arXiv:2604.04373v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: There is growing interest in improving LLMs without updating model parameters. One well-established direction is test-time scaling, where increased inference-time computation (e.g., longer reasoning, sampling, or search) is used to improve performance. However, for complex reasoning and agentic tasks, naively scaling test-time compute can substantially increase cost and still lead to wasted budget on suboptimal exploration. In this paper, we explore \emph{context} as a complementary scaling axis for improving LLM performance, and systematically study how to construct better inputs that guide reasoning through \emph{experience}. We show that effective context construction critically depends on \emph{decocted experience}. We present a detailed analysis of experience-augmented agents, studying how to derive context from experience, how performance scales with accumulated experience, what characterizes good context, and which data structures best support context construction. We identify \emph{decocted experience} as a key mechanism for effective context construction: extracting essence from experience, organizing it coherently, and retrieving salient information to build effective context. We validate our findings across reasoning and agentic tasks, including math reasoning, web browsing, and software engineering.

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.