Daily Papers

We present Kosmo-GFM, a scene reconstruction system that integrates a geometry foundation model (GFM), a pose optimization engine (PoseEngine), and reconstruction-derived supervision from KosmoWorld. GFM predicts camera parameters, depth, cross-view correspondences, and dynamic 3D points from images and videos. PoseEngine combines these predictions with geometric optimization to recover scene-level camera poses and geometry for downstream 3D and 4D Gaussian Splatting. KosmoWorld generates images and geometric supervision from reconstructed real-world scenes to improve GFM's geometric predictions. On the Sparse and Medium subsets of SpatialBench, GFM achieves the lowest absolute relative depth error and the highest relative-pose AUC at 5 degrees among the compared methods. It also achieves the lowest mean endpoint errors for dynamic points and scene flow across the five evaluated datasets. Across 34 scenes completed by all compared reconstruction systems, PoseEngine achieves the highest scene-averaged pose AUC at thresholds of 1, 3, and 5 degrees, with a cumulative runtime of 14.07 hours, approximately 20% of GLUEMAP's 69.67 hours. PoseEngine Flash provides a further accuracy-efficiency trade-off, with a measured mixed-precision runtime of 2.62 hours, approximately 4% of GLUEMAP's runtime. Separate scaling experiments show generally favorable trends with increased data, model computation, and training budgets. These results support the use of learned geometric priors within a scene-level reconstruction pipeline.

Maybe not. We identify and analyse errors in the popular Massive Multitask Language Understanding (MMLU) benchmark. Even though MMLU is widely adopted, our analysis demonstrates numerous ground truth errors that obscure the true capabilities of LLMs. For example, we find that 57% of the analysed questions in the Virology subset contain errors. To address this issue, we introduce a comprehensive framework for identifying dataset errors using a novel error taxonomy. Then, we create MMLU-Redux, which is a subset of 3,000 manually re-annotated questions across 30 MMLU subjects. Using MMLU-Redux, we demonstrate significant discrepancies with the model performance metrics that were originally reported. Our results strongly advocate for revising MMLU's error-ridden questions to enhance its future utility and reliability as a benchmark. Therefore, we open up MMLU-Redux for additional annotation https://huggingface.co/datasets/edinburgh-dawg/mmlu-redux.

In natural language processing, a recently popular line of work explores how to best report the experimental results of neural networks. One exemplar publication, titled "Show Your Work: Improved Reporting of Experimental Results," advocates for reporting the expected validation effectiveness of the best-tuned model, with respect to the computational budget. In the present work, we critically examine this paper. As far as statistical generalizability is concerned, we find unspoken pitfalls and caveats with this approach. We analytically show that their estimator is biased and uses error-prone assumptions. We find that the estimator favors negative errors and yields poor bootstrapped confidence intervals. We derive an unbiased alternative and bolster our claims with empirical evidence from statistical simulation. Our codebase is at http://github.com/castorini/meanmax.

Large Language Models (LLM) benchmarks tell us when models fail, but not why they fail. A wrong answer on a reasoning dataset may stem from formatting issues, calculation errors, or dataset noise rather than weak reasoning. Without disentangling such causes, benchmarks remain incomplete and cannot reliably guide model improvement. We introduce ErrorMap, the first method to chart the sources of LLM failure. It extracts a model's unique "failure signature", clarifies what benchmarks measure, and broadens error identification to reduce blind spots. This helps developers debug models, aligns benchmark goals with outcomes, and supports informed model selection. ErrorMap works on any model or dataset with the same logic. Applying our method to 35 datasets and 83 models we generate ErrorAtlas, a taxonomy of model errors, revealing recurring failure patterns. ErrorAtlas highlights error types that are currently underexplored in LLM research, such as omissions of required details in the output and question misinterpretation. By shifting focus from where models succeed to why they fail, ErrorMap and ErrorAtlas enable advanced evaluation - one that exposes hidden weaknesses and directs progress. Unlike success, typically measured by task-level metrics, our approach introduces a deeper evaluation layer that can be applied globally across models and tasks, offering richer insights into model behavior and limitations. We make the taxonomy and code publicly available with plans to periodically update ErrorAtlas as new benchmarks and models emerge.

Modern web dashboards and enterprise applications increasingly rely on complex, distributed microservices architectures. While these architectures offer scalability, they introduce significant challenges in debugging and observability. When failures occur, they often manifest as opaque error messages to the end-user such as Something went wrong. This masks the underlying root cause which may reside in browser side exceptions, API contract violations, or server side logic failures. Existing monitoring tools capture these events in isolation but fail to correlate them effectively or provide intelligible explanations to non technical users. This paper proposes a novel system for Automated Multi Source Debugging and Natural Language Error Explanation. The proposed framework automatically collects and correlates error data from disparate sources such as browser, API, server logs and validates API contracts in real time, and utilizes Large Language Models to generate natural language explanations. This approach significantly reduces Mean Time to Resolution for support engineers and improves the user experience by transforming cryptic error codes into actionable insights.

Recent advances in Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have improved performance in multi-modal learning, raising the question of whether these models truly understand the content they process. Crucially, can VLMs detect when a reasoning process is wrong and identify its error type? To answer this, we present MMErroR, a multi-modal benchmark of 2,013 samples, each embedding a single coherent reasoning error. These samples span 24 subdomains across six top-level domains, ensuring broad coverage and taxonomic richness. Unlike existing benchmarks that focus on answer correctness, MMErroR targets a process-level, error-centric evaluation that requires models to detect incorrect reasoning and classify the error type within both visual and linguistic contexts. We evaluate 20 advanced VLMs, even the best model (Gemini-3.0-Pro) classifies the error in only 66.47\% of cases, underscoring the challenge of identifying erroneous reasoning. Furthermore, the ability to accurately identify errors offers valuable insights into the capabilities of multi-modal reasoning models. Project Page: https://mmerror-benchmark.github.io

Critical Error Detection (CED) in machine translation aims to determine whether a translation is safe to use or contains unacceptable deviations in meaning. While the WMT21 English-German CED dataset provided the first benchmark, it is limited in scale, label balance, domain coverage, and temporal freshness. We present SynCED-EnDe, a new resource consisting of 1,000 gold-labeled and 8,000 silver-labeled sentence pairs, balanced 50/50 between error and non-error cases. SynCED-EnDe draws from diverse 2024-2025 sources (StackExchange, GOV.UK) and introduces explicit error subclasses, structured trigger flags, and fine-grained auxiliary judgments (obviousness, severity, localization complexity, contextual dependency, adequacy deviation). These enrichments enable systematic analyses of error risk and intricacy beyond binary detection. The dataset is permanently hosted on GitHub and Hugging Face, accompanied by documentation, annotation guidelines, and baseline scripts. Benchmark experiments with XLM-R and related encoders show substantial performance gains over WMT21 due to balanced labels and refined annotations. We envision SynCED-EnDe as a community resource to advance safe deployment of MT in information retrieval and conversational assistants, particularly in emerging contexts such as wearable AI devices.

