ERNIE 5.0 Technical Report

In this report, we introduce ERNIE 5.0, a natively autoregressive foundation model desinged for unified multimodal understanding and generation across text, image, video, and audio. All modalities are trained from scratch under a unified next-group-of-tokens prediction objective, based on an ultra-sparse mixture-of-experts (MoE) architecture with modality-agnostic expert routing. To address practical challenges in large-scale deployment under diverse resource constraints, ERNIE 5.0 adopts a novel elastic training paradigm. Within a single pre-training run, the model learns a family of sub-models with varying depths, expert capacities, and routing sparsity, enabling flexible trade-offs among performance, model size, and inference latency in memory- or time-constrained scenarios. Moreover, we systematically address the challenges of scaling reinforcement learning to unified foundation models, thereby guaranteeing efficient and stable post-training under ultra-sparse MoE architectures and diverse multimodal settings. Extensive experiments demonstrate that ERNIE 5.0 achieves strong and balanced performance across multiple modalities. To the best of our knowledge, among publicly disclosed models, ERNIE 5.0 represents the first production-scale realization of a trillion-parameter unified autoregressive model that supports both multimodal understanding and generation. To facilitate further research, we present detailed visualizations of modality-agnostic expert routing in the unified model, alongside comprehensive empirical analysis of elastic training, aiming to offer profound insights to the community.

When Domains Interact: Asymmetric and Order-Sensitive Cross-Domain Effects in Reinforcement Learning for Reasoning

Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) has become a key technique for improving reasoning abilities in large language models, yet its behavior under different domain sequencing strategies is poorly understood. In particular, the impact of sequential (one domain at a time) versus mixed-domain (multiple domain at a time) training in GRPO has not been systematically studied. We provide the first systematic analysis of training-order effects across math, science, logic, and puzzle reasoning tasks. We found (1) single-domain generalization is highly asymmetric: training on other domains improves math reasoning by approximately 25\% accuracy, while yielding negligible transfer to logic and puzzle; (2) cross-domain interactions are highly order-dependent: training in the order math$\rightarrow$science achieves 83\% / 41\% accuracy on math / science, while reversing the order to science$\rightarrow$math degrades performance to 77\% / 25\%; (3) no single strategy is universally optimal in multi-domain training: sequential training favors math (up to 84\%), mixed training favors science and logic, and poor ordering can incur large performance gaps (from 70\% to 56\%). Overall, our findings demonstrate that GRPO under multi-domain settings exhibits pronounced asymmetry, order sensitivity, and strategy dependence, highlighting the necessity of domain-aware and order-aware training design.

Mid-Think: Training-Free Intermediate-Budget Reasoning via Token-Level Triggers

Hybrid reasoning language models are commonly controlled through high-level Think/No-think instructions to regulate reasoning behavior, yet we found that such mode switching is largely driven by a small set of trigger tokens rather than the instructions themselves. Through attention analysis and controlled prompting experiments, we show that a leading ``Okay'' token induces reasoning behavior, while the newline pattern following ``</think>'' suppresses it. Based on this observation, we propose Mid-Think, a simple training-free prompting format that combines these triggers to achieve intermediate-budget reasoning, consistently outperforming fixed-token and prompt-based baselines in terms of the accuracy-length trade-off. Furthermore, applying Mid-Think to RL training after SFT reduces training time by approximately 15% while improving final performance of Qwen3-8B on AIME from 69.8% to 72.4% and on GPQA from 58.5% to 61.1%, demonstrating its effectiveness for both inference-time control and RL-based reasoning training.

Demystifying Hybrid Thinking: Can LLMs Truly Switch Between Think and No-Think?

Hybrid thinking enables LLMs to switch between reasoning and direct answering, offering a balance between efficiency and reasoning capability. Yet our experiments reveal that current hybrid thinking LLMs only achieve partial mode separation: reasoning behaviors often leak into the no-think mode. To understand and mitigate this, we analyze the factors influencing controllability and identify four that matter most: (1) larger data scale, (2) using think and no-think answers from different questions rather than the same question, (3) a moderate increase in no-think data number, and (4) a two-phase strategy that first trains reasoning ability and then applies hybrid think training. Building on these findings, we propose a practical recipe that, compared to standard training, can maintain accuracy in both modes while significantly reducing no-think output length (from $1085$ to $585$ on MATH500) and occurrences of reasoning-supportive tokens such as ``\texttt{wait}'' (from $5917$ to $522$ on MATH500). Our findings highlight the limitations of current hybrid thinking and offer directions for strengthening its controllability.

Quantized but Deceptive? A Multi-Dimensional Truthfulness Evaluation of Quantized LLMs

Quantization enables efficient deployment of large language models (LLMs) in resource-constrained environments by significantly reducing memory and computation costs. While quantized LLMs often maintain performance on perplexity and zero-shot tasks, their impact on truthfulness-whether generating truthful or deceptive responses-remains largely unexplored. In this work, we introduce TruthfulnessEval, a comprehensive evaluation framework for assessing the truthfulness of quantized LLMs across three dimensions: (1) Truthfulness on Logical Reasoning; (2) Truthfulness on Common Sense; and (3) Truthfulness on Imitative Falsehoods. Using this framework, we examine mainstream quantization techniques (ranging from 4-bit to extreme 2-bit) across several open-source LLMs. Surprisingly, we find that while quantized models retain internally truthful representations, they are more susceptible to producing false outputs under misleading prompts. To probe this vulnerability, we test 15 rephrased variants of "honest", "neutral" and "deceptive" prompts and observe that "deceptive" prompts can override truth-consistent behavior, whereas "honest" and "neutral" prompts maintain stable outputs. Further, we reveal that quantized models "know" the truth internally yet still produce false outputs when guided by "deceptive" prompts via layer-wise probing and PCA visualizations. Our findings provide insights into future designs of quantization-aware alignment and truthfulness interventions.

