Zhangyang Wang

Recent systems for optimizing prompts, programs, and ML workflows typically rely on explicit outer-loop controllers such as evolutionary search, bandits, or textual-gradient methods. We ask a fundamentally different question: how much of this search policy can be internalized by a single tool-using agent? We present ReASearch, a unified framework for reasoning-driven optimization in which the agent autonomously decides what to evaluate, how to diagnose failures, which edits to make, and when to verify or restart. Rather than serving only as a proposal generator guided by hand-designed heuristics, the agent actively analyzes outcomes, allocates budget, and refines its strategy over long horizons through persistent memory. With a shared agent loop and domain-specific tools, ReASearch instantiates the exact same scaffold to optimize prompts, programs, and ML workflows. Across 14 diverse tasks, it is competitive with and mostly better than specialized optimization systems, achieving gains of 2\% to 40\% over strong domain-specific baselines, and in some cases discovering solutions that improve on prior human best-known results. Crucially, we observe that complex search behaviors, which are typically implemented by explicit controllers, emerge naturally from the agent's reasoning process.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents in high-stakes domains, understanding contextual factors that may modulate their decision-making becomes critical. While LLMs are trained to perceive and resonate with users' emotions, it remains unclear whether induced emotion can influence their sequential decision-making. We investigate this question using the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), a classic psychological paradigm for studying decision-making under uncertainty, combined with an imagination-based emotion induction procedure. We first validate the feasibility of this paradigm by confirming that LLMs can sense strong, distinguishable emotions from context and that LLM agents can learn from sequential interactions in a human-like pace. With the validated setup, we find that, different from humans, induced emotion does not significantly bias the decision dynamics of LLM agents on average. However, the effects of anger are conditioned: inducing anger makes LLM agents less sensitive to penalties for bad decisions, and in early stages of the game, anger can lower exploration, locking decisions into a few choices early. These findings reveal the subtle yet distinct effects of induced emotion on LLM decision-making compared to human behavior, and provide a tool for future research on affective modulation of LLM agents.

Training language models to produce both correct answers and sound reasoning remains an open challenge. Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards typically optimizes only final outcomes, which can improve task accuracy at the expense of reasoning quality, producing inaccurate, incomplete, or inconsistent traces. We propose verifiable process supervision (VPS), a post-training framework that jointly optimizes prediction accuracy and reasoning quality by supervising structured intermediate claims. We first apply supervised fine-tuning to induce a structured reasoning format, enabling deterministic extraction and verification of intermediate claims for process-level rewards. To address the heterogeneous difficulty of reasoning subtasks, we introduce adaptive weighting that prioritizes components with the largest remaining errors, creating an implicit curriculum. We evaluate VPS on chess as a controlled testbed where reasoning steps can be deterministically verified against engine signals. While outcome-only RL improves move accuracy, it sharply degrades reasoning quality, increasing win-rate error by up to 112\% and reducing internal consistency by up to 69\%. In contrast, VPS preserves accuracy while significantly improving reasoning quality, reducing win-rate error by up to 30\% and restoring consistency to near saturation. A reasoning-space analysis further shows that, without a structured prior, outcome-only RL converges to budget-dependent shortcuts rather than sound multi-step reasoning. Beyond chess, we observe the same phenomenon on math reasoning, where outcome-only RL improves accuracy while degrading step-level arithmetic and consistency, whereas VPS maintains both. These results show that VPS enables language models to reason both accurately and reliably in verifiable domains.

We propose and test the **LLM Brain Rot Hypothesis**: continual exposure to *junk web text* induces lasting cognitive decline in large language models (LLMs). To unveil junk effects, we designed a novel controlled experiment on real Twitter/X corpora, by constructing junk and reverse-controlled datasets via two orthogonal operationalizations: **M1** (engagement degree) and **M2** (semantic quality), with matched token scale and training operations across conditions. Compared to the control group, continual pre-training of 4 LLMs on the junk dataset causes non-trivial declines (Hedges' $g>0.3$) on reasoning, long-context understanding, safety, and inflating "dark traits" (e.g., psychopathy, narcissism). The gradual mixtures of junk and control datasets also yield dose-response cognition decay: for example, under M1, ARC-Challenge with Chain-of-Thought drops $72.1 \rightarrow 57.2$ and RULER-CWE $83.7 \rightarrow 52.3$ as junk ratio rises from $0$% to $100$%. Error forensics reveal several key insights. First, we identify *thought-skipping as the primary lesion in reasoning*: models increasingly truncate or skip chains. Second, partial but incomplete healing is observed: scaling instruction tuning and clean continual pre-training improve the declined cognition, yet cannot restore baseline capability, suggesting persistent representational drift rather than format mismatch. Finally, we discover that the popularity, a non-semantic metric, of a tweet is a better indicator of the Brain Rot effect than the length in M1. Together, the results provide significant, multi-perspective evidence that \textit{social effects of data could be a causal driver of LLM capability decay in continual pre-training}, thereby motivating routine "cognitive health checks" for deployed and evolving LLMs.