Language models are increasingly capable and are being rapidly deployed on a population-level scale. As a result, the safety of these models is increasingly high-stakes. Fortunately, advances in alignment have significantly reduced the likelihood of harmful model outputs. However, when models are queried billions of times in a day, even rare worst-case behaviors will occur. Current safety evaluations focus on capturing the distribution of inputs that yield harmful outputs. These evaluations disregard the probabilistic nature of models and their tail output behavior. To measure this tail risk, we propose a method to efficiently estimate the probability of harmful outputs for any input query. Instead of naive brute-force sampling from the target model, where harmful outputs could be rare, we operationalize importance sampling by creating unsafe versions of the target model. These unsafe versions enable sample-efficient estimation by making harmful outputs more probable. On benchmarks measuring misuse and misalignment, these estimates match brute-force Monte Carlo estimates using 10-20x fewer samples. For example, we can estimate probability of harmful outputs on the order of 10^-4 with just 500 samples. Additionally, we find that these harmfulness estimates can reveal the sensitivity of models to perturbations in model input and predict deployment risks. Our work demonstrates that accurate rare-event estimation is both critical and feasible for safety evaluations. Code is available at https://github.com/rangell/LMTailRisk

After a runtime or API migration, an LLM-repaired procedure can run cleanly yet return wrong results, and a release check on typical test inputs ships it. We report a preregistered study of 73 tasks covering 60 documented changes in CPython, Node.js and SQLite. Every candidate is executed on the real runtimes against withheld contracts. Over the complete repair space, the all-assertions gate on typical inputs released 0.410 of wrong repairs. One edge input written from the release note cut this to 0.065, and to 0.061 on 15 unseen clusters. Three inputs from a blind GPT-5.6-luna writer that never saw the program reached 0.070. Two further frozen stages enlarged the menu to 1491 fragments and then added 233 hard distractors that match the legacy output on typical inputs. The edge input (0.058) and the frontier-model writer (0.058) passed their preregistered tests. Yet 0.168 and 0.153 of the hard wrong programs still passed. Two local-model writers failed their preregistered tests. Across four model families, the edge input cut wrong releases per attempt in all three open-weight families on all three menus, for example from 0.233 to 0.057, without lowering correct completion. Self-tests helped less. A blind AI audit flagged 34 contracts as stricter than their requirements. Dropping the disputed checks changed 0 verdicts, but class-label disputes remain open. No model-written code was executed. Artifacts are available from the authors on request.

Error analysis in NLP models is essential to successful model development and deployment. One common approach for diagnosing errors is to identify subpopulations in the dataset where the model produces the most errors. However, existing approaches typically define subpopulations based on pre-defined features, which requires users to form hypotheses of errors in advance. To complement these approaches, we propose iSEA, an Interactive Pipeline for Semantic Error Analysis in NLP Models, which automatically discovers semantically-grounded subpopulations with high error rates in the context of a human-in-the-loop interactive system. iSEA enables model developers to learn more about their model errors through discovered subpopulations, validate the sources of errors through interactive analysis on the discovered subpopulations, and test hypotheses about model errors by defining custom subpopulations. The tool supports semantic descriptions of error-prone subpopulations at the token and concept level, as well as pre-defined higher-level features. Through use cases and expert interviews, we demonstrate how iSEA can assist error understanding and analysis.

Large language models (LLMs) possess impressive linguistic capabilities but often fail to faithfully retain factual knowledge, leading to hallucinations and unreliable outputs. Understanding LLMs' knowledge deficiencies by exhaustively evaluating against full-scale knowledge bases is computationally prohibitive, especially for closed-weight models. We propose stochastic error ascent (SEA), a scalable and efficient framework for discovering knowledge deficiencies (errors) in closed-weight LLMs under a strict query budget. Rather than naively probing all knowledge candidates, SEA formulates error discovery as a stochastic optimization process: it iteratively retrieves new high-error candidates by leveraging the semantic similarity to previously observed failures. To further enhance search efficiency and coverage, SEA employs hierarchical retrieval across document and paragraph levels, and constructs a relation directed acyclic graph to model error propagation and identify systematic failure modes. Empirically, SEA uncovers 40.7x more knowledge errors than Automated Capability Discovery and 26.7% more than AutoBencher, while reducing the cost-per-error by 599x and 9x, respectively. Human evaluation confirms the high quality of generated questions, while ablation and convergence analyses validate the contribution of each component in SEA. Further analysis on the discovered errors reveals correlated failure patterns across LLM families and recurring deficits, highlighting the need for better data coverage and targeted fine-tuning in future LLM development.

In this position paper, we argue that the classical evaluation on Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks using annotated benchmarks is in trouble. The worst kind of data contamination happens when a Large Language Model (LLM) is trained on the test split of a benchmark, and then evaluated in the same benchmark. The extent of the problem is unknown, as it is not straightforward to measure. Contamination causes an overestimation of the performance of a contaminated model in a target benchmark and associated task with respect to their non-contaminated counterparts. The consequences can be very harmful, with wrong scientific conclusions being published while other correct ones are discarded. This position paper defines different levels of data contamination and argues for a community effort, including the development of automatic and semi-automatic measures to detect when data from a benchmark was exposed to a model, and suggestions for flagging papers with conclusions that are compromised by data contamination.

