Daily Papers

Livestreams are long-lasting interactive environments where audiovisual content, viewer activity, host behavior, and platform signals evolve together, creating assistance needs that emerge from the stream itself. We introduce \liveassistant, a framework for mixed-initiative, role-conditioned assistance that formulates livestream interaction as four coupled decisions: whether to act, when to act, whom to address, and what to communicate. At each 10-second interval, one autoregressive policy consumes native audio and video with synchronized comments, gifts, viewer dynamics, and room metadata, then selects OBS, MEM, or ANS. OBS remains silent, MEM records a private semantic update, and ANS specifies a recipient, task, and grounded message. To support this task, we build a trajectory engine that reconstructs real livestream sessions into structured causal supervision, yielding over 320 hours of optimization trajectories and a human-reviewed benchmark of 275 clips and 13,812 decision intervals. We train the policy with Marker-Aware Multiturn Supervised Fine-Tuning (MA-MSFT), which strengthens sparse structured decisions, followed by Streaming Multiturn GSPO (SM-GSPO), which optimizes self-generated trajectories with turn- and trajectory-level credit. On the held-out benchmark, \liveassistant reaches 71.14 state accuracy, 72.67 recipient accuracy, and 58.41 task accuracy, with consistent gains over representative streaming and general multimodal baselines. Together, the formulation, benchmark, and training framework establish livestream assistance as selective participation in a shared social stream.

Latent communication passes internal states between language models instead of decoded text, but higher receiver accuracy does not show that the receiver used the message content. Across five method-dataset pairs, replacing each message with one from an unrelated question changes accuracy by at most 0.60 points, even when communication adds 15.44 points over the receiver alone. Thus the interface can supply the gain while making the sharer dispensable. Draft-KV instead sends the key-value states formed while the sharer drafts an answer to the current question. Linear projections place these states in a side memory read through a gated attention branch, and progressive training moves from message reconstruction to answer supervision under a guard on harm from mismatched messages. Both models remain frozen and the interface trains 1.05M parameters, 348x fewer than C2C. With a Qwen3-8B sharer, a frozen Qwen2.5-0.5B-Instruct receiver reaches 78.04% on MMLU-Redux, versus 37.45% alone and 36.40% with reassigned messages. At fixed interface size, scaling the sharer from 0.6B to 8B raises accuracy from 46.11% to 78.04%; communication also transfers to held-out tasks and can exceed both models when each holds different evidence.

Research agents explain planned experiments. We measure predictive credit with paired forecasts sharing an intervention, forecaster, and outcome while varying description, matched explanation, and donor context. Five checks track commitment, delivery, predictive gain, alignment, and known-signal uptake. Across 336 prospective states in controlled learning, 12 Tox21 endpoints, and 24 OpenML tasks, v5's frozen credit decision was inconclusive. Tox21's preregistered ROC AUC interval-score harm test was unmet (D-M=-.0026, 95 percent interval [-.0174, .0104]); OpenML's joint formation, point-equivalence, and repeatability rule was unmet. Matched point-accuracy gains over description remained unconfirmed, and Tox21/OpenML seed-donor intervals spanned zero. Under requested DeepSeek V4 Pro, matched and donor cards reduced secondary Tox21 drift by 64.5 and 59.1 percent. A DeepSeek V4 Flash replay raised matched point MAE from .01823 to .02020 and missed matched-donor interval-score equivalence. OpenML full-card assignment widened nominal 80 percent intervals by 21 percent, with 49.3 percent coverage versus 51.4 percent for description and content in 66/144 cards. Direct-text Flash delivered all 144 notes without detectable matched point-accuracy gain. A researcher-authored mechanism positive control lowered point MAE by 2.60 percentage points versus description. The protocol measures predictive credit for research-agent benchmarks and scientific forecasting; natural-explanation credit remained unconfirmed at the tested donor resolutions.

Can humans tell whether a news article was written by a person or a large language model (LLM)? We investigate this question using JudgeGPT, a study platform that independently measures source attribution (human vs. machine) and authenticity judgment (legitimate vs. fake) on continuous scales. From 2,318 judgments collected from 1,054 participants across content generated by six LLMs, we report five findings: (1) participants cannot reliably distinguish machine-generated from human-written text (p > .05, Welch's t-test); (2) this inability holds across all tested models, including open-weight models with as few as 7B parameters; (3) self-reported domain expertise predicts judgment accuracy (r = .35, p < .001) whereas political orientation does not (r = -.10, n.s.); (4) clustering reveals distinct response strategies ("Skeptics" vs. "Believers"); and (5) accuracy degrades after approximately 30 sequential evaluations due to cognitive fatigue. The answer, in short, is no: humans cannot reliably tell. These results indicate that user-side detection is not a viable defense and motivate system-level countermeasures such as cryptographic content provenance.

Plan accuracy alone cannot show whether a speech-delivery decision follows its source: a fixed prior may match the original label yet fail to respond appropriately when a cue changes. VoxReason provides a 100-case verifier benchmark that holds each utterance fixed, edits one designated source-label cue, and scores cited evidence, eight plan fields, and the permitted response. On a source-key-disjoint test of 24 cases, a source-emotion prior reaches plan-slot accuracy 0.958, but none of the 24 edited neutral targets appears in its training labels; its required-change accuracy is 0.000. This diagnoses the support boundary of this prior, not its performance on supported edits. In a complementary 32-case emotion-disjoint test, the prior has seen all edited neutral targets but neither original test emotion; its plan-slot accuracy is 0.219 and required-change accuracy is 1.000. The partitions reuse and overlap the same 100 cases, so these deterministic diagnostics are not independent cohorts or learned-planner results. The benchmark evaluates derived labels and structured plans, not audio input, generated speech, or listener judgments.

AI chatbots are rapidly shaping how people encounter the news, yet no prior study has systematically measured how accurately these systems, with their proprietary search integrations and retrieval-synthesis pipelines, handle emerging facts across languages and regions. We present a 14-day (February 9-22, 2026) evaluation of six AI chatbots (Gemini 3 Flash and Pro, Grok 4, Claude 4.5 Sonnet, GPT-5 and GPT-4o mini) on 2,100 factual questions derived from same-day BBC News reporting across six regional services (US & Canada, Arabic, Afrique, Hindi, Russian, Turkish). The best systems achieve over 90% multiple-choice accuracy on questions about events reported hours earlier. The same systems, however, lose 11-13% under free-response evaluation, and 16-17% across the cohort. We further characterize three failure patterns. First, every model achieves its lowest accuracy on Hindi (79% vs. 89-91% elsewhere) and citations indicate an Anglophone retrieval bias (e.g., models answering Hindi queries cite English Wikipedia more than any Hindi outlet). Second, retrieval, not reasoning, failures drive over 70% of all errors. When models retrieve a correct source, they often extract the correct answer; the problem is to land on the right source in the first place. Third, models achieving 88-96% accuracy on well-formed questions drop to 19-70% when questions contain subtle false premises, with the most vulnerable model accepting fabricated facts 64% of the time. We also identify a detection-accuracy paradox: the best false-premise detector ranks second in adversarial accuracy (abstention rate), while a weaker detector ranks first, showing that premise detection and answer recovery are partially independent capabilities. Overall, these suggest that high accuracy can mask systematic regional inequity, near-total dependence on retrieval infrastructure, and vulnerability to imperfect queries real users pose.

The BITEM team entered both subtasks of the NTCIR-19 R2C2 task with a single agentic pipeline, in which a model searches, reads and records evidence over a movie corpus while an orchestrator holds the record and rules on what may be submitted. A claim is admitted only once an entailment cascade has checked it against the passage it cites, and an answer is released only once enough checked evidence stands behind it. Each question is run three or four times, every pass retrieving from a corpus stripped of what the earlier passes have already seen. The confidence filed with each answer is computed by the orchestrator from what the run leaves behind and is never asked of the model, which is offered no way to rate itself. The two retrieval runs placed 4th and 5th of 22, pooling the passes was worth 0.0709 nDCG@20, and the gain was largest on the multi-hop and post-processing-heavy questions, where the organisers rank the pooled run top of the field. Sixteen of the 25 answer runs were built on passages these two runs supplied, 12 of them filed by other teams. HMR rewards a system whose confidence is high where it answers right and low where it answers wrong. The pipeline reached an accuracy of 0.9219, 6th of 25, while the confidence filed with those answers gave an HMR of 0.4915, 13th. A few rules crafted over those same recorded signals, with no further model call and no further retrieval, raise that to an accuracy of 0.9375, 5th, and an HMR of 0.6985, 9th. Ranking on HMR alone can reward a system for answering wrongly with low confidence, so we propose accHMR, the accuracy multiplied by HMR, which reports the reward in proportion to the accuracy, and on which the revised rules would have scored 0.6549, 5th. For future work, fitting a model on the numbers the pipeline already produces, rather than writing such rules by hand, would be a real step forward.

Machine learning methods have proven useful in transcribing historical data. However, results from even highly accurate methods require manual verification and correction. Such manual review can be time-consuming and expensive, therefore the objective of this paper was to make it more efficient. Previously, we used machine learning to transcribe 2.3 million handwritten occupation codes from the Norwegian 1950 census with high accuracy (97%). We manually reviewed the 90,000 (3%) codes with the lowest model confidence. We allocated those 90,000 codes to human reviewers, who used our annotation tool to review the codes. To assess reviewer agreement, some codes were assigned to multiple reviewers. We then analyzed the review results to understand the relationship between accuracy improvements and effort. Additionally, we interviewed the reviewers to improve the workflow. The reviewers corrected 62.8% of the labels and agreed with the model label in 31.9% of cases. About 0.2% of the images could not be assigned a label, while for 5.1% the reviewers were uncertain, or they assigned an invalid label. 9,000 images were independently reviewed by multiple reviewers, resulting in an agreement of 86.43% and disagreement of 8.96%. We learned that our automatic transcription is biased towards the most frequent codes, with a higher degree of misclassification for the lowest frequency codes. Our interview findings show that the reviewers did internal quality control and found our custom tool well-suited. So, only one reviewer is needed, but they should report uncertainty.

As LLM-based agents are deployed in production systems, understanding their behavioral consistency (whether they produce similar action sequences when given identical tasks) becomes critical for reliability. We study consistency in the context of SWE-bench, a challenging software engineering benchmark requiring complex, multi-step reasoning. Comparing Claude~4.5~Sonnet, GPT-5, and Llama-3.1-70B across 50 runs each (10 tasks times 5 runs), we find that across models, higher consistency aligns with higher accuracy: Claude achieves the lowest variance (CV: 15.2\%) and highest accuracy (58\%), GPT-5 is intermediate (CV: 32.2\%, accuracy: 32\%), and Llama shows the highest variance (CV: 47.0\%) with lowest accuracy (4\%). However, within a model, consistency can amplify both correct and incorrect interpretations. Our analysis reveals a critical nuance: consistency amplifies outcomes rather than guaranteeing correctness. 71\% of Claude's failures stem from "consistent wrong interpretation": making the same incorrect assumption across all runs. Interestingly, GPT-5 achieves similar early strategic agreement as Claude (diverging at step 3.4 vs.\ 3.2) but exhibits 2.1times higher variance, suggesting that divergence timing alone does not determine consistency. These findings suggest that for production deployment, interpretation accuracy matters more than execution consistency, with implications for agent evaluation and training.

A retrieval-augmented QA system can return different answers after an index expansion even when its requested model identifier, prompt, retrieval policy, evidence depth, rendering, and exposed generation controls are held fixed. Aggregate accuracy may hide these changes when gains and losses cancel, while ordinary generation variability makes one-shot comparisons overstate update effects. We call the hidden phenomenon accuracy-blind answer churn and introduce the Snapshot Compatibility Audit, which estimates excess answer churn by subtracting same-snapshot repeat disagreement from cross-snapshot disagreement. We instantiate it by expanding one frozen FineWeb prefix from one to seven shards. In a preregistered 400-question Natural Questions study, normalized-exact and blinded-semantic excess churn are 6.44 and 10.25 percentage points while exact-match accuracy changes by only -1.50 points. A post-hoc analysis finds repeat-stable semantic flips on 40/400 questions. A separately preregistered 200-question TriviaQA study yields smaller, directionally consistent excess churn while exact-match accuracy moves in the opposite direction. An outcome-blind post-hoc 100-question subset replication with a second DeepSeek generator and serving configuration finds 8.75 pp of semantic excess churn even as exact match rises by 3.00 percentage points. Answer-level compatibility can therefore fail without a conspicuous or consistently directed utility shift. Retrieval-augmented releases should audit compatibility alongside utility.

Reward Models (RMs) are crucial for aligning language models with human preferences. Currently, the evaluation of RMs depends on measuring accuracy against a validation set of manually annotated preference data. Although this method is straightforward and widely adopted, the relationship between RM accuracy and downstream policy performance remains under-explored. In this work, we conduct experiments in a synthetic setting to investigate how differences in RM measured by accuracy translate into gaps in optimized policy performance. Our findings reveal that while there is a weak positive correlation between accuracy and downstream performance, policies optimized towards RMs with similar accuracy can exhibit quite different performance. Moreover, we discover that the way of measuring accuracy significantly impacts its ability to predict the final policy performance. Through the lens of the Regressional Goodhart effect, we recognize that accuracy, when used for measuring RM quality, can fail to fully capture the potential RM overoptimization. This underscores the inadequacy of relying solely on accuracy to reflect their impact on policy optimization.

While there are numerous benchmarks comparing the performance of modern language models (LMs), end-task evaluations often conflate notions of *factual accuracy* ("truth") and *reasoning ability* ("rationality", or "honesty" in the sense of correctly reporting implications of beliefs). Our goal is a dataset that clearly distinguishes these two notions. Our approach is to leverage and extend a collection of human-annotated *entailment trees*, engineered to express both good and bad chains of reasoning, and using a mixture of true and false facts, in particular including counterfactual examples, to avoid belief bias (also known as the "content effect"). The resulting dataset, called BaRDa, contains 3000 entailments (1787 valid, 1213 invalid), using 6681 true and 2319 false statements. Testing on four GPT-series models, GPT3(curie)/GPT3(davinici)/3.5/4, we find factual accuracy (truth) scores of 74.1/80.6/82.6/87.1 and reasoning accuracy scores of 63.1/78.0/71.8/79.2. This shows the clear progression of models towards improved factual accuracy and entailment reasoning, and the dataset provides a new benchmark that more cleanly separates and quantifies these two notions.

We propose a new test to measure a text model's multitask accuracy. The test covers 57 tasks including elementary mathematics, US history, computer science, law, and more. To attain high accuracy on this test, models must possess extensive world knowledge and problem solving ability. We find that while most recent models have near random-chance accuracy, the very largest GPT-3 model improves over random chance by almost 20 percentage points on average. However, on every one of the 57 tasks, the best models still need substantial improvements before they can reach expert-level accuracy. Models also have lopsided performance and frequently do not know when they are wrong. Worse, they still have near-random accuracy on some socially important subjects such as morality and law. By comprehensively evaluating the breadth and depth of a model's academic and professional understanding, our test can be used to analyze models across many tasks and to identify important shortcomings.

In this paper, we have shown a method of improving the quality of neural machine translation by translating/transliterating name entities as a preprocessing step. Through experiments we have shown the performance gain of our system. For evaluation we considered three types of name entities viz person names, location names and organization names. The system was able to correctly translate mostly all the name entities. For person names the accuracy was 99.86%, for location names the accuracy was 99.63% and for organization names the accuracy was 99.05%. Overall, the accuracy of the system was 99.52%

We describe our submission to the MedReason 2026 challenge, covering multiple-choice (MCQ) and open-ended (OE) medical visual question answering (VQA) under fully offline, containerized inference. Our first finding is that MCQ retrieval must compare answer semantics rather than answer labels: labels are independently assigned per question, so copying a retrieved neighbor's label transfers no useful information, whereas scoring each current option's text against correct-answer text from similar training cases raises retrieval-only accuracy from 20.0\% to 57.5\% on a 200-case retrieval-excluded development holdout. Our second finding attributes the submitted system's accuracy: holding the task-specific MCQ Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) adapter fixed and varying the number \(k\) of in-prompt retrieved examples changes accuracy by at most one case --- 187/200 (93.5\%) at both \(k=0\) and the adapter's training-time \(k=1\), 188/200 (94.0\%) at the packaged runtime's default \(k=3\) --- and the submitted confidence-gated override adds no net accuracy on top of \(k=3\), selecting the VLM in 198/200 cases. With the final MCQ adapter fixed, retrieval changes accuracy by at most one case, and gating provides no net gain. On 20 OE cases, token-F1 and RaTEScore~zhao2024ratescore decrease as \(k\) grows, but paired sign tests on token-F1 differences are nonsignificant (\(p \ge 0.29\)); a single-annotator comparison found 6/20 wrong-anchor errors for the final configuration and 14/20 for an earlier configuration that jointly differed in routing, adapter, and prompting. The system reaches 94.0\% MCQ accuracy on the development holdout and 93.20\% on the organizer's official pre-evaluation, versus 29.43\% for the off-the-shelf reference baseline, while both of the organizer's open-ended scores are lower than that baseline's (ground-truth agreement 1.245 versus 1.588, visual accuracy 1.995 versus 2.696, each out of 4).

