Daily Papers

The Unrelated Parallel Machine Scheduling Problem (UPMSP) with release dates, setups, and eligibility constraints presents a significant multi-objective challenge. Traditional methods struggle to balance minimizing Total Weighted Tardiness (TWT) and Total Setup Time (TST). This paper proposes a Deep Reinforcement Learning framework using Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) and a Graph Neural Network (GNN). The GNN effectively represents the complex state of jobs, machines, and setups, allowing the PPO agent to learn a direct scheduling policy. Guided by a multi-objective reward function, the agent simultaneously minimizes TWT and TST. Experimental results on benchmark instances demonstrate that our PPO-GNN agent significantly outperforms a standard dispatching rule and a metaheuristic, achieving a superior trade-off between both objectives. This provides a robust and scalable solution for complex manufacturing scheduling.

The crux of label-efficient semantic segmentation is to produce high-quality pseudo-labels to leverage a large amount of unlabeled or weakly labeled data. A common practice is to select the highly confident predictions as the pseudo-ground-truths for each pixel, but it leads to a problem that most pixels may be left unused due to their unreliability. However, we argue that every pixel matters to the model training, even those unreliable and ambiguous pixels. Intuitively, an unreliable prediction may get confused among the top classes, however, it should be confident about the pixel not belonging to the remaining classes. Hence, such a pixel can be convincingly treated as a negative key to those most unlikely categories. Therefore, we develop an effective pipeline to make sufficient use of unlabeled data. Concretely, we separate reliable and unreliable pixels via the entropy of predictions, push each unreliable pixel to a category-wise queue that consists of negative keys, and manage to train the model with all candidate pixels. Considering the training evolution, we adaptively adjust the threshold for the reliable-unreliable partition. Experimental results on various benchmarks and training settings demonstrate the superiority of our approach over the state-of-the-art alternatives.

Machine unlearning in Vision-Language Models (VLMs) is required for compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), yet current evaluation practices are inconsistent. We present the first systematic study of metric reliability in multimodal unlearning. Five standard metrics, Forget Accuracy (FA), Retain Accuracy (RA), Membership Inference Attack (MIA), Activation Distance (AD), and JS divergence (JS), yield conflicting method rankings across three VQA benchmarks (MLLMU-Bench, UnLOK-VQA, MMUBench). Kendall tau analysis over 36 unlearned LLaVA-1.5-7B models reveals two opposing clusters, {FA, RA, MIA} and {AD, JS}, with tau_FA_AD = -0.26, reproduced on BLIP-2 OPT-2.7B. Agreement is lower in multimodal VQA (average tau = 0.086) than in unimodal classification (average tau = 0.158; difference = 0.072), indicating that dual image-and-text pathways amplify inconsistency. We introduce the Unified Quality Score (UQS), a composite metric with weights derived from each metric's Spearman correlation with the oracle distance d(M_hat, M_star), where M_star is the oracle model retrained only on the retain set. RA shows the strongest reliability (rho = 0.484, p = 0.003), while FA is negatively correlated (rho = -0.418, p = 0.011). UQS yields stable rankings under 100 random weight perturbations (tau = 0.647 +- 0.262). We release the benchmark, 36 checkpoints, and an interactive leaderboard. Code and pre-computed results are available at https://github.com/neurips26/UnifiedUnl.

Does prompting a large language model (LLM) like GPT-3 with explanations improve in-context learning? We study this question on two NLP tasks that involve reasoning over text, namely question answering and natural language inference. We test the performance of four LLMs on three textual reasoning datasets using prompts that include explanations in multiple different styles. For these tasks, we find that including explanations in the prompts for OPT, GPT-3 (davinci), and InstructGPT (text-davinci-001) only yields small to moderate accuracy improvements over standard few-show learning. However, text-davinci-002 is able to benefit more substantially. We further show that explanations generated by the LLMs may not entail the models' predictions nor be factually grounded in the input, even on simple tasks with extractive explanations. However, these flawed explanations can still be useful as a way to verify LLMs' predictions post-hoc. Through analysis in our three settings, we show that explanations judged by humans to be good--logically consistent with the input and the prediction--more likely cooccur with accurate predictions. Following these observations, we train calibrators using automatically extracted scores that assess the reliability of explanations, allowing us to improve performance post-hoc across all of our datasets.

Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) decompose residual-stream activations into interpretable features. Recent latent-space defenses increasingly rely on these decompositions, assuming that identified "unsafe" SAE features serve as actionable handles for monitoring and intervention. In this paradigm, clamping a specific harmful feature is expected to reliably prevent model misbehavior. However, we show that this success may hide a recoverable failure mode: the clamp may block one visible route to a behavior without eliminating the behavior itself. We formulate this vulnerability as post-intervention recovery, a constrained residual-space optimization problem. Starting from the post-intervention residual state, we optimize residual perturbations to recover the pre-intervention behavior while preserving the post-intervention values of the targeted SAE features. Even under a strong threat model where the intervention remains active throughout optimization and generation, recovery remains possible. To rule out that recovery simply undoes the intervention, we use encoder-orthogonal updates for single-layer interventions and the corresponding feature-map Jacobian in the cross-layer setting. Across TPP, unlearning, IOI, and refusal steering experiments, this stress test reveals recoverable behavior despite successful feature-level intervention. Especially in the safety-critical refusal-steering setting, we achieve a 95.8% recovery rate on valid samples while keeping defended-feature relative drift to 0.131, substantially below suffix-based baselines. A recovery-path attribution analysis further localizes this recovery to the SAE reconstruction residual, the component left unexplained by the SAE. These results expose a gap between feature-level control and behavioral completeness: SAE features can support causal intervention, but controlling them does not guarantee control over the underlying behavior.

As AI systems are used to answer more difficult questions and potentially help create new knowledge, judging the truthfulness of their outputs becomes more difficult and more important. How can we supervise unreliable experts, which have access to the truth but may not accurately report it, to give answers that are systematically true and don't just superficially seem true, when the supervisor can't tell the difference between the two on their own? In this work, we show that debate between two unreliable experts can help a non-expert judge more reliably identify the truth. We collect a dataset of human-written debates on hard reading comprehension questions where the judge has not read the source passage, only ever seeing expert arguments and short quotes selectively revealed by 'expert' debaters who have access to the passage. In our debates, one expert argues for the correct answer, and the other for an incorrect answer. Comparing debate to a baseline we call consultancy, where a single expert argues for only one answer which is correct half of the time, we find that debate performs significantly better, with 84% judge accuracy compared to consultancy's 74%. Debates are also more efficient, being 68% of the length of consultancies. By comparing human to AI debaters, we find evidence that with more skilled (in this case, human) debaters, the performance of debate goes up but the performance of consultancy goes down. Our error analysis also supports this trend, with 46% of errors in human debate attributable to mistakes by the honest debater (which should go away with increased skill); whereas 52% of errors in human consultancy are due to debaters obfuscating the relevant evidence from the judge (which should become worse with increased skill). Overall, these results show that debate is a promising approach for supervising increasingly capable but potentially unreliable AI systems.

Fine-tuning multi-turn dialogue systems requires high-quality supervision but often suffers from degraded performance when exposed to low-quality data. Supervision errors in early turns can propagate across subsequent turns, undermining coherence and response quality. Existing methods typically address data quality via static prefiltering, which decouples quality control from training and fails to mitigate turn-level error propagation. In this context, we propose ReSURE (Regularizing Supervision UnREliability), an adaptive learning method that dynamically down-weights unreliable supervision without explicit filtering. ReSURE estimates per-turn loss distributions using Welford's online statistics and reweights sample losses on the fly accordingly. Experiments on both single-source and mixed-quality datasets show improved stability and response quality. Notably, ReSURE enjoys positive Spearman correlations (0.21 ~ 1.0 across multiple benchmarks) between response scores and number of samples regardless of data quality, which potentially paves the way for utilizing large-scale data effectively. Code is publicly available at https://github.com/Elvin-Yiming-Du/ReSURE_Multi_Turn_Training.