Cardinality-estimation (CE) research ranks estimators by q-error, yet it is well known that q-error is an imperfect proxy for query-plan quality. We give a measurement-driven account of when it is a good proxy and when it is not, and why. Modeling plan selection as an argmin over a piecewise-linear cost landscape, we find that plan regret (the cost of the chosen plan relative to the optimal, under true cardinalities) is governed by plan-cost geometry in a regime-dependent way. (i) For small errors, a true-point condition number kappa predicts regret and out-predicts q-error; its predictive power decays to zero as error grows, as a local linearization must. (ii) For large errors -- where deployed learned estimators operate -- an estimator-independent average-case sub-optimality measure ACS-infinity predicts which queries are regret-prone (Spearman rho ~ 0.54 on STATS-CEB), while q-error is nearly uninformative at the query level (rho ~ 0.05). (iii) The worst case is Haritsa's maximum sub-optimality (MSO). The three are one cost-ratio spectrum under three weightings. We prove a limit law ACS-infinity = sum_k r_k pi_k with cardinality-independent combinatorial weights, and validate every claim on STATS-CEB and JOB-light with four released estimators under pre-registered decision rules, and confirm on real PostgreSQL runtime that ACS-infinity predicts regret where q-error does not. The contribution is conceptual and empirical -- an average-case companion to worst-case robust query optimization, and a characterization of when an accuracy metric tracks plan quality -- rather than a new estimator. Code and the full pre-registration are public.

Researchers have proposed numerous text-to-SQL techniques to streamline data analytics and accelerate the development of data-driven applications. To compare these techniques and select the best one for deployment, the community depends on public benchmarks and their leaderboards. Since these benchmarks heavily rely on human annotations during question construction and answer evaluation, the validity of the annotations is crucial. In this paper, we conduct an empirical study that (i) benchmarks annotation error rates for two widely used text-to-SQL benchmarks, BIRD and Spider 2.0-Snow, and (ii) corrects a subset of the BIRD development (Dev) set to measure the impact of annotation errors on text-to-SQL agent performance and leaderboard rankings. Through expert analysis, we show that BIRD Mini-Dev and Spider 2.0-Snow have error rates of 52.8% and 62.8%, respectively. We re-evaluate all 16 open-source agents from the BIRD leaderboard on both the original and the corrected BIRD Dev subsets. We show that performance changes range from -7% to 31% (in relative terms) and rank changes range from -9 to +9 positions. We further assess whether these impacts generalize to the full BIRD Dev set. We find that the rankings of agents on the uncorrected subset correlate strongly with those on the full Dev set (Spearman's r_s=0.85, p=3.26e-5), whereas they correlate weakly with those on the corrected subset (Spearman's r_s=0.32, p=0.23). These findings show that annotation errors can significantly distort reported performance and rankings, potentially misguiding research directions or deployment choices. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/uiuc-kang-lab/text_to_sql_benchmarks.

Tool-using language model agents are usually evaluated by whether they finish the user's task. That metric misses a common failure: an agent can complete the requested work while also taking an unauthorized side-effecting action, such as writing to the wrong object, expanding the scope of the request, or contacting an unintended recipient. We call this failure mode collateral damage (CD). We introduce SABench (Side-effect-Aware Benchmark), a benchmark of 201 email, calendar, and ticket tasks. Each task crosses one of four state structures (independent, dependent, externally reachable, cross-tool) with one of four trap families (ambiguity, mis-targeting, cascade harm, overreach), and each task has a deterministic trace-based oracle for both goal satisfaction and authorization compliance. Across 2,211 model-task pairs from 11 frontier LLMs spanning major commercial and open model families, 15.2% of all runs incur CD, with risk concentrated in ambiguity tasks (38.8% violation rate) while non-ambiguous traps average 8.4% CD. Among goal-satisfied runs, 12.8% still produce unauthorized writes. Cross-tool and dependent states have about twice the CD rate of independent states. CD rates vary by 4.7x across models at comparable goal rates, which suggests that task success alone is a poor proxy for safe tool use. The SABench task corpus is released at https://huggingface.co/datasets/Phaedrus/sabench; the traces, oracle, code, and analysis pipeline are released at https://github.com/hjj194/sabench-artifact.

We present an experimental analysis on the use of a camera-based approach for high-altitude navigation by associating mapped landmarks from a satellite image database to camera images, and by leveraging inertial sensors between camera frames. We evaluate performance of both a sideways-tilted and downward-facing camera on data collected from a World View Enterprises high-altitude balloon with data beginning at an altitude of 33 km and descending to near ground level (4.5 km) with 1.5 hours of flight time. We demonstrate less than 290 meters of average position error over a trajectory of more than 150 kilometers. In addition to showing performance across a range of altitudes, we also demonstrate the robustness of the Terrain Relative Navigation (TRN) method to rapid rotations of the balloon, in some cases exceeding 20 degrees per second, and to camera obstructions caused by both cloud coverage and cords swaying underneath the balloon. Additionally, we evaluate performance on data collected by two cameras inside the capsule of Blue Origin's New Shepard rocket on payload flight NS-23, traveling at speeds up to 880 km/hr, and demonstrate less than 55 meters of average position error.

We describe our system for LitTraceQA (GroundLM @ EMNLP 2026): given a research question, retrieve the relevant papers from a pool of 27,487, cite the page and the table or figure where the answer lives, and answer in a requested format. Our main finding is that evidence grounding is limited by retrieval, not by reading. The page selector put the annotator's page, which we call the gold page, in front of the model that locates evidence only about half the time (52.6% gold-page recall), while that model, given the page, cited the right one in 45 of the 48 locators it emitted (94%). When the page was missing it rarely said so: of 45 such cases it returned nothing 14 times, a wrong page 24 times, and a correct page 7 times, so the pipeline failed quietly almost twice as often as it failed visibly. Since the failure was that the right page was never shown, the fix is to stop choosing: each retrieved paper fits in the model's context, so we show it whole. Page ranking survives only as a fallback inside papers too long to fit, which no test-split paper was, and gold-page recall reaches 100% on the papers we can parse. Separately, questions that identify their target by position rather than content, such as "the first author of the 24th reference", are served by parsing rather than retrieval: we resolve the bibliography into an addressable list, which also supplies identifiers the evidence metric scores. The final system scores 0.762 paper F_1, 0.441 evidence F_1 and 0.920 multiple-choice accuracy on the held-out test split. Because the pipeline depends on a closed model without seed control, we release a harness that verifies the paper's central claims against committed artifacts.