Tacrolimus is one of the cornerstone immunosuppressive drugs in most transplantation centers worldwide following solid organ transplantation. Therapeutic drug monitoring of tacrolimus is necessary in order to avoid rejection of the transplanted organ or severe side effects. However, finding the right dose for a given patient is challenging, even for experienced clinicians. Consequently, a tool that can accurately estimate the drug exposure for individual dose adaptions would be of high clinical value. In this work, we propose a new technique using machine learning to estimate the tacrolimus exposure in kidney transplant recipients. Our models achieve predictive errors that are at the same level as an established population pharmacokinetic model, but are faster to develop and require less knowledge about the pharmacokinetic properties of the drug.

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved expert-level performance on standardized examinations, yet multiple-choice accuracy poorly reflects real-world clinical utility and safety. As patients and clinicians increasingly use LLMs for guidance on complex conditions such as pancreatic cancer, evaluation must extend beyond general medical knowledge. Existing frameworks, such as HealthBench, rely on simulated queries and lack disease-specific depth. Moreover, high rubric-based scores do not ensure factual correctness, underscoring the need to assess hallucinations. We developed a human-in-the-loop pipeline to create expert rubrics for de-identified patient questions from the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network (PanCAN). The resulting benchmark, PanCanBench, includes 3,130 question-specific criteria across 282 authentic patient questions. We evaluated 22 proprietary and open-source LLMs using an LLM-as-a-judge framework, measuring clinical completeness, factual accuracy, and web-search integration. Models showed substantial variation in rubric-based completeness, with scores ranging from 46.5% to 82.3%. Factual errors were common, with hallucination rates (the percentages of responses containing at least one factual error) ranging from 6.0% for Gemini-2.5 Pro and GPT-4o to 53.8% for Llama-3.1-8B. Importantly, newer reasoning-optimized models did not consistently improve factuality: although o3 achieved the highest rubric score, it produced inaccuracies more frequently than other GPT-family models. Web-search integration did not inherently guarantee better responses. The average score changed from 66.8% to 63.9% for Gemini-2.5 Pro and from 73.8% to 72.8% for GPT-5 when web search was enabled. Synthetic AI-generated rubrics inflated absolute scores by 17.9 points on average while generally maintaining similar relative ranking.

LLM-as-a-Judge (LLMaaJ) now underpins scalable evaluation, yet we lack a decisive test of a judge's qualification: can it recover a conversation's latent objective and know when that inference is trustworthy? LLMs degrade under irrelevant or long context; multi-turn jailbreaks further hide goals across turns. We introduce ObjexMT, a benchmark for objective extraction and metacognition. Given a multi-turn transcript, a model must return a one-sentence base objective and a self-reported confidence. Accuracy is computed via LLM-judge semantic similarity to gold objectives, converted to binary correctness by a single human-aligned threshold calibrated once on N = 100 items (tau^*=0.61). Metacognition is evaluated with ECE, Brier, Wrong-at-High-Conf, and risk-coverage. Across gpt-4.1, claude-sonnet-4, and Qwen3-235B-A22B-FP8 on SafeMTData_Attack600, SafeMTData_1K, MHJ, and CoSafe, claude-sonnet-4 attains the best objective-extraction accuracy (0.515) and calibration (ECE 0.296; Brier 0.324); gpt-4.1 and Qwen3-235B-A22B-FP8 tie at 0.441 but are overconfident (mean confidence approx0.88 vs. accuracy approx0.44; Wrong-at-0.90 approx48-52%). Performance varies by dataset (approx0.167-0.865). ObjexMT thus supplies an actionable test for LLM judges: when objectives are not explicit, judges often misinfer them with high confidence. We recommend exposing objectives when feasible and gating decisions by confidence otherwise. Code and data at https://github.com/hyunjun1121/ObjexMT_dataset.

Benchmarks for scientific artificial intelligence are mostly written to be scored: multiple-choice questions, curated agent tasks with reference solutions, or simulators with a known generative structure. Real scientific requests arrive differently. They are underspecified, they carry attachments, and lack ground truth. We report K-Bench 01, an evaluation built from first-turn requests sampled from live user traffic on K-Dense Web and run end to end by nine frontier models in identical sandboxes, yielding 1,602 completed agent runs. Three blinded language-model judges scored every run against an eight-dimension rubric. On a rubric whose 8-anchor instructs judges that a domain scientist would accept the work with minor edits, no model clears the line under all three judges. gpt-5.6-sol has the highest pooled mean, 8.04, but its 95% interval [7.80, 8.23] spans the threshold, and two of the three judges rank claude-opus-5 first instead. We therefore report the ordering of systems as the reproducible quantity, the absolute level as an attribute of the instrument, and the top of the table as unresolved. Across all 39,934 scored judgments -- the eight dimension scores plus a holistic overall for each assessment, excluding not-applicable cells -- 47.6% fall below the 8-point threshold. Difficulty is not uniform across the rubric: scientific accuracy averages 6.22 against 7.33 for communication, on identical denominators and in the same direction within every one of the nine models. The single leading failure tag is overclaiming, on 31.4% of assessments. We argue that the informative quantity for scientific agents is not a leaderboard position but the joint distribution of what was delivered, what was claimed, and what artifacts were produced.

Evolving documents, such as laws, tax codes, and software documentation, are amended, replaced, and sometimes reverted over time, so a question has different correct answers at different dates. In contrast to encyclopedic knowledge, where an old fact is simply overwritten, an amendment is itself an official text that states what it replaces and when it takes effect, and the earlier version stays correct for its validity period. The central challenge is therefore version resolution, that is, identifying the version in force on the queried date. Existing temporal QA datasets treat time only as an annotation, so version resolution stays untested. We present TIDE, an expert-verified benchmark of 3,050 QA pairs over 644 official customs instruments issued between 1969 and 2025 by the Government of Bangladesh, covering eight task types over deeply code-mixed documents that are heterogeneous in layout and dated in two calendars. In addition, we evaluate nine recent LLMs under a single protocol across parametric, gold-context, and retrieval access, scored by a three-judge LLM council with a hard date gate separating correct meaning from correct time. The best macro-averaged accuracy is only 68.5%. Resolving a version from an implicit date reaches 59.7%, and detecting that the supplied version does not govern the query reaches only 26.7%. Models are more likely to find correct versions than to reject incorrect ones, and they tend to follow a confident parametric answer over the supplied authoritative text. All code and data are available at https://github.com/icsetepa44/TIDE

Multi-agent reasoning systems often use agreement, confidence, or automated scores to decide which messages should shape a final answer. Such filtering assumes that a message likely to be correct is also worth keeping. Yet a wrong answer can contain a useful decomposition, constraint, or scientific principle. We test this distinction with Diverse Hypothesis Deliberation (DHD), a controlled measurement protocol that caches five independently generated messages and replays the same downstream solver, called the integrator, with each message available or hidden. The replay comparison measures a message's trajectory value: whether making the message available helps or harms subsequent reasoning. Across five mathematics and science benchmarks and two openly available model families, gpt-oss-120b and gemma-4-31B-it, wrong-helpful messages appear in every benchmark-model combination. Among wrong-answer messages that change final correctness, more than four in ten changes are helpful in each model. Controlled repeats show that the number of repeatable message effects is unlikely to arise from replay variation alone (p=0.0002). A focused intervention on repeatable wrong-helpful messages finds that the complete message works best, while retaining its reasoning preserves more success than retaining only its answer; the source of the complete-message advantage remains open. Within the same problem, repeated trajectory-value evidence also identifies a better keep-or-remove choice than answer correctness alone. Answer correctness is therefore informative but does not determine trajectory value. DHD measures this missing property and produces reusable labels for learning when agents should listen.

In domains with high stakes such as law, recruitment, and healthcare, learning models frequently rely on sensitive user data for inference, necessitating the complete set of features. This not only poses significant privacy risks for individuals but also demands substantial human effort from organizations to verify information accuracy. This paper asks whether it is necessary to use all input features for accurate predictions at inference time. The paper demonstrates that, in a personalized setting, individuals may only need to disclose a small subset of their features without compromising decision-making accuracy. The paper also provides an efficient sequential algorithm to determine the appropriate attributes for each individual to provide. Evaluations across various learning tasks show that individuals can potentially report as little as 10\% of their information while maintaining the same accuracy level as a model that employs the full set of user information.

Conventional Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS) tend to be inflexible keyword-matchers, and deny gifted candidates a role due to a few minor semantic mismatches. This article describes a new two-step process to design a more refined resume evaluation model based on a small language model (<600M parameters) that is finetuned using GRPO on a custom reward function. To begin with, Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) was used to build a solid baseline model. Second, this SFT model was also optimized with the help of Reinforcement Learning (RL) through GRPO under the guidance of a new, multi-component reward function that can holistically assess candidates beyond simple keyword matching. We indicate that the RL application presents a critical problem of reward hacking due to the initial experiments of aggressive penalties, which produces faulty, excessively negative model behaviors. We have overcome this challenge by refining the reward function repeatedly and training hyperparameters into a stable "gentle polishing process" of the reward function. Our resulting GRPO-polished model demonstrates significant real-world efficacy, achieving a final accuracy of 91% on unseen test data. The model shows a strong ability to correctly identify qualified candidates (recall of 0.85 for the 'SELECTED' class) while also showing exceptional precision (1.0), confirming its reliability. These results indicate that a properly executed, two-step fine-tuning procedure can indeed effectively refine a small language model to be able to conduct fine-tuned and human-like candidate scoring, overcoming the drawbacks of both traditional ATS and naive RL usage.

This article presents an experiment in fine-tuning a pretrained causal language model (Meta's Llama 3.1 8B Instruct) for aiding in three fundamental tasks of philological research: chronological and geographic attribution as well as text restoration in ancient Greek inscriptions and documentary papyri. Using a prompt-based instruct approach, the fine-tuned models surpass the state of the art in key metrics. For inscriptions, the models achieve a lower average character error rate (CER) of 22.5% (vs. 26.3%), while closely matching top-1 accuracy (60.9% vs. 61.8%) and top-20 accuracy (77.5% vs. 78.3%) for sequences up to 10 characters. They also provide a practical advantage by ignoring spaces during reconstruction, aligning better with the scriptio continua typically used in ancient written artifacts. In geographic attribution, the model outperforms previous benchmarks with a top-1 accuracy of 75.0% (vs. 70.8%) and a top-3 accuracy of 83.7% (vs. 82.1%). For dating, it achieves an average deviation of 26.2 years (vs. 29.3) and a median deviation of 1 year (vs. 3) from the actual date range. The models also set new baselines for documentary papyri, with a CER of 16.3%, a top-1 accuracy of 71.3%, and top-20 of 85.0% in text reconstruction; a top-1 accuracy of 66.4% and top-3 of 79.9% in geographic attribution; and, in chronological attribution, a deviation of 21.7 years from the actual termini post/ante quem, with a median deviation of 0 years.

An unsuccessful LLM agent rollout contains more information than its final reward: the observations available to the agent, the actions it chose, and the environment's responses. Reusing this experience for learning requires identifying a decision to revise and testing a concrete alternative. We introduce the Agent Error Dataset (AED), comprising 50,228 error-diagnosis pairs from 9,961 source tasks across 33 environments, 19 harness families, and 23 policy models in text-based agent systems. We retain source traces and execution metadata to support cross-setting failure analysis and re-diagnosis without repeating the original rollout. Our five-stage Agentic Error-to-Training (AET) pipeline collects natural failures, generates diagnoses and proposed corrections, and checks them against recorded evidence. Where replay is supported, we compare corrections with original-action retries from the same checkpoint under matched execution settings. We then construct separate training views for diagnosis and actor recovery. Across 3,062 matched replay pairs, first-proposal corrections raise verifier pass rates from 18.4% to 51.1%, a gain of 32.7 percentage points. Using a separately frozen diagnosis release, full-diagnosis fine-tuning on 1,656 source tasks raises Qwen3-8B's exact-step agreement with internal teacher labels from 47.2% to 63.6%, averaged over three seeds on a 943-case holdout. The strongest prompted reference in this comparison scores 54.7%, and mean agreement improves at each of four increasing training-set sizes. In a single-seed comparison of actor-training recipes, action-only repair training scores 6.67 percentage points higher on WebShop-lite than success-only training.

Noise plagues many numerical datasets, where the recorded values in the data may fail to match the true underlying values due to reasons including: erroneous sensors, data entry/processing mistakes, or imperfect human estimates. We consider general regression settings with covariates and a potentially corrupted response whose observed values may contain errors. By accounting for various uncertainties, we introduced veracity scores that distinguish between genuine errors and natural data fluctuations, conditioned on the available covariate information in the dataset. We propose a simple yet efficient filtering procedure for eliminating potential errors, and establish theoretical guarantees for our method. We also contribute a new error detection benchmark involving 5 regression datasets with real-world numerical errors (for which the true values are also known). In this benchmark and additional simulation studies, our method identifies incorrect values with better precision/recall than other approaches.

Chain-of-thought (CoT) monitoring assumes that reasoning traces faithfully record the information that shapes a model's answer. Existing faithfulness tests often place explicit bias cues in the user message, while agents may encounter preferences through tool returns or raw artifacts. We introduce FACE-Eval (Faithful Attribution of Cue Effects Evaluation), a 5,100-sample evaluation that varies cue location (user message or tool return) and explicitness (direct summary or raw artifact). We measure verbalized commitment among cue-following answers and unverbalized adoption among all cued samples. We evaluate 15 open-weight models from eight families, with total parameters ranging from 4B to 1.60T. Every model has lower verbalized commitment for tool-return than user-message cues and for implicit than explicit cues. Unverbalized adoption is higher for tool-return cues on all 15 models and for implicit cues in 28 of 30 model-channel comparisons. A source-attribution prompt narrows the channel gap on seven models, sometimes by increasing user-channel unverbalized adoption, while telling models that their reasoning will be monitored does not reliably close the gap. We also use two transcript monitors (GPT-5.6-Luna and GPT-4o-mini) to detect preference adoption in the largest model of each family. Across 32 model-channel-explicitness cells, higher unverbalized adoption is associated with lower detection ability for both monitors (Pearson r=-0.54 and r=-0.78, respectively). These results suggest that CoT monitoring may be less reliable when preference information arrives through tools or must be inferred from raw artifacts, within the single-call, prefilled-tool setting tested here.

Social service programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or food stamps) have eligibility rules that can be challenging to understand. For nonprofit caseworkers who often support clients in navigating a dozen or more complex programs, LLM-based chatbots may offer a means to provide better, faster help to clients whose situations may be less common. In this paper, we measure the potential effects of LLM-based chatbot suggestions on caseworkers' ability to provide accurate guidance. We first created a 770-question multiple-choice benchmark dataset of difficult, but realistic questions that a caseworker might receive. Next, using these benchmark questions and corresponding expert-verified answers, we conducted a randomized experiment with caseworkers recruited from nonprofit outreach organizations in Los Angeles. Caseworkers in the control condition did not see chatbot suggestions and had a mean accuracy of 49%. Caseworkers in the treatment condition saw chatbot suggestions that we artificially varied to range in aggregate accuracy from low (53%) to high (100%). Caseworker performance significantly improves as chatbot quality improves: high-quality chatbots (96-100% accurate) improved caseworker accuracy by 27 percentage points. At the question-level, incorrect chatbot suggestions substantially reduce caseworker accuracy, with a two-thirds reduction on easy questions where the control group performed best (without chatbot suggestions). Finally, improvements in caseworker accuracy level off as chatbot accuracy increases, a phenomenon that we call the "AI underreliance plateau," which is a concern for real-world deployment and highlights the importance of evaluating human-in-the-loop tools with their users.

Robustness evaluation must examine diverse visual perturbations, while benchmarks cover only some real-world conditions and physical testing is costly. Paired evaluations link clean and perturbed predictions for the same image, capturing changes in correctness, confidence, and acceptance beyond aggregate accuracy. We investigate how this image correspondence supports two needs in robustness evaluation: interpreting paired evaluation results and prioritizing samples for physical testing. To interpret paired evaluation results, we fix both sets of prediction records and vary their correspondence within each class. We prove that classwise correct-correct counts give the same sharp bounds on lost acceptance and mean true-class probability decrease among retained-correct inputs as any feasible five-state refinement. Distinguishing persistent from changed wrong answers can further constrain accepted-error transitions, while shared correspondence can establish policy orderings left unresolved by separate cost intervals. To prioritize samples for physical testing, we retain each image's synthetic responses and rank clean-correct images by their mean true-class probability under corruption. Across 44 classifiers, testing the highest-risk 20% finds 67% and 45% of failures under mild screen and print recaptures, versus 58% and 36% for clean confidence and 60% and 37% for an equal-size natural-transformation average. With both probability averaging and an A3Rank scoring adaptation, the tested corruption set yields higher mean failure recall than the natural-transform set; differences between scores depend on the source and budget. Together, these findings show that the value of correspondence depends on the evaluation objective: classwise counts suffice for specified reliability bounds, while image-specific synthetic responses improve the allocation of physical tests within the evaluated pool.

"System One" decision models such as TypeSafe's Jev and its open counterpart Laya answer typed questions about a text in a single forward pass with calibrated probabilities, but they cannot ask for missing information: when a first message does not say what separates two departments, they guess. We present LAVOIR (Laya with Value-Of-Information Routing), which places the candidate pieces of missing information (slots) in the input next to the answer options, so that one forward pass returns both the decision distribution and, for every slot, the expected gain in the probability of the correct decision if the user were asked about it. VOI targets need no human labels: gold decisions come from schema rules, an LLM only verbalizes messages and answers, a model from another family checks every text, and pairing each message with several profiles makes regression on realized gains estimate the expected gain. A Gini-impurity cap bounds the predicted value by what a calibrated model can still gain. In a controlled study, decisions on seen schemas are statistically indistinguishable from the Bayes ceiling. The final model's question policy matches a greedy oracle VOI policy on seen schemas (AUC 0.799 vs. 0.797), and with at most 0.5 questions per conversation it is 14.1 points more accurate than never asking. On real ABCD conversations, one real exchange raises accuracy by 8.3 points where LAVOIR asks and leaves it unchanged where it does not; on SGD the cap lowers the asking rate from 93% to 8.6%. On Laya's twelve benchmarks LAVOIR is above Laya's reported scores on seven, and it answers a question in 31 ms (median, GH200).

