The demand for synthetic data in mathematical reasoning has increased due to its potential to enhance the mathematical capabilities of large language models (LLMs). However, ensuring the validity of intermediate reasoning steps remains a significant challenge, affecting data quality. While formal verification via theorem provers effectively validates LLM reasoning, the autoformalisation of mathematical proofs remains error-prone. In response, we introduce *iterative autoformalisation*, an approach that iteratively refines theorem prover formalisation to mitigate errors, thereby increasing the execution rate on the Lean prover from 60% to 87%. Building upon that, we introduce *Theorem Prover as a Judge (TP-as-a-Judge)*, a method that employs theorem prover formalisation to rigorously assess LLM intermediate reasoning, effectively integrating autoformalisation with synthetic data generation. Finally, we present *Reinforcement Learning from Theorem Prover Feedback (RLTPF),* a framework that replaces human annotation with theorem prover feedback in Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF). Across multiple LLMs, applying *TP-as-a-Judge* and *RLTPF* improves benchmarks with only 3,508 samples, achieving 5.56% accuracy gain on Mistral-7B for MultiArith, 6.00% on Llama-2-7B for SVAMP, and 3.55% on Llama-3.1-8B for AQUA.

Mathematical reasoning remains a significant challenge for large language models (LLMs), despite progress in prompting techniques such as Chain-of-Thought (CoT). We present **Chain of Mathematically Annotated Thought (CoMAT)**, which enhances reasoning through two stages: *Symbolic Conversion* (converting natural language queries into symbolic form) and *Reasoning Execution* (deriving answers from symbolic representations). CoMAT operates entirely with a single LLM and without external solvers. Across four LLMs, CoMAT outperforms traditional CoT on six out of seven benchmarks, achieving gains of 4.48% on MMLU-Redux (MATH) and 4.58% on GaoKao MCQ. In addition to improved performance, CoMAT ensures faithfulness and verifiability, offering a transparent reasoning process for complex mathematical tasks.

Multilingual representations embed words with similar meanings to share a common semantic space across languages, creating opportunities to transfer debiasing effects between languages. However, existing methods for debiassing are unable to exploit this opportunity because they operate on individual languages. We present Iterative Multilingual Spectral Attribute Erasure (IMSAE), which identifies and mitigates joint bias subspaces across multiple languages through iterative SVD-based truncation. Evaluating IMSAE across eight languages and five demographic dimensions, we demonstrate its effectiveness in both standard and zero-shot settings, where target language data is unavailable, but linguistically similar languages can be used for debiasing. Our comprehensive experiments across diverse language models (BERT, LLaMA, Mistral) show that IMSAE outperforms traditional monolingual and cross-lingual approaches while maintaining model utility.

Recent advancements in long-context language models (LCLMs) promise to transform Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) by simplifying pipelines. With their expanded context windows, LCLMs can process entire knowledge bases and perform retrieval and reasoning directly – a capability we define as In-Context Retrieval and Reasoning (ICR^2). However, existing benchmarks like LOFT often overestimate LCLM performance by providing overly simplified contexts. To address this, we introduce ICR^2, a benchmark that evaluates LCLMs in more realistic scenarios by including confounding passages retrieved with strong retrievers. We then propose three methods to enhance LCLM performance: (1) retrieve-then-generate fine-tuning, (2) retrieval-attention-probing, which uses attention heads to filter and de-noise long contexts during decoding, and (3) joint retrieval head training alongside the generation head. Our evaluation of five well-known LCLMs on LOFT and ICR^2 demonstrates significant gains with our best approach applied to Mistral-7B: +17 and +15 points by Exact Match on LOFT, and +13 and +2 points on ICR^2, compared to vanilla RAG and supervised fine-tuning, respectively. It even outperforms GPT-4-Turbo on most tasks despite being a much smaller model.

Large language models (LLMs) have advanced conversational AI assistants. However, systematically evaluating how well these assistants apply personalization—adapting to individual user preferences while completing tasks—remains challenging. Existing personalization benchmarks focus on chit-chat, non-conversational tasks, or narrow domains, failing to capture the complexities of personalized task-oriented assistance. To address this, we introduce PersonaLens, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating personalization in task-oriented AI assistants. Our benchmark features diverse user profiles equipped with rich preferences and interaction histories, along with two specialized LLM-based agents: a user agent that engages in realistic task-oriented dialogues with AI assistants, and a judge agent that employs the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm to assess personalization, response quality, and task success. Through extensive experiments with current LLM assistants across diverse tasks, we reveal significant variability in their personalization capabilities, providing crucial insights for advancing conversational AI systems.

Domain-specific quantitative reasoning remains a major challenge for large language models (LLMs), especially in fields requiring expert knowledge and complex question answering (QA). In this work, we propose Expert Question Decomposition (EQD), an approach designed to balance the use of domain knowledge with computational efficiency. EQD is built on a two-step fine-tuning framework and guided by a reward function that measures the effectiveness of generated sub-questions in improving QA outcomes. It requires only a few thousand training examples and a single A100 GPU for fine-tuning, with inference time comparable to zero-shot prompting. Beyond its efficiency, EQD outperforms state-of-the-art domain-tuned models and advanced prompting strategies. We evaluate EQD in the financial domain, characterized by specialized knowledge and complex quantitative reasoning, across four benchmark datasets. Our method consistently improves QA performance by 0.6% to 10.5% across different LLMs. Our analysis reveals an important insight: in domain-specific QA, a single supporting question often provides greater benefit than detailed guidance steps.