Evaluation efforts such as TREC, CLEF, NTCIR and FIRE, alongside public leaderboard such as MS MARCO, are intended to encourage research and track our progress, addressing big questions in our field. However, the goal is not simply to identify which run is "best", achieving the top score. The goal is to move the field forward by developing new robust techniques, that work in many different settings, and are adopted in research and practice. This paper uses the MS MARCO and TREC Deep Learning Track as our case study, comparing it to the case of TREC ad hoc ranking in the 1990s. We show how the design of the evaluation effort can encourage or discourage certain outcomes, and raising questions about internal and external validity of results. We provide some analysis of certain pitfalls, and a statement of best practices for avoiding such pitfalls. We summarize the progress of the effort so far, and describe our desired end state of "robust usefulness", along with steps that might be required to get us there.

The propensity of abstractive summarization models to make factual errors has been studied extensively, including design of metrics to detect factual errors and annotation of errors in current systems' outputs. However, the ever-evolving nature of summarization systems, metrics, and annotated benchmarks makes factuality evaluation a moving target, and drawing clear comparisons among metrics has become increasingly difficult. In this work, we aggregate factuality error annotations from nine existing datasets and stratify them according to the underlying summarization model. We compare performance of state-of-the-art factuality metrics, including recent ChatGPT-based metrics, on this stratified benchmark and show that their performance varies significantly across different types of summarization models. Critically, our analysis shows that much of the recent improvement in the factuality detection space has been on summaries from older (pre-Transformer) models instead of more relevant recent summarization models. We further perform a finer-grained analysis per error-type and find similar performance variance across error types for different factuality metrics. Our results show that no one metric is superior in all settings or for all error types, and we provide recommendations for best practices given these insights.

Block-diffusion language models are served at hand-picked operating points, such as acceptance thresholds, buffer depth, schedule, checkpoint and precision, and each point is chosen by its mean benchmark accuracy. However, a mean does not tell an operator how often a faster configuration fails on prompts that the slower one answers correctly. On the serving engine and its decode traces, the default commit rule already commits every fully resolved block, a static skip rule captures nearly all of the compute that allocation can save, and self-distillation on engine-decoded targets adds speed at unchanged accuracy. Larger speedups come from lower thresholds, which commit tokens that are still uncertain. We therefore present Redline, a finite-sample procedure that selects operating points, hand-picked or learned, from the correctness of their answers on calibration prompts. Redline keeps the reference-relative risk, the joint probability that the reference answers correctly and a candidate configuration does not, within a user-chosen budget with high probability, and deploys the fastest configuration that passes. It speeds up math at a smaller risk budget than code in both model families, and at a budget of ten percent it deploys a LLaDA2 math configuration that commits over a third more tokens in each forward. It also applies without modification to the acceptance rule of speculative decoding and to weight quantization. On the same calibration data, Redline stays within its stated failure probability, whereas each tolerance of a mean-accuracy rule either gains less speed for some model and task or exceeds the risk budget far more often for another. Code is available at https://github.com/js-lee-AI/Redline.

Every public LLM cost calculator we surveyed treats GPU utilization as a fixed input -- entered by the user, baked in as a preset, or silently assumed at 100% -- never measured against the operator's actual load. We show that this assumption is the dominant source of error: on identical H100 hardware, effective cost spans \0.21 to 15.25 per million output tokens, an underutilization penalty of 2.5-24x across low-to-moderate enterprise loads (1-10 rps) and up to 36.3x near idle -- driven by one operator-controlled variable, offered request rate lambda, which sets in-flight concurrency via Little's Law and which no open-source calculator exposes. Because calculators take utilization as a user-supplied input, any utilization-naive estimate understates true cost by exactly 1/U, systematically mispricing self-hosting -- most severely over-selling it for low-traffic workloads. We propose a measurement methodology that parameterizes the relationship as C_eff = f(H, M, Q, lambda, L), validate it with 42 benchmarks across dense, ultra-sparse MoE, and sparse MoE models, and release vllm-cost-meter, an open-source cost meter that attaches to a live vLLM server and reports real \$/M-tokens against the operator's own traffic. We further show that FP8 quantization benefits the MoE architectures we tested roughly 2.2-2.4x more than the dense model (+69 to +74% vs. +31% peak throughput; n=3, broader validation needed), and our data are consistent with active parameter count, not total model size, being a primary predictor of saturation economics. To rule out single-hardware confounding we repeat the core sweep on A100 80GB PCIe (56 runs): the load-driven spread reproduces at 7.0-11.4x, the active-parameters ordering survives at FP8, and the dense-FP8 advantage inverts on silicon without native FP8 tensor cores -- a hardware-conditional caveat the framework already accommodates.

AlltoAll dispatch is the dominant bottleneck of MoE expert parallelism, and the interconnect community has responded with four families of mitigations: predictive sample placement, adaptive expert relayout, hierarchical collectives, and EP-aware topology. All four rest on two assumptions about the workload: that routing imbalance is correctable by the system layer, and that the mock-token benchmarks evaluating them faithfully represent production routing. We introduce DODOCO to test both, instrumenting five open MoE checkpoints that span today's sequence-mixer designs (MHA, MLA, GQA, Gated DeltaNet and Mamba-2 SSM) under a factorial grid of six data conditions and a matched expert-parallelism scan on H100 clusters. Both assumptions fail. Scaling EP leaves per-expert load concentration essentially unchanged: the straggler is intrinsic to the routing decision the model makes, not to how its experts land on ranks. Mock tokens overestimate routing imbalance by up to a factor of 2.35, and the error is a level offset rather than a trend: it stays flat across a 32times batch-size sweep. Skewing the synthetic distribution toward realism (Zipf) widens the gap instead of closing it. A third pattern organizes the results: the architectures separate into a data-resilient band (MHA, Mamba-2), whose routing approaches uniform on real text, and a persistently concentrated band (MLA, GDN), with GQA intermediate. These bands, not the EP degree or the mock-data profile, are the right workload input to AlltoAll-aware interconnect and dispatch design.