Vision-language models (VLMs) often produce chain-of-thought (CoT) explanations that sound plausible yet fail to reflect the underlying decision process, undermining trust in high-stakes clinical use. Existing evaluations rarely catch this misalignment, prioritizing answer accuracy or adherence to formats. We present a clinically grounded framework for chest X-ray visual question answering (VQA) that probes CoT faithfulness via controlled text and image modifications across three axes: clinical fidelity, causal attribution, and confidence calibration. In a reader study (n=4), evaluator-radiologist correlations fall within the observed inter-radiologist range for all axes, with strong alignment for attribution (Kendall's tau_b=0.670), moderate alignment for fidelity (tau_b=0.387), and weak alignment for confidence tone (tau_b=0.091), which we report with caution. Benchmarking six VLMs shows that answer accuracy and explanation quality are decoupled, acknowledging injected cues does not ensure grounding, and text cues shift explanations more than visual cues. While some open-source models match final answer accuracy, proprietary models score higher on attribution (25.0% vs. 1.4%) and often on fidelity (36.1% vs. 31.7%), highlighting deployment risks and the need to evaluate beyond final answer accuracy.

This study explores the relationship between textual features and Information Engagement (IE) on digital platforms. It highlights the impact of computational linguistics and analytics on user interaction. The READ model is introduced to quantify key predictors like representativeness, ease of use, affect, and distribution, which forecast engagement levels. The model's effectiveness is validated through AB testing and randomized trials, showing strong predictive performance in participation (accuracy: 0.94), perception (accuracy: 0.85), perseverance (accuracy: 0.81), and overall IE (accuracy: 0.97). While participation metrics are strong, perception and perseverance show slightly lower recall and F1-scores, indicating some challenges. The study demonstrates that modifying text based on the READ model's insights leads to significant improvements. For example, increasing representativeness and positive affect boosts selection rates by 11 percent, raises evaluation averages from 3.98 to 4.46, and improves retention rates by 11 percent. These findings highlight the importance of linguistic factors in IE, providing a framework for enhancing digital text engagement. The research offers practical strategies applicable to fields like education, health, and media.

The ability of large language models (LLMs) to follow natural language instructions with human-level fluency suggests many opportunities in healthcare to reduce administrative burden and improve quality of care. However, evaluating LLMs on realistic text generation tasks for healthcare remains challenging. Existing question answering datasets for electronic health record (EHR) data fail to capture the complexity of information needs and documentation burdens experienced by clinicians. To address these challenges, we introduce MedAlign, a benchmark dataset of 983 natural language instructions for EHR data. MedAlign is curated by 15 clinicians (7 specialities), includes clinician-written reference responses for 303 instructions, and provides 276 longitudinal EHRs for grounding instruction-response pairs. We used MedAlign to evaluate 6 general domain LLMs, having clinicians rank the accuracy and quality of each LLM response. We found high error rates, ranging from 35% (GPT-4) to 68% (MPT-7B-Instruct), and an 8.3% drop in accuracy moving from 32k to 2k context lengths for GPT-4. Finally, we report correlations between clinician rankings and automated natural language generation metrics as a way to rank LLMs without human review. We make MedAlign available under a research data use agreement to enable LLM evaluations on tasks aligned with clinician needs and preferences.

People increasingly search online for answers to their medical questions but the rate at which medical questions are asked online significantly exceeds the capacity of qualified people to answer them. This leaves many questions unanswered or inadequately answered. Many of these questions are not unique, and reliable identification of similar questions would enable more efficient and effective question answering schema. COVID-19 has only exacerbated this problem. Almost every government agency and healthcare organization has tried to meet the informational need of users by building online FAQs, but there is no way for people to ask their question and know if it is answered on one of these pages. While many research efforts have focused on the problem of general question similarity, these approaches do not generalize well to domains that require expert knowledge to determine semantic similarity, such as the medical domain. In this paper, we show how a double fine-tuning approach of pretraining a neural network on medical question-answer pairs followed by fine-tuning on medical question-question pairs is a particularly useful intermediate task for the ultimate goal of determining medical question similarity. While other pretraining tasks yield an accuracy below 78.7% on this task, our model achieves an accuracy of 82.6% with the same number of training examples, an accuracy of 80.0% with a much smaller training set, and an accuracy of 84.5% when the full corpus of medical question-answer data is used. We also describe a currently live system that uses the trained model to match user questions to COVID-related FAQs.

Clinical decision-making in emergency medicine demands rapid, accurate diagnoses under uncertainty. Despite benchmark progress, evidence for LLMs as interactive aids in live physician workflows remains sparse. MedSyn lets physicians iteratively query an LLM provided with the full clinical record while initially viewing only the chief complaint. Seven physicians (three seniors, four residents) completed baseline and AI-assisted sessions across 52 MIMIC-IV cases stratified by difficulty. Blinded evaluation showed residents' Hard-case correctness rose from 0.589 to 0.734; difficulty-standardised completely-correct rates confirmed a medium effect (Δ = 0.092; p = 0.071; d = 0.47). Automated metrics corroborated these gains: standardised any-match accuracy improved by 0.156 (p < 0.0001), and residents showed the largest F1 gain (Δ = 0.138; p < 0.0001). Dialogue analysis revealed expertise-dependent strategies (seniors asked targeted, hypothesis-driven questions; residents relied on broader queries) and cross-expertise concordance increased (Δ = 0.145; p < 0.0001). Interactive LLM support meaningfully enhances diagnostic reasoning.

Wu et al. (2026) showed that most frontier large language models (LLMs) recommend a sponsored, roughly twice-as-expensive flight when their system prompt contains a soft sponsorship cue. We reproduce their evaluation on ten open-weight chat models plus the two of their twenty-three models that are still reachable today (gpt-3.5-turbo, gpt-4o). All reported rates in this paper are produced under the same judge the original paper used (gpt-4o); we additionally store every label under an open-weight (gpt-oss-120b) and a smaller proprietary (gpt-4o-mini) judge for an ablation. Three findings emerge. First, a prose description of an LLM evaluation pipeline is not, on its own, sufficient for accurate reproduction: we surfaced three silent implementation failures that each shifted a reported rate by tens of percentage points. Second, the central claims do generalise - the gpt-3.5-turbo logistic-regression intercept of alpha = 0.81 is within four points of the original alpha = 0.86, and 200 of 200 trials on gpt-3.5-turbo and gpt-4o promote a payday lender to a financially distressed user. Third, a thirty-token user prompt that asks the assistant for a neutral comparison table first cuts sponsored recommendation from 46.9% to 1.0% averaged across our ten open-source models, and from 53.0% to 0% averaged across the two OpenAI models. AI literacy and price-comparison portals are likely market-level mitigations; the harmful-product cell is bounded by neither. Raw data, labels and analysis scripts are at https://github.com/akmaier/Paper-LLM-Ads .

Researchers have found that fake news spreads much times faster than real news. This is a major problem, especially in today's world where social media is the key source of news for many among the younger population. Fact verification, thus, becomes an important task and many media sites contribute to the cause. Manual fact verification is a tedious task, given the volume of fake news online. The Factify5WQA shared task aims to increase research towards automated fake news detection by providing a dataset with an aspect-based question answering based fact verification method. Each claim and its supporting document is associated with 5W questions that help compare the two information sources. The objective performance measure in the task is done by comparing answers using BLEU score to measure the accuracy of the answers, followed by an accuracy measure of the classification. The task had submissions using custom training setup and pre-trained language-models among others. The best performing team posted an accuracy of 69.56%, which is a near 35% improvement over the baseline.

Why do language models sometimes prefer correct statements even when trained on mixed-quality data? We introduce the Compression--Consistency Principle: next-token prediction favors hypotheses that allow shorter and more internally consistent descriptions of the training data. Truth bias emerges only when false alternatives are structurally harder to compress. We test this using small GPT-2-style character-level transformers (3.5M--86M parameters) on synthetic math corpora with controlled mixtures of correct and incorrect rules. In the random-error setting, models strongly prefer correct completions in paired evaluation: 83.1% accuracy at balanced data and 67.0% even when correct rules appear in only 10% of the corpus. Replacing random errors with a coherent but mathematically incorrect rule system largely eliminates the preference (near-chance accuracy). In a more natural-language-like synthetic world, the effect is weaker but still present (57.7%). Additional experiments show that embedding verification steps can restore preference for correctness even at small scale, while increasing the number of consistent rules produces a graded improvement in accuracy. Our results suggest that what appears as a "truth bias" is largely a side effect of compression pressure and preference for internal consistency, rather than an intrinsic drive toward truth. Full code and data are available at https://github.com/Rai220/compression-drives-truth.

Self-consistency has emerged as a popular technique for improving large language model accuracy on reasoning tasks. The approach is straightforward: generate multiple reasoning paths and select the most common answer through majority voting. While this reliably boosts accuracy, it remains unclear whether these gains reflect genuine improvements in reasoning quality. We investigate a fundamental question that has not been studied before: does inference scaling improve reasoning faithfulness? We conduct a comprehensive empirical study across four frontier models (GPT-5.2, Claude Opus 4.5, Gemini-3-flash-preview, and DeepSeek-v3.2) on 100 GSM8K mathematical reasoning problems. Our analysis employs bootstrap confidence intervals, McNemar's tests for paired comparisons, and Cohen's d effect sizes to quantify the effects rigorously. The results reveal striking differences across models that challenge common assumptions about self-consistency. GPT-5.2 shows the expected pattern: accuracy improves from 78% to 90% at N=5, with faithfulness remaining relatively stable (0.540 to 0.510). Claude Opus 4.5 tells a completely different story. Its accuracy actually drops from 78% to 74.3% while faithfulness jumps dramatically from 0.270 to 0.891 at N=5. DeepSeek-v3.2, already at 98% accuracy, shows ceiling effects with modest faithfulness gains (0.440 to 0.541). Gemini-3-flash improves from 81% to 86% accuracy with a slight faithfulness decrease (0.260 to 0.212). Problem difficulty analysis reveals that GPT-5.2 solves 82% of hard problems while breaking only 13% of easy ones. Claude, in contrast, breaks 23% of easy problems, explaining its accuracy decrease. These findings matter for practitioners: self-consistency is not universally beneficial, and teams should test their specific models before deployment. We release our code and provide practical recommendations for navigating these tradeoffs.

Ambient AI scribes draft clinical notes, and published audits find their dominant error is omission: information the encounter established that the note fails to record. The standard check is an LLM judge: a second model reads the note against the transcript and flags problems. We ask whether judges detect omissions. Public corpora cannot supply the answer key: their clinician reference notes and transcripts are materially discrepant. Our benchmark has 500 single-error note pairs from audited fact sheets, 298 with a named fact certainly absent and 202 added-or-altered controls. Across eight judge designs, paired discrimination (the flawed note below its clean twin, 0.5 a coin flip) reads 0.79-0.94 on added or altered content and 0.50-0.63 on omissions. On single notes, no design flags omissions reliably more often than perfect notes. Wording changes, voting and GEPA prompt optimisation move the operating point without creating usable detection. Restructuring the task recovers it: list the facts the transcript establishes, then check the note for each. Two methods reach it independently and trade off: a per-fact pipeline, and a GEPA-evolved prompt doing the same in one call. The pipeline's flags name the missing fact and its severity at 2.7% false alarms. The single call detects more (36.9% against 24.6%, p=0.002) at 6.2% false alarms and a tenth of the cost per note. A physician author validated 70 items and, where the two routes disagree, sided with the pipeline on 10 of 10 (p=0.002). A second clinician, not an author, graded the severity rubric blind and agrees to within a grade. On real vendor notes from a companion census no benchmark threshold transfers, but the re-calibrated single call detects more than the best of the eight at half its false-alarm rate. Omissions whose fact is restated elsewhere defeat both routes. We release the benchmark, prompts and judgements.

Recent work on chain-of-thought (CoT) faithfulness reports single aggregate numbers (e.g., DeepSeek-R1 acknowledges hints 39% of the time), implying that faithfulness is an objective, measurable property of a model. This paper demonstrates that it is not. Three classifiers (a regex-only detector, a two-stage regex-plus-LLM pipeline, and an independent Claude Sonnet 4 judge) are applied to 10,276 influenced reasoning traces from 12 open-weight models spanning 9 families and 7B to 1T parameters. On identical data, these classifiers produce overall faithfulness rates of 74.4%, 82.6%, and 69.7%, respectively, with non-overlapping 95% confidence intervals. Per-model gaps range from 2.6 to 30.6 percentage points; all are statistically significant (McNemar's test, p < 0.001). The disagreements are systematic, not random: inter-classifier agreement measured by Cohen's kappa ranges from 0.06 ("slight") for sycophancy hints to 0.42 ("moderate") for grader hints, and the asymmetry is pronounced: for sycophancy, 883 cases are classified as faithful by the pipeline but unfaithful by the Sonnet judge, while only 2 go the other direction. Classifier choice can also reverse model rankings: Qwen3.5-27B ranks 1st under the pipeline but 7th under the Sonnet judge; OLMo-3.1-32B moves in the opposite direction, from 9th to 3rd. The root cause is that different classifiers operationalize related faithfulness constructs at different levels of stringency (lexical mention versus epistemic dependence), and these constructs yield divergent measurements on the same behavior. These results demonstrate that published faithfulness numbers cannot be meaningfully compared across studies that use different classifiers, and that future evaluations should report sensitivity ranges across multiple classification methodologies rather than single point estimates.

Attribution methods can provide powerful insights into the reasons for a classifier's decision. We argue that a key desideratum of an explanation method is its robustness to input hyperparameters which are often randomly set or empirically tuned. High sensitivity to arbitrary hyperparameter choices does not only impede reproducibility but also questions the correctness of an explanation and impairs the trust of end-users. In this paper, we provide a thorough empirical study on the sensitivity of existing attribution methods. We found an alarming trend that many methods are highly sensitive to changes in their common hyperparameters e.g. even changing a random seed can yield a different explanation! Interestingly, such sensitivity is not reflected in the average explanation accuracy scores over the dataset as commonly reported in the literature. In addition, explanations generated for robust classifiers (i.e. which are trained to be invariant to pixel-wise perturbations) are surprisingly more robust than those generated for regular classifiers.

We seek to identify the most relevant benefits offered by Medicare Advantage Health Plans that drive membership and market share. As an example, we explore plans operating in a single county in New Jersey between 2018 and 2023. A dataset of benefits from publicly available data sources was created and the variance inflation factor was applied to identify the correlation between the extracted features, to avoid multicollinearity and overparameterization problems. We categorized the variable Market Share and used it as a multinomial response variable with three categories: less than 0.3\%, 0.3\% to 1.5\%, and over 1.5\%. Categories were chosen to achieve approximately uniform distribution of plans (47, 60, and 65 respectively). We built a multinomial Lasso model using 5-fold cross-validation to tune the penalty parameter. Lasso forced some features to be dropped from the model, which reduces the risk of overfitting and increases the interpretability of the results. For each category, important variables are different. Certain brands drive market share, as do PPO plans and prescription drug coverage. Benefits, particularly ancillary benefits that are not part of CMS's required benefits, appear to have little influence, while financial terms such as deductibles, copays, and out-of-pocket limits are associated with higher market share. Finally, we evaluated the predictive accuracy of the Lasso model with the test set. The accuracy is 0.76.

Ambient AI scribes draft clinical notes under the reassurance that a clinician signs every note. We audited three commercial AI scribes on the same 142 consultations: 565 notes from recorded UK primary-care and US ambulatory encounters plus authored scenarios. Twelve discovery passes proposed 13,678 candidate errors; the 5,898 clearing an importance filter went to an adversarial panel of two models from different families, each told to refute what it could, and 618 survived. One note in three (31.3% [27.0, 35.6]) carries a verified failure, concentrated in allergy and medication information, invented patient identity, and history written up as examination on telephone consultations that can contain none. No product was given a patient record; setting aside the two classes a record would have prefilled, invented identity and dates, the rate is 24.8% [20.8, 29.0]. One failure mode did not fit our scheme, drawn from published scribe-error taxonomies: a treatment the clinician retracts, recorded as delivered care. Two clinicians adjudicated blind, disjoint samples: a physician author upheld 20 of 21 findings (95.2% [77.3, 99.2]) and an independent clinician, not an author, 12 of 12 ([75.8, 100]); both judged every sampled refusal genuine. A failure rate depends on the instrument as much as the scribes. With model, evidence and settings fixed, the review instruction alone moves the share of candidates verified from 9.3% to 79.0%, and the reviewing family moves it too: alone at that instruction the gentler flags 54.8% of notes against 27.8%. Between 28% and 97% of sampled notes carry a failure depending on the standard. Published audits disagree among themselves by a margin instrument differences alone can produce: omission is 54-86% of their errors against our 23.1%. We release all 618 findings with transcript-side evidence, every prompt and model version, and the re-runnable pipeline.

