arXiv subjects

Zhanzhi Lou

Publications and source records attributed to Zhanzhi Lou.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Learning to Learn-at-Test-Time: Language Agents with Learnable Adaptation Policies

Test-Time Learning (TTL) enables language agents to iteratively refine their performance through repeated interactions with the environment at inference time. At the core of TTL is an adaptation policy that updates the actor policy based on experience from previous episodes, thereby improving future behavior. Existing methods rely on fixed, hand-crafted adaptation policies rather than optimizing them for downstream improvement. We argue that optimal adaptation policies should be learned from task environments, not hand-engineered based on human intuition. To achieve this, we introduce Meta-TTL, a framework that formulates the discovery of effective adaptation policies as a bi-level optimization problem. Within this framework, the inner loop executes the standard TTL process, measuring how effectively a candidate adaptation policy helps an agent correct errors across sequential episodes. Guided by the agent's performance, the outer loop employs evolutionary search over a diverse distribution of training tasks to continually optimize the adaptation policy. We evaluate Meta-TTL on Jericho, WebArena-Lite, and $τ^2$-bench across both in-distribution (ID) and out-of-distribution (OOD) settings. Results on all three show that Meta-TTL consistently outperforms single-agent, prompt-optimization, and unoptimized meta-agent baselines, suggesting that the optimized adaptation policy encodes transferable strategies that generalize beyond the training task distribution.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Chain-of-Models: Cross-Model Auditing for Bias-Robust LLM Judges

LLMs increasingly serve as automated judges, but their judgments remain vulnerable to cognitive biases. Existing mitigations mostly rely on prompt-driven debiasing, which is brittle across bias types, or human evaluation, which does not scale. We study \emph{Chain-of-Models} (CoM), an automated audit pipeline in which a second model inspects the first model's reasoning trace before producing the final judgment. The key design question is whether the auditor should be the same model, a same-family model, or a different-family model. Across 9 models from 6 families, 4 cognitive biases, and 4 factual datasets, we find that auditor identity matters in two ways. First, standalone bias resistance does not predict audit effectiveness: Kimi-K2.5 is the strongest standalone model on several biases, yet is a weak auditor for Qwen2.5-72B's biased traces. Second, the best auditor is bias-specific: GPT-4o is strongest on bandwagon, authority, and distraction, while GLM-5 is strongest on sycophancy. We operationalize these findings with a per-bias auditor selection rule that, given the bias type, scores candidates along functional diversity, per-bias standalone resistance, and calibrated audit effectiveness. Under a calibration/test split, the selector reaches the highest accuracy across the four biased slices ($0.884$ vs.\ $0.824$ for the strongest single fixed auditor and $0.805$ for the no-audit baseline). We release data, configurations, and an LLM-agent skill at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/chain-of-models-B585 .

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Making Bias Non-Predictive: Training Robust LLM Reasoning via Reinforcement Learning

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly serve as reasoners and automated evaluators, yet they remain susceptible to cognitive biases -- often altering their reasoning when faced with spurious prompt-level cues such as consensus claims or authority appeals.} Existing mitigations via prompting or supervised fine-tuning fail to generalize, as they modify surface behavior without changing the optimization objective that makes bias cues attractive. We propose \textbf{Epistemic Independence Training (EIT)}, a reinforcement learning framework grounded in a key principle: to learn independence, bias cues must be made non-predictive of reward. EIT operationalizes this through a balanced conflict strategy where bias signals are equally likely to support correct and incorrect answers, combined with a reward design that penalizes bias-following without rewarding bias agreement. Experiments on Qwen3-4B demonstrate that EIT improves both accuracy and robustness under adversarial biases, while preserving performance when bias aligns with truth. Notably, models trained only on bandwagon bias generalize to unseen bias types such as authority and distraction, indicating that EIT induces transferable epistemic independence rather than bias-specific heuristics. \revised{EIT further generalizes across benchmarks (MedQA, HellaSwag), model families (Llama-3.2-3B), and scales (Qwen3-8B), and outperforms distribution-shift methods (GroupDRO, IRM) without requiring environment labels.} Code and data are available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/bias-mitigation-with-rl-BC47

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Towards Evaluting Fake Reasoning Bias in Language Models

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs), evolved from standard Large Language Models (LLMs), are increasingly utilized as automated judges because of their explicit reasoning processes. Yet we show that both LRMs and standard LLMs are vulnerable to Fake Reasoning Bias (FRB), where models favor the surface structure of reasoning even when the logic is flawed. To study this problem, we introduce THEATER, a comprehensive benchmark that systematically investigates FRB by manipulating reasoning structures to test whether language models are misled by superficial or fabricated cues. It covers two FRB types: (1) Simple Cues, minimal cues that resemble reasoning processes, and (2) Fake CoT, fabricated chains of thought that simulate multi-step reasoning. We evaluate 17 advanced LLMs and LRMs on both subjective DPO and factual datasets. Our results reveal four key findings: (1) Both LLMs and LRMs are vulnerable to FRB, but LLMs are generally more robust than LRMs. (2) Simple Cues are especially harmful, reducing accuracy by up to 15% on the most vulnerable datasets. (3) Subjective DPO tasks are the most vulnerable, with LRMs suffering sharper drops than LLMs. (4) Analysis of LRMs' thinking traces shows that Simple Cues hijack metacognitive confidence, while Fake CoT is absorbed as internal thought, creating a "more thinking, less robust" paradox in LRMs. Finally, prompt-based mitigation improves accuracy on factual tasks by up to 10%, but has little effect on subjective tasks, where self-reflection sometimes lowers LRM performance by 8%. These results highlight FRB as a persistent and unresolved challenge for language models.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Assessing Judging Bias in Large Reasoning Models: An Empirical Study

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) like DeepSeek-R1 and OpenAI-o1 have demonstrated remarkable reasoning capabilities, raising important questions about their biases in LLM-as-a-judge settings. We present a comprehensive benchmark comparing judging biases between LLMs and LRMs across both subjective preference-alignment datasets and objective fact-based datasets. Through investigation of bandwagon, authority, position, and distraction biases, we uncover four key findings: (1) despite their advanced reasoning capabilities, LRMs remain susceptible to the above biases; (2) LRMs demonstrate better robustness than LLMs specifically on fact-related datasets; (3) LRMs exhibit notable position bias, preferring options in later positions; and (4) we identify a novel "superficial reflection bias" where phrases mimicking reasoning (e.g., "wait, let me think...") significantly influence model judgments. To address these biases, we design and evaluate three mitigation strategies: specialized system prompts that reduce judging biases by up to 19\% in preference alignment datasets and 14\% in fact-related datasets, in-context learning that provides up to 27\% improvement on preference tasks but shows inconsistent results on factual tasks, and a self-reflection mechanism that reduces biases by up to 10\% in preference datasets and 16\% in fact-related datasets, with self-reflection proving particularly effective for LRMs. Our work provides crucial insights for developing more reliable LLM-as-a-Judge frameworks, especially as LRMs become increasingly deployed as automated judges.

cs.CY↗