Despite its crucial role in research experiments, code correctness is often presumed only on the basis of the perceived quality of results. This assumption comes with the risk of erroneous outcomes and potentially misleading findings. To address this issue, we posit that the current focus on reproducibility should go hand in hand with the emphasis on software quality. We present a case study in which we identify and fix three bugs in widely used implementations of the state-of-the-art Conformer architecture. Through experiments on speech recognition and translation in various languages, we demonstrate that the presence of bugs does not prevent the achievement of good and reproducible results, which however can lead to incorrect conclusions that potentially misguide future research. As a countermeasure, we propose a Code-quality Checklist and release pangoliNN, a library dedicated to testing neural models, with the goal of promoting coding best practices and improving research software quality within the NLP community.

Can small language models achieve strong tool-use performance without complex adaptation mechanisms? This paper investigates this question through Meta-Tool, a controlled empirical study comparing hypernetwork-based LoRA adaptation against carefully designed few-shot prompting. Using a Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct backbone, we evaluate four adaptation mechanisms--few-shot prompting, documentation encoding, hypernetwork-generated LoRA weights, and value-guided beam search--across four diverse benchmarks: Gorilla APIBench, Spider 2.0, WebArena, and InterCode. Our central finding is a well-supported negative result: despite generating non-trivial weight matrices, the 227.8M-parameter hypernetwork provides no measurable improvement over few-shot prompting alone. Comprehensive ablation studies reveal that few-shot examples contribute +21.5% to performance and documentation contributes +5.0%, while the hypernetwork adds 0%. A 3B model with well-designed prompts achieves 79.7% of GPT-5's average performance at 10 times lower latency. Error analysis across 722 failure cases spanning all shot counts (0--5) shows that at the 5-shot configuration (106 failures), failure modes are task-dependent: schema-heavy tasks (Spider 2.0, WebArena) show near-zero format errors with remaining failures semantic, while format errors dominate on Gorilla (100%) and InterCode (70%). These findings redirect practitioners toward prompt engineering and example curation rather than complex adaptation architectures.

There is increasing evidence that question-answering (QA) systems with Large Language Models (LLMs), which employ a knowledge graph/semantic representation of an enterprise SQL database (i.e. Text-to-SPARQL), achieve higher accuracy compared to systems that answer questions directly on SQL databases (i.e. Text-to-SQL). Our previous benchmark research showed that by using a knowledge graph, the accuracy improved from 16% to 54%. The question remains: how can we further improve the accuracy and reduce the error rate? Building on the observations of our previous research where the inaccurate LLM-generated SPARQL queries followed incorrect paths, we present an approach that consists of 1) Ontology-based Query Check (OBQC): detects errors by leveraging the ontology of the knowledge graph to check if the LLM-generated SPARQL query matches the semantic of ontology and 2) LLM Repair: use the error explanations with an LLM to repair the SPARQL query. Using the chat with the data benchmark, our primary finding is that our approach increases the overall accuracy to 72% including an additional 8% of "I don't know" unknown results. Thus, the overall error rate is 20%. These results provide further evidence that investing knowledge graphs, namely the ontology, provides higher accuracy for LLM powered question answering systems.

Large language models can diagnose a student program from its code, problem statement, and reference solution. Evaluating this ability requires a clear definition of what counts as the correct diagnosis. We introduce PyMETA, a Python error dataset with 48,646 student submissions to 155 problems. Every submission has a single label for the first execution error identified by an Online Judge, or No Error when the program passes all tests. A targeted subset of 97 submissions also has expert labels collected through iterative repair and re-execution. The taxonomy has three levels; its most detailed level contains 14 labels, including No Error, Logic Error, named Python exceptions, and an Other Errors category. We evaluate two finetuned models and two groups of prompted LLMs: four earlier models and four recent models. When evaluated against the first execution error, the recent prompted models reach 87.5--93.8% macro F1, above the strongest finetuned baseline at 80.6%. This is the opposite of the comparison obtained with the earlier prompted models. On the 97-item expert subset, however, exact-set match is only 43.3--48.5%, although sample F1 is about 79--81%. Output format also matters. On the same 45 audited submissions whose expert label sets do not contain Logic Error, none of the four recent models returns that label under single-error prompting, but 46.7--57.8% of their multi-error outputs include it, usually after an explicit-error label. The results show that model rankings and claims about label bias depend on the meaning of the gold label, the number of labels a model may return, and the scoring rule.

Reproducing a machine learning paper involves most research steps, from installing software and debugging to running experiments, work that AI agents increasingly do. We introduce RECLAIM, a benchmark of 100 NeurIPS 2025 papers that can be rebuilt yearly from new conferences. For each paper we fix in advance the result to reproduce, what counts as a successful reproduction, and a GPU-hour budget. An agent must reproduce that result using the paper and whatever its authors released. What the authors released decides the difficulty tier. Run-tier releases include code, data, and weights; Retrain-tier releases lack weights, so the agent trains the model; Reimplement-tier releases lack code, so the agent writes it. A separate language model grades runs from logs and outputs rather than agents' reports. We run four agents once per paper; the best agent in each tier reproduces only 41% of Run-tier papers, 27% at Retrain, and 15% at Reimplement, where every agent does worst. Failed attempts use on average 29% of their budget, so most stop with budget left. The most common agent error is writing the method without checking any part against the paper's numbers, in 63 of 400 runs.

Can a sender that only computes hashes, with a language model only at the receiver, transmit short human text more cheaply than a classical sender trained on the same domain? We answer with one pre-registered run on 1,000 English user utterances from Taskmaster-1. The primary endpoint is the cost per message to deliver 100% of the messages (hash bits, plus a 2-byte negative acknowledgement and the raw text when the first attempt fails), paired against an in-domain PPM order-1 sender. The hash-only sender delivered 857 of 1,000 messages on the first attempt and cost 192.8 bits per message, 18.4 bits more than PPM order 1 (95% bootstrap interval 10.9 to 26.3); by the pre-registered rule it spends more and is not equivalent within one byte. As secondary results we map measured sender memory against bits. The hash-only sender (8,190 B on a host build, keyed BLAKE2b tag included, as in every method) was the cheapest point in bits from 8,190 B up to, but excluding, PPM order 1 at 24,844 B, 45 to 46 bits below smaz2 and Unishox2; from PPM order 1 upwards, in-domain senders spend fewer bits, except order 2 pruned to 16 KiB. In airtime it loses to PPM order 1 on all five links priced, to Unishox2 on four, and to raw text with a tag on two, because each failure costs an acknowledgement frame and a fallback frame. A wider receiver search recovers half of the failures and makes the cost 7.7 bits lower than PPM order 1, at about three minutes of receiver time per failure, and still loses in airtime on four of five links. We report the measurement as a delimitation, with every deviation of the run.