As of September 2023, ChatGPT correctly answers "what is 7+8" with 15, but when asked "7+8=15, True or False" it responds with "False". This inconsistency between generating and validating an answer is prevalent in language models (LMs) and erodes trust. In this paper, we propose a framework for measuring the consistency between generation and validation (which we call generator-validator consistency, or GV-consistency), finding that even GPT-4, a state-of-the-art LM, is GV-consistent only 76% of the time. To improve the consistency of LMs, we propose to finetune on the filtered generator and validator responses that are GV-consistent, and call this approach consistency fine-tuning. We find that this approach improves GV-consistency of Alpaca-30B from 60% to 93%, and the improvement extrapolates to unseen tasks and domains (e.g., GV-consistency for positive style transfers extrapolates to unseen styles like humor). In addition to improving consistency, consistency fine-tuning improves both generator quality and validator accuracy without using any labeled data. Evaluated across 6 tasks, including math questions, knowledge-intensive QA, and instruction following, our method improves the generator quality by 16% and the validator accuracy by 6.3% across all tasks.

Claims that language models homogenise are usually measured against human judgements collected for the study, which makes the human side an artifact of the design: a crowdworker given the model's instruction is running the model's prompt. We measure convergence against a human reference nobody built for the purpose -- 2,523 reader mark sets across 120 web documents, produced by people highlighting for their own reasons on a platform where the overlay of others' marks is off by default. Agreement is the overlap between two size-matched sentence sets minus the overlap expected when each is resampled within its own depth-and-length bands. The null's calibration is demonstrated, not asserted: every pair involving a random baseline lands within 0.006 of zero. On the median document each party names 14 sentences of 70; two readers share 4.1 and two models 8.7. Across 18 model arms spanning 11 vendors, 3 countries and both weight regimes, the median of 153 model pairs is +0.093 against a human yardstick of +0.040, and 99 sit entirely above the human interval. Two frontier models from rival labs reach +0.203, twice what GPT-4o agrees with itself on a second call. The effect is not determinism, prompt wording, procedure, vendor or routing, and it is graded: the smallest models agree at the human level. No model agrees with readers detectably more than a reader does, and at equal depth and length no surface feature separates their choices. The multiples are procedure-dependent and the ordering is not: models are cut to their sharpest set while a reader's is a random draw from what they marked, and blunting the models alike halves the gap without closing it. Tested out of sample on four models released after this analysis, against predictions fixed beforehand, none clears the human interval. A population simulated from several models is not several populations.

Online misinformation poses a global risk with harmful implications for society. Ordinary social media users are known to actively reply to misinformation posts with counter-misinformation messages, which is shown to be effective in containing the spread of misinformation. Such a practice is defined as "social correction". Nevertheless, it remains unknown how users respond to social correction in real-world scenarios, especially, will it have a corrective or backfire effect on users. Investigating this research question is pivotal for developing and refining strategies that maximize the efficacy of social correction initiatives. To fill this gap, we conduct an in-depth study to characterize and predict the user response to social correction in a data-driven manner through the lens of X (Formerly Twitter), where the user response is instantiated as the reply that is written toward a counter-misinformation message. Particularly, we first create a novel dataset with 55, 549 triples of misinformation tweets, counter-misinformation replies, and responses to counter-misinformation replies, and then curate a taxonomy to illustrate different kinds of user responses. Next, fine-grained statistical analysis of reply linguistic and engagement features as well as repliers' user attributes is conducted to illustrate the characteristics that are significant in determining whether a reply will have a corrective or backfire effect. Finally, we build a user response prediction model to identify whether a social correction will be corrective, neutral, or have a backfire effect, which achieves a promising F1 score of 0.816. Our work enables stakeholders to monitor and predict user responses effectively, thus guiding the use of social correction to maximize their corrective impact and minimize backfire effects. The code and data is accessible on https://github.com/claws-lab/response-to-social-correction.

We propose a benchmark to measure whether a language model is truthful in generating answers to questions. The benchmark comprises 817 questions that span 38 categories, including health, law, finance and politics. We crafted questions that some humans would answer falsely due to a false belief or misconception. To perform well, models must avoid generating false answers learned from imitating human texts. We tested GPT-3, GPT-Neo/J, GPT-2 and a T5-based model. The best model was truthful on 58% of questions, while human performance was 94%. Models generated many false answers that mimic popular misconceptions and have the potential to deceive humans. The largest models were generally the least truthful. This contrasts with other NLP tasks, where performance improves with model size. However, this result is expected if false answers are learned from the training distribution. We suggest that scaling up models alone is less promising for improving truthfulness than fine-tuning using training objectives other than imitation of text from the web.

Agentic benchmarks increasingly rely on LLM-simulated users to scalably evaluate agent performance, yet the robustness, validity, and fairness of this approach remain unexamined. Through a user study with participants across the United States, India, Kenya, and Nigeria, we investigate whether LLM-simulated users serve as reliable proxies for real human users in evaluating agents on τ-Bench retail tasks. We find that user simulation lacks robustness, with agent success rates varying up to 9 percentage points across different user LLMs. Furthermore, evaluations using simulated users exhibit systematic miscalibration, underestimating agent performance on challenging tasks and overestimating it on moderately difficult ones. African American Vernacular English (AAVE) speakers experience consistently worse success rates and calibration errors than Standard American English (SAE) speakers, with disparities compounding significantly with age. We also find simulated users to be a differentially effective proxy for different populations, performing worst for AAVE and Indian English speakers. Additionally, simulated users introduce conversational artifacts and surface different failure patterns than human users. These findings demonstrate that current evaluation practices risk misrepresenting agent capabilities across diverse user populations and may obscure real-world deployment challenges.

A decision model can give probabilities that sum to one for every question yet disagree with itself when the same decision is broken into smaller steps. We study this form of probabilistic coherence in Jev and the English Laya checkpoint, using 2,500 matched examples per system across TREC, CLINC150, and MASSIVE. Across 72,000 classification questions, we compare direct fine-label predictions with broad-category probabilities and predictions reconstructed through those categories. Both systems show substantial disagreement: mean category-level total variation ranges from 0.219 to 0.349 for Jev and from 0.424 to 0.689 for Laya, on a scale where zero means exact agreement. The consequences differ sharply. On CLINC150, reconstruction reduces Jev's accuracy by 22.9 percentage points (paired 95% bootstrap interval: [-24.9, -20.9]) and improves Laya's by 21.3 points ([18.0, 24.5]). The same directions hold across all three datasets, with all six unadjusted accuracy-change intervals excluding zero. Improved accuracy can also accompany less reliable confidence: on MASSIVE, Laya gains 9.2 accuracy points while its expected calibration error rises from 0.046 to 0.124. Error analysis identifies both broad-category mistakes and within-category confusions. These findings show why decision systems need joint evaluation of accuracy, confidence calibration, and probability coherence in the workflow used by an application.

Single-cell perturbation atlases rarely measure every intervention in every cellular context: a query perturbation is often observed in one or more source contexts but missing in the recipient context where its effect is needed. Ignoring those measured responses discards query-specific experimental evidence, whereas copying or weakly calibrating them across contexts risks transferring the wrong signal. We propose PerturbMap, which predicts a missing recipient-context effect by combining a recipient-local low-rank base with accepted proposals that transport the same perturbation's measured source responses through source-to-recipient ridge experts fit on paired training perturbations, with proposal weights determined by route reliability estimated on validation anchors. On the Perturb-CITE-seq melanoma cohort, PerturbMap improves full-effect MSE by 4.1\% over a recipient-local low-rank base and achieves lower MSE than FedAvg, zero-response, raw-copy, calibrated-copy, and identity-shuffled affine controls. It remains within 2.82times10^{-6} MSE of our centralized token-matched pooled reference, which uses a stronger training interface. A condition-mean specificity diagnostic shows the same direction: same-recipient top-10 counterpart retrieval by cosine increases from 74.5\% for the low-rank base to 80.5\% for PerturbMap.

Detailed profession-specific system prompts raise token use and estimated cost per response without a consistent accuracy gain. We evaluate Scientific Agents, an open-source corpus of 503 profession-specific AGENTS.md profiles, with Gemini 3.8 Flash via OpenRouter in the Pi agent harness. We compare matched profiles with four controls: a minimal baseline ("You are a helpful assistant"), the profile's opening role sentence, a generic scientific rigor guide, and a profile from an unrelated domain. Across nine text-based science benchmarks (4,531 sampled questions, 100 matched profiles), 4,488 items completed all five conditions after API-error retries, scored with automated, rule-based grading. The average profile-baseline accuracy difference is -0.6 percentage points (95% bootstrap interval [-1.5, +0.2] across fixed tasks), and no benchmark shows a statistically clear improvement. Matched profiles produced 1.5-2.3 times as many output tokens and cost 2.2-4.5 times more per successful call. On 60 tool-using BioMysteryBench bioinformatics problems (three runs each for baseline and profile), mean solve rates were 46.7% with the profile and 56.7% at baseline, a difference of -10.0 percentage points (95% interval [-16.7, -3.3]) driven by more frequent token- and time-limit stops under the profile. Longer prompts had one unexpected operational advantage: on SuperGPQA, frequent provider API drops left the short baseline with a correct first-pass answer on only 54.0% of items, against 71.6% with the profile. Generic and mismatched prompts were about as reliable, so this gain comes from prompt length or formatting rather than domain expertise. For the tested model and tasks, loading full profession profiles by default does not improve accuracy and costs considerably more; whether selective retrieval of profile sections or open-ended scientific tasks would change this remains to be tested.

Telephone fraud is pervasive and costly, but its inner workings are rarely observed at scale. We analyze a complete corpus of 10,211 inbound scam and spam calls -- 913 hours of audio and 330,956 transcribed turns from 5,780 distinct numbers -- collected over 54 days by an AI voice-agent honeypot that answered callers and kept them talking, and introduced in a companion data descriptor. We separate outright scams, which solicit sensitive information, from the larger stream of predatory but legal lead generation ("spam") that feeds them. Scam operations keep office hours (6.6x more calls per weekday than weekend day); thousands of disposable numbers run a small catalog of recycled scripts (thirty opening clusters, half the traffic in the top five); and callers solicit identity anchors -- a home address and a date of birth -- far more often than payment credentials, pressing through persistence and manufactured authority rather than overt threats. Our central experiment asks: does it matter who picks up? Every seeded lead carried one of ten fictitious identities drawn uniformly at random, so the identity a fraud operation reaches is fixed before the caller exists. Across 1,823 randomized calls, scammers spent about 15% more conversational turns per decade of the target's apparent age (rate ratio 1.15, 95% CI 1.08-1.23; randomization p = 0.005) -- yet what they asked for did not change (26.3% of calls reached a request for sensitive information; odds ratio 0.99 per decade, 95% CI 0.90-1.08). A second experiment casts early detection as a benchmark: from a scammer's opening lines alone, on a caller-disjoint split, escalation is predictable at 0.72 ROC-AUC from the first line and 0.87 by the eighth, and a plain bag-of-words classifier matches a fine-tuned on-device language model. Telephone fraud emerges as a templated industry that varies how hard it works a target, but not what it wants.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly proposed for high-stakes medical applications, there has emerged a critical need for reliable and accurate evaluation methodologies. Traditional accuracy metrics fail inadequately as they neither capture question characteristics nor offer topic-specific insights. To address this gap, we introduce MedIRT, a rigorous evaluation framework grounded in Item Response Theory (IRT), the gold standard in high-stakes educational testing. Unlike previous research relying on archival data, we prospectively gathered fresh responses from 80 diverse LLMs on a balanced, 1,100-question USMLE-aligned benchmark. Using one unidimensional two-parameter logistic IRT model per topic, we estimate LLM's latent model ability jointly with question difficulty and discrimination, yielding more stable and nuanced performance rankings than accuracy alone. Notably, we identify distinctive ``spiky'' ability profiles, where overall rankings can be misleading due to highly specialized model abilities. While GPT-5 was the top performer in a majority of domains (8 of 11), it was outperformed in Social Science and Communication by Claude-3-opus, demonstrating that even an overall 23rd-ranked model can hold the top spot for specific competencies. Furthermore, we demonstrate IRT's utility in auditing benchmarks by identifying flawed questions. We synthesize these findings into a practical decision-support framework that integrates our multi-factor competency profiles with operational metrics. This work establishes a robust, psychometrically grounded methodology essential for the safe, effective, and trustworthy deployment of LLMs in healthcare.

Language models (LMs) can produce errors that are hard to detect for humans, especially when the task is complex. RLHF, the most popular post-training method, may exacerbate this problem: to achieve higher rewards, LMs might get better at convincing humans that they are right even when they are wrong. We study this phenomenon under a standard RLHF pipeline, calling it "U-SOPHISTRY" since it is Unintended by model developers. Specifically, we ask time-constrained (e.g., 3-10 minutes) human subjects to evaluate the correctness of model outputs and calculate humans' accuracy against gold labels. On a question-answering task (QuALITY) and programming task (APPS), RLHF makes LMs better at convincing our subjects but not at completing the task correctly. RLHF also makes the model harder to evaluate: our subjects' false positive rate increases by 24.1% on QuALITY and 18.3% on APPS. Finally, we show that probing, a state-of-the-art approach for detecting Intended Sophistry (e.g. backdoored LMs), does not generalize to U-SOPHISTRY. Our results highlight an important failure mode of RLHF and call for more research in assisting humans to align them.

Agentic retrieval-augmented reasoning pipelines are increasingly used to structure how large language models (LLMs) incorporate external evidence in clinical decision support. These systems iteratively retrieve curated domain knowledge and synthesize it into structured reports before answer selection. Although such pipelines can improve performance, their impact on reliability under model variability remains unclear. In real-world deployment, heterogeneous models may align, diverge, or synchronize errors in ways not captured by accuracy. We evaluated 34 LLMs on 169 expert-curated publicly available radiology questions, comparing zero-shot inference with a radiology-specific multi-step agentic retrieval condition in which all models received identical structured evidence reports derived from curated radiology knowledge. Agentic inference reduced inter-model decision dispersion (median entropy 0.48 vs. 0.13) and increased robustness of correctness across models (mean 0.74 vs. 0.81). Majority consensus also increased overall (P<0.001). Consensus strength and robust correctness remained correlated under both strategies (ho=0.88 for zero-shot; ho=0.87 for agentic), although high agreement did not guarantee correctness. Response verbosity showed no meaningful association with correctness. Among 572 incorrect outputs, 72% were associated with moderate or high clinically assessed severity, although inter-rater agreement was low (appa=0.02). Agentic retrieval therefore was associated with more concentrated decision distributions, stronger consensus, and higher cross-model robustness of correctness. These findings suggest that evaluating agentic systems through accuracy or agreement alone may not always be sufficient, and that complementary analyses of stability, cross-model robustness, and potential clinical impact are needed to characterize reliability under model variability.

As LLMs are deployed in high-stakes settings, users must judge the correctness of individual responses, often relying on model-generated justifications such as reasoning chains or explanations. Yet, no standard measure exists for whether these justifications help users distinguish correct answers from incorrect ones. We formalize this idea as error verifiability and propose v_{bal}, a balanced metric that measures whether justifications enable raters to accurately assess answer correctness, validated against human raters who show high agreement. We find that neither common approaches, such as post-training and model scaling, nor more targeted interventions recommended improve verifiability. We introduce two methods that succeed at improving verifiability: reflect-and-rephrase (RR) for mathematical reasoning and oracle-rephrase (OR) for factual QA, both of which improve verifiability by incorporating domain-appropriate external information. Together, our results establish error verifiability as a distinct dimension of response quality that does not emerge from accuracy improvements alone and requires dedicated, domain-aware methods to address.

The validity screen (Cacioli, 2026d, 2026e) classifies LLM confidence signals as Valid, Indeterminate, or Invalid. We test whether these classifications predict selective prediction performance. Twenty frontier LLMs from seven families were evaluated on 524 items across six cognitive tracks. Valid models show mean Type 2 AUROC = .624 (SD = .048). Invalid models show mean AUROC = .357 (SD = .231). Cohen's d = 2.81, p = .002. The tiers order monotonically: Invalid (.357) < Indeterminate (.554) < Valid (.624). Split-half cross-validation yields median d = 1.77, P(d > 0) = 1.0 across 1,000 splits. The three-tier classification accounts for 47% of the variance in AUROC. DeepSeek-R1 drops from 85.3% accuracy at full coverage to 11.3% at 10% coverage. The screen predicts the criterion. For selective prediction, the screen matters.

Image attribution algorithms aim to identify important regions that are highly relevant to model decisions. Although existing attribution solutions can effectively assign importance to target elements, they still face the following challenges: 1) existing attribution methods generate inaccurate small regions thus misleading the direction of correct attribution, and 2) the model cannot produce good attribution results for samples with wrong predictions. To address the above challenges, this paper re-models the above image attribution problem as a submodular subset selection problem, aiming to enhance model interpretability using fewer regions. To address the lack of attention to local regions, we construct a novel submodular function to discover more accurate small interpretation regions. To enhance the attribution effect for all samples, we also impose four different constraints on the selection of sub-regions, i.e., confidence, effectiveness, consistency, and collaboration scores, to assess the importance of various subsets. Moreover, our theoretical analysis substantiates that the proposed function is in fact submodular. Extensive experiments show that the proposed method outperforms SOTA methods on two face datasets (Celeb-A and VGG-Face2) and one fine-grained dataset (CUB-200-2011). For correctly predicted samples, the proposed method improves the Deletion and Insertion scores with an average of 4.9% and 2.5% gain relative to HSIC-Attribution. For incorrectly predicted samples, our method achieves gains of 81.0% and 18.4% compared to the HSIC-Attribution algorithm in the average highest confidence and Insertion score respectively. The code is released at https://github.com/RuoyuChen10/SMDL-Attribution.

