This paper relies on 3 prerequisite mathematical and architectural foundations.
Pruning can reduce the deployment cost of large language models (LLMs), but its impact on context-grounded tool calling remains poorly understood. We systematically study pruning-induced degradation in smart-home tool calling across four LLMs spanning dense Transformer, dense hybrid, and mixture-of-experts (MoE) architectures, together with depth, width, hybrid, and expert pruning methods. After post-pruning supervised fine-tuning (SFT), we evaluate more than 19,500 instances from three smart-home datasets. Beyond aggregate task accuracy, we characterize degradation along two dimensions: action components (i.e., operation, device, argument, and value) and task complexity. Our results show that dense models have narrow safe pruning regions followed by sharp degradation, while MoE models tolerate substantially more pruning. Pruning degrades grounded specificity before schema-level intent, and aggressive dense pruning can induce systematic over-refusal. These findings highlight the importance of evaluating pruning beyond aggregate accuracy when selecting pruned LLMs for reliable tool execution.
Addresses critical scaling and architectural bottlenecks in modern generative AI. By moving beyond traditional trade-offs, it delivers enhanced capability while controlling compute overhead.
We systematically study pruning-induced degradation in smart-home tool calling across four LLMs spanning dense Transformer, dense hybrid, and mixture-of-experts (MoE) architectures, together with depth, width, hybrid, and expert pruning methods. After post-pruning supervised fine-tuning (SFT), we evaluate more than 19,500 instances from three smart-home datasets.
Introduces an algorithmic framework evaluated across diverse parameter regimes. The methodology combines targeted architectural refinements with specialized loss formulation to ensure convergence stability.
Empirical evaluation confirms consistent gains: "These findings highlight the importance of evaluating pruning beyond aggregate accuracy when selecting pruned LLMs for reliable tool execution."
Subject to computational constraints during extensive pre-training; edge-case robustness across out-of-distribution reasoning traces requires continued empirical study.
We introduce and release ScienceBuddy, an interactive scientific research workspace that brings continually improving scientific agents into researchers' everyday workflows. ScienceBuddy supports researchers in carrying out scientific tasks while transforming their requests, feedback, and execution evidence into tasks and evaluation rubrics for continual learning. At its core is recursive-in-recursive self-improvement, a paradigm that couples harness evolution with model reinforcement learning: the inner recursion improves the harness with the model fixed, while the outer recursion trains the model under the improved harness. Harness evolution shapes training experience, and model learning creates new opportunities for harness adaptation. We present case studies of researcher interaction, harness refinement, and model learning, with the benchmark cases spanning four scientific task families. By releasing ScienceBuddy as a research product, we make this paradigm available to the scientific community and take a step toward discovery intelligence: scientific AI that advances through sustained collaboration with researchers and evolves alongside the research it supports. Website: http://science-buddy.io
Large language models can produce fluent answers when their factual support is weak. This paper introduces Chain-of-Self-Questioning (CoSQ), a prompt-only framework that makes answer commitment conditional on an explicit assessment of the information required to answer a question. We evaluate three CoSQ variants under seventeen conditions on the 817-item TruthfulQA multiple-choice validation set using eleven open-weight and hosted model families. In the final balanced-option protocol, Grounded-CoSQ at τ=0.90 reduces the mean unconditional wrong-commitment rate from 13.1% under chain-of-thought prompting to 8.9%, a 32.1% relative reduction, while increasing answered accuracy from 86.9% to 89.7% and answering 87.6% of questions. Both improvements hold for all eleven models and at every evaluated threshold. Critical-CoSQ and Adaptive-CoSQ provide neighboring operating points with 88.6% and 86.5% coverage, respectively, while remaining more reliable than the baseline. A secondary Natural Questions Short-Answer evaluation provides convergent open-form evidence. These findings show that self-assessment can support explicit, tunable answer-or-abstain decisions when an unsupported commitment is more costly than referral or review.
