Keyword decision in Sponsored Search Advertising is critical to the success of ad campaigns. While LLM-based methods offer automated keyword generation, they face three major limitations: reliance on large-scale query–keyword pair data, lack of online multi-objective performance monitoring and optimization, and weak quality control in keyword selection. These issues hinder the agentic use of LLMs in fully automating keyword decisions by monitoring and reasoning over key performance indicators such as impressions, clicks, conversions, and CTA effectiveness. To overcome these challenges, we propose OMS, a keyword generation framework that is On-the-fly (requires no training data, monitors online performance, and adapts accordingly), Multi-objective (employs agentic reasoning to optimize keywords based on multiple performance metrics) and Self-reflective (agentically evaluates keyword quality). Experiments on benchmarks and real-world ad campaigns show that OMS outperforms existing methods; Ablation and human evaluations confirm the effectiveness of each component and the quality of generated keywords.

Recent generative models such as GPT‐4o have shown strong capabilities in producing high-quality images with accurate text rendering. However, commercial design tasks like advertising banners demand more than visual fidelity—they require structured layouts, precise typography, consistent branding and etc. In this paper, we introduce MIMO (Mirror In‐the‐Model), an agentic refinement framework for automatic ad banner generation. MIMO combines a hierarchical multimodal agent system (MIMO‐Core) with a coordination loop (MIMO‐Loop) that explores multiple stylistic directions and iteratively improves design quality. Requiring only a simple natural language based prompt and logo image as input, MIMO automatically detects and corrects multiple types of errors during generation. Experiments show that MIMO significantly outperforms existing diffusion and LLM-based baselines in real-world banner design scenarios.

The lack of data transparency in Large Language Models (LLMs) has highlighted the importance of Membership Inference Attack (MIA), which differentiates trained (member) and untrained (non-member) data. Though it shows success in previous studies, recent research reported a near-random performance in different settings, highlighting a significant performance inconsistency. We assume that a single setting doesn’t represent the distribution of the vast corpora, causing members and non-members with different distributions to be sampled and causing inconsistency. In this study, instead of a single setting, we statistically revisit MIA methods from various settings with thousands of experiments for each MIA method, along with study in text feature, embedding, threshold decision, and decoding dynamics of members and non-members. We found that (1) MIA performance improves with model size and varies with domains, while most methods do not statistically outperform baselines, (2) Though MIA performance is generally low, a notable amount of differentiable member and non-member outliers exists and vary across MIA methods, (3) Deciding a threshold to separate members and non-members is an overlooked challenge, (4) Text dissimilarity and long text benefit MIA performance, (5) Differentiable or not is reflected in the LLM embedding, (6) Member and non-members show different decoding dynamics.

Inductive reasoning is fundamental to both human and artificial intelligence. The inductive reasoning abilities of current Large Language Models (LLMs) are evaluated in this research.We argue that only considering induction of rules is too narrow and unrealistic, since inductive reasoning is usually mixed with other abilities, like rules application, results/rules validation, and updated information integration.We probed the LLMs with a set of designed symbolic tasks and found that even state-of-the-art (SotA) LLMs fail significantly, showing the inability of LLMs to perform these intuitively simple tasks.Furthermore, we found that perfect accuracy in a small-size problem does not guarantee the same accuracy in a larger-size version of the same problem, provoking the question of how we can assess the LLMs’ actual problem-solving capabilities.We also argue that Chain-of-Thought prompts help the LLMs by decomposing the problem-solving process, but the LLMs still learn limitedly.Furthermore, we reveal that few-shot examples assist LLM generalization in out-of-domain (OOD) cases, albeit limited. The LLM starts to fail when the problem deviates from the provided few-shot examples.

Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate the same sequences contained in the pre-train corpora, known as memorization. Previous research studied it at a macro level, leaving micro yet important questions under-explored, e.g., what makes sentences memorized, the dynamics when generating memorized sequence, its connection to unmemorized sequence, and its predictability. We answer the above questions by analyzing the relationship of memorization with outputs from LLM, namely, embeddings, probability distributions, and generated tokens. A memorization score is calculated as the overlap between generated tokens and actual continuations when the LLM is prompted with a context sequence from the pre-train corpora. Our findings reveal: (1) The inter-correlation between memorized/unmemorized sentences, model size, continuation size, and context size, as well as the transition dynamics between sentences of different memorization scores, (2) A sudden drop and increase in the frequency of input tokens when generating memorized/unmemorized sequences (boundary effect), (3) Cluster of sentences with different memorization scores in the embedding space, (4) An inverse boundary effect in the entropy of probability distributions for generated memorized/unmemorized sequences, (5) The predictability of memorization is related to model size and continuation length. In addition, we show a Transformer model trained by the hidden states of LLM can predict unmemorized tokens.