Recent work has identified retrieval heads (Wu et al., 2025b), a subset of attention heads responsible for retrieving salient information in long-context language models (LMs), as measured by their copy-paste behavior in Needlein-a-Haystack tasks.In this paper, we introduce QRHEAD (Query-Focused Retrieval Head), an improved set of attention heads that enhance retrieval from long context.We identify QRHEAD by aggregating attention scores with respect to the input query, using a handful of examples from real-world tasks (e.g., long-context QA).We further introduce QR-RETRIEVER, an efficient and effective retriever that uses the accumulated attention mass of QRHEAD as retrieval scores.We use QR-RETRIEVER for long-context reasoning by selecting the most relevant parts with the highest retrieval scores.On multi-hop reasoning tasks LongMemEval and CLIPPER, this yields over 10% performance gains over full context and outperforms strong dense retrievers.We also evaluate QRRETRIEVER as a re-ranker on the BEIR benchmark and find that it achieves strong zero-shot performance, outperforming other LLM-based re-rankers such as RankGPT.Further analysis shows that both the querycontext attention scoring and task selection are crucial for identifying QRHEAD with strong downstream utility.Overall, our work contributes a general-purpose retriever and offers interpretability insights into the long-context capabilities of LMs. 1

Chain-of-thought (CoT) via prompting is the de facto method for eliciting reasoning capabilities from large language models (LLMs). But for what kinds of tasks is this extra "thinking" really helpful? To analyze this, we conducted a quantitative meta-analysis covering over 100 papers using CoT and ran our own evaluations of 20 datasets across 14 models. Our results show that CoT gives strong performance benefits primarily on tasks involving math or logic, with much smaller gains on other types of tasks. On MMLU, directly generating the answer without CoT leads to almost identical accuracy as CoT unless the question or model's response contains an equals sign, indicating symbolic operations and reasoning. Following this finding, we analyze the behavior of CoT on these problems by separating planning and execution and comparing against tool-augmented LLMs. Much of CoT's gain comes from improving symbolic execution, but it underperforms relative to using a symbolic solver. Our results indicate that CoT can be applied selectively, maintaining performance while saving inference costs. Furthermore, they suggest a need to move beyond prompt-based CoT to new paradigms that better leverage intermediate computation across the whole range of LLM applications.

Long-context LLMs are increasingly in demand for applications such as retrieval-augmented generation. To defray the cost of pretraining LLMs over long contexts, recent work takes an approach of synthetic context extension: fine-tuning LLMs with synthetically-generated long-context data. However, it remains unclear how and why this synthetic context extension imparts abilities for downstream long-context tasks. In this paper, we investigate fine-tuning on synthetic data for three long-context tasks that require retrieval and reasoning. We vary the realism of "needle'' concepts to be retrieved and diversity of the surrounding "haystack'' context, from using LLMs to construct synthetic documents to using templated relations and creating symbolic datasets. Although models trained on synthetic data underperform models trained on the real data, the impacts of both training settings can be understood via a shared feature of the attention computation, retrieval heads (Wu et al., 2024). The retrieval heads learned from synthetic data have high overlap with retrieval heads learned on real data. Furthermore, there is a strong correlation between the recall of heads learned and the downstream performance of a model, allowing us to interpret and predict the performance of models trained in different settings. Our results shed light on how to interpret synthetic data fine-tuning performance and how to approach creating better data for learning real-world LLM capabilities over long contexts.

Chart understanding presents a unique challenge for large vision-language models (LVLMs), as it requires the integration of sophisticated textual and visual reasoning capabilities. However, current LVLMs exhibit a notable imbalance between these skills, falling short on visual reasoning that is difficult to perform in text. We conduct a case study using a synthetic dataset solvable only through visual reasoning and show that model performance degrades significantly with increasing visual complexity, while human performance remains robust. We then introduce ChartMuseum, a new Chart Question Answering (QA) benchmark containing 1,162 expert-annotated questions spanning multiple reasoning types, curated from real-world charts across 184 sources, specifically built to evaluate complex visual and textual reasoning. Unlike prior chart understanding benchmarks---where frontier models perform similarly and near saturation---our benchmark exposes a substantial gap between model and human performance, while effectively differentiating model capabilities: although humans achieve 93% accuracy, the best-performing model Gemini-2.5-Pro attains only 63.0%, and the leading open-source LVLM Qwen2.5-VL-72B-Instruct achieves only 38.5%. Moreover, on questions requiring primarily visual reasoning, all models experience a 35%-55% performance drop from text-reasoning-heavy question performance. Lastly, our qualitative error analysis reveals specific categories of visual reasoning that are challenging for current LVLMs. Both ChartMuseum and the evaluation code are available at https://github.com/Liyan06/ChartMuseum.

Recent work in interpretability shows that large language models (LLMs) can be adapted for new tasks in a learning-free way: it is possible to intervene on LLM representations to elicit desired behaviors for alignment. For instance, adding certain bias vectors to the outputs of certain attention heads is reported to boost the truthfulness of models. In this work, we show that localized fine-tuning serves as an effective alternative to such representation intervention methods. We introduce a framework called Localized Fine-Tuning on LLM Representations (LoFiT), which identifies a subset of attention heads that are most important for learning a specific task, then trains offset vectors to add to the model's hidden representations at those selected heads. LoFiT localizes to a sparse set of heads (3%-10%) and learns the offset vectors from limited training data, comparable to the settings used for representation intervention. For truthfulness and reasoning tasks, we find that LoFiT's intervention vectors are more effective for LLM adaptation than vectors from representation intervention methods such as Inference-time Intervention. We also find that the localization step is important: selecting a task-specific set of attention heads can lead to higher performance than intervening on heads selected for a different task. Finally, across 7 tasks we study, LoFiT achieves comparable performance to other parameter-efficient fine-tuning methods such as LoRA, despite modifying 20x-200x fewer parameters than these methods.