In this work, we explore a useful but often neglected methodology for robustness analysis of text generation evaluation metrics: stress tests with synthetic data. Basically, we design and synthesize a wide range of potential errors and check whether they result in a commensurate drop in the metric scores. We examine a range of recently proposed evaluation metrics based on pretrained language models, for the tasks of open-ended generation, translation, and summarization. Our experiments reveal interesting insensitivities, biases, or even loopholes in existing metrics. For example, we find that BERTScore is confused by truncation errors in summarization, and MAUVE (built on top of GPT-2) is insensitive to errors at the beginning or middle of generations. Further, we investigate the reasons behind these blind spots and suggest practical workarounds for a more reliable evaluation of text generation. We have released our code and data at https://github.com/cloudygoose/blindspot_nlg.

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.

We present Azimuth, an open-source and easy-to-use tool to perform error analysis for text classification. Compared to other stages of the ML development cycle, such as model training and hyper-parameter tuning, the process and tooling for the error analysis stage are less mature. However, this stage is critical for the development of reliable and trustworthy AI systems. To make error analysis more systematic, we propose an approach comprising dataset analysis and model quality assessment, which Azimuth facilitates. We aim to help AI practitioners discover and address areas where the model does not generalize by leveraging and integrating a range of ML techniques, such as saliency maps, similarity, uncertainty, and behavioral analyses, all in one tool. Our code and documentation are available at github.com/servicenow/azimuth.

When deploying large language models (LLMs), it is important to ensure that these models are not only capable, but also reliable. Many benchmarks have been created to track LLMs' growing capabilities, however there has been no similar focus on measuring their reliability. To understand the potential ramifications of this gap, we investigate how well current benchmarks quantify model reliability. We find that pervasive label errors can compromise these evaluations, obscuring lingering model failures and hiding unreliable behavior. Motivated by this gap in the evaluation of reliability, we then propose the concept of so-called platinum benchmarks, i.e., benchmarks carefully curated to minimize label errors and ambiguity. As a first attempt at constructing such benchmarks, we revise examples from fifteen existing popular benchmarks. We evaluate a wide range of models on these platinum benchmarks and find that, indeed, frontier LLMs still exhibit failures on simple tasks such as elementary-level math word problems. Analyzing these failures further reveals previously unidentified patterns of problems on which frontier models consistently struggle. We provide code at https://github.com/MadryLab/platinum-benchmarks

The year 2024 marks the 10th anniversary of the Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM) framework for analytic translation quality evaluation. The MQM error typology has been widely used by practitioners in the translation and localization industry and has served as the basis for many derivative projects. The annual Conference on Machine Translation (WMT) shared tasks on both human and automatic translation quality evaluations used the MQM error typology. The metric stands on two pillars: error typology and the scoring model. The scoring model calculates the quality score from annotation data, detailing how to convert error type and severity counts into numeric scores to determine if the content meets specifications. Previously, only the raw scoring model had been published. This April, the MQM Council published the Linear Calibrated Scoring Model, officially presented herein, along with the Non-Linear Scoring Model, which had not been published before. This paper details the latest MQM developments and presents a universal approach to translation quality measurement across three sample size ranges. It also explains why Statistical Quality Control should be used for very small sample sizes, starting from a single sentence.

Automatic Prompt Optimization (APO) is a powerful approach for extracting performance from large language models without modifying their weights. Many existing methods rely on trial-and-error, testing different prompts or in-context examples until a good configuration emerges, often consuming substantial compute. Recently, natural language feedback derived from execution logs has shown promise as a way to identify how prompts can be improved. However, most prior approaches operate in a bottom-up manner, iteratively adjusting the prompt based on feedback from individual problems, which can cause them to lose the global perspective. In this work, we propose Error Taxonomy-Guided Prompt Optimization (ETGPO), a prompt optimization algorithm that adopts a top-down approach. ETGPO focuses on the global failure landscape by collecting model errors, categorizing them into a taxonomy, and augmenting the prompt with guidance targeting the most frequent failure modes. Across multiple benchmarks spanning mathematics, question answering, and logical reasoning, ETGPO achieves accuracy that is comparable to or better than state-of-the-art methods, while requiring roughly one third of the optimization-phase token usage and evaluation budget.

Sharp bounds on two potential-outcome means need not combine into sharp bounds on their difference. We characterize exactly when composition is guaranteed across environments sharing a joint potential-outcome law. For binary treatment and outcome, fix strict selection-probability bounds and interior treatment propensities. Subtracting the full model's sharp mean intervals gives sharp average-treatment-effect bounds for every compatible observed law if and only if the absolute selection bounds coincide across environments. Under this alignment, the complete mean region is rectangular; its endpoints and attaining causal models require O(K) arithmetic operations for K environments. For every mismatch, failure occurs on a relatively open set of positive observed tables at the prescribed propensities and persists under small joint drift. We give computable perturbation certificates and an exact family whose gap is first order in the mismatch. A separate finite-confounding family shows when the lost joint information changes an identified causal sign. These results distinguish local marginal sharpness from joint attainability after combining environments.

Majority voting over multiple LLM attempts improves mathematical reasoning, but correlated errors limit the effective sample size. A natural fix is to assign different reasoning strategies to different voters. The approach, Diverse Prompt Mixer, is tested on the AIMO 3 competition: 3 models, 23+ experiments, 50 IMO-level problems, one H100 80 GB, 5-hour limit. Every prompt-level intervention fails. High-temperature sampling already decorrelates errors; weaker strategies reduce accuracy more than they reduce correlation. Across an 8-point capability gap at equal N=8 and every optimization tested, model capability dominates. The gap between the best majority-vote score (42/50) and pass@20 (~45.5) is selection loss, not prompt loss. A verifier-based selector could close it. Prompt engineering cannot.