Vision language models (VLMs) are designed to extract relevant visuospatial information from images. Some research suggests that VLMs can exhibit humanlike scene understanding, while other investigations reveal difficulties in their ability to process relational information. To achieve widespread applicability, VLMs must perform reliably, yielding comparable competence across a wide variety of related tasks. We sought to test how reliable these architectures are at engaging in trivial spatial cognition, e.g., recognizing whether one object is left of another in an uncluttered scene. We developed a benchmark dataset -- TableTest -- whose images depict 3D scenes of objects arranged on a table, and used it to evaluate state-of-the-art VLMs. Results show that performance could be degraded by minor variations of prompts that use logically equivalent descriptions. These analyses suggest limitations in how VLMs may reason about spatial relations in real-world applications. They also reveal novel opportunities for bolstering image caption corpora for more efficient training and testing.

As large language models (LLM) evolve in their capabilities, various recent studies have tried to quantify their behavior using psychological tools created to study human behavior. One such example is the measurement of "personality" of LLMs using self-assessment personality tests developed to measure human personality. Yet almost none of these works verify the applicability of these tests on LLMs. In this paper, we analyze the reliability of LLM personality scores obtained from self-assessment personality tests using two simple experiments. We first introduce the property of prompt sensitivity, where three semantically equivalent prompts representing three intuitive ways of administering self-assessment tests on LLMs are used to measure the personality of the same LLM. We find that all three prompts lead to very different personality scores, a difference that is statistically significant for all traits in a large majority of scenarios. We then introduce the property of option-order symmetry for personality measurement of LLMs. Since most of the self-assessment tests exist in the form of multiple choice question (MCQ) questions, we argue that the scores should also be robust to not just the prompt template but also the order in which the options are presented. This test unsurprisingly reveals that the self-assessment test scores are not robust to the order of the options. These simple tests, done on ChatGPT and three Llama2 models of different sizes, show that self-assessment personality tests created for humans are unreliable measures of personality in LLMs.

The crux of semi-supervised semantic segmentation is to assign adequate pseudo-labels to the pixels of unlabeled images. A common practice is to select the highly confident predictions as the pseudo ground-truth, but it leads to a problem that most pixels may be left unused due to their unreliability. We argue that every pixel matters to the model training, even its prediction is ambiguous. Intuitively, an unreliable prediction may get confused among the top classes (i.e., those with the highest probabilities), however, it should be confident about the pixel not belonging to the remaining classes. Hence, such a pixel can be convincingly treated as a negative sample to those most unlikely categories. Based on this insight, we develop an effective pipeline to make sufficient use of unlabeled data. Concretely, we separate reliable and unreliable pixels via the entropy of predictions, push each unreliable pixel to a category-wise queue that consists of negative samples, and manage to train the model with all candidate pixels. Considering the training evolution, where the prediction becomes more and more accurate, we adaptively adjust the threshold for the reliable-unreliable partition. Experimental results on various benchmarks and training settings demonstrate the superiority of our approach over the state-of-the-art alternatives.

Large language models are increasingly deployed as agents that solve tasks by interacting with external tool environments. Although recent tool-use benchmarks increasingly cover complex task settings, they still largely assume clean, stable, and trustworthy tool environments, leaving tool-environment unreliability insufficiently examined. We introduce ToolBench-X, a benchmark for evaluating agents under recoverable reliability hazards. ToolBench-X contains executable multi-step tasks across diverse domains and sequential, parallel, and mixed workflows, each paired with deterministic tools and a canonical final answer for automatic evaluation. Starting from clean tool environments, ToolBench-X injects five structured hazard types: Specification Drift, Invocation Error, Execution Failure, Output Drift, and Cross-source Conflict. Crucially, each injected instance remains solvable through at least one valid recovery path, such as retrying, fallback, verification, or cross-checking. Experiments reveal a substantial reliability gap: agents that perform well with reliable tools often fail under recoverable hazards. Further analysis shows that failures are driven less by tool-use volume or inference budget than by limited hazard diagnosis and ineffective recovery. Targeted recovery hints recover many failed tasks, while test-time scaling yields more limited gains. These results suggest that tool-use evaluation should move beyond function-call accuracy toward task completion under unreliable tool environments. The code and data is available at https://github.com/Foreverskyou/ToolBench-X.

The reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) have been a longstanding focus of research. Recent works have further enhanced these capabilities using reinforcement learning (RL), with many new methods claiming significant improvements with minimal or no external supervision. Surprisingly, some studies even suggest that random or incorrect reward signals can enhance reasoning performance. However, these breakthroughs are mostly reported on the Qwen2.5 model family and evaluated on well-known benchmarks such as MATH-500, AMC, and AIME, while failing to achieve similar gains on other models like Llama, which warrants further investigation. Our analysis shows that although Qwen2.5 achieves strong mathematical reasoning performance, its pretraining on large-scale web corpora makes it vulnerable to data contamination in popular benchmarks. As a result, results derived from these benchmarks may be unreliable. To address this, we introduce a generator that produces fully synthetic arithmetic problems of arbitrary length and difficulty, yielding a clean dataset we call RandomCalculation. Using these leakage-free datasets, we show that only accurate reward signals consistently improve performance, while noisy or incorrect signals do not. We advocate for evaluating RL methods on uncontaminated benchmarks and across diverse model families to ensure trustworthy conclusions.

Large Language Models (LLMs) trained via Reinforcement Learning (RL) have recently achieved impressive results on reasoning benchmarks. Yet, growing evidence shows that these models often generate longer but ineffective chains of thought (CoTs), calling into question whether benchmark gains reflect real reasoning improvements. We present new evidence of overthinking, where models disregard correct solutions even when explicitly provided, instead continuing to generate unnecessary reasoning steps that often lead to incorrect conclusions. Experiments on three state-of-the-art models using the AIME2024 math benchmark reveal critical limitations in these models ability to integrate corrective information, posing new challenges for achieving robust and interpretable reasoning.

Research on the 'cultural alignment' of Large Language Models (LLMs) has emerged in response to growing interest in understanding representation across diverse stakeholders. Current approaches to evaluating cultural alignment borrow social science methodologies but often overlook systematic robustness checks. Here, we identify and test three assumptions behind current evaluation methods: (1) Stability: that cultural alignment is a property of LLMs rather than an artifact of evaluation design, (2) Extrapolability: that alignment with one culture on a narrow set of issues predicts alignment with that culture on others, and (3) Steerability: that LLMs can be reliably prompted to represent specific cultural perspectives. Through experiments examining both explicit and implicit preferences of leading LLMs, we find a high level of instability across presentation formats, incoherence between evaluated versus held-out cultural dimensions, and erratic behavior under prompt steering. We show that these inconsistencies can cause the results of an evaluation to be very sensitive to minor variations in methodology. Finally, we demonstrate in a case study on evaluation design that narrow experiments and a selective assessment of evidence can be used to paint an incomplete picture of LLMs' cultural alignment properties. Overall, these results highlight significant limitations of current approaches for evaluating the cultural alignment of LLMs.

In the post-pandemic world, manufacturing enterprises face increasing uncertainties, especially with vulnerabilities in global supply chains. Although supply chain management has been extensively studied, the critical influence of decision-makers (DMs) in these systems remains underexplored. This study studies the inventory management problem under risk using the newsvendor model by incorporating DMs risk preferences. By employing the Quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) combined with Quantum Amplitude Estimation (QAE) algorithm, the estimation of probabilities or expectation values can be done more efficiently. This offers near-quadratic speedup compared to classical Monte Carlo methods. Our findings illuminate the intricate relationship between risk-aware decision-making and inventory management, providing essential insights for enhancing supply chain resilience and adaptability in uncertain conditions

Large language models (LLMs) can "lie", which we define as outputting false statements despite "knowing" the truth in a demonstrable sense. LLMs might "lie", for example, when instructed to output misinformation. Here, we develop a simple lie detector that requires neither access to the LLM's activations (black-box) nor ground-truth knowledge of the fact in question. The detector works by asking a predefined set of unrelated follow-up questions after a suspected lie, and feeding the LLM's yes/no answers into a logistic regression classifier. Despite its simplicity, this lie detector is highly accurate and surprisingly general. When trained on examples from a single setting -- prompting GPT-3.5 to lie about factual questions -- the detector generalises out-of-distribution to (1) other LLM architectures, (2) LLMs fine-tuned to lie, (3) sycophantic lies, and (4) lies emerging in real-life scenarios such as sales. These results indicate that LLMs have distinctive lie-related behavioural patterns, consistent across architectures and contexts, which could enable general-purpose lie detection.

