Daily Papers

In developing Vision-and-Language Navigation (VLN) agents that navigate to a destination using natural language instructions and visual cues, current studies largely assume a train-once-deploy-once strategy. We argue that this kind of strategy is less realistic, as deployed VLN agents are expected to encounter novel environments continuously through their lifetime. To facilitate more realistic setting for VLN agents, we propose Continual Vision-and-Language Navigation (CVLN) paradigm for agents to continually learn and adapt to changing environments. In CVLN, the agents are trained and evaluated incrementally across multiple scene domains (i.e., environments). We present two CVLN learning setups to consider diverse forms of natural language instructions: Initial-instruction based CVLN, focused on navigation via initial-instruction interpretation, and dialogue-based CVLN, designed for navigation through dialogue with other agents. We introduce two simple yet effective baseline methods, tailored to the sequential decision-making needs of CVLN: Perplexity Replay (PerpR) and Episodic Self-Replay (ESR), both employing a rehearsal mechanism. PerpR selects replay episodes based on episode difficulty, while ESR stores and revisits action logits from individual episode steps during training to refine learning. Experimental results indicate that while existing continual learning methods are insufficient for CVLN, PerpR and ESR outperform the comparison methods by effectively utilizing replay memory.

Large language models exhibit a puzzling inconsistency: they solve complex problems yet frequently fail on seemingly simpler ones. We investigate whether LLMs internally encode problem difficulty in a way that aligns with human judgment, and whether this representation tracks generalization during reinforcement learning post-training. We train linear probes across layers and token positions on 60 models, evaluating on mathematical and coding subsets of Easy2HardBench. We find that human-labeled difficulty is strongly linearly decodable (AMC: rho approx 0.88) and exhibits clear model-size scaling, whereas LLM-derived difficulty is substantially weaker and scales poorly. Steering along the difficulty direction reveals that pushing models toward "easier" representations reduces hallucination and improves accuracy. During GRPO training on Qwen2.5-Math-1.5B, the human-difficulty probe strengthens and positively correlates with test accuracy across training steps, while the LLM-difficulty probe degrades and negatively correlates with performance. These results suggest that human annotations provide a stable difficulty signal that RL amplifies, while automated difficulty estimates derived from model performance become misaligned precisely as models improve. We release probe code and evaluation scripts to facilitate replication.

We investigate how well large language models (LLMs) generalize across different task difficulties, a key question for effective data curation and evaluation. Existing research is mixed regarding whether training on easier or harder data leads to better results, and whether those gains come on easier or harder test data. We address this question by conducting a systematic evaluation of LLMs' generalization across models, datasets, and fine-grained groups of example difficulty. We rank examples in six datasets using the outputs of thousands of different LLMs and Item Response Theory (IRT), a well-established difficulty metric in educational testing. Unlike prior work, our difficulty ratings are therefore determined solely by the abilities of many different LLMs, excluding human opinions of difficulty. With a more objective, larger-scale, and finer-grained analysis, we show that cross-difficulty generalization is often limited; training on either easy or hard data cannot achieve consistent improvements across the full range of difficulties. These results show the importance of having a range of difficulties in both training and evaluation data for LLMs, and that taking shortcuts with respect to difficulty is risky.

Listeners of long-form talk-audio content, such as podcast episodes, often find it challenging to understand the overall structure and locate relevant sections. A practical solution is to divide episodes into chapters--semantically coherent segments labeled with titles and timestamps. Since most episodes on our platform at Spotify currently lack creator-provided chapters, automating the creation of chapters is essential. Scaling the chapterization of podcast episodes presents unique challenges. First, episodes tend to be less structured than written texts, featuring spontaneous discussions with nuanced transitions. Second, the transcripts are usually lengthy, averaging about 16,000 tokens, which necessitates efficient processing that can preserve context. To address these challenges, we introduce PODTILE, a fine-tuned encoder-decoder transformer to segment conversational data. The model simultaneously generates chapter transitions and titles for the input transcript. To preserve context, each input text is augmented with global context, including the episode's title, description, and previous chapter titles. In our intrinsic evaluation, PODTILE achieved an 11% improvement in ROUGE score over the strongest baseline. Additionally, we provide insights into the practical benefits of auto-generated chapters for listeners navigating episode content. Our findings indicate that auto-generated chapters serve as a useful tool for engaging with less popular podcasts. Finally, we present empirical evidence that using chapter titles can enhance effectiveness of sparse retrieval in search tasks.

Accurate estimation of item (question or task) difficulty is critical for educational assessment but suffers from the cold start problem. While Large Language Models demonstrate superhuman problem-solving capabilities, it remains an open question whether they can perceive the cognitive struggles of human learners. In this work, we present a large-scale empirical analysis of Human-AI Difficulty Alignment for over 20 models across diverse domains such as medical knowledge and mathematical reasoning. Our findings reveal a systematic misalignment where scaling up model size is not reliably helpful; instead of aligning with humans, models converge toward a shared machine consensus. We observe that high performance often impedes accurate difficulty estimation, as models struggle to simulate the capability limitations of students even when being explicitly prompted to adopt specific proficiency levels. Furthermore, we identify a critical lack of introspection, as models fail to predict their own limitations. These results suggest that general problem-solving capability does not imply an understanding of human cognitive struggles, highlighting the challenge of using current models for automated difficulty prediction.