While cloud-native microservice architectures have revolutionized software development, their inherent operational complexity makes failure Root Cause Analysis (RCA) a critical yet challenging task. Numerous data-driven RCA models have been proposed to address this challenge. However, we find that the benchmarks used to evaluate these models are often too simple to reflect real-world scenarios. Our preliminary study reveals that simple rule-based methods can achieve performance comparable to or even surpassing state-of-the-art (SOTA) models on four widely used public benchmarks. This finding suggests that the oversimplification of existing benchmarks might lead to an overestimation of the performance of RCA methods. To further investigate the oversimplification issue, we conduct a systematic analysis of popular public RCA benchmarks, identifying key limitations in their fault injection strategies, call graph structures, and telemetry signal patterns. Based on these insights, we propose an automated framework for generating more challenging and comprehensive benchmarks that include complex fault propagation scenarios. Our new dataset contains 1,430 validated failure cases from 9,152 fault injections, covering 25 fault types across 6 categories, dynamic workloads, and hierarchical ground-truth labels that map failures from services down to code-level causes. Crucially, to ensure the failure cases are relevant to IT operations, each case is validated to have a discernible impact on user-facing SLIs. Our re-evaluation of 11 SOTA models on this new benchmark shows that they achieve low Top@1 accuracies, averaging 0.21, with the best-performing model reaching merely 0.37, and execution times escalating from seconds to hours.

Rigorous statistical evaluations of large language models (LLMs), including valid error bars and significance testing, are essential for meaningful and reliable performance assessment. Currently, when such statistical measures are reported, they typically rely on the Central Limit Theorem (CLT). In this position paper, we argue that while CLT-based methods for uncertainty quantification are appropriate when benchmarks consist of thousands of examples, they fail to provide adequate uncertainty estimates for LLM evaluations that rely on smaller, highly specialized benchmarks. In these small-data settings, we demonstrate that CLT-based methods perform very poorly, usually dramatically underestimating uncertainty (i.e. producing error bars that are too small). We give recommendations for alternative frequentist and Bayesian methods that are both easy to implement and more appropriate in these increasingly common scenarios. We provide a simple Python library for these Bayesian methods at https://github.com/sambowyer/bayes_evals .

We report a case study of four end-to-end attempts to autonomously generate ML research papers using a pipeline of six LLM agents mapped to stages of the scientific workflow. Of these four, three attempts failed during implementation or evaluation. One completed the pipeline and was accepted to Agents4Science 2025, an experimental inaugural venue that required AI systems as first authors, passing both human and multi-AI review. From these attempts, we document six recurring failure modes: bias toward training data defaults, implementation drift under execution pressure, memory and context degradation across long-horizon tasks, overexcitement that declares success despite obvious failures, insufficient domain intelligence, and weak scientific taste in experimental design. We conclude by discussing four design principles for more robust AI-scientist systems, implications for autonomous scientific discovery, and we release all prompts, artifacts, and outputs at https://github.com/Lossfunk/ai-scientist-artefacts-v1

Recently, the large language models (LLMs) have shown extraordinary ability in understanding natural language and generating programming code. It has been a common practice of software engineers to consult LLMs when encountering coding questions. Although efforts have been made to avoid syntax errors and align the code with the intended semantics, the reliability and robustness of the code generationfrom LLMs have not yet been thoroughly studied. The executable code is not equivalent to the reliable and robust code, especially in the context of real-world software development. The misuse of APIs in the generated code could lead to severe problem, such as resource leaks, program crashes. To make things worse, the users of LLM code generation services are actually the developers that are most vulnerable to these code that seems right -- They are always novice developers that are not familiar with the APIs that LLMs generate code for them. Therefore, they could hardly tell the misuse in the code generated by LLMs, which further facilitates the incorrect code applied in real-world software. Existing code evaluation benchmark and datasets focus on crafting small tasks such as programming questions in coding interviews, which however deviates from the problem that developers would ask LLM for real-world coding help. To fill the missing piece, in this work, we propose a dataset RobustAPI for evaluating the reliability and robustness of code generated by LLMs. We collect 1208 coding questions from StackOverflow on 24 representative Java APIs. We summarize thecommon misuse patterns of these APIs and evaluate them oncurrent popular LLMs. The evaluation results show that evenfor GPT-4, 62% of the generated code contains API misuses,which would cause unexpected consequences if the code isintroduced into real-world software.

Deep-research agents solve tasks through long trajectories of search, tool use, evidence inspection, and answer synthesis. Evaluation based on final answers shows whether an agent succeeds, but not which parts of the trajectory make the answer unreliable. We study span-level error localization for deep-research agents. We collect 2,790 real trajectories from two agent frameworks, three backbone models, and three benchmarks, convert raw logs into semantic spans, and annotate harmful error spans through LLM-assisted expert review. From these annotations, we build TELBench, a 1,000-instance benchmark for identifying error spans among normal exploration, failed searches, tentative hypotheses, and harmless noise. We further propose DRIFT, a claim-centric auditing framework that tracks agent claims, checks their support in trajectory evidence, and marks spans where unsupported or conflicting claims affect the answer path. Experiments across model families and auditing frameworks show that DRIFT improves span-level error localization and first-error accuracy by up to 30 percentage points. Our work provides a process-level view of reliability in deep-research agents.

This work presents the first quantitative study of alignment errors between small uncrewed aerial systems (sUAS) geospatial imagery and a priori building polygons and finds that alignment errors are non-uniform and irregular. The work also introduces a publicly available dataset of imagery, building polygons, and human-generated and curated adjustments that can be used to evaluate existing strategies for aligning building polygons with sUAS imagery. There are no efforts that have aligned pre-existing spatial data with sUAS imagery, and thus, there is no clear state of practice. However, this effort and analysis show that the translational alignment errors present in this type of data, averaging 82px and an intersection over the union of 0.65, which would induce further errors and biases in downstream machine learning systems unless addressed. This study identifies and analyzes the translational alignment errors of 21,619 building polygons in fifty-one orthomosaic images, covering 16787.2 Acres (26.23 square miles), constructed from sUAS raw imagery from nine wide-area disasters (Hurricane Ian, Hurricane Harvey, Hurricane Michael, Hurricane Ida, Hurricane Idalia, Hurricane Laura, the Mayfield Tornado, the Musset Bayou Fire, and the Kilauea Eruption). The analysis finds no uniformity among the angle and distance metrics of the building polygon alignments as they present an average degree variance of 0.4 and an average pixel distance variance of 0.45. This work alerts the sUAS community to the problem of spatial alignment and that a simple linear transform, often used to align satellite imagery, will not be sufficient to align spatial data in sUAS orthomosaic imagery.

