approaches primarily reinforce successful reasoning paths, incurring a substantial calibration cost: models become overconfident and lose the ability to represent uncertainty. This failure has been characterized as a form of model collapse in alignment, where predictive distributions degenerate toward low-variance point estimates.We address this issue by reframing open-ended reasoning training as an epistemic learning problem, in which models must learn not only how to reason, but also when their reasoning should be trusted. We propose epistemically-calibrated reasoning (EpiCaR) as a training objective that jointly optimizes reasoning performance and calibration, and instantiate it within an iterative supervised fine-tuning framework using explicitly extracted meta-cognitive self-evaluation signals. Experiments on Llama-3 and Qwen-3 families demonstrate that our approach achieves Pareto-superiority over standard baselines in both accuracy and calibration, particularly in models with sufficient reasoning capacity (e.g., 3B+). This framework generalizes effectively to OOD mathematical reasoning (GSM8K) and code generation (MBPP). Ultimately, our approach enables a 3× reduction in the overall inference compute budget, matching the K=30 majority-vote performance of STaR with only K=10 confidence-weighted samples, entirely without the multi-model overhead of external verifiers.

Recent trends in LLMs development clearly show growing interest in the use and application of sovereign LLMs. The global debate over sovereign LLMs highlights the need for governments to develop their LLMs, tailored to their unique socio-cultural and historical contexts. However, there remains a shortage of frameworks and datasets to verify two critical questions: (1) how well these models align with users’ socio-cultural backgrounds, and (2) whether they maintain safety and technical robustness without exposing users to potential harms and risks. To address this gap, we construct a new dataset and introduce an analytic framework for extracting and evaluating the socio-cultural elements of sovereign LLMs, alongside assessments of their technical robustness. Our experimental results demonstrate that while sovereign LLMs play a meaningful role in supporting low-resource languages, they do not always meet the popular claim that these models serve their target users well. We also show that pursuing this untested claim may lead to underestimating critical quality attributes such as safety. Our study suggests that advancing sovereign LLMs requires a more extensive evaluation that incorporates a broader range of well-grounded and practical criteria.

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit strong reasoning abilities, often attributed to few-shot or zero-shot Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting. While effective, these methods require labor-intensive prompt engineering, raising the question of whether reasoning can be induced without reliance on explicit prompts. In this work, we unlock the reasoning capabilities of LLMs without explicit prompting.Inspired by zero-shot CoT and CoT-decoding, we propose a novel decoding strategy that systematically nudges LLMs to continue reasoning, thereby preventing immature reasoning processes. Specifically, we monitor the model’s generation and inject a designated phrase, whenever the model is likely to halt or drift away from logical reasoning process. Our experimental evaluations on diverse reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that our proposed strategy substantially improves LLM reasoning capabilities, highlighting the potential of decoding-based interventions as an alternative to traditional prompting techniques.

In abstractive summarization, the challenge of producing concise and accurate summaries arises from the vast amount of information contained in the source document. Consequently, although Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate fluent text, they often introduce inaccuracies by hallucinating content not found in the original source. While supervised fine-tuning methods that maximize likelihood contribute to this issue, they do not consistently enhance the faithfulness of the summaries. Preference-based optimization methods, such as Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), can further refine the model to align with human preferences. However, these methods still heavily depend on costly human feedback. In this work, we introduce a novel and straightforward approach called Model-based Preference Optimization (MPO) to fine-tune LLMs for improved summarization abilities without any human feedback. By leveraging the model’s inherent summarization capabilities, we create a preference dataset that is fully generated by the model using different decoding strategies. Our experiments on standard summarization datasets and various metrics demonstrate that our proposed MPO significantly enhances the quality of generated summaries without relying on human feedback. The code is publicly available at https://github.com/cjaep/MPO.

A primary challenge in abstractive summarization is hallucination—the phenomenon where a model generates plausible text that is absent in the source text. We hypothesize that the domain (or topic) of the source text triggers the model to generate text that is highly probable in the domain, neglecting the details of the source text. To alleviate this model bias, we introduce a decoding strategy based on domain-conditional pointwise mutual information. This strategy adjusts the generation probability of each token by comparing it with the token’s marginal probability within the domain of the source text. According to evaluation on the XSUM dataset, our method demonstrates improvement in terms of faithfulness and source relevance.

Adapter-based tuning, by adding light-weight adapters to multilingual pretrained language models (mPLMs), selectively updates language-specific parameters to adapt to a new language, instead of finetuning all shared weights. This paper explores an effective way to leverage a public pool of pretrained language adapters, to overcome resource imbalances for low-resource languages (LRLs). Specifically, our research questions are, whether pretrained adapters can be composed, to complement or replace LRL adapters. While composing adapters for multi-task learning setting has been studied, the same question for LRLs has remained largely unanswered. To answer this question, we study how to fuse adapters across languages and tasks, then validate how our proposed fusion adapter, namely FAD-X, can enhance a cross-lingual transfer from pretrained adapters, for well-known named entity recognition and classification benchmarks.