Unveiling the Learning Mind of Language Models: A Cognitive Framework and Empirical Study

Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive capabilities across tasks such as mathematics, coding, and reasoning, yet their learning ability, which is crucial for adapting to dynamic environments and acquiring new knowledge, remains underexplored. In this work, we address this gap by introducing a framework inspired by cognitive psychology and education. Specifically, we decompose general learning ability into three distinct, complementary dimensions: Learning from Instructor (acquiring knowledge via explicit guidance), Learning from Concept (internalizing abstract structures and generalizing to new contexts), and Learning from Experience (adapting through accumulated exploration and feedback). We conduct a comprehensive empirical study across the three learning dimensions and identify several insightful findings, such as (i) interaction improves learning; (ii) conceptual understanding is scale-emergent and benefits larger models; and (iii) LLMs are effective few-shot learners but not many-shot learners. Based on our framework and empirical findings, we introduce a benchmark that provides a unified and realistic evaluation of LLMs' general learning abilities across three learning cognition dimensions. It enables diagnostic insights and supports evaluation and development of more adaptive and human-like models.

MotiveBench: How Far Are We From Human-Like Motivational Reasoning in Large Language Models?

Large language models (LLMs) have been widely adopted as the core of agent frameworks in various scenarios, such as social simulations and AI companions. However, the extent to which they can replicate human-like motivations remains an underexplored question. Existing benchmarks are constrained by simplistic scenarios and the absence of character identities, resulting in an information asymmetry with real-world situations. To address this gap, we propose MotiveBench, which consists of 200 rich contextual scenarios and 600 reasoning tasks covering multiple levels of motivation. Using MotiveBench, we conduct extensive experiments on seven popular model families, comparing different scales and versions within each family. The results show that even the most advanced LLMs still fall short in achieving human-like motivational reasoning. Our analysis reveals key findings, including the difficulty LLMs face in reasoning about "love & belonging" motivations and their tendency toward excessive rationality and idealism. These insights highlight a promising direction for future research on the humanization of LLMs. The dataset, benchmark, and code are available at https://aka.ms/motivebench.

Table-r1: Self-supervised and Reinforcement Learning for Program-based Table Reasoning in Small Language Models

Table reasoning (TR) requires structured reasoning over semi-structured tabular data and remains challenging, particularly for small language models (SLMs, e.g., LLaMA-8B) due to their limited capacity compared to large LMs (LLMs, e.g., GPT-4o). To narrow this gap, we explore program-based TR (P-TR), which circumvents key limitations of text-based TR (T-TR), notably in numerical reasoning, by generating executable programs. However, applying P-TR to SLMs introduces two challenges: (i) vulnerability to heterogeneity in table layouts, and (ii) inconsistency in reasoning due to limited code generation capability. We propose Table-r1, a two-stage P-TR method designed for SLMs. Stage 1 introduces an innovative self-supervised learning task, Layout Transformation Inference, to improve tabular layout generalization from a programmatic view. Stage 2 adopts a mix-paradigm variant of Group Relative Policy Optimization, enhancing P-TR consistency while allowing dynamic fallback to T-TR when needed. Experiments on four TR benchmarks demonstrate that Table-r1 outperforms all SLM-based methods, achieving at least a 15% accuracy improvement over the base model (LLaMA-8B) across all datasets and reaching performance competitive with LLMs.

Unintended Harms of Value-Aligned LLMs: Psychological and Empirical Insights

The application scope of Large Language Models (LLMs) continues to expand, leading to increasing interest in personalized LLMs that align with human values. However, aligning these models with individual values raises significant safety concerns, as certain values may correlate with harmful information. In this paper, we identify specific safety risks associated with value-aligned LLMs and investigate the psychological principles behind these challenges. Our findings reveal two key insights. (1) Value-aligned LLMs are more prone to harmful behavior compared to non-fine-tuned models and exhibit slightly higher risks in traditional safety evaluations than other fine-tuned models. (2) These safety issues arise because value-aligned LLMs genuinely generate text according to the aligned values, which can amplify harmful outcomes. Using a dataset with detailed safety categories, we find significant correlations between value alignment and safety risks, supported by psychological hypotheses. This study offers insights into the "black box" of value alignment and proposes in-context alignment methods to enhance the safety of value-aligned LLMs.

Avoid Recommending Out-of-Domain Items: Constrained Generative Recommendation with LLMs

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise for generative recommender systems due to their transformative capabilities in user interaction. However, ensuring they do not recommend out-of-domain (OOD) items remains a challenge. We study two distinct methods to address this issue: RecLM-ret, a retrieval-based method, and RecLM-cgen, a constrained generation method. Both methods integrate seamlessly with existing LLMs to ensure in-domain recommendations. Comprehensive experiments on three recommendation datasets demonstrate that RecLM-cgen consistently outperforms RecLM-ret and existing LLM-based recommender models in accuracy while eliminating OOD recommendations, making it the preferred method for adoption. Additionally, RecLM-cgen maintains strong generalist capabilities and is a lightweight plug-and-play module for easy integration into LLMs, offering valuable practical benefits for the community. Source code is available at https://github.com/microsoft/RecAI

CAReDiO: Cultural Alignment of LLM via Representativeness and Distinctiveness Guided Data Optimization