This paper provides an experimentally verified formal law for calculating the uplift that diversity of thought provides in Large Language Model (LLM) ensembles. From first principles, we derive an exact decomposition of LLM ensemble lift into rescue and damage masses, which yields a compact heuristic for calculating uplift. From this we extract the metrics which predict ensemble performance: an accuracy adjusted correctness correlation, ϕ_{adj}, together with the accuracy gap and collective accuracy of the pair. We test the law on 767,520 inferences from ten open-weight models over two graduate-level science benchmarks, together with a novel agentic cybersecurity benchmark in which each model conducts digital-forensics investigations by multi-turn tool use in a network-isolated sandbox (23,520 graded trials including abstentions); all votes are released openly. Calibrated once on SuperGPQA at a 40:60 vote split, the heuristic predicts lift on the calibration set with Spearman's ρ=0.84 and, with its coefficients frozen, transfers to two datasets never used in calibration (ρ=0.51 on GPQA Diamond and 0.84 on the forensic tasks), whilst the measured swap mass tracks realised lift with R^2ge 0.96 throughout. Raw ϕ has almost no predictive power (R^2le 0.09 throughout); the accuracy-adjusted ϕ_{adj} is markedly superior (R^2=0.67 on SuperGPQA), and the heuristic combining these metrics is the most stable pre pooling predictor across the three datasets.

Recent observations have underscored a disparity between the inflated benchmark scores and the actual performance of LLMs, raising concerns about potential contamination of evaluation benchmarks. This issue is especially critical for closed-source models and certain open-source models where training data transparency is lacking. In this paper we study data contamination by proposing two methods tailored for both open-source and proprietary LLMs. We first introduce a retrieval-based system to explore potential overlaps between evaluation benchmarks and pretraining corpora. We further present a novel investigation protocol named Testset Slot Guessing (TS-Guessing), applicable to both open and proprietary models. This approach entails masking a wrong answer in a multiple-choice question and prompting the model to fill in the gap. Additionally, it involves obscuring an unlikely word in an evaluation example and asking the model to produce it. We find that certain commercial LLMs could surprisingly guess the missing option in various test sets. Specifically, in the TruthfulQA benchmark, we find that LLMs exhibit notable performance improvement when provided with additional metadata in the benchmark. Further, in the MMLU benchmark, ChatGPT and GPT-4 demonstrated an exact match rate of 52\% and 57\%, respectively, in guessing the missing options in benchmark test data. We hope these results underscore the need for more robust evaluation methodologies and benchmarks in the field.

Many math- and science-oriented agent systems use hierarchical designs with specialized reviewer roles, assuming that a dedicated review stage should help turn wrong candidates into correct ones. We test this assumption on 4,181 verifier-grounded Omni-MATH problems using matched gpt-oss-120b actors. Collaboration adds little on the easiest tiers, but from tier 4 onward the gains open sharply; in this harder regime, broadcast-style peer discussion reaches higher final accuracy than a planner-executor-reviewer pipeline (PER). We ask whether this gap is explained by reviewer quality or by whether critique changes the next answer the protocol carries forward. It is not explained by reviewer precision alone: PER's reviewer is more precise than broadcast's (0.861 vs. 0.644), yet evaluator-verified useful critique is much less likely to change the next candidate and produces lower reviewer-guided repair. These results show that reviewer detection quality and critique uptake are empirically separable. Within matched PER interventions, forcing explicit acknowledgment lowers final accuracy, while embedding reviewer guidance directly in the solver's working context partially improves follow-through without closing the gap. Overall, reviewer-centric evaluation can overstate system quality: a protocol may spot errors well yet still fail to solve more problems if it does not act on those critiques.

Recent work has demonstrated the viability of using crowdsourcing as a tool for evaluating the truthfulness of public statements. Under certain conditions such as: (1) having a balanced set of workers with different backgrounds and cognitive abilities; (2) using an adequate set of mechanisms to control the quality of the collected data; and (3) using a coarse grained assessment scale, the crowd can provide reliable identification of fake news. However, fake news are a subtle matter: statements can be just biased ("cherrypicked"), imprecise, wrong, etc. and the unidimensional truth scale used in existing work cannot account for such differences. In this paper we propose a multidimensional notion of truthfulness and we ask the crowd workers to assess seven different dimensions of truthfulness selected based on existing literature: Correctness, Neutrality, Comprehensibility, Precision, Completeness, Speaker's Trustworthiness, and Informativeness. We deploy a set of quality control mechanisms to ensure that the thousands of assessments collected on 180 publicly available fact-checked statements distributed over two datasets are of adequate quality, including a custom search engine used by the crowd workers to find web pages supporting their truthfulness assessments. A comprehensive analysis of crowdsourced judgments shows that: (1) the crowdsourced assessments are reliable when compared to an expert-provided gold standard; (2) the proposed dimensions of truthfulness capture independent pieces of information; (3) the crowdsourcing task can be easily learned by the workers; and (4) the resulting assessments provide a useful basis for a more complete estimation of statement truthfulness.

Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback (RLHF) and Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) are the main RL paradigms used in LLM post-training, each offering distinct advantages. However, RLHF struggles with interpretability and reward hacking because it relies on human judgments that usually lack explicit criteria, whereas RLVR is limited in scope by its focus on correctness-based verifiers. We propose Reinforcement Learning with Binary Flexible Feedback (RLBFF), which combines the versatility of human-driven preferences with the precision of rule-based verification, enabling reward models to capture nuanced aspects of response quality beyond mere correctness. RLBFF extracts principles that can be answered in a binary fashion (e.g. accuracy of information: yes, or code readability: no) from natural language feedback. Such principles can then be used to ground Reward Model training as an entailment task (response satisfies or does not satisfy an arbitrary principle). We show that Reward Models trained in this manner can outperform Bradley-Terry models when matched for data and achieve top performance on RM-Bench (86.2%) and JudgeBench (81.4%, #1 on leaderboard as of September 24, 2025). Additionally, users can specify principles of interest at inference time to customize the focus of our reward models, in contrast to Bradley-Terry models. Finally, we present a fully open source recipe (including data) to align Qwen3-32B using RLBFF and our Reward Model, to match or exceed the performance of o3-mini and DeepSeek R1 on general alignment benchmarks of MT-Bench, WildBench, and Arena Hard v2 (at <5% of the inference cost).

Direct-decision models turn text into low-latency structured labels and scores, making them attractive for classification and automatic evaluation. Yet reliability requires more than accuracy: a model must also use the ordinal decision scale supplied by the user faithfully. We analyze JEV~1.13 and three open KEV models. Our investigation begins with ANLI, where JEV assigns 38.8\% of all predictions and 51.3\% of errors to Neutral despite 74.95\% accuracy, nearly balanced gold labels, and balanced candidate positions. Across 36 ordinal datasets, final decisions use only 67--76\% of the effective gold support, versus 87--102\% on four nominal tasks. Randomizing candidate order weakens but does not remove this compression. Holding items and source scores fixed while balancing gold support and positions, we refine scales from K=2 to 14; utilization falls for every model and reaches 26--75\% at K=14, although candidate probabilities remain broad for most models. Targeted BA-LoRA post-training raises gold-relative utilization from roughly 47\% to 86\% on eight supervised scales at both KEV sizes, showing that the compression is learned and modifiable rather than an immutable architectural limit. We call this ordinal scale-utilization bias: decision-stage candidate-space compression distinct from accuracy, gold imbalance, fixed position, and candidate count alone. The code and data are available at https://github.com/Glax147/jev_ordinal_scale_bia

Single-prompt accuracy is the dominant way to benchmark language models, but it can miss reliability failures that matter. We evaluate a 15-model open-weight corpus, with the main reliability analyses focused on 10 instruct models across five classification and reasoning benchmarks under five prompt variants each, measuring accuracy, token-probability calibration, verbal-confidence calibration, verbal parse rate, and prompt-perturbation spread for every (model x dataset x variant) cell. We find three broad results. First, evaluation design can materially change the conclusion. Switching Expected Calibration Error (ECE) token from a raw to a label-set-normalised definition changes per-cell calibration by a mean absolute 0.149. More strikingly, pairing a chain-of-thought prompt with a first-character evaluator on ARC-Challenge reduces apparent accuracy by 72-88% across all five primary models; two independent repair procedures recover 93.8% and 102.7% of the lost performance, indicating an evaluator-side rather than model-side failure. Second, confidence signals are fragile. On MMLU-Pro, every primary model verbally reports confidence substantially above both its accuracy and its token-probability confidence on the same rows, and verbal parse rate can collapse for a single model on a single prompt variant. Third, prompt robustness does not track parameter count reliably. Across 10 instruct models, the correlation between model size and prompt-perturbation spread ranges from -0.244 to 0.474 across benchmarks. Taken together, these results show that reliability conclusions for small language models depend not only on the model being evaluated, but also on the evaluation pipeline used to measure it. We argue that calibration definitions, evaluator logic, verbal parseability, and prompt robustness should be reported explicitly when making reliability claims.

A new generation of AI models generates step-by-step reasoning text before producing an answer. This text appears to offer a human-readable window into their computation process, and is increasingly relied upon for transparency and interpretability. However, it is unclear whether human understanding of this text matches the model's actual computational process. In this paper, we investigate a necessary condition for correspondence: the ability of humans to identify which steps in a reasoning text causally influence later steps. We evaluated humans on this ability by composing questions based on counterfactual measurements and found a significant discrepancy: participant accuracy was only 29.3%, barely above chance (25%), and remained low (42%) even when evaluating the majority vote on questions with high agreement. Our results reveal a fundamental gap between how humans interpret reasoning texts and how models use it, challenging its utility as a simple interpretability tool. We argue that reasoning texts should be treated as an artifact to be investigated, not taken at face value, and that understanding the non-human ways these models use language is a critical research direction.

Text-to-SQL technology has become crucial for translating natural language into SQL queries in various industries, enabling non-technical users to perform complex data operations. The need for accurate evaluation methods has increased as these systems have grown more sophisticated. However, we found that the Execution Accuracy (EX), the most promising evaluation metric, still shows a substantial portion of false positives and negatives compared to human evaluation. Thus, this paper introduces FLEX (False-Less EXecution), a novel approach to evaluating text-to-SQL systems using large language models (LLMs) to emulate human expert-level evaluation of SQL queries. Our method shows significantly higher agreement with human expert judgments, improving Cohen's kappa from 61 to 78.17. Re-evaluating top-performing models on the Spider and BIRD benchmarks using FLEX reveals substantial shifts in performance rankings, with an average performance decrease of 3.15 due to false positive corrections and an increase of 6.07 from addressing false negatives. This work contributes to a more accurate and nuanced evaluation of text-to-SQL systems, potentially reshaping our understanding of state-of-the-art performance in this field.

Some security-development settings require local models that map an objective to an ordered, checkable plan. We present a low-rank decomposition adapter and release a case-disjoint corpus with 24 authored decompositions and 83 derived next-step examples across 24 satellite-security cases. To prevent reference-plan leakage, prompts contain one objective and eight shuffled SPARTA candidates. The evaluation candidate sets are constructed with oracle inclusion of every reference technique, so this study measures selection from a controlled set, not retrieval. On six fixed cases and five decoding seeds, mean scores vary across adapters and prompted Qwen2.5 baselines; a separate greedy check over three adapter training seeds shows non-negligible training variance. A 24-fold greedy leave-one-case-out control at the two compact sizes likewise shows tradeoffs: at 1.5B, adapter precision is 0.583 against 0.480 for two-shot prompting, while recall is 0.586 against 0.660. Case-resampling intervals for adapter precision relative to the strongest prompted baseline cross zero at 1.5B and 7B. The adapter is also substantially more format-compliant, which prevents attributing all score differences to selection. Autoregressive next-step accuracy is 0.08, 0.06, and 0.29 at 0.5B, 1.5B, and 7B. We therefore offer the formulation, leakage-controlled dataset, reproducibility package, and descriptive analysis as a proof of concept, not evidence of a reliable stand-alone decomposition system or a general adapter advantage. A separate diagnostic tests contract reuse.

A paraphrase-quality audit of MathCheck (ICLR 2025) detected 4 semantically incorrect paraphrases in 129 groups (3.1%); removing them drops GPT-4o from rank 2 to rank 4 and elevates Claude Haiku and DeepSeek V3 above it; these ranking changes are invisible to any single-model evaluation. Cross-model unanimity found these errors automatically (>= 3/4 models for MathCheck; >= 6/9 for our primary evaluation) for under $10; in our own dataset the same protocol found that 47% of auto-generated connective-variation paraphrases were semantically incorrect. That flaw compounds a deeper measurement gap: Claude Haiku 4.5 achieves 86% accuracy yet SCR=50%, meaning half its theorems are answered differently under semantically equivalent restatements, while aggregate accuracy across 9 models spans only 86-96% yet Semantic Consistency Rates (SCR) span 50-82% -- a 32-point gap invisible to standard benchmarks. Formally, for any target ranking over 9 frontier models there exists a weighting over paraphrase families that realizes it (No-Free-Benchmark corollary), because no model Pareto-dominates all families -- so benchmark designers who select families are implicitly choosing which model wins. FormInv supplies the audit protocol (replicated on external benchmarks at 100% recall), SCR and per-theorem Cochran's Q as primary invariance measures evaluated on 9 models across 366-811 items (on Lean4-verified theorems), and FormInvSelector for regime-aware model selection.

The success of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) critically depends on the quality of the reward model. While this quality is primarily evaluated through accuracy, it remains unclear whether accuracy fully captures what makes a reward model an effective teacher. We address this question from an optimization perspective. First, we prove that regardless of how accurate a reward model is, if it induces low reward variance, then the RLHF objective suffers from a flat landscape. Consequently, even a perfectly accurate reward model can lead to extremely slow optimization, underperforming less accurate models that induce higher reward variance. We additionally show that a reward model that works well for one language model can induce low reward variance, and thus a flat objective landscape, for another. These results establish a fundamental limitation of evaluating reward models solely based on accuracy or independently of the language model they guide. Experiments using models of up to 8B parameters corroborate our theory, demonstrating the interplay between reward variance, accuracy, and reward maximization rate. Overall, our findings highlight that beyond accuracy, a reward model needs to induce sufficient variance for efficient optimization.

Standard accuracy benchmarks are designed to test how closely large language models (LLMs) approach correct answers, but are not suitable for testing whether LLMs stick with a correct answer when that answer is challenged by a plausible counter-argument. We introduce a controlled protocol for evaluating answer stability: after a model answers a multiple-choice question correctly, we challenge the model's answer with a coherent argument for an incorrect option and measure whether the model flips. The setup a) isolates argumentative content from overt social pressure and b) varies argument length, self-attribution, and cross-model source. Across seven frontier models and 57 MMLU subjects, flip rates range from 17.5% to 97.3%, revealing large differences in stability that are not captured by accuracy metrics alone. We find that self-attribution consistently increases flip rates (mean +7.1pp, up to +18.7pp). Also, pooling wrong-answer arguments across models and selecting the most effective one per question yields stronger adversarial challenges than relying on any single source model. We further construct MaxFlip, a curated challenge set that amplifies flips by up to +23.6pp over standard self-generated challenges. We release the protocol, challenge records, and MaxFlip to support stability evaluation alongside standard accuracy benchmarks. Materials are available at https://github.com/nafisenik/WhoFlips and https://hf.co/datasets/nafisehNik/WhoFlips.

Given an algorithmic predictor that is accurate on some source population consisting of strategic human decision subjects, will it remain accurate if the population respond to it? In our setting, an agent or a user corresponds to a sample (X,Y) drawn from a distribution D and will face a model h and its classification result h(X). Agents can modify X to adapt to h, which will incur a distribution shift on (X,Y). Our formulation is motivated by applications where the deployed machine learning models are subjected to human agents, and will ultimately face responsive and interactive data distributions. We formalize the discussions of the transferability of a model by studying how the performance of the model trained on the available source distribution (data) would translate to the performance on its induced domain. We provide both upper bounds for the performance gap due to the induced domain shift, as well as lower bounds for the trade-offs that a classifier has to suffer on either the source training distribution or the induced target distribution. We provide further instantiated analysis for two popular domain adaptation settings, including covariate shift and target shift.

OpenAI's GPT-Image-2 has effectively erased the visual boundary between authentic and AI-edited document images: a single number on a receipt can be replaced in under a second for a few cents. We release AIForge-Doc v2, a paired dataset of 3,066 GPT-Image-2 document forgeries with pixel-precise masks in DocTamper-compatible format, and benchmark four lines of defence: human inspectors (N=120, n=365 pair-votes via the public 2AFC site CanUSpotAI.com), TruFor (generic forensic), DocTamper (qcf-568, document-specific), and the same GPT-Image-2 model as a zero-shot self-judge -- asked, to avoid the trivial "image is mostly real" reading, whether any region was generated or edited by an AI image model. Human 2AFC accuracy is 0.501, indistinguishable from chance: even side-by-side, inspectors cannot tell GPT-Image-2 receipt forgeries from authentic counterparts. The three computational judges sit only modestly above (TruFor 0.599, DocTamper 0.585, self-judge 0.532). The self-judge fails consistently, not by chance: across five prompt strategies and four policies for handling ambiguous responses, AUC never rises above 0.59. To rule out the possibility that the two forensic detectors are broken on our source domain rather than blind to AI inpainting, we calibrate each on a same-domain traditional-tampering set built for its training distribution: TruFor reaches AUC 0.962 on cross-camera splicing of our dataset, DocTamper reaches 0.852 on cross-document OCR-token splicing with two-pass JPEG re-encoding. Both retain near-published performance on traditional tampering; switching to GPT-Image-2 inpainting drops AUC by 0.27-0.36 (0.962->0.599 TruFor; 0.852->0.585 DocTamper), isolating a detection gap specific to GPT-Image-2 inpainting. We release the dataset, pipeline, four-judge protocol, and calibration sets.

