Current evaluations of geospatial reasoning in LLMs are frequently impeded by the entanglement of factual recall and spatial logic, which often obscures the models’ true capabilities in complex city-scale environments. To address this, we introduce UrbanGeoEval, a comprehensive benchmark featuring a dual-module framework designed to disentangle these competencies. The Knowledge Module assesses urban memory via scalable map-based queries, while the Reasoning Module isolates pure logical inference across 3,148 realistic tasks by providing necessary geospatial context. Unlike prior benchmarks that hand the model pre-computed spatial text, UrbanGeoEval provides raw geometry and forces the model to act as a spatial computing engine. Our evaluation methodology introduces a reliable hybrid pipeline that merges deterministic programmatic checks with an LLM-as-a-Judge, achieving expert-level evaluation accuracy. Extensive experiments on 18 widely used LLMs uncover critical insights: (1) models exhibit severe geographic biases and resolution gaps; (2) failures in complex multi-hop tasks often stem from brittle foundational spatial skills rather than high-level logic deficits. UrbanGeoEval provides a precise diagnostic tool for advancing urban geospatial intelligence in LLMs.

Despite their strong reasoning capabilities and extensive world knowledge, Large Language Models (LLMs) frequently generate plans that violate task constraints, undermining their reliability in real-world applications. This deficiency arises from a lack of systematic mechanisms to incorporate constraint information during the generation process. While existing approaches attempt to mitigate this by relying on external tools or task decomposition, they fail to enhance the model’s intrinsic constraint awareness. To address this, we propose Constraint-Aware Reinforcement Learning (CARL), a novel RL framework designed to strengthen LLMs’ intrinsic focus on constraints. CARL introduces a constraint-aware reward by comparing the model’s output distributions under constrained and unconstrained inputs, encouraging constraint focus and penalizing neglect.Compatible with various RL frameworks and requiring no external solvers or top models, CARL enables scalable, end-to-end constraint-aware planning. Extensive experiments on BlocksWorld, TravelPlanner, and T-Eval demonstrate that CARL significantly outperforms standard Reinforcement Fine-Tuning (RFT) baselines and state-of-the-art reasoning models, exhibiting a markedly increased focus on constraints.

Reinforcement Learning (RL) is the dominant paradigm for training Large Language Model (LLM) agents on long-horizon tasks. However, sparse and delayed rewards often lead to trajectory neglect, in which agents lose focus on the task goal and interaction history at intermediate steps. Prior work has explored step-level supervision using Shannon-entropy–based uncertainty signals, which conflate inherent state complexity with agent confidence and therefore provide unreliable estimates of decision reliability. To address this issue, we propose normalized entropy, which measures confidence deviations relative to an agent’s average behavior under a given state, thereby strengthening the association between low-quality actions and trajectory neglect. Building on this insight, we introduce Selective Trajectory-Aware Policy Optimization (STAPO), a hierarchical group-based RL framework. STAPO leverages normalized entropy to locate outlier steps associated with trajectory neglect and optimizes them via a joint mechanism of trajectory-aware reward and trajectory-independent penalty, enhancing trajectory awareness while preserving training stability. Extensive experiments on ALFWorld, WebShop, and Search-Augmented QA demonstrate that STAPO achieves state-of-the-art performance while substantially alleviating trajectory neglect, validating its effectiveness and robustness for agentic tasks.

This study addresses a critical gap in safety tuning practices for Large Language Models (LLMs) by identifying and tackling a refusal position bias within safety tuning data, which compromises the models’ ability to appropriately refuse generating unsafe content. We introduce a novel approach, Decoupled Refusal Training (DeRTa), designed to empower LLMs to refuse compliance to harmful prompts at any response position, significantly enhancing their safety capabilities. DeRTa incorporates two novel components: (1) Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) with Harmful Response Prefix, which trains models to recognize and avoid unsafe content by appending a segment of harmful response to the beginning of a safe response, and (2) Reinforced Transition Optimization (RTO), which equips models with the ability to transition from potential harm to safety refusal consistently throughout the harmful response sequence. Our empirical evaluation, conducted using LLaMA3 and Mistral model families across six attack scenarios, demonstrates that our method not only improves model safety without compromising performance but also surpasses baseline methods in defending against attacks.

Conventional speculative decoding (SD) methods utilize a predefined length policy for proposing drafts, which implies the premise that the target model smoothly accepts the proposed draft tokens. However, reality deviates from this assumption: the oracle draft length varies significantly, and the fixed-length policy hardly satisfies such a requirement. Moreover, such discrepancy is further exacerbated in scenarios involving complex reasoning and long-form generation, particularly under test-time scaling for reasoning-specialized models. Through both theoretical and empirical estimation, we establish that the discrepancy between the draft and target models can be approximated by the draft model’s prediction entropy: a high entropy indicates a low acceptance rate of draft tokens, and vice versa. Based on this insight, we propose SVIP: Self-Verification Length Policy for Long-Context Speculative Decoding, which is a training-free dynamic length policy for speculative decoding systems that adaptively determines the lengths of draft sequences by referring to the draft entropy. Experimental results on mainstream SD benchmarks as well as reasoning-heavy benchmarks demonstrate the superior performance of SVIP, achieving up to 17% speedup on MT-Bench at 8K context compared with fixed draft lengths, and 22% speedup for QwQ in long-form reasoning.

The ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) to critique and refine their reasoning is crucial for their application in evaluation, feedback provision, and self-improvement. This paper introduces CriticBench, a comprehensive benchmark designed to assess LLMs’ abilities to critique and rectify their reasoning across a variety of tasks. CriticBench encompasses five reasoning domains: mathematical, commonsense, symbolic, coding, and algorithmic. It compiles 15 datasets and incorporates responses from three LLM families. Utilizing CriticBench, we evaluate and dissect the performance of 17 LLMs in generation, critique, and correction reasoning, i.e., GQC reasoning. Our findings reveal: (1) a linear relationship in GQC capabilities, with critique-focused training markedly enhancing performance; (2) a task-dependent variation in correction effectiveness, with logic-oriented tasks being more amenable to correction; (3) GQC knowledge inconsistencies that decrease as model size increases; and (4) an intriguing inter-model critiquing dynamic, where stronger models are better at critiquing weaker ones, while weaker models can surprisingly surpass stronger ones in their self-critique. We hope these insights into the nuanced critique-correct reasoning of LLMs will foster further research in LLM critique and self-improvement.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in general scenarios, exhibiting a level of aptitude that approaches, in some aspects even surpasses, human-level intelligence. Among their numerous skills, the translation abilities of LLMs have received considerable attention. Compared to typical machine translation that focuses solely on source-to-target mapping, LLM-based translation can potentially mimic the human translation process, which might take preparatory steps to ensure high-quality translation. This work explores this possibility by proposing the MAPS framework, which stands for Multi-Aspect Prompting and Selection. Specifically, we enable LLMs first to analyze the given source sentence and induce three aspects of translation-related knowledge (keywords, topics, and relevant demonstrations) to guide the final translation process. Moreover, we employ a selection mechanism based on quality estimation to filter out noisy and unhelpful knowledge. Both automatic (3 LLMs × 11 directions × 2 automatic metrics) and human evaluation (preference study and MQM) demonstrate the effectiveness of MAPS. Further analysis shows that by mimicking the human translation process, MAPS reduces various translation errors such as hallucination, ambiguity, mistranslation, awkward style, untranslated text, and omission. Source code is available at https://github.com/zwhe99/MAPS-mt.

Neural machine translation (NMT) systems often produce inadequate translations for named entities. In this study, we conducted preliminary experiments to examine the factors affecting the translation accuracy of named entities, specifically focusing on their translation difficulty and context diversity. Based on our observations, we propose a novel data augmentation strategy to enhance the accuracy of named entity translation. The main concept behind our approach is to increase both the context diversity and translation probability for the targeted named entity pair. To achieve this, we construct additional samples for named entities that exhibit high translation difficulty or low context diversity and use the augmented training data to re-train the final translation model. Furthermore, we propose an entity-aware machine translation metric that prefers the translation output to generate more accurate named entities. Our experimental results demonstrate significant improvements over the baseline in terms of general translation performance and named entity translation accuracy across various test sets, such as WMT news translation and terminology test sets.

Modern large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT have shown remarkable performance on general language tasks but still struggle on complex reasoning tasks, which drives the research on cognitive behaviors of LLMs to explore human-like problem-solving strategies. Along this direction, one representative strategy is self-reflection, which asks an LLM to refine the solution with the feedback generated by itself iteratively. However, our study shows that such reflection-style methods suffer from the Degeneration-of-Thought (DoT) problem: once the LLM has established confidence in its solutions, it is unable to generate novel thoughts later through reflection even if its initial stance is incorrect. To address the DoT problem, we propose a Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) framework, in which multiple agents express their arguments in the state of “tit for tat” and a judge manages the debate process to obtain a final solution. Clearly, our MAD framework encourages divergent thinking in LLMs which would be helpful for tasks that require deep levels of contemplation. Experiment results on two challenging datasets, commonsense machine translation and counter-intuitive arithmetic reasoning, demonstrate the effectiveness of our MAD framework. Extensive analyses suggest that the adaptive break of debate and the modest level of “tit for tat” state are required for MAD to obtain good performance. Moreover, we find that LLMs might not be a fair judge if different LLMs are used for agents.

Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT have exhibited remarkable abilities on a wide range of natural language processing (NLP) tasks, including various machine translation abilities accomplished during chat. However, these models are only accessible through restricted APIs, which creates barriers to new research and advancements in the field. Therefore, we propose ParroT, a framework to enhance and regulate the translation abilities during chat based on open-source LLMs (e.g., LLaMA), human-written translation and feedback data. Specifically, ParroT reformulates translation data into the instruction-following style, and introduces a “Hint” field for incorporating extra requirements to regulate the translation process. Accordingly, we propose three instruction types for finetuning ParroT models, including translation instruction, contrastive instruction, and error-guided instruction. Experiments on Flores subsets and WMT22 test sets suggest that translation instruction improves the translation performance of vanilla LLMs significantly while error-guided instruction can lead to further improvement, which demonstrates the importance of learning from low-quality translations annotated by humans. We also demonstrate the potential of automatic evaluation tools in providing quality information of translations, when constructing error-guided instructions for directions that lack human annotation data. Please refer to our Github project for more implementation details: https://github.com/wxjiao/ParroT.