Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) efficiently trains large models by using sparse activation to lower costs, selecting a few experts based on data characteristics. For MoE, an unbalanced expert load will lead to inefficient expert utilization and routing collapse. Existing methods commonly achieve an expert-centered balancing strategy to solve it, prioritizing equal utilization of experts over semantic alignment between tokens and experts. However, this can lead to a pseudo-balance phenomenon: To ensure expert load balancing, the same input is randomly routed to different experts across training steps instead of the most matching one. It introduces two critical issues: (1) Severe knowledge overlap among experts, resulting in redundant representations and inefficient parameter utilization. (2) Difficulty in forming and stabilizing expert specialization. These issues limit the scalability of models, especially large language models (LLM). To address these limitations, we introduce Memory-Aware Routing (MAR), a training-phase approach that enhances existing load-balancing strategies. By equipping each expert with a memory buffer, our method explicitly models their long-term preferences, allowing historical experience to guide routing. This ensures that tokens are routed more consistently to compatible experts, mitigating the pseudo-balance problem while maintaining global load balance and fostering expert specialization. Experimental results show that MAR improves expert specialization by 35% and downstream accuracy by 2%-25%, doubles parameter efficiency, and matches baseline performance with only half the experts.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in simulating human behavior, yet existing agents often exhibit behavioral rigidity, a flaw frequently masked by the self-referential bias of current "LLM-as-a-judge" evaluations. By evaluating against empirical ground truth, we reveal a counter-intuitive phenomenon: increasing the intensity of prompt-driven reasoning does not enhance fidelity but rather exacerbates value polarization, collapsing population diversity. To address this, we propose the Context-Value-Action (CVA) architecture, grounded in the Stimulus-Organism-Response (S-O-R) model and Schwartz’s Theory of Basic Human Values. Unlike methods relying on self-verification, CVA decouples action generation from cognitive reasoning via a novel Value Verifier trained on authentic human data to explicitly model dynamic value activation. Experiments on CVABench, which comprises over 1.1 million real-world interaction traces, demonstrate that CVA significantly outperforms baselines. Our approach effectively mitigates polarization while offering superior behavioral fidelity and interpretability.

Recent Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) like DeepSeek-R1 have demonstrated remarkable success in complex reasoning tasks, exhibiting human-like patterns in exploring multiple alternative solutions. Upon closer inspection, however, we uncover a surprising phenomenon: The First is The Best, where alternative solutions are not merely suboptimal but potentially detrimental. This observation challenges widely accepted test-time scaling laws, leading us to hypothesize that errors within the reasoning path scale concurrently with test time. Through comprehensive empirical analysis, we characterize errors as a forest-structured Forest of Errors (FoE) and conclude that FoE makes the First the Best, which is underpinned by rigorous theoretical analysis. Leveraging these insights, we propose RED, a self-guided efficient reasoning framework comprising two components: I) Refining First, which suppresses FoE growth in the first solution; and II) Discarding Subs, which prunes subsequent FoE via dual-consistency. Extensive experiments across five benchmarks and six backbone models demonstrate that RED outperforms eight competitive baselines, achieving performance gains of up to 19.0% while reducing token consumption by 37.7%   70.4%. Moreover, comparative experiments on FoE metrics shed light on how RED achieves effectiveness.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have recently achieved remarkable success in complex reasoning tasks. However, closer scrutiny reveals persistent failure modes compromising performance and cost: I) Intra-step level, marked by calculation or derivation errors; II) Inter-step level, involving oscillation and stagnation; and III) Instance level, causing maladaptive over-thinking. Existing endeavors target isolated levels without unification, while their black-box nature and reliance on RL hinder explainability and controllability. To bridge these gaps, we conduct an in-depth white-box analysis, identifying key neurons (Mixture of Neurons, MoN) and their fluctuation patterns associated with distinct failures. Building upon these insights, we propose NeuReasoner, an explainable, controllable, and unified reasoning framework driven by MoN. Technically, NeuReasoner integrates lightweight MLPs for failure detection with a special token-triggered self-correction mechanism learned via SFT. During inference, special tokens are inserted upon failure detection to actuate controllable remedial behaviors. Extensive evaluations across six benchmarks, six backbone models (8B 70B) against nine competitive baselines, demonstrate that NeuReasoner achieves performance gains of up to 27.0% while reducing token consumption by 19.6%   63.3%.

Values are core drivers of individual and collective perception, cognition, and behavior. Value systems, such as Schwartz’s Theory of Basic Human Values, delineate the hierarchy and interplay among these values, enabling cross-disciplinary investigations into decision-making and societal dynamics. Recently, the rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) has raised concerns regarding their elusive intrinsic values. Despite growing efforts in evaluating, understanding, and aligning LLM values, a psychologically grounded LLM value system remains underexplored. This study addresses the gap by introducing the Generative Psycho-Lexical Approach (GPLA), a scalable, adaptable, and theoretically informed method for constructing value systems. Leveraging GPLA, we propose a psychologically grounded five-factor value system tailored for LLMs. For systematic validation, we present three benchmarking tasks that integrate psychological principles with cutting-edge AI priorities. Our results reveal that the proposed value system meets standard psychological criteria, better captures LLM values, improves LLM safety prediction, and enhances LLM alignment, when compared to the canonical Schwartz’s values.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are transforming diverse fields and gaining increasing influence as human proxies. This development underscores the urgent need for evaluating value orientations and understanding of LLMs to ensure their responsible integration into public-facing applications. This work introduces ValueBench, the first comprehensive psychometric benchmark for evaluating value orientations and understanding in LLMs. ValueBench collects data from 44 established psychometric inventories, encompassing 453 multifaceted value dimensions. We propose an evaluation pipeline grounded in realistic human-AI interactions to probe value orientations, along with novel tasks for evaluating value understanding in an open-ended value space. With extensive experiments conducted on six representative LLMs, we unveil their shared and distinctive value orientations and exhibit their ability to approximate expert conclusions in value-related extraction and generation tasks.