6 Papers

23.3CLApr 12
CodaRAG: Connecting the Dots with Associativity Inspired by Complementary Learning

Cheng-Yen Li, Xuanjun Chen, Claire Lin et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) struggle with knowledge-intensive tasks due to hallucinations and fragmented reasoning over dispersed information. While Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) grounds generation in external sources, existing methods often treat evidence as isolated units, failing to reconstruct the logical chains that connect these dots. Inspired by Complementary Learning Systems (CLS), we propose CodaRAG, a framework that evolves retrieval from passive lookup into active associative discovery. CodaRAG operates via a three-stage pipeline: (1) Knowledge Consolidation to unify fragmented extractions into a stable memory substrate; (2) Associative Navigation to traverse the graph via multi-dimensional pathways-semantic, contextualized, and functional-explicitly recovering dispersed evidence chains; and (3) Interference Elimination to prune hyper-associative noise, ensuring a coherent, high-precision reasoning context. On GraphRAG-Bench, CodaRAG achieves absolute gains of 7-10% in retrieval recall and 3-11% in generation accuracy. These results demonstrate CodaRAG's superior ability to systematically robustify associative evidence retrieval for factual, reasoning, and creative tasks.

67.2LGMay 11
Equilibrium Residuals Expose Three Regimes of Matrix-Game Strategic Reasoning in Language Models

Wenhua Nie, Binhan Luo, Zijie Meng et al.

Large language models can score well on named game-theory benchmarks while failing on the same strategic computation once semantic cues are removed. We show this gap with procedurally generated zero-sum matrix games: a model that recognizes familiar games drops to 34%, 18%, and 2% success on anonymous $2{\times}2$, $3{\times}3$, and $5{\times}5$ payoff matrices. The benchmark separates semantic recall, learned approximate Nash computation, and an output-interface bottleneck that limits scale. Training only on $2{\times}2$ and $3{\times}3$ games, supervised fine-tuning raises unseen $5{\times}5$--$7{\times}7$ success from 2% to 61%, while exploitability-reward training averages 37% with high seed variance. We prove that the exploitability residual is $2$-Lipschitz in payoff perturbations, unlike discontinuous vertex-returning LP equilibrium selectors, explaining why residual training can transfer under payoff shifts even when formatting instability limits mean performance. A dominated-action padding experiment provides causal evidence: trained models solve $3{\times}3$ games embedded in much larger matrices, while random-padded controls fail and dense $12{\times}12$ games remain near failure. Procedural evaluation is therefore necessary for measuring strategic reasoning, and residual rewards expose a real but format-limited route to approximate equilibrium computation.

48.3LGMay 11
Identified-Set Geometry of Distributional Model Extraction under Top-$K$ Censored API Access

Wenhua Nie, ZiCheng Zhu, Jianan Wu et al.

Modern LLM APIs often reveal only top-$K$ logit scores and censor the remaining vocabulary. We study the per-position distribution-recovery limits of this access model. For censoring threshold $τ$, the compatible teacher distributions form an identified set whose total-variation diameter is exactly $U_K=(V-K)\exp(τ)/(Z_A+(V-K)\exp(τ))$, where $Z_A$ is the observed partition function. For KL recovery, we give a computable binary-endpoint lower bound and an asymptotically matching small-ambiguity upper bound, with an extension to reference-aware attackers. Experiments on a Qwen3 math-reasoning teacher reveal a layered extraction hierarchy: on-task top-$K$ distillation recovers 12% of private capability, full-logit distillation recovers 56% despite 99% KL closure, and generation-based extraction recovers 96%. Top-$K$ censoring therefore limits per-position distribution recovery but does not by itself prevent capability extraction, separating fidelity from transfer in prompt-only logit distillation.

82.4LGMay 8
Gradient Starvation in Binary-Reward GRPO: Why Group-Mean Centering Fails and Why the Simplest Fix Works

Wenhua Nie, Jianan Wu, Junlin Liu et al.

Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) is a standard algorithm for reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards, but its group-mean-centered advantage can fail under binary rewards. The failure mode is gradient starvation: when every response in a group is correct or every response is wrong, the centered advantage is exactly zero and the policy receives no learning signal. We prove that the true degeneracy rate always exceeds the i.i.d. Bernoulli prediction by Jensen's inequality, and observe a 0.69 degeneracy rate at group size four in logged Qwen3.5-9B GSM8K training. We then show that the fixed-reference Sign advantage, $A=2r-1$, performs pass@$G$ failure descent by increasing the probability that at least one sample in the group succeeds. On the full GSM8K test set across seven seeds, Sign reaches 73.8% accuracy versus 28.4% for standard normalized group-mean DrGRPO at group size four, a 45.4 point gain with $p<0.0001$. The effect is directionally consistent on Llama-3.1-8B and positive but underpowered on a MATH-500 transfer check. Pass@$k$ analysis indicates that the main benefit is search compression rather than large capacity expansion, aligning the empirical gains with recent RLVR ceiling observations.

79.6LGMay 8
Future Validity is the Missing Statistic: From Impossibility to $Φ$-Estimation for Grammar-Faithful Speculative Decoding

Wenhua Nie, Zijie Meng, Kun Zou et al.

Grammar-constrained generation is often combined with local vocabulary masking and speculative decoding, but the resulting sampling law is not the grammar-conditional distribution users usually intend. We show that any speculative decoder with local mask access, Leviathan rejection, and rollback soundness samples from the locally projected distribution $μ^{\mathrm{proj}}$ rather than the grammar-conditional distribution $μ^\star$. This extends the GAD impossibility result to speculative decoding; on Dyck grammars with Qwen3-8B, the total-variation gap can reach 0.996. We identify the future-validity function $Φ_t(y)=\Pr_p[\mathrm{valid\ completion}\mid y]$ as the missing correction statistic. The target distribution is a Doob transform of the base model with $h=Φ$, while local masking corresponds to setting $h$ to one. With exact $Φ$, our oracle decoder FVO-Spec samples exactly from $μ^\star$; with approximate $Φ$, we bound the resulting total-variation error. Because exact future validity is hard for general context-free grammars, we evaluate estimator hierarchies on tractable Dyck and finite JSON languages. OneStep reduces Dyck TV by 14% with under 1% throughput overhead, exact dynamic programming reduces it by 97%, and finite-language correction closes JSON gaps to numerical precision. All fidelity claims are scoped to enumerable grammars and token tries.

70.7LGMay 8
The Coupling Tax: How Shared Token Budgets Undermine Visible Chain-of-Thought Under Fixed Output Limits

Wenhua Nie, Junlin Liu, Jianan Wu et al.

Chain-of-thought reasoning is often treated as a monotone way to improve language-model accuracy by letting a model think longer. We identify a countervailing effect, the coupling tax: when reasoning traces and final answers share one output-token budget, long traces can crowd out the answer they are meant to support. Across GSM8K, MATH-500, and five BIG-Bench Hard tasks with Qwen3 models at three scales, non-thinking mode matches or outperforms thinking mode on GSM8K and MATH-500 at every budget up to 2048 tokens, while harder tasks shift the crossover to larger budgets. We derive a truncation-waste decomposition, $\mathrm{Acc}_{\mathrm{think}}(b)=α_c F_L(b)+α_t(1-F_L(b))$, that predicts this crossover from chain-length and accuracy statistics and explains inverse scaling within the Qwen family. A DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-8B replication shows the same pattern under a different thinking interface. As a mitigation, split-budget generation decouples reasoning and answer budgets; on full MATH-500, IRIS reaches 74.0% accuracy, a strengthened extraction variant reaches 78.8%, and a fixed non-oracle SC+IRIS gate reaches 83.6%. The results show that test-time reasoning should be evaluated as a budget-allocation problem, not only as a question of whether longer traces are available.