We present the system description for our submission towards the Key Point Analysis Shared Task at ArgMining 2021. Track 1 of the shared task requires participants to develop methods to predict the match score between each pair of arguments and keypoints, provided they belong to the same topic under the same stance. We leveraged existing state of the art pre-trained language models along with incorporating additional data and features extracted from the inputs (topics, key points, and arguments) to improve performance. We were able to achieve mAP strict and mAP relaxed score of 0.872 and 0.966 respectively in the evaluation phase, securing 5th place on the leaderboard. In the post evaluation phase, we achieved a mAP strict and mAP relaxed score of 0.921 and 0.982 respectively. All the codes to generate reproducible results on our models are available on Github.

Large Language Models (LLMs) in Software Engineering (SE) can offer assistance for coding. To facilitate a rigorous evaluation of LLMs in practical coding contexts, Carlos et al. introduced the SWE-bench dataset, which comprises 2,294 real-world GitHub issues and their corresponding pull requests, collected from 12 widely used Python repositories. Several impressive LLM-based toolkits recently are developed and evaluated on this dataset. However, a systematic evaluation of the quality of SWE-bench remains missing. In this paper, we addressed this gap by presenting an empirical analysis of the SWE-bench dataset. We conducted a manual screening of instances where SWEAgent + GPT-4 successfully resolved issues by comparing the model-generated patches with the actual pull requests. SWE-Agent+GPT-4 was at the top of SWE-bench leaderboard during the time of our study. Our analysis reveals some critical issues with the SWE-bench dataset: 1) 32.67% of the successful patches involve cheating as the solutions were directly provided in the issue report or the comments. We refer to as solution leakage problem. 2) 31.08% of the passed patches are suspicious patches due to weak test cases, i.e., the tests were not adequate to verify the correctness of a patch. When we filtered out these problematic issues, the resolution rate of SWE-Agent+GPT-4 dropped from 12.47% to 3.97%. We also observed that the same data quality issues also exist in the two variants of SWE-bench, i.e., SWE-bench Lite and SWE-Bench Verified. In addition, over 94% of the issues were created before LLM's knowledge cutoff dates, posing potential data leakage issues.

Error Feedback (EF) is a highly popular and immensely effective mechanism for fixing convergence issues which arise in distributed training methods (such as distributed GD or SGD) when these are enhanced with greedy communication compression techniques such as TopK. While EF was proposed almost a decade ago (Seide et al., 2014), and despite concentrated effort by the community to advance the theoretical understanding of this mechanism, there is still a lot to explore. In this work we study a modern form of error feedback called EF21 (Richtarik et al., 2021) which offers the currently best-known theoretical guarantees, under the weakest assumptions, and also works well in practice. In particular, while the theoretical communication complexity of EF21 depends on the quadratic mean of certain smoothness parameters, we improve this dependence to their arithmetic mean, which is always smaller, and can be substantially smaller, especially in heterogeneous data regimes. We take the reader on a journey of our discovery process. Starting with the idea of applying EF21 to an equivalent reformulation of the underlying problem which (unfortunately) requires (often impractical) machine cloning, we continue to the discovery of a new weighted version of EF21 which can (fortunately) be executed without any cloning, and finally circle back to an improved analysis of the original EF21 method. While this development applies to the simplest form of EF21, our approach naturally extends to more elaborate variants involving stochastic gradients and partial participation. Further, our technique improves the best-known theory of EF21 in the rare features regime (Richtarik et al., 2023). Finally, we validate our theoretical findings with suitable experiments.

Autonomous agents increasingly perform bounded software tasks under an orchestrator that retries, resumes, and budgets them. The machinery such orchestrators reach for is the service mesh's: retry, timeout, and error-rate circuit breaking. We report a failure study of a production agentic software-delivery platform over 147 numbered incidents spanning 81 runs, each with a measured cost and, in most cases, a mutation proof reproducing the failure. All three assumptions those primitives rest on are violated in practice, and we quantify the consequences: a loop of fifty-four consecutive successful tool calls no error-rate breaker could see; a progress signal constant by construction, guaranteeing a false trip on the third repair round and driving one run from six of six components to three; twenty-one events accumulated across six invocations of one delegation, making a correct, idempotent component unwinnable; a misrouted failure that woke five components for a two-component fault, leaving three bystanders regressing working code; and twelve incidents in which the enforcement layer blocked correct work, the most expensive costing 107 agent turns and zero accepted writes. We find one cross-cutting cause and its dual. Identity adequacy: in five separate subsystems an identity that failed to discriminate produced a confident wrong answer, and two of them derived the corrective rule independently. Evidence adequacy: a reliability decision may be taken only on evidence capable of moving, attributable to what it measures, and deterministic under identical conditions. From the findings we derive seven reliability primitives whose enforcement unit is the delegation rather than the message, and specify the controlled evaluation the study motivates but does not constitute.

Users seek security & privacy (S&P) advice from online resources, including trusted websites and content-sharing platforms. These resources help users understand S&P technologies and tools and suggest actionable strategies. Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently emerged as trusted information sources. However, their accuracy and correctness have been called into question. Prior research has outlined the shortcomings of LLMs in answering multiple-choice questions and user ability to inadvertently circumvent model restrictions (e.g., to produce toxic content). Yet, the ability of LLMs to provide reliable S&P advice is not well-explored. In this paper, we measure their ability to refute popular S&P misconceptions that the general public holds. We first study recent academic literature to curate a dataset of over a hundred S&P-related misconceptions across six different topics. We then query two popular LLMs (Bard and ChatGPT) and develop a labeling guide to evaluate their responses to these misconceptions. To comprehensively evaluate their responses, we further apply three strategies: query each misconception multiple times, generate and query their paraphrases, and solicit source URLs of the responses. Both models demonstrate, on average, a 21.3% non-negligible error rate, incorrectly supporting popular S&P misconceptions