Zheng Wang
Publications
Mechanistically Interpreting the Role of Sample Difficulty in RLVR for LLMs
Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Reward (RLVR) is empirically shown to notably enhance the reasoning performance of large language models (LLMs), particularly in mathematics and programming. However, the mechanistic role of Sample Difficulty in RLVR remains poorly understood. In this paper, we investigate RLVR through the lens of difficulty-wise and one-sample analysis. We find that sample difficulty has a non-monotonic effect on RLVR: easy and medium-difficulty problems yield the strongest and most stable reasoning improvements, whereas overly hard problems often provide weak learning signals, induce degenerate behaviors such as answer repetition or skipping necessary computation, and can ultimately degrade the model's pre-existing capabilities. Beyond the obverse of response, we further analyze the model's internal feature dynamics using Temporal Sparse Autoencoders (T-SAE). Easy problems mainly reinforce direct-answer and basic-computation features while suppressing deliberative-reasoning features; hard problems activate reasoning-related features but become useful only when successful trajectories are sampled; medium-difficulty problems provide a more balanced signal, strengthening both computation and multi-step reasoning features. Motivated by these findings, we propose difficulty-adaptive strategies for hard-sample utilization, using backward-reasoning reformulation and T-SAE-guided training signals to improve reward density and credit assignment during RLVR. Overall, our results identify sample difficulty as a key factor governing both the optimization dynamics and representation evolution of RLVR.
The Labyrinth and the Thread: Rethinking Regularizations in Sequential Knowledge Editing for Large Language Models
Sequential editing of structured knowledge in large language models allows targeted factual updates without retraining, yet existing methods often rely on complex regularization or constraint mechanisms whose necessity remains unclear. In this work, we systematically investigate the mechanisms underlying effective and stable sequential editing. Specifically, we first analyze the empirical success of AlphaEdit and establish, via a rigorous optimization analysis, the formal equivalence between one-time and sequential editing. Building on this insight, we generalize the equivalence to a broader class of editing objectives, demonstrating that stability emerges naturally from properly accounting for accumulated editing constraints, rather than from specialized regularization or null-space operations. We empirically confirm that many commonly used regularization strategies are unnecessary for reliable sequential updates. Furthermore, we extend our framework to handle conflicting edits, ensuring robust and consistent behavior under contradictory updates. Ultimately, our work provides Ariadne's thread through the labyrinth of sequential editing, charting a path toward simpler, more interpretable, and dependable knowledge updates. Our code is available at https://github.com/Wangzzzzzzzz/OTE-SE-Alignment.
Not Search, But Scan: Benchmarking MLLMs on Scan-Oriented Academic Paper Reasoning
With the rapid progress of multimodal large language models (MLLMs), AI already performs well at literature retrieval and certain reasoning tasks, serving as a capable assistant to human researchers, yet it remains far from autonomous research. The fundamental reason is that current work on academic paper reasoning is largely confined to a search-oriented paradigm centered on pre-specified targets, with reasoning grounded in relevance retrieval, which struggles to support researcher-style full-document understanding, reasoning, and verification. To bridge this gap, we propose \textbf{ScholScan}, a new benchmark for academic paper reasoning. ScholScan introduces a scan-oriented task setting that asks models to read and cross-check entire papers like human researchers, scanning the document to identify consistency issues. The benchmark comprises 1,800 carefully annotated questions drawn from nine error categories across 13 natural-science domains and 715 papers, and provides detailed annotations for evidence localization and reasoning traces, together with a unified evaluation protocol. We assessed 15 models across 24 input configurations and conducted a fine-grained analysis of MLLM capabilities for all error categories. Across the board, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) methods yield no significant improvements, revealing systematic deficiencies of current MLLMs on scan-oriented tasks and underscoring the challenge posed by ScholScan. We expect ScholScan to be the leading and representative work of the scan-oriented task paradigm.