While automatic metrics drive progress in Machine Translation (MT) and Text Summarization (TS), existing metrics have been developed and validated almost exclusively for English and other high-resource languages. This narrow focus leaves Indian languages, spoken by over 1.5 billion people, largely overlooked, casting doubt on the universality of current evaluation practices. To address this gap, we introduce ITEM, a large-scale benchmark that systematically evaluates the alignment of 26 automatic metrics with human judgments across six major Indian languages, enriched with fine-grained annotations. Our extensive evaluation, covering agreement with human judgments, sensitivity to outliers, language-specific reliability, inter-metric correlations, and resilience to controlled perturbations, reveals four central findings: (1) LLM-based evaluators show the strongest alignment with human judgments at both segment and system levels; (2) outliers exert a significant impact on metric-human agreement; (3) in TS, metrics are more effective at capturing content fidelity, whereas in MT, they better reflect fluency; and (4) metrics differ in their robustness and sensitivity when subjected to diverse perturbations. Collectively, these findings offer critical guidance for advancing metric design and evaluation in Indian languages.

Practitioners make three prompt-design decisions with almost no controlled evidence behind them: how to format instructions and context (markdown, plain text, prose, or tabular), how many simultaneous instructions a system prompt can carry before compliance degrades, and how much context a model can hold before recall and honesty degrade. We report two controlled experiments crossing all three factors on one held, contamination-free synthetic corpus (the "Book of Veyra," 8,780 uniquely-named entities, deterministically regenerable from a fixed seed), evaluated across five models. Experiment 1 (960 calls/model) measures instruction-following decay as rule count N grows from 10 to 160, crossed with four formats and system-prompt vs. user-turn placement. Perfect-response rate collapses to zero by N=80 for every model, format, and placement. Placement produces effects at least as large as format at N=160 in most models, but the direction is model-specific. No model shows a reliable markdown advantage; one 35B model favors plain text instead. Experiment 2 (5,520 calls/model) measures recall accuracy, false-premise sycophancy, and absent-fact fabrication across a 2k-to-512k-token context ladder in the same four formats. Recall stays near ceiling through 64-128k tokens, then degrades sharply and format-dependently: one model's accuracy spread reaches 48 points at 128k tokens. Fabrication never occurs (0/5,760 probes), and sycophancy stays negligible (<=8.3%). What rises sharply near each model's context ceiling is outright refusal to answer (0% to 79-90%), distinct from sycophancy or fabrication. Neither pre-registered format ordering holds, and token overhead (+22% to +37% over plain text) further changes which format is preferable where accuracy spread is genuine. We release the full harness, corpus generator, and raw results (VeyraBench): https://github.com/iNetanel/veyrabench

A research proposal can describe an established mechanism correctly while claiming to introduce it. We study whether providing the earlier paper corrects such contribution claims. Three controlled experiments compare proposals generated with a contribution-bearing prior and a same-topic control. Providing the prior yields no clear aggregate reduction in unsupported novelty. Human analysis of 175 interpretable exposed proposals finds that 137 recognize the prior's relevance, but 61 correctly attribute the established contribution. Of 71 proposed remaining distinctions, 37 are covered by the same prior. We introduce Research Idea Novelty Inspection (RINI), which audits contribution claims against evidence, checks the remaining distinction, and applies local revisions. Five human annotators evaluate 1,080 original-revision pairs across three methods. On the same 240 originals judged to require correction, successful repair is 11.7% for Self-Revision, 39.1% for Retrieve-and-Revise, and 72.2% for RINI, with research tasks weighted equally. The improvement over same-evidence direct revision is 33.0 percentage points. The revised proposals retain their research questions and technical methods. These results motivate explicit contribution attribution when using literature to generate and revise research proposals.

As machine translation (MT) metrics improve their correlation with human judgement every year, it is crucial to understand the limitations of such metrics at the segment level. Specifically, it is important to investigate metric behaviour when facing accuracy errors in MT because these can have dangerous consequences in certain contexts (e.g., legal, medical). We curate ACES, a translation accuracy challenge set, consisting of 68 phenomena ranging from simple perturbations at the word/character level to more complex errors based on discourse and real-world knowledge. We use ACES to evaluate a wide range of MT metrics including the submissions to the WMT 2022 metrics shared task and perform several analyses leading to general recommendations for metric developers. We recommend: a) combining metrics with different strengths, b) developing metrics that give more weight to the source and less to surface-level overlap with the reference and c) explicitly modelling additional language-specific information beyond what is available via multilingual embeddings.

Medical vision-language model (VLM) evaluation is sensitive to workflow design, prompting strategy, and benchmark construction, yet most studies treat these factors in isolation. We introduce a reliability stress test for chest X-ray interpretation built on two balanced datasets (a private report-backed set and a curated MIMIC subset). Three medical VLMs (CheXagent, MedGemma-4B, and MedGemma-27B) are evaluated across three prompt styles and two workflows (single-VLM and multi-agent), producing 36 configurations. We show that exact-match accuracy alone can overstate the effectiveness of conservative models that default to "Normal" predictions. Diagnostic reliability also depends heavily on model family and scale: multi-agent reasoning helps some configurations but hurts others. Building on these observations, we propose a decision-time routing framework that selectively escalates to multi-agent inference only when beneficial, improving the cost-quality trade-off over fixed workflows. Our results highlight the need for evaluation protocols that jointly consider prompt sensitivity, failure-mode diversity, and workflow choice before clinical deployment.

When answering questions, LLMs can convey not only an answer, but a level of confidence about the answer being correct. This includes explicit confidence markers (e.g. giving a numeric score) as well as implicit markers, like an authoritative tone or elaborating with additional knowledge. For LLMs to be trustworthy knowledge sources, the confidence they convey should match their actual expertise; however, most current models tend towards overconfidence. To calibrate both implicit and explicit confidence markers, we introduce a pragmatic, listener-aware finetuning method (LACIE) that models the listener, considering not only whether an answer is right, but whether it will be accepted by a listener. We cast calibration as preference optimization, creating data via a two-agent game, where a speaker model's outputs are judged by a simulated listener. We then finetune three LLMs (Mistral-7B, Llama3-8B, Llama3-70B) with LACIE, and show that the resulting models are better calibrated w.r.t. a simulated listener. Crucially, these trends transfer to human listeners, helping them correctly predict model correctness: we conduct a human evaluation where annotators accept or reject an LLM's answers, finding that training with LACIE results in 47% fewer incorrect answers being accepted while maintaining the same level of acceptance for correct answers. Furthermore, LACIE generalizes to another dataset, resulting in a large increase in truthfulness on TruthfulQA when trained on TriviaQA. Our analysis indicates that LACIE leads to a better confidence separation between correct and incorrect examples. Qualitatively, we find that a LACIE-trained model hedges more and implicitly signals certainty when it is correct by using an authoritative tone or including details. Finally, LACIE finetuning leads to an emergent increase in model abstention (e.g. saying "I don't know") for answers that are likely wrong.

When a benchmark's accuracy saturates, it is often retired and replaced with a more challenging version. We show that this approach privileges accuracy and misses the opportunity to study six other key dimensions of agent performance: construct validity issues such as shortcuts, out-of-distribution generalizability, efficiency, reliability, the relative importance of the model versus the scaffold, and uplift from human-agent collaboration. We use CORE-Bench Hard, a benchmark for computational reproducibility of scientific code, as a case study to demonstrate that measuring agents along these dimensions yields meaningful insights into agent performance even after accuracy saturates. First, we surface threats to construct validity in CORE-Bench Hard that are difficult to anticipate with less capable agents. We introduce an improved benchmark, CORE-Bench v1.1, and an out-of-distribution task suite, CORE-Bench OOD. Second, we find that despite accuracy saturation, CORE-Bench v1.1 remains useful for measuring efficiency, reliability, model performance, and scaffold performance. Finally, we conduct a small-scale randomized experiment to measure uplift from human-agent collaboration on real-world computational reproducibility tasks. We find a statistically significant speedup by about a factor of two -- likely underestimated due to one-fifth of human-only reproductions reaching the time limit before completing -- and describe various other findings. Together, our contributions present a more rigorous alternative to the dominant accuracy-centric evaluation paradigm.

Although large language models (LLMs) have been assessed for general medical knowledge using medical licensing exams, their ability to effectively support clinical decision-making tasks, such as selecting and using medical calculators, remains uncertain. Here, we evaluate the capability of both medical trainees and LLMs to recommend medical calculators in response to various multiple-choice clinical scenarios such as risk stratification, prognosis, and disease diagnosis. We assessed eight LLMs, including open-source, proprietary, and domain-specific models, with 1,009 question-answer pairs across 35 clinical calculators and measured human performance on a subset of 100 questions. While the highest-performing LLM, GPT-4o, provided an answer accuracy of 74.3% (CI: 71.5-76.9%), human annotators, on average, outperformed LLMs with an accuracy of 79.5% (CI: 73.5-85.0%). With error analysis showing that the highest-performing LLMs continue to make mistakes in comprehension (56.6%) and calculator knowledge (8.1%), our findings emphasize that humans continue to surpass LLMs on complex clinical tasks such as calculator recommendation.

The widespread adoption of large language models (LLMs) makes it important to recognize their strengths and limitations. We argue that in order to develop a holistic understanding of these systems we need to consider the problem that they were trained to solve: next-word prediction over Internet text. By recognizing the pressures that this task exerts we can make predictions about the strategies that LLMs will adopt, allowing us to reason about when they will succeed or fail. This approach - which we call the teleological approach - leads us to identify three factors that we hypothesize will influence LLM accuracy: the probability of the task to be performed, the probability of the target output, and the probability of the provided input. We predict that LLMs will achieve higher accuracy when these probabilities are high than when they are low - even in deterministic settings where probability should not matter. To test our predictions, we evaluate two LLMs (GPT-3.5 and GPT-4) on eleven tasks, and we find robust evidence that LLMs are influenced by probability in the ways that we have hypothesized. In many cases, the experiments reveal surprising failure modes. For instance, GPT-4's accuracy at decoding a simple cipher is 51% when the output is a high-probability word sequence but only 13% when it is low-probability. These results show that AI practitioners should be careful about using LLMs in low-probability situations. More broadly, we conclude that we should not evaluate LLMs as if they are humans but should instead treat them as a distinct type of system - one that has been shaped by its own particular set of pressures.

Speech brain-computer interfaces (speech BCIs) translate neural activity into language, offering a path towards restoring speech for people with paralysis and, more broadly, enabling new forms of natural human-computer interaction. Despite this promise, the field lacks a common measure of progress because systems use different datasets, recording methods, types of speech, and vocabularies, so their reported scores are rarely comparable. Underlying this measurement problem are two unresolved questions: (i) what distribution of words should a speech BCI enable a user to communicate, and (ii) how much information from this distribution can a system convey. We address both by deriving open-vocabulary mutual information (OVMI), an information-theoretic quantity that measures the information conveyed by a decoder relative to a reference distribution over the words a user may wish to communicate. This allows capabilities measured under different conditions, such as distinct vocabularies, to be evaluated on a common communication scale. We show that ordinarily reported accuracy, word error rate (WER), and other metrics computed only over the words a system supports can overstate how much of a user's intended speech the system can communicate. We then use OVMI to compare existing systems, expose trade-offs between how much of the user's language a system supports and how accurately it decodes those words, show that these comparisons depend on what the user is expected to communicate, and demonstrate that selecting a vocabulary to maximise OVMI yields up to 16.3% relative improvement in accuracy across three speech domains. OVMI therefore provides the speech BCI community with a principled way to compare heterogeneous systems, improve vocabulary design, and measure progress in the field.

LLMs are increasingly used with external knowledge sources like the internet. Do they weigh information appropriately -- updating more for reliable sources (source discernment) and more when claims bring priors closer to the truth (truth discernment)? We formalize this as information discernment and introduce Learn2Discern (L2D), an experimental framework and benchmark grounded in three normative axioms with interpretable metrics. To establish external validity, a pre-registered, quota-matched user study (n=299) confirms that real LLM users endorse all three axioms and report that violations reduce their trust and usage intent. Across 13 models and nearly 670K trials, we find consistent failures across both dimensions: models perform near chance on source and truth discernment, rely on source popularity twice as much as source reliability, and update roughly equally whether a claim improves or worsens their position relative to the ground truth. Models integrate external knowledge most effectively on datasets where their priors are already the most accurate. Newer and larger models improve truth discernment but not source discernment, a blind spot that model complexity does not address. We identify simple inference-time interventions that improve both forms of discernment. We release our dataset and survey as a testbed for a core alignment property that scales in importance as LLMs replace traditional search.

With PRECISE, we extended Prediction-Powered Inference to produce bias-corrected estimates of ranking evaluation metrics by combining a small human-labeled set with a large LLM-judged set. PPI is provably unbiased regardless of the LLM judge's error profile. We make it applicable to hierarchical metrics like Precision@K, where annotations are per-document but the metric is per-query, by reducing the output-space computation from O(2^|C|) to O(2^K). On the ESCI benchmark, augmenting 30 human annotations with Claude 3 Sonnet judgments reduces the standard error of Precision@4 estimates from 4.45 to 3.50 (a 21% relative reduction). In a production system, our framework correctly identified the best of three system variants from 100 human labels and 2 hours of domain-expert annotation; A/B testing confirmed this ranking with +407 bps in daily sales.

A robot that fails at a task faces the first decision in corrective dialogue: act on its own diagnosis, consult another onboard sensor, or interrupt a person. Choosing well requires knowing how much the robot's sensors reveal about the cause and how reliable the robot's own diagnosis is. We build a simulated benchmark in which every failure's true cause is known, because we injected it, and measure what each sensor reveals, with explicit checks against data leakage. Some failures are diagnosable from camera images; others only from the robot's force data (0.99 from force data, no image method above 0.55). We then test six open vision-language models. Their behavior tracks the surface of the prompt, not the evidence: moving the refusal option from last to first in the answer list collapses refusal rates from 78-100% to 0-6% in three of the six swept model-and-family pairs. Accuracy from frames stays at or below a majority-class baseline under every prompt variant, with or without worked examples, and stated confidence carries no information about correctness. Handing the same models the force data as ten lines of text produces the first above-baseline diagnoses, in four of the six models: much of the failure reflects missing sensor data, not missing ability. We pose the choice as a three-action decision problem, act, consult your own sensors, or ask a human, whose optimal policy follows from measured accuracy. The models do not follow it, and their ask rates ignore a fourfold change in question cost. One question to a human still lifts them from that baseline to roughly the answerer's own reliability (0.70-0.81 when they ask). The decision to ask should be tied to measured accuracy and stated costs, not to the model's confidence.

Automated answer matching, which leverages LLMs to evaluate free-text responses by comparing them to a reference answer, shows substantial promise as a scalable and aligned alternative to human evaluation. However, its reliability requires robustness against strategic attacks such as guesswork or verbosity that may artificially inflate scores without improving actual correctness. In this work, we systematically investigate whether such tactics deceive answer matching models by prompting examinee models to: (1) generate verbose responses, (2) provide multiple answers when unconfident, and (3) embed conflicting answers with the correct answer near the start of their response. Our results show that these manipulations do not increase scores and often reduce them. Additionally, binary scoring (which requires a matcher to answer with a definitive "correct" or "incorrect") is more robust to attacks than continuous scoring (which requires a matcher to determine partial correctness). These findings show that answer matching is generally robust to inexpensive text manipulation and is a viable alternative to traditional LLM-as-a-judge or human evaluation when reference answers are available.

A large share of day-to-day work in professional domains happens inside PDF files: benefits packets, leases, datasheets, clinical guidelines, construction plans. Benchmarks for document AI have generally measured the required capabilities in isolation: OCR, layout analysis, chart reasoning, table QA, document VQA. A high score on any one of them does not necessarily reveal whether a model can answer a realistic question that someone in the field would actually ask about a specific PDF. GDP_pdf is a benchmark built to measure this directly. It consists of question-document pairs authored by working professionals in ten fields, and a candidate question was kept only when at least two frontier multimodal models failed it in a way that mattered: a wrong answer, missed decisive evidence, or a fabricated claim, rather than a superficial difference such as style. Each item comes with a rubric of atomic criteria, so we can report a graded rubric score as well as a strict task-level pass rate, and each item is tagged against a taxonomy of eleven capabilities in three tiers, spanning text extraction and grounding, table and chart comprehension, cross-referencing, spatial reasoning, and abstention on unsupported queries. We report results for seventeen frontier models on the 100-item benchmark: the best model passes only 30.7% of the items and the worst passes 2%. Most errors trace back to a small set of recurring loss patterns: misaligned tables, misread charts, skipped footnotes and exclusions, miscounted floor-plan symbols, scan noise, and amendments that supersede earlier text.