When Truthful Representations Flip Under Deceptive Instructions?

Large language models (LLMs) tend to follow maliciously crafted instructions to generate deceptive responses, posing safety challenges. How deceptive instructions alter the internal representations of LLM compared to truthful ones remains poorly understood beyond output analysis. To bridge this gap, we investigate when and how these representations ``flip'', such as from truthful to deceptive, under deceptive versus truthful/neutral instructions. Analyzing the internal representations of Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct and Gemma-2-9B-Instruct on a factual verification task, we find the model's instructed True/False output is predictable via linear probes across all conditions based on the internal representation. Further, we use Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) to show that the Deceptive instructions induce significant representational shifts compared to Truthful/Neutral representations (which are similar), concentrated in early-to-mid layers and detectable even on complex datasets. We also identify specific SAE features highly sensitive to deceptive instruction and use targeted visualizations to confirm distinct truthful/deceptive representational subspaces. % Our analysis pinpoints layer-wise and feature-level correlates of instructed dishonesty, offering insights for LLM detection and control. Our findings expose feature- and layer-level signatures of deception, offering new insights for detecting and mitigating instructed dishonesty in LLMs.

Grammars of Formal Uncertainty: When to Trust LLMs in Automated Reasoning Tasks

Large language models (LLMs) show remarkable promise for democratizing automated reasoning by generating formal specifications. However, a fundamental tension exists: LLMs are probabilistic, while formal verification demands deterministic guarantees. This paper addresses this epistemological gap by comprehensively investigating failure modes and uncertainty quantification (UQ) in LLM-generated formal artifacts. Our systematic evaluation of five frontier LLMs reveals Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT) based autoformalization's domain-specific impact on accuracy (from +34.8% on logical tasks to -44.5% on factual ones), with known UQ techniques like the entropy of token probabilities failing to identify these errors. We introduce a probabilistic context-free grammar (PCFG) framework to model LLM outputs, yielding a refined uncertainty taxonomy. We find uncertainty signals are task-dependent (e.g., grammar entropy for logic, AUROC>0.93). Finally, a lightweight fusion of these signals enables selective verification, drastically reducing errors (14-100%) with minimal abstention, transforming LLM-driven formalization into a reliable engineering discipline.

100-LongBench: Are de facto Long-Context Benchmarks Literally Evaluating Long-Context Ability?

Long-context capability is considered one of the most important abilities of LLMs, as a truly long context-capable LLM enables users to effortlessly process many originally exhausting tasks -- e.g., digesting a long-form document to find answers vs. directly asking an LLM about it. However, existing real-task-based long-context evaluation benchmarks have two major shortcomings. First, benchmarks like LongBench often do not provide proper metrics to separate long-context performance from the model's baseline ability, making cross-model comparison unclear. Second, such benchmarks are usually constructed with fixed input lengths, which limits their applicability across different models and fails to reveal when a model begins to break down. To address these issues, we introduce a length-controllable long-context benchmark and a novel metric that disentangles baseline knowledge from true long-context capabilities. Experiments demonstrate the superiority of our approach in effectively evaluating LLMs.

SELF: Self-Extend the Context Length With Logistic Growth Function

Large language models suffer issues when operated on long contexts that are larger than their training context length due to the standard position encoding for tokens in the attention layer. Tokens a long distance apart will rarely have an effect on each other and long prompts yield unexpected results. To solve this problem, we propose SELF (Self-Extend the Context Length With Logistic Growth Function): a solution of grouping consecutive tokens at varying group sizes using a logistic capacity equation combined with a constant group size at smaller relative distances. Our model had an increase in performance of up to 12% compared to the LongLM extension method in LEval (specifically on the Qwen model). On summarization related tasks in LongBench, our model performed up to 6.4% better than LongLM (specifically on the Llama-2-7b model). On reading comprehension tasks from LEval, our model performed up to 5.4% better than the LongLM. Our code is available at https://github.com/alexeipc/SELF-LLM.

Longer Context, Deeper Thinking: Uncovering the Role of Long-Context Ability in Reasoning

Recent language models exhibit strong reasoning capabilities, yet the influence of long-context capacity on reasoning remains underexplored. In this work, we hypothesize that current limitations in reasoning stem, in part, from insufficient long-context capacity, motivated by empirical observations such as (1) higher context window length often leads to stronger reasoning performance, and (2) failed reasoning cases resemble failed long-context cases. To test this hypothesis, we examine whether enhancing a model's long-context ability before Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) leads to improved reasoning performance. Specifically, we compared models with identical architectures and fine-tuning data but varying levels of long-context capacity. Our results reveal a consistent trend: models with stronger long-context capacity achieve significantly higher accuracy on reasoning benchmarks after SFT. Notably, these gains persist even on tasks with short input lengths, indicating that long-context training offers generalizable benefits for reasoning performance. These findings suggest that long-context modeling is not just essential for processing lengthy inputs, but also serves as a critical foundation for reasoning. We advocate for treating long-context capacity as a first-class objective in the design of future language models.