中 EN
Sign In Register
×

Academic Intelligence · Curated Daily

Explore the Frontier of Global Academia

AcademicHub aggregates real-time literature from top journals and preprint platforms. Build your personal research radar and let large language models compile cross-disciplinary analysis briefings automatically.

Sign In Register
Authors: Zhijun Li ×
↻ Shuffle
01.
arXiv (CS.AI) 2026-06-25

ECM Contracts: Contract-Aware, Versioned, and Governable Capability Interfaces for Embodied Agents

Authors:
Xue Qin↗Simin Luan↗Cong Yang↗Zhijun Li↗

arXiv:2604.13097v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Embodied agents increasingly rely on modular capabilities that are installed, upgraded, composed, and governed at runtime, yet the interfaces between these modules are specified only at the level of message types, so integration failures surface only during execution. We present ECM Contracts, a contract-based interface model for embodied capability modules. Unlike conventional interfaces that specify only input and output types, ECM Contracts encode six dimensions of embodied execution: functional signature, behavioral assumptions, resource requirements, permission boundaries, recovery semantics, and version compatibility. On this model we build a compatibility framework that checks installation, composition, and upgrade before deployment, and a release discipline of version-aware compatibility classes and upgrade gates. We evaluate the prototype by predicting real, independently documented integration failures in the ROS ecosystem: contracts are reconstructed blind from each module's published interface, scored by a checker frozen before reconstruction against bugs from third-party datasets, and confirmed in live runtime execution. Contract checking predicts 56% and 72% of these documented failures across two substrates, against at most 17% for the strongest type and quality-of-service baselines, with the advantage statistically significant and zero false positives on matched-good controls. The resource and version dimensions carry most of this margin; the behavioral dimension adds little beyond the middleware's quality-of-service check, and we report the permission and recovery dimensions as forward-looking. Stable embodied software ecosystems require not just modular packaging but explicit contracts connecting composition, governance, and evolution.

Read & Discuss → View Source →
02.
arXiv (CS.CL) 2026-06-18

Enhancing Multilingual Reasoning via Steerable Model Merging

Authors:
Zhuoran Li↗Rui Xu↗Jian Yang↗Junnan Liu↗Zhijun Chen↗Qianren Mao↗Hongcheng Guo↗Jiaheng Liu↗Likang Xiao↗Ming Li↗Xiaojie Wang↗

Model merging is an effective technique for composing the capabilities of a multilingual model and a reasoning model. It has achieved promising generalization in multilingual reasoning tasks by aligning feature spaces of different models. However, the merged single model often fails to address the conflicts between source models, leading to suboptimal performance. In other words, the one-size-fits-all merging strategy may not align with the characteristics of different inputs which may require prioritizing certain models over others. To this end, we propose a Steerable Model Merging (ST-Merge) framework to modulate the contribution of each source model. To realize this idea, we introduce a gated cross-attention mechanism to weight or filter the two attended source models in an adaptive manner. Extensive experiments demonstrate that ST-Merge consistently outperforms multiple strong baselines on four multilingual reasoning benchmarks across 21 different languages.

Read & Discuss → View Source →
03.
arXiv (CS.CL) 2026-06-16

Learning When to Sample: Confidence-Aware Selective Sampling for Efficient Chain-of-Thought Reasoning

Authors:
Juming Xiong↗Kevin Guo↗Congning Ni↗Wexin Liu↗Chao Yan↗Katherine Brown↗Avinash Baidya↗Xiang Gao↗Bradley Malin↗Zhijun Yin↗

Large language models (LLMs) can achieve strong reasoning performance through chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning, yet they often generate unnecessarily long reasoning paths that incur high inference cost. Self-consistency-based approaches push accuracy higher still, but they require sampling and aggregating multiple reasoning trajectories, leading to substantial computational overhead. In this paper, we introduce a confidence-aware selective sampling framework that, at inference time, analyzes a single reasoning trajectory to adaptively determine whether to rely on that trajectory alone or trigger multi-path sampling. The framework uses trajectory-level numeric features and sentence-level linguistic features extracted from reasoning states to guide selective multi-path reasoning. We train it on MedQA and evaluate it in-domain on MedQA and under calibration-only transfer on MathQA, MedMCQA, and MMLU, without further fine-tuning. Experimental results show that the proposed framework maintains comparable performance to full and efficient multi-path reasoning baselines, with accuracy changes of $-0.41 \pm 0.58$ and $-0.31 \pm 0.58$ percentage points, respectively, while reducing token usage by $71.7 \pm 5.0%$ and $36.6 \pm 9.1%$. These findings demonstrate that reasoning trajectories contain rich signals for uncertainty estimation, enabling a simple, transferable mechanism to balance accuracy and efficiency in LLM reasoning.

Read & Discuss → View Source →
04.
arXiv (CS.CL) 2026-06-16

CoRA: Confidence-Rationale Alignment for Reliable Chain-of-Thought Reasoning

Authors:
Juming Xiong↗Weixin Liu↗Kevin Guo↗Congning Ni↗Junchao Zhu↗Chongyu Qu↗Chao Yan↗Katherine Brown↗Avinash Baidya↗Xiang Gao↗Bradley Malin↗Zhijun Yin↗…

Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning can improve LLM performance, but high answer confidence may be misleading when the accompanying CoT rationale is plausible yet incomplete or poorly supported. We study confidence–rationale alignment: whether a model's confidence in its committed answer is justified by its generated rationale. We introduce a GRPO-based reinforcement learning framework that jointly rewards answer correctness, committed-answer probability, and rubric-based rationale support, where the rubric assesses grounding, coherence, task match, and connection to the selected answer without revealing the gold answer to the judge. Across MedQA, MathQA, and OpenBookQA using three open-weight LLMs, our method reduces the confidence–rationale alignment error by up to 26.51% compared with untuned checkpoints, SFT, and correctness-only GRPO, while maintaining competitive accuracy and often improving calibration. These results show that reliable CoT reasoning requires not only confident answers, but rationales that substantively support them.

Read & Discuss → View Source →