Daily Papers

Large language models (LLMs) deployed for logical reasoning in knowledge-intensive domains exhibit a subtle but critical failure: coherence can be vacuously achieved through systematic abstention. A model that withholds commitment to either entailment or refutation satisfies negation consistency while providing no utility. We introduce Coherence Under Commitment (CUC), a dual-query evaluation paradigm that jointly measures consistency and decisiveness. CUC contributes three innovations: (1) a commitment score c(φ) = p(φ) + p(lnotφ) quantifying probability mass allocated to decisive outcomes; (2) a deterministic elicitation protocol via normalized YES/NO log probabilities, eliminating sampling variance; and (3) a 3-way decision framework (True/False/Uncertain) operationalizing the coherence-commitment trade-off into metrics. Experiments on four open-weight LLMs (1B-3B) across 204 FOLIO examples expose a sharp frontier. Qwen2.5-3B achieves near-zero contradiction (E[v_{neg}]{=}0.025) but only 7.4% coverage, while TinyLlama-1.1B reaches 79.4% coverage with violations on every example. Coherence-only evaluation would rank the abstaining model first; CUC exposes this as vacuous, and the frontier generalizes to LogiQA~v2 (ρ{=}0.97). We argue that evaluation must report both coherence and non-vacuous commitment and release a toolkit for standardized assessment.

Speculative Decoding (SD) accelerates autoregressive large language model (LLM) inference by decoupling generation and verification. While recent methods improve draft quality by tightly coupling the drafter with the target model, the verification mechanism itself remains largely unchanged, relying on strict token-level rejection sampling. In practice, modern LLMs frequently operate in low-margin regimes where the target model exhibits weak preference among top candidates. In such cases, rejecting plausible runner-up tokens yields negligible information gain while incurring substantial rollback cost, leading to a fundamental inefficiency in verification. We propose Margin-Aware Speculative Verification, a training-free and domain-agnostic verification strategy that adapts to the target model's local decisiveness. Our method conditions verification on decision stability measured directly from the target logits and relaxes rejection only when strict verification provides minimal benefit. Importantly, the approach modifies only the verification rule and is fully compatible with existing target-coupled speculative decoding frameworks. Extensive experiments across model scales ranging from 8B to 235B demonstrate that our method delivers consistent and significant inference speedups over state-of-the-art baselines while preserving generation quality across diverse benchmarks.

As large language models (LLMs) increasingly mediate ethically sensitive decisions, understanding their moral reasoning processes becomes imperative. This study presents a comprehensive empirical evaluation of 14 leading LLMs, both reasoning enabled and general purpose, across 27 diverse trolley problem scenarios, framed by ten moral philosophies, including utilitarianism, deontology, and altruism. Using a factorial prompting protocol, we elicited 3,780 binary decisions and natural language justifications, enabling analysis along axes of decisional assertiveness, explanation answer consistency, public moral alignment, and sensitivity to ethically irrelevant cues. Our findings reveal significant variability across ethical frames and model types: reasoning enhanced models demonstrate greater decisiveness and structured justifications, yet do not always align better with human consensus. Notably, "sweet zones" emerge in altruistic, fairness, and virtue ethics framings, where models achieve a balance of high intervention rates, low explanation conflict, and minimal divergence from aggregated human judgments. However, models diverge under frames emphasizing kinship, legality, or self interest, often producing ethically controversial outcomes. These patterns suggest that moral prompting is not only a behavioral modifier but also a diagnostic tool for uncovering latent alignment philosophies across providers. We advocate for moral reasoning to become a primary axis in LLM alignment, calling for standardized benchmarks that evaluate not just what LLMs decide, but how and why.

Given the rapid progress of generative AI, there is a pressing need to systematically compare and choose between the numerous models and configurations available. The scale and versatility of such evaluations make the use of LLM-based judges a compelling solution for this challenge. Crucially, this approach requires first to validate the quality of the LLM judge itself. Previous work has focused on instance-based assessment of LLM judges, where a judge is evaluated over a set of responses, or response pairs, while being agnostic to their source systems. We argue that this setting overlooks critical factors affecting system-level ranking, such as a judge's positive or negative bias towards certain systems. To address this gap, we conduct the first large-scale study of LLM judges as system rankers. System scores are generated by aggregating judgment scores over multiple system outputs, and the judge's quality is assessed by comparing the resulting system ranking to a human-based ranking. Beyond overall judge assessment, our analysis provides a fine-grained characterization of judge behavior, including their decisiveness and bias.

Knowledge distillation (KD) is a widely adopted technique for transferring knowledge from large language models to smaller student models; however, conventional supervised KD often suffers from a distribution mismatch between training and inference. While on-policy KD approaches attempt to mitigate this issue by learning directly from student-generated outputs, they frequently encounter training instabilities because the distributional gap between the novice student and the expert teacher is often too wide to bridge directly. These challenges manifest as pathological gradients in forward KL objectives or diversity collapse in reverse KL regimes. To address these limitations, we propose Veto, an objective-level reformulation that constructs a geometric bridge in the logit space. Unlike prior methods that mix data samples, Veto creates an intermediate target distribution that promotes alignment between the teacher and the student. By introducing a tunable parameter beta, Veto serves as an Adaptive Gradient Veto that stabilizes optimization by suppressing harmful gradients on low-confidence tokens, while simultaneously acting as a Decisiveness Knob to balance reward-driven performance with output diversity. Extensive experiments across various reasoning and generation tasks demonstrate that Veto consistently outperforms supervised fine-tuning and existing on-policy baselines.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are entering urban governance, yet their outputs are highly sensitive to prompts that carry value judgments. We propose Prompt Commons - a versioned, community-maintained repository of prompts with governance metadata, licensing, and moderation - to steer model behaviour toward pluralism. Using a Montreal dataset (443 human prompts; 3,317 after augmentation), we pilot three governance states (open, curated, veto-enabled). On a contested policy benchmark, a single-author prompt yields 24 percent neutral outcomes; commons-governed prompts raise neutrality to 48-52 percent while retaining decisiveness where appropriate. In a synthetic incident log, a veto-enabled regime reduces time-to-remediation for harmful outputs from 30.5 +/- 8.9 hours (open) to 5.6 +/- 1.5 hours. We outline licensing (CC BY/BY-SA for prompts with optional OpenRAIL-style restrictions for artefacts), auditable moderation, and safeguards against dominance capture. Prompt governance offers a practical lever for cities to align AI with local values and accountability.