As Large Language Models (LLMs) more deeply integrate into human life across various regions, aligning them with pluralistic cultures is crucial for improving user experience and mitigating cultural conflicts. Existing approaches develop culturally aligned LLMs primarily through fine-tuning with massive carefully curated culture-specific corpora. Nevertheless, inspired by culture theories, we identify two key challenges faced by these datasets: (1) Representativeness: These corpora fail to fully capture the target culture's core characteristics with redundancy, causing computation waste; (2) Distinctiveness: They struggle to distinguish the unique nuances of a given culture from shared patterns across other relevant ones, hindering precise cultural modeling. To handle these challenges, we introduce CAReDiO, a novel cultural data construction framework. Specifically, CAReDiO utilizes powerful LLMs to automatically generate cultural conversation data, where both the queries and responses are further optimized by maximizing representativeness and distinctiveness. Using CAReDiO, we construct a small yet effective dataset, covering five cultures, and compare it with several recent cultural corpora. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our method generates more effective data and enables cultural alignment with as few as 100 training samples, enhancing both performance and efficiency.

Leveraging Implicit Sentiments: Enhancing Reliability and Validity in Psychological Trait Evaluation of LLMs

Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have led to their increasing integration into human life. With the transition from mere tools to human-like assistants, understanding their psychological aspects-such as emotional tendencies and personalities-becomes essential for ensuring their trustworthiness. However, current psychological evaluations of LLMs, often based on human psychological assessments like the BFI, face significant limitations. The results from these approaches often lack reliability and have limited validity when predicting LLM behavior in real-world scenarios. In this work, we introduce a novel evaluation instrument specifically designed for LLMs, called Core Sentiment Inventory (CSI). CSI is a bilingual tool, covering both English and Chinese, that implicitly evaluates models' sentiment tendencies, providing an insightful psychological portrait of LLM across three dimensions: optimism, pessimism, and neutrality. Through extensive experiments, we demonstrate that: 1) CSI effectively captures nuanced emotional patterns, revealing significant variation in LLMs across languages and contexts; 2) Compared to current approaches, CSI significantly improves reliability, yielding more consistent results; and 3) The correlation between CSI scores and the sentiment of LLM's real-world outputs exceeds 0.85, demonstrating its strong validity in predicting LLM behavior. We make CSI public available via: https://github.com/dependentsign/CSI.

General Scales Unlock AI Evaluation with Explanatory and Predictive Power

Ensuring safe and effective use of AI requires understanding and anticipating its performance on novel tasks, from advanced scientific challenges to transformed workplace activities. So far, benchmarking has guided progress in AI, but it has offered limited explanatory and predictive power for general-purpose AI systems, given the low transferability across diverse tasks. In this paper, we introduce general scales for AI evaluation that can explain what common AI benchmarks really measure, extract ability profiles of AI systems, and predict their performance for new task instances, in- and out-of-distribution. Our fully-automated methodology builds on 18 newly-crafted rubrics that place instance demands on general scales that do not saturate. Illustrated for 15 large language models and 63 tasks, high explanatory power is unleashed from inspecting the demand and ability profiles, bringing insights on the sensitivity and specificity exhibited by different benchmarks, and how knowledge, metacognition and reasoning are affected by model size, chain-of-thought and distillation. Surprisingly, high predictive power at the instance level becomes possible using these demand levels, providing superior estimates over black-box baseline predictors based on embeddings or finetuning, especially in out-of-distribution settings (new tasks and new benchmarks). The scales, rubrics, battery, techniques and results presented here represent a major step for AI evaluation, underpinning the reliable deployment of AI in the years ahead.

Research on Superalignment Should Advance Now with Parallel Optimization of Competence and Conformity

The recent leap in AI capabilities, driven by big generative models, has sparked the possibility of achieving Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and further triggered discussions on Artificial Superintelligence (ASI), a system surpassing all humans across all domains. This gives rise to the critical research question of: If we realize ASI, how do we align it with human values, ensuring it benefits rather than harms human society, a.k.a., the Superalignment problem. Despite ASI being regarded by many as solely a hypothetical concept, in this paper, we argue that superalignment is achievable and research on it should advance immediately, through simultaneous and alternating optimization of task competence and value conformity. We posit that superalignment is not merely a safeguard for ASI but also necessary for its realization. To support this position, we first provide a formal definition of superalignment rooted in the gap between capability and capacity and elaborate on our argument. Then we review existing paradigms, explore their interconnections and limitations, and illustrate a potential path to superalignment centered on two fundamental principles. We hope this work sheds light on a practical approach for developing the value-aligned next-generation AI, garnering greater benefits and reducing potential harms for humanity.

Uncovering inequalities in new knowledge learning by large language models across different languages

As large language models (LLMs) gradually become integral tools for problem solving in daily life worldwide, understanding linguistic inequality is becoming increasingly important. Existing research has primarily focused on static analyses that assess the disparities in the existing knowledge and capabilities of LLMs across languages. However, LLMs are continuously evolving, acquiring new knowledge to generate up-to-date, domain-specific responses. Investigating linguistic inequalities within this dynamic process is, therefore, also essential. In this paper, we explore inequalities in new knowledge learning by LLMs across different languages and four key dimensions: effectiveness, transferability, prioritization, and robustness. Through extensive experiments under two settings (in-context learning and fine-tuning) using both proprietary and open-source models, we demonstrate that low-resource languages consistently face disadvantages across all four dimensions. By shedding light on these disparities, we aim to raise awareness of linguistic inequalities in LLMs' new knowledge learning, fostering the development of more inclusive and equitable future LLMs.