Machine learning has the potential to revolutionize passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) for ecological assessments. However, high annotation and compute costs limit the field's efficacy. Generalizable pretrained networks can overcome these costs, but high-quality pretraining requires vast annotated libraries, limiting its current applicability primarily to bird taxa. Here, we identify the optimum pretraining strategy for a data-deficient domain using coral reef bioacoustics. We assemble ReefSet, a large annotated library of reef sounds, though modest compared to bird libraries at 2% of the sample count. Through testing few-shot transfer learning performance, we observe that pretraining on bird audio provides notably superior generalizability compared to pretraining on ReefSet or unrelated audio alone. However, our key findings show that cross-domain mixing which leverages bird, reef and unrelated audio during pretraining maximizes reef generalizability. SurfPerch, our pretrained network, provides a strong foundation for automated analysis of marine PAM data with minimal annotation and compute costs.

The versatility of Large Language Models (LLMs) on natural language understanding tasks has made them popular for research in social sciences. To properly understand the properties and innate personas of LLMs, researchers have performed studies that involve using prompts in the form of questions that ask LLMs about particular opinions. In this study, we take a cautionary step back and examine whether the current format of prompting LLMs elicits responses in a consistent and robust manner. We first construct a dataset that contains 693 questions encompassing 39 different instruments of persona measurement on 115 persona axes. Additionally, we design a set of prompts containing minor variations and examine LLMs' capabilities to generate answers, as well as prompt variations to examine their consistency with respect to content-level variations such as switching the order of response options or negating the statement. Our experiments on 17 different LLMs reveal that even simple perturbations significantly downgrade a model's question-answering ability, and that most LLMs have low negation consistency. Our results suggest that the currently widespread practice of prompting is insufficient to accurately and reliably capture model perceptions, and we therefore discuss potential alternatives to improve these issues.

Federated learning offers a framework of training a machine learning model in a distributed fashion while preserving privacy of the participants. As the server cannot govern the clients' actions, nefarious clients may attack the global model by sending malicious local gradients. In the meantime, there could also be unreliable clients who are benign but each has a portion of low-quality training data (e.g., blur or low-resolution images), thus may appearing similar as malicious clients. Therefore, a defense mechanism will need to perform a three-fold differentiation which is much more challenging than the conventional (two-fold) case. This paper introduces MUD-HoG, a novel defense algorithm that addresses this challenge in federated learning using long-short history of gradients, and treats the detected malicious and unreliable clients differently. Not only this, but we can also distinguish between targeted and untargeted attacks among malicious clients, unlike most prior works which only consider one type of the attacks. Specifically, we take into account sign-flipping, additive-noise, label-flipping, and multi-label-flipping attacks, under a non-IID setting. We evaluate MUD-HoG with six state-of-the-art methods on two datasets. The results show that MUD-HoG outperforms all of them in terms of accuracy as well as precision and recall, in the presence of a mixture of multiple (four) types of attackers as well as unreliable clients. Moreover, unlike most prior works which can only tolerate a low population of harmful users, MUD-HoG can work with and successfully detect a wide range of malicious and unreliable clients - up to 47.5% and 10%, respectively, of the total population. Our code is open-sourced at https://github.com/LabSAINT/MUD-HoG_Federated_Learning.

We conduct a systematic audit of three widely used reasoning benchmarks, SocialIQa, FauxPas-EAI, and ToMi, and uncover pervasive flaws in both benchmark items and evaluation methodology. Using five LLMs (GPT-{3, 3.5, 4, o1}, and LLaMA 3.1) as diagnostic tools, we identify structural, semantic, and pragmatic issues in benchmark design (e.g., duplicated items, ambiguous wording, and implausible answers), as well as scoring procedures that prioritize output form over reasoning process. Through systematic human annotation and re-evaluation on cleaned benchmark subsets, we find that model scores often improve not due to due to erratic surface wording variations and not to improved reasoning. Infact, further analyses show that model performance is highly sensitive to minor input variations such as context availability and phrasing, revealing that high scores may reflect alignment with format-specific cues rather than consistent inference based on the input. These findings challenge the validity of current benchmark-based claims about reasoning in LLMs, and highlight the need for evaluation protocols that assess reasoning as a process of drawing inference from available information, rather than as static output selection. We release audited data and evaluation tools to support more interpretable and diagnostic assessments of model reasoning.