Shenglong Yao, Zirui Liu, Xiangchi Yuan, Wenke Lee
Recent benchmarks show that LLMs achieve strong performance in both function-level binary understanding and end-to-end binary reverse engineering tasks, but whether LLMs can reason over interprocedural semantics in compiled binaries remains unclear. Function-level benchmarks offer limited visibility into cross-function relationships, while whole-program benchmarks typically evaluate final outcomes of tasks that may be solvable from local clues alone, making it difficult to disentangle interprocedural reasoning from exploration, tool use, execution, and retrieval. To address this limitation, we introduce ICALL-BENCH, a benchmark that directly evaluates whether LLMs and agents can understand and reason over interprocedural semantics in binary programs, using indirect-call target recovery as a measurable probe. ICALL-BENCH covers 50 complete real-world C/C++ programs spanning different complexity levels and multiple optimization configurations, with an average of 74,746 lines of code and 941 functions per program. We further introduce three analysis regimes spanning model-only reasoning, static tool-augmented agents, and Internet-enabled open-world agents to examine how intrinsic reasoning, active information acquisition, and external knowledge each contribute to interprocedural binary analysis. We evaluate five recent LLMs and their corresponding agents. Our results reveal a wide separation across current models and agents, with program-level verifiable success rates ranging from 23% to 81%. They also show that greater information access does not consistently lead to better results, with particularly limited gains on the hardest cases, where deeper interprocedural reasoning remains the primary bottleneck. Uneven performance across models and frequent verifiable failures even under an optimistic evaluation indicate that robust binary interprocedural reasoning remains an open challenge.
Xiangchi Yuan, Xingjian Diao, Zheyuan Liu, Chunhui Zhang, Dachuan Shi, Kejing Xia, Zhenbang Du, Shenglong Yao 等 10 位作者
LLM post-training often optimizes multiple objectives with unequal priorities, such as correctness and reasoning efficiency. However, the widely used additive reward aggregation in RL can violate these priorities: when primary and auxiliary advantages conflict, a sufficiently large auxiliary signal can overturn the preference induced by the primary objective. We term this problem \emph{advantage priority inversion}. Although reward-level gating can protect priority more directly, it still removes potentially useful auxiliary distinctions among rollout samples that fail the primary condition. To address this trade-off, we propose Primary Advantage Policy Optimization (\textbf{PAPO}), a priority-aware advantage aggregation method that asymmetrically combines a primary and an auxiliary advantage. PAPO retains auxiliary supervision when the objectives agree and smoothly attenuates conflicting auxiliary signals, preserving the primary sign during fusion for \emph{primary-consistent ordering}. This rule applies to sequence-level advantages in GRPO and token-level advantages in actor--critic PPO. Experiments on multiple domains and models show that PAPO consistently achieves the best primary objective while maintaining best or competitive auxiliary-objective performance across both GRPO- and PPO-based optimization. \href{https://xiangchi-yuan.github.io/papo-project/}{Code is available}.
Xiangchi Yuan ByteDance Inc., Dachuan Shi Meta Superintelligence Labs and Georgia Institute of Technology, Chunhui Zhang Dartmouth College, Zheyuan Liu University of Notre Dame, Shenglong Yao, Soroush Vosoughi Dartmouth College, Wenke Lee Georgia Institute of Technology
Reinforcement learning (RL) is central to post-training, particularly for agentic models that require specialized reasoning behaviors. In this setting, model merging offers a practical mechanism for integrating multiple RL-trained agents from different tasks into a single generalist model. However, existing merging methods are designed for supervised fine-tuning (SFT), and they are suboptimal to preserve task-specific capabilities on RL-trained agentic models. The root is a task-vector mismatch between RL and SFT: on-policy RL induces task vectors that are highly sparse and heterogeneous, whereas SFT-style merging implicitly assumes dense and globally comparable task vectors. When standard global averaging is applied under this mismatch, RL’s non-overlapping task vectors that encode critical task-specific behaviors are reduced and parameter updates are diluted. To address this issue, we propose Reinforced Agent Merging (RAM), a distribution-aware merging framework explicitly designed for RL-trained agentic models. RAM disentangles shared and task-specific unique parameter updates, averaging shared components while selectively preserving and rescaling unique ones to counteract parameter update dilution. Experiments across multiple agent domains and model architectures demonstrate that RAM not only surpasses merging baselines, but also unlocks synergistic potential among agents to achieve performance superior to that of specialized agents in their domains.
尚无 AI 解读，展示原文摘要
cs.CL · cs.AI
Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · 2026 · 正式发表
Curriculum learning (CL), which orders training data from easy to hard, has become a popular strategy for improving reasoning in large language models (LLMs). Yet prior work employs disparate difficulty metrics and training setups, leaving open fundamental questions: When does curriculum help? Which direction—forward or reverse—is better? And does the answer depend on what we measure? We address these questions through a unified offline evaluation framework that decomposes curriculum difficulty into five complementary dimensions: Problem Difficulty, Model Surprisal, Confidence Margin, Predictive Uncertainty, and Decision Variability. Through controlled post-training experiments on mathematical reasoning benchmarks with Llama3.1-8B, Mistral-7B, and Gemma3-4B, we find that: (i) no curriculum strategy dominates universally—the relative effectiveness of forward versus reverse CL depends jointly on model capability and task complexity; (ii) even within a single metric, samples at different difficulty levels produce distinct gains depending on task demands; and (iii) Task-aligned curricula focus on shaping the model’s final representations and generalization, whereas inner-state curricula modulate internal states such as confidence and uncertainty. Our findings challenge the notion of a universal curriculum strategy and offer actionable guidance across model and task regimes, with some metrics indicating that prioritizing decision-uncertain samples can further enhance learning outcomes.
尚无 AI 解读，展示原文摘要
cs.CL
Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · 2026 · 正式发表