arXiv:2603.03825v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The cold-start initialization stage plays a pivotal role in training Multimodal Large Reasoning Models (MLRMs), yet its mechanisms remain insufficiently understood. To analyze this stage, we introduce the Visual Attention Score (VAS), an attention-based metric that quantifies how much a model attends to visual tokens. We find that reasoning performance is strongly correlated with VAS (r=0.9616): models with higher VAS achieve substantially stronger multimodal reasoning. Surprisingly, multimodal cold-start fails to elevate VAS, resulting in attention distributions close to the base model, whereas text-only cold-start leads to a clear increase. We term this counter-intuitive phenomenon Lazy Attention Localization. To validate its causal role, we design training-free interventions that directly modulate attention allocation during inference, performance gains of 1$-$2% without any retraining. Building on these insights, we further propose Attention-Guided Visual Anchoring and Reflection (AVAR), a comprehensive cold-start framework that integrates visual-anchored data synthesis, attention-guided objectives, and visual-anchored reward shaping. Applied to Qwen2.5-VL-7B, AVAR achieves an average gain of 7.0% across 7 multimodal reasoning benchmarks. Ablation studies further confirm that each component of AVAR contributes step-wise to the overall gains. The code, data, and models are available at https://github.com/lrlbbzl/Qwen-AVAR.

arXiv:2510.00232v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Existing studies on bias mitigation methods for large language models (LLMs) use diverse baselines and metrics to evaluate debiasing performance, leading to inconsistent comparisons among them. Moreover, their evaluations are mostly based on the comparison between LLMs' probabilities of biased and unbiased contexts, which ignores the gap between such evaluations and real-world use cases where users interact with LLMs by reading model responses and expect fair and safe outputs rather than LLMs' probabilities. To enable consistent evaluation across debiasing methods and bridge this gap, we introduce BiasFreeBench, an empirical benchmark that comprehensively compares eight mainstream bias mitigation techniques (covering four prompting-based and four training-based methods) on two test scenarios (multi-choice QA and open-ended multi-turn QA) by reorganizing existing datasets into a unified query-response setting. We further introduce a response-level metric, Bias-Free Score, to measure the extent to which LLM responses are fair, safe, and anti-stereotypical. Debiasing performances are systematically compared and analyzed across key dimensions: the prompting vs. training paradigm, model size, and generalization of different training strategies to unseen bias types. We release our benchmark, aiming to establish a unified testbed for bias mitigation research.