This study evaluates the performance of ChatGPT variants, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, both with and without prompt engineering, against solely student work and a mixed category containing both student and GPT-4 contributions in university-level physics coding assignments using the Python language. Comparing 50 student submissions to 50 AI-generated submissions across different categories, and marked blindly by three independent markers, we amassed n = 300 data points. Students averaged 91.9% (SE:0.4), surpassing the highest performing AI submission category, GPT-4 with prompt engineering, which scored 81.1% (SE:0.8) - a statistically significant difference (p = 2.482 times 10^{-10}). Prompt engineering significantly improved scores for both GPT-4 (p = 1.661 times 10^{-4}) and GPT-3.5 (p = 4.967 times 10^{-9}). Additionally, the blinded markers were tasked with guessing the authorship of the submissions on a four-point Likert scale from `Definitely AI' to `Definitely Human'. They accurately identified the authorship, with 92.1% of the work categorized as 'Definitely Human' being human-authored. Simplifying this to a binary `AI' or `Human' categorization resulted in an average accuracy rate of 85.3%. These findings suggest that while AI-generated work closely approaches the quality of university students' work, it often remains detectable by human evaluators.

Interactive agents repeatedly choose among a finite set of actions, labels, or ordinal outcomes. Generating a free-form response for each choice adds latency and complicates the interface between a model and its environment. We present Intern-Decision, a family of 0.8B, 2B, and 4B multimodal decision models that return structured choices and candidate probabilities from text and optional images. Our autoregressive masked language modeling objective places one decision placeholder per field in a complete assistant JSON skeleton. Ground-truth symbols appear only in supervision, while all fields are evaluated in a single causal forward pass using the backbone's native language-model head. The 4B model achieves a 90.02% unweighted average accuracy across seven evaluation suites, compared with 88.74% for Jev v1.13.0. For a fixed 289-token request with three fields on one RTX 4090, mean latency is 44.16 ms for the 4B model and approximately 33--34 ms for the smaller models. On a separate 96-case known-distribution pilot, temperature scaling reduces expected multiclass Brier from 0.628 to 0.550 and expected calibration error from 0.213 to 0.089. A confidence-based handoff study on 111 public Jevbench-Hard items improves accuracy from 82/111 (73.87%) to 97/111 (87.39%) by routing 42 items to Atria-Dawn-Preview. We also describe qualitative game, visual interface, and browser demonstrations. These results support compact decision models as a practical component of larger agent systems.

Verbal confidence elicitation is widely used to extract uncertainty estimates from LLMs. We tested whether seven instruction-tuned open-weight models (3-9B parameters, four families) produce verbalised confidence that meets minimal validity criteria for item-level Type-2 discrimination under minimal numeric elicitation with greedy decoding. In a pre-registered study (OSF: osf.io/azbvx), 524 TriviaQA items were administered under numeric (0-100) and categorical (10-class) elicitation to eight models at Q5_K_M quantisation on consumer hardware, yielding 8,384 deterministic trials. A psychometric validity screen was applied to each model-format cell. All seven instruct models were classified Invalid on numeric confidence (H2 confirmed, 7/7 vs. predicted >=4/7), with a mean ceiling rate of 91.7% (H1 confirmed). Categorical elicitation did not rescue validity. Instead, it disrupted task performance in six of seven models, producing accuracy below 5% (H4 not confirmed). Token-level logprobability did not usefully predict verbalised confidence under the observed variance regime (H5 confirmed, mean cross-validated R^2 < 0.01). Within the reasoning-distilled model, reasoning-trace length showed a strong negative partial correlation with confidence (rho = -0.36, p < .001), consistent with the Reasoning Contamination Effect. These results do not imply that internal uncertainty representations are absent. They show that minimal verbal elicitation fails to preserve internal signals at the output interface in this model-size regime. Psychometric screening should precede any downstream use of such signals.

Memory systems for conversational LLMs are conventionally evaluated by direct, fact-seeking questions about prior dialogue (Direct QA): can the model recall fact X from a prior conversation? We tested whether higher Direct QA accuracy correlates with higher user satisfaction in a 4-month deployment (40 users, 1,872 sessions, 7 memory conditions). Existing-benchmark Direct QA varies from 19.7% to 70.1% across the 7 conditions, but satisfaction does not change. We hypothesize that existing benchmarks and user satisfaction are tracking different capabilities: benchmarks measure elicited retrieval (recall when asked), while conversation requires natural integration (detecting relevance and naturally weaving prior context into a response). To examine this, we introduce MemUse, a set of real user-cued memory moments drawn from the deployment, scored by an integration-aware judgment of the natural conversational response. Holding the model and context fixed, the same system that scores 78.8% on Direct QA references only 7.9% of those facts in conversation -- a 71-point gap. Within these moments, Natural Integration is associated with satisfaction, whereas Direct QA is not. We release the deployment corpus and MemUse together with all judgments and scoring prompts at https://github.com/ryuichi-sumida/memuse.

We test and study the variation in speech recognition of fine-tuned versions of the Whisper model on child, elderly and non-native Dutch speech from the JASMIN-CGN corpus. Our primary goal is to evaluate how speakers' age and linguistic background influence Whisper's performance. Whisper achieves varying Word Error Rates (WER) when fine-tuned on subpopulations of specific ages and linguistic backgrounds. Fine-tuned performance is remarkably better than zero-shot performance, achieving a relative reduction in WER of 81% for native children, 72% for non-native children, 67% for non-native adults, and 65% for native elderly people. Our findings underscore the importance of training speech recognition models like Whisper on underrepresented subpopulations such as children, the elderly, and non-native speakers.

Platform abuse campaigns conceal redirection instructions with emojis, homophones, character decomposition, and redundant symbols, then route users through disguised links to services associated with pornography, fraud, gambling, or illicit transactions. Existing benchmarks evaluate obfuscated text and risky webpages separately, obscuring how target recovery affects downstream evidence acquisition. We introduce RiskChainBench, pairing 3,600 synthetic token-text restoration inputs from 600 source sessions with 600 corresponding human-labeled local web environments. A model first restores the message, operational intent, and destination; the same underlying model then acts as a VLM-driven web agent that investigates the correctly associated website and produces a frozen, evidence-cited risk report without message-side semantics or domain-reputation cues. We score restoration and correct-routing web investigation separately and compose them offline by applying the frozen primary-entry prediction as a gate to the same Task 2 result. Human labels determine task correctness, while a fixed multimodal evidence judge assesses faithfulness, sufficiency, completeness, and consistency. Across ten models, Entry Top-1 ranges from 35.2% to 95.2% and web decision accuracy from 26.3% to 62.8%; the leading systems differ across entry recovery, full reconstruction, website decisions, and fine-grained typing. Execution failures account for 31.9% of web runs, whereas post-decision type errors account for only 0.9%, identifying stable exploration and risk judgment as the principal bottlenecks. We release the benchmark, protocol, and resettable local sandbox.

Math reasoning benchmarks have proliferated, yet most lack a per-item difficulty signal grounded in actual human performance. We introduce KCSAT-ML, a decade (2014-2025) of Korean College Scholastic Ability Test (KCSAT; Suneung) mathematics: 664 problems with a 339-item core set carrying official per-item error rates from nationwide cohorts of hundreds of thousands of examinees. We pair the benchmark with Difficulty-aligned Reasoning Gain (DRG): a score-orthogonal metric that asks whether a model's mistakes concentrate on the items humans found hard, or on items humans found easy. Together they expose, across a wide range of VLMs (and LLMs via OCR), three patterns: (i) low-budget accuracy collapses on the high-human-error tail at every model size; (ii) test-time scaling (TTS) raises token use roughly linearly with cohort error rate, while accuracy gains follow a non-monotonic curve; (iii) within a single family, TTS flips between anti-scaling on the hardest items and overthinking on easier ones -- two faces of the same alignment failure. On DRG, models with near-identical accuracy can sit at near-opposite values: one model gets wrong what humans also find hard, while another solves the hardest items yet fails on items humans find easy -- a contrast that aggregate accuracy hides. Our code and dataset builder will be open-sourced at https://github.com/naver-ai/KCSAT-ML.

Combining the answers a large language model (LLM) samples for a question into one decision is a test-time information fusion problem, usually solved by majority voting. Voting is unreliable on difficult questions, where the sampled answers share correlated errors, so the wrong answer can win and drawing more samples makes the decision worse. Selecting a candidate by reading a correctness signal from the model's hidden states is a promising alternative, but its accuracy varies across models and tasks, and no measure indicates when it can be trusted. In this paper, we propose CASE (Correctness-Axis SElection), a dynamic selection combiner that trains a linear gate on the answer-token hidden state and selects the highest-scoring candidate. Its main contribution is decodability, a leakage-free measure of how well the gate ranks a question's correct candidates above its incorrect ones, which predicts whether hidden-state selection will outperform voting. A conventional probe appears accurate only because of question-identity leakage, which vanishes under question-grouped evaluation. On held-out data, decodability predicts the accuracy gain of selection over voting with a Pearson correlation r=0.75 and a decision threshold near AUC=0.60. Across general and medical LLMs, CASE improves over voting by up to 19 points on medium-difficulty questions and 16.8 points on hard questions. Decodability depends on the aligned knowledge a model must recall, not on its scale, and its prediction transfers to an unseen scientific domain within 3.8 points. It thus provides a practical criterion, measurable in advance for a given model and task, for choosing between learned selection and majority voting.

Knowing domain rules does not guarantee applying them to a case. We study this distinction in traditional Chinese Bazi through 3,000 Chinese multiple-choice questions spanning 14 Theory and 11 Case categories. Six endpoint systems are evaluated, with primary results reported on a 2,492-item model-informed refinement. Theory accuracy exceeds Case accuracy for every system, and gaps of 16.60-29.56 percentage points remain when invalid responses are excluded. The contrast is more specific than a general case-reasoning deficit. Across six systems, Twelve Stages and Nayin reach mean accuracies of 89.10% and 88.62%, while Shensha Basics reaches 75.96%. Within Case, Luck Pillars averages 84.62%, but Career and Family Relations average only 36.98% and 38.19%. Overall rankings also conceal different category strengths. On the original 3,000 items, paired DeepSeek native/disabled comparisons associate native configurations with Theory gains of 6.53 and 12.20 points for Flash and Pro, respectively; Case changes are -3.67 and +1.27 points. These are provider-configuration associations, not isolated causal effects of reasoning. The results motivate task-specific evaluation of cultural-domain applications rather than reliance on aggregate knowledge scores. The benchmark measures agreement with a model-generated, model-verified answer key, not real-world predictive validity. Final-set results are post-selection descriptions, and incomplete provenance and expert validation constrain their interpretation.

Text-output scores alone do not show whether quantization preserves performance on speech tasks whose target labels cannot be recovered from the transcript. We evaluate fixed mixed 4/8-bit Qwen2-Audio-7B-Instruct allocations averaging 6 and 7 bits per parameter on 508 English-to-German FLEURS utterances and on 512 RAVDESS emotion clips from 16 speakers. The BLEU and chrF differences from half precision (FP16) have intervals that include zero for both allocations. On RAVDESS, the same two sentences occur equally often with every emotion label. The absolute accuracy differences from FP16 are -3.71% for 6 bit and -1.17% for 7 bit. The 6-bit speaker interval excludes zero and an exact two-sided sign-flip test gives p=0.0148; the 7-bit interval includes zero. Same-budget controls do not identify either selected allocation as best. This case study shows why translation scores and performance on tasks beyond the transcript need separate evaluation.

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) on AMLworld's smallest test splits is costly because each of over a million targets requires a separate graph prompt. Sampling reduces this cost, but small balanced subsets change unweighted precision and F1. We introduce AMLworld-Compact, an evaluation set that retains every illicit test transaction and samples benign transactions from supervised-score strata. Its HT-Coreset protocol reduces evaluation targets by 271x and 611x on HI-Small and LI-Small. Horvitz-Thompson weights give unbiased full-test confusion-count estimates for fixed predictions; recall is exact, while precision and F1 are ratio estimates. In a held-out study using Graph Feature Preprocessor (GFP) features, one boosted-tree family defines strata for evaluating the other over 500 draws per configuration. At the released sizes, F1 RMSE is 0.00-2.58 percentage points versus 4.44-7.41 for uniform sampling with HT weights; conservative intervals remain broad. Under the evaluated graph prompts, seven open-weight LLMs have weighted precision near the predict-all-illicit baseline. In an outcome-stratified audit of 1,000 HI-Small few-shot outputs from one run per model, lexical checks pass for 84.5% of correct and 56.2% of incorrect binary verdicts, so these markers do not establish correctness. We release the evaluation sets, construction code, and audit tools at https://huggingface.co/datasets/typhoon-ai/AMLworldCompactEval and https://github.com/nat-nischw/AMLworld-Compact.

Context: Code reviews are crucial for software quality. Recent AI advances have allowed large language models (LLMs) to review and fix code; now, there are tools that perform these reviews. However, their reliability and accuracy have not yet been systematically evaluated. Objective: This study compares different LLMs' performance in detecting code correctness and suggesting improvements. Method: We tested GPT4o and Gemini 2.0 Flash on 492 AI generated code blocks of varying correctness, along with 164 canonical code blocks from the HumanEval benchmark. To simulate the code review task objectively, we expected LLMs to assess code correctness and improve the code if needed. We ran experiments with different configurations and reported on the results. Results: With problem descriptions, GPT4o and Gemini 2.0 Flash correctly classified code correctness 68.50% and 63.89% of the time, respectively, and corrected the code 67.83% and 54.26% of the time for the 492 code blocks of varying correctness. Without problem descriptions, performance declined. The results for the 164 canonical code blocks differed, suggesting that performance depends on the type of code. Conclusion: LLM code reviews can help suggest improvements and assess correctness, but there is a risk of faulty outputs. We propose a process that involves humans, called the "Human in the loop LLM Code Review" to promote knowledge sharing while mitigating the risk of faulty outputs.

Sycophancy in large language models risks amplifying unsupported claims or beliefs across the knowledge ecosystem as these systems increasingly contribute to research synthesis, evaluation, and decision-making. A reliable model should revise its judgement when a user identifies a genuine flaw, but should resist pushback based on fallacies, emotion, or irrelevant appeals to authority. While sycophancy is usually measured on questions with a verifiable answer, the evaluative tasks in which it is most difficult to detect have no such ground truth. We introduce Big-Big-SycoBench, which measures sycophancy through argument discernment: the ability to revise an evaluation after valid criticism while resisting invalid pressure. The benchmark consists of 450 text artefacts with 5,400 arguments for raising or lowering their quality scores, each reviewed by one or more of twelve human annotators. An LLM scores each artefact twenty times to establish its baseline score and uncertainty. The model is then given a valid or invalid argument and asked to update its score. We only count a revision if it exceeds the model's own baseline variability. We use the resulting score delta to distinguish responsiveness to valid arguments from compliance with invalid ones. Across ten models, responsiveness is 88-95\% for seven, 76-77\% for Kimi K3 and GLM-5.3, and 32\% for Opus 5.5. Compliance ranges from 0.2\% for GPT-6 Astra to 95\% for GPT-4o. Big-Big-SycoBench is intended to guide the development of models whose judgements can be corrected by sound arguments, but not displaced by unsupported pressure.

Search-augmented LLM agents can produce deep research reports (DRRs), but verifying claim-level factuality remains challenging. Existing fact-checkers are primarily designed for general-domain, factoid-style atomic claims, and there is no benchmark to test whether such verifiers transfer to DRRs. Yet building such a benchmark is itself difficult. We first show that static expert-labeled benchmarks are brittle in this setting: in a controlled study with PhD-level specialists, unassisted experts achieve only 60.8% accuracy on a hidden micro-gold set of verifiable claims. We propose Evolving Benchmarking via Audit-then-Score (AtS), where benchmark labels and rationales are explicitly revisable: when a verifier disagrees with the current benchmark, it must submit evidence; an auditor adjudicates the dispute; and accepted revisions update the benchmark before models are scored. Across four AtS rounds, expert micro-gold accuracy rises to 90.9%, indicating experts are substantially more reliable as auditors than as one-shot labelers. We instantiate AtS as DeepFact-Bench, a versioned DRR factuality benchmark with auditable rationales, and DeepFact-Eval, a document-level verification agent (with a grouped lite variant) that outperforms existing verifiers on DeepFact-Bench and transfers well to external factuality datasets.

Test-time scaling for large language models (LLMs) can involve generating multiple candidate solutions for selection or revising an earlier attempt. To guide selection and revision, we need a verifier that can estimate candidate correctness and provide evidence of failure. In competitive programming, however, official judging systems provide authoritative verdicts under finite submission budgets, without revealing failure explanations or failing inputs. To provide informative feedback without consuming official submissions, we formulate a task in which a model judges and diagnoses a candidate program using only the problem statement and source code, with generated counterexamples serving as checkable evidence. To evaluate this task, we build USACO-JUDGE from the USACO 2026 contests, using accepted and unaccepted programs written by human experts and multiple LLMs. We then train ARBITER, a 35B mixture-of-experts (MoE) agentic verifier, with reinforcement learning in a generic execution sandbox. Training raises counterexample success on incorrect programs from 40.61% to 62.67% and mean binary verdict accuracy on USACO-JUDGE from 71.41% to 87.41%, approaching frontier verification performance. Beyond verification, ARBITER outperforms baselines in both code selection and refinement. In an IOI 2026 case study, ARBITER-guided refinement raises GPT-OSS-120B's expected score above the gold-medal threshold under the official submission limit.

The increasing reliance on AI-driven solutions, particularly Large Language Models (LLMs) like the GPT series, for information retrieval highlights the critical need for their factuality and fairness, especially amidst the rampant spread of misinformation and disinformation online. Our study evaluates the factual accuracy, stability, and biases in widely adopted GPT models, including GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, contributing to reliability and integrity of AI-mediated information dissemination. We introduce 'Global-Liar,' a dataset uniquely balanced in terms of geographic and temporal representation, facilitating a more nuanced evaluation of LLM biases. Our analysis reveals that newer iterations of GPT models do not always equate to improved performance. Notably, the GPT-4 version from March demonstrates higher factual accuracy than its subsequent June release. Furthermore, a concerning bias is observed, privileging statements from the Global North over the Global South, thus potentially exacerbating existing informational inequities. Regions such as Africa and the Middle East are at a disadvantage, with much lower factual accuracy. The performance fluctuations over time suggest that model updates may not consistently benefit all regions equally. Our study also offers insights into the impact of various LLM configuration settings, such as binary decision forcing, model re-runs and temperature, on model's factuality. Models constrained to binary (true/false) choices exhibit reduced factuality compared to those allowing an 'unclear' option. Single inference at a low temperature setting matches the reliability of majority voting across various configurations. The insights gained highlight the need for culturally diverse and geographically inclusive model training and evaluation. This approach is key to achieving global equity in technology, distributing AI benefits fairly worldwide.

The ACM Recommender Systems Challenge 2018 focused on the task of automatic music playlist continuation, which is a form of the more general task of sequential recommendation. Given a playlist of arbitrary length with some additional meta-data, the task was to recommend up to 500 tracks that fit the target characteristics of the original playlist. For the RecSys Challenge, Spotify released a dataset of one million user-generated playlists. Participants could compete in two tracks, i.e., main and creative tracks. Participants in the main track were only allowed to use the provided training set, however, in the creative track, the use of external public sources was permitted. In total, 113 teams submitted 1,228 runs to the main track; 33 teams submitted 239 runs to the creative track. The highest performing team in the main track achieved an R-precision of 0.2241, an NDCG of 0.3946, and an average number of recommended songs clicks of 1.784. In the creative track, an R-precision of 0.2233, an NDCG of 0.3939, and a click rate of 1.785 was obtained by the best team. This article provides an overview of the challenge, including motivation, task definition, dataset description, and evaluation. We further report and analyze the results obtained by the top performing teams in each track and explore the approaches taken by the winners. We finally summarize our key findings, discuss generalizability of approaches and results to domains other than music, and list the open avenues and possible future directions in the area of automatic playlist continuation.

Corruption studies, the primary tool for evaluating chain-of-thought (CoT) faithfulness, identify which chain positions are "computationally important" by measuring accuracy when steps are replaced with errors. We identify a systematic confound: for chains with explicit terminal answer statements, the dominant format in standard benchmarks, corruption studies detect where the answer text appears, not where computation occurs. A within-dataset format ablation provides the key evidence: on standard GSM8K chains ending with "the answer is X," removing only the answer statement, preserving all reasoning, collapses suffix sensitivity ~19x at 3B (N=300, p=0.022). Conflicting-answer experiments quantify the causal mechanism: at 7B, CC accuracy drops to near-zero (<=0.02) across five architecture families; the followed-wrong rate spans 0.63-1.00 at 3B-7B and attenuates at larger scales (0.300 at Phi-4-14B, ~0.01 at 32B). A within-stable 7B replication (9.3x attenuation, N=76, p=7.8e-3; Qwen3-8B N=299, p=0.004) provides converging evidence, and the pattern replicates on MATH (DeepSeek-R1-7B: 10.9x suffix-survival recovery). On chains without answer suffixes the same protocol identifies the prefix as load-bearing (Delta=-0.77, p<10^-12). Generation-time probes confirm a dissociation: the answer is not early-determined during generation (early commitment <5%), yet at consumption time model outputs systematically follow the explicit answer text. The format-determination effect persists through 14B (8.5x ratio, p=0.001) and converges toward zero at 32B. We propose a three-prerequisite protocol (question-only control, format characterization, all-position sweep) as a minimum standard for corruption-based faithfulness studies.

We introduce a corpus of 7,032 sentences rated by human annotators for formality, informativeness, and implicature on a 1-7 scale. The corpus was annotated using Amazon Mechanical Turk. Reliability in the obtained judgments was examined by comparing mean ratings across two MTurk experiments, and correlation with pilot annotations (on sentence formality) conducted in a more controlled setting. Despite the subjectivity and inherent difficulty of the annotation task, correlations between mean ratings were quite encouraging, especially on formality and informativeness. We further explored correlation between the three linguistic variables, genre-wise variation of ratings and correlations within genres, compatibility with automatic stylistic scoring, and sentential make-up of a document in terms of style. To date, our corpus is the largest sentence-level annotated corpus released for formality, informativeness, and implicature.

Principle-based regulation, with evaluative standards such as "fair, clear, and not misleading" or "deliver good outcomes", cannot be reduced to binary predicates, and LLM-as-judge is increasingly used as the substitute. Our position is that any such judge must be evaluated on four axes: accuracy, paraphrase robustness, adversarial robustness, and calibration. We release Principle-Bench, 168 cryptoasset financial-promotion scenarios mapped to two UK FCA principles, with paraphrase, adversarial keyword-stuffing, and boundary perturbations authored under a pre-registered rubric; the first benchmark covering all four axes for principle-based regulation. We also introduce Ceca (Calibrated Exemplar-Cluster Assessment): a calibrated, auditable assessor that emits exact per-exemplar counterfactual attributions. Across keyword counting, three sentence-transformer embedders, an open-weight LLM-judge, and a calibrated cascade, no method dominates all four axes. A 120B LLM-judge, strongest on benign inputs, loses 47 accuracy points (0.74 to 0.27) on keyword-stuffed Consumer Duty inputs: "compliance theatre." A second judge from a different model family agrees only at Cohen's kappa = 0.16 on that split, localising the failure to the model rather than the corpus. Any deployment-grade LLM-judge for principle-based regulation must report per-principle adversarial deception and post-hoc calibration alongside aggregate accuracy.

Background: General-purpose large language models that utilize both text and images have not been evaluated on a diverse array of challenging medical cases. Methods: Using 934 cases from the NEJM Image Challenge published between 2005 and 2023, we evaluated the accuracy of the recently released Generative Pre-trained Transformer 4 with Vision model (GPT-4V) compared to human respondents overall and stratified by question difficulty, image type, and skin tone. We further conducted a physician evaluation of GPT-4V on 69 NEJM clinicopathological conferences (CPCs). Analyses were conducted for models utilizing text alone, images alone, and both text and images. Results: GPT-4V achieved an overall accuracy of 61% (95% CI, 58 to 64%) compared to 49% (95% CI, 49 to 50%) for humans. GPT-4V outperformed humans at all levels of difficulty and disagreement, skin tones, and image types; the exception was radiographic images, where performance was equivalent between GPT-4V and human respondents. Longer, more informative captions were associated with improved performance for GPT-4V but similar performance for human respondents. GPT-4V included the correct diagnosis in its differential for 80% (95% CI, 68 to 88%) of CPCs when using text alone, compared to 58% (95% CI, 45 to 70%) of CPCs when using both images and text. Conclusions: GPT-4V outperformed human respondents on challenging medical cases and was able to synthesize information from both images and text, but performance deteriorated when images were added to highly informative text. Overall, our results suggest that multimodal AI models may be useful in medical diagnostic reasoning but that their accuracy may depend heavily on context.

Current question-answering benchmarks predominantly focus on accuracy in realizable prediction tasks. Conditioned on a question and answer-key, does the most likely token match the ground truth? Such benchmarks necessarily fail to evaluate LLMs' ability to quantify ground-truth outcome uncertainty. In this work, we focus on the use of LLMs as risk scores for unrealizable prediction tasks. We introduce folktexts, a software package to systematically generate risk scores using LLMs, and evaluate them against US Census data products. A flexible API enables the use of different prompting schemes, local or web-hosted models, and diverse census columns that can be used to compose custom prediction tasks. We evaluate 17 recent LLMs across five proposed benchmark tasks. We find that zero-shot risk scores produced by multiple-choice question-answering have high predictive signal but are widely miscalibrated. Base models consistently overestimate outcome uncertainty, while instruction-tuned models underestimate uncertainty and produce over-confident risk scores. In fact, instruction-tuning polarizes answer distribution regardless of true underlying data uncertainty. This reveals a general inability of instruction-tuned LLMs to express data uncertainty using multiple-choice answers. A separate experiment using verbalized chat-style risk queries yields substantially improved calibration across instruction-tuned models. These differences in ability to quantify data uncertainty cannot be revealed in realizable settings, and highlight a blind-spot in the current evaluation ecosystem that folktexts covers.

We build new test sets for the CIFAR-10 and ImageNet datasets. Both benchmarks have been the focus of intense research for almost a decade, raising the danger of overfitting to excessively re-used test sets. By closely following the original dataset creation processes, we test to what extent current classification models generalize to new data. We evaluate a broad range of models and find accuracy drops of 3% - 15% on CIFAR-10 and 11% - 14% on ImageNet. However, accuracy gains on the original test sets translate to larger gains on the new test sets. Our results suggest that the accuracy drops are not caused by adaptivity, but by the models' inability to generalize to slightly "harder" images than those found in the original test sets.

Tool-augmented LLMs must arbitrate between two fallible sources when a tool return conflicts with their parametric memory, yet existing evaluations measure source preference without establishing source correctness. We introduce MemToC, a controlled benchmark for post-tool-return arbitration with executable tools. MemToC comprises 6,504 evaluation episodes constructed from 542 quality-controlled factual questions, independently elicited model-specific closed-book answers, and controlled tool returns of known correctness. These components instantiate four source-correctness cases; tool-error and no-tool conditions are separate controls. Across five open-weight 7-9B models, tool returns strongly dominate elicited closed-book answers. The four instruction-tuned models retain a verified-correct answer against an incorrect tool in only 6.5-17.1% of eligible cases, follow a correct tool in 86.0-93.1%, and repeat the tool return in 78.4-86.0% of cases where both sources are wrong. No cross-model ordering remains stable across three instruction-wording variants with the question and episode content held fixed. We compare prompting with SFT and DPO using chain-level cross-fitting over ToolHop, so questions sharing an underlying fact never straddle training and evaluation. We apply an asymmetric success criterion: correct-answer retention must improve without a detected reduction in correct-tool following. SFT and DPO meet this criterion on the same two of four instruction-tuned backbones. Improvements rarely come cleanly: 19 of 20 tested method-model combinations reduce abstention after tool errors or on unanswerable inputs. Transfer beyond MemToC is positive but partial and depends on the model and presentation frame. Correctness-conditioned arbitration can be improved through fine-tuning, but gains must be evaluated jointly with correct tool use, abstention, and robustness to formulation.

We fine-tune GPT-3 to answer long-form questions using a text-based web-browsing environment, which allows the model to search and navigate the web. By setting up the task so that it can be performed by humans, we are able to train models on the task using imitation learning, and then optimize answer quality with human feedback. To make human evaluation of factual accuracy easier, models must collect references while browsing in support of their answers. We train and evaluate our models on ELI5, a dataset of questions asked by Reddit users. Our best model is obtained by fine-tuning GPT-3 using behavior cloning, and then performing rejection sampling against a reward model trained to predict human preferences. This model's answers are preferred by humans 56% of the time to those of our human demonstrators, and 69% of the time to the highest-voted answer from Reddit.

Access to Kurdish medicine brochures is limited, depriving Kurdish-speaking communities of critical health information. To address this problem, we developed a specialized Machine Translation (MT) model to translate English medicine brochures into Sorani Kurdish using a parallel corpus of 22,940 aligned sentence pairs from 319 brochures, sourced from two pharmaceutical companies in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI). We trained a Statistical Machine Translation (SMT) model using the Moses toolkit, conducting seven experiments that resulted in BLEU scores ranging from 22.65 to 48.93. We translated three new brochures to improve the evaluation process and encountered unknown words. We addressed unknown words through post-processing with a medical dictionary, resulting in BLEU scores of 56.87, 31.05, and 40.01. Human evaluation by native Kurdish-speaking pharmacists, physicians, and medicine users showed that 50% of professionals found the translations consistent, while 83.3% rated them accurate. Among users, 66.7% considered the translations clear and felt confident using the medications.

While state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive performance on many tasks, there has been extensive research on undesirable model behavior such as hallucinations and bias. In this work, we investigate how the quality of LLM responses changes in terms of information accuracy, truthfulness, and refusals depending on three user traits: English proficiency, education level, and country of origin. We present extensive experimentation on three state-of-the-art LLMs and two different datasets targeting truthfulness and factuality. Our findings suggest that undesirable behaviors in state-of-the-art LLMs occur disproportionately more for users with lower English proficiency, of lower education status, and originating from outside the US, rendering these models unreliable sources of information towards their most vulnerable users.

Several studies showed that Large Language Models (LLMs) can answer medical questions correctly, even outperforming the average human score in some medical exams. However, to our knowledge, no study has been conducted to assess the ability of language models to validate existing or generated medical text for correctness and consistency. In this paper, we introduce MEDEC (https://github.com/abachaa/MEDEC), the first publicly available benchmark for medical error detection and correction in clinical notes, covering five types of errors (Diagnosis, Management, Treatment, Pharmacotherapy, and Causal Organism). MEDEC consists of 3,848 clinical texts, including 488 clinical notes from three US hospital systems that were not previously seen by any LLM. The dataset has been used for the MEDIQA-CORR shared task to evaluate seventeen participating systems [Ben Abacha et al., 2024]. In this paper, we describe the data creation methods and we evaluate recent LLMs (e.g., o1-preview, GPT-4, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, and Gemini 2.0 Flash) for the tasks of detecting and correcting medical errors requiring both medical knowledge and reasoning capabilities. We also conducted a comparative study where two medical doctors performed the same task on the MEDEC test set. The results showed that MEDEC is a sufficiently challenging benchmark to assess the ability of models to validate existing or generated notes and to correct medical errors. We also found that although recent LLMs have a good performance in error detection and correction, they are still outperformed by medical doctors in these tasks. We discuss the potential factors behind this gap, the insights from our experiments, the limitations of current evaluation metrics, and share potential pointers for future research.

We introduce NOLLI, a procedurally generated English-Korean puzzle benchmark designed to diagnose where Korean performance gaps arise. It comprises 15 puzzle types (25 tasks; 7,500 items), with every instance seed-regenerable, verified to have a unique solution, and scored deterministically. Rather than equating harder with bigger, we calibrate difficulty behaviorally, tuning each generator until a fixed reference model lands in target accuracy bands. Its three-level design combines matched direct translations, script adaptations over Hangul jamo (sub-syllabic letters), and Korean-only tasks grounded in Korean culture or orthography. We evaluate 15 frontier, open-weight, and Korean-developed models; among the 12 above a 3% overall-accuracy floor, matched English-Korean accuracy is statistically equivalent within a +/- 10 pp margin (TOST), suggesting little cost from presentation language alone. Writing-system-intensive tasks show sharper gaps: Korean Cipher falls behind English by up to 68.7 pp, whereas Cryptarithmetic over the same jamo shows no systematic penalty, and Jamo Composition accuracy predicts Korean Cipher accuracy. These contrasts are diagnostic rather than causal, consistent with difficulty in multi-step sub-syllabic execution. Korean-only tasks separate rule-application deficits, which vary in sign, from a Kinship deficit positive in all 12. Finally, a salient size measure fails to grow from Easy to Hard in 7 of 15 types, making structural size an unreliable proxy for empirical difficulty.

Qwen3-8B reviewing Llama-3.1-8B in math adds 33.2 points, yet Qwen3-8B alone is 6.4 points more accurate than the result. Reviewing another model's answer is usually judged by its gain over the generator. We show that this confuses verification, which adds accuracy beyond either model alone, with capability transfer, where a stronger reviewer supplies answers it could have given on its own. Measured against the stronger model alone, across 48 pairs of 12 open-weight models (3B to 72B) in math, knowledge, code and reasoning, review beats it in only 9 of 96 review directions, and does worse the larger the capability gap. The reason is that the reviewer mostly follows the generator, discarding its own correct answers. Review costs 2.6 to 2.8 times as much as the stronger model alone, while a selector using the same two calls is 2.7 to 4.2 points more accurate than review and cheaper. Studies of verification should report the stronger model alone, not only the gain over the generator. Code and per-question results: https://github.com/Kamilaabb/verification-or-capability-transfer

Since ChatGPT has emerged as a major AIGC model, providing high-quality responses across a wide range of applications (including software development and maintenance), it has attracted much interest from many individuals. ChatGPT has great promise, but there are serious problems that might arise from its misuse, especially in the realms of education and public safety. Several AIGC detectors are available, and they have all been tested on genuine text. However, more study is needed to see how effective they are for multi-domain ChatGPT material. This study aims to fill this need by creating a multi-domain dataset for testing the state-of-the-art APIs and tools for detecting artificially generated information used by universities and other research institutions. A large dataset consisting of articles, abstracts, stories, news, and product reviews was created for this study. The second step is to use the newly created dataset to put six tools through their paces. Six different artificial intelligence (AI) text identification systems, including "GPTkit," "GPTZero," "Originality," "Sapling," "Writer," and "Zylalab," have accuracy rates between 55.29 and 97.0%. Although all the tools fared well in the evaluations, originality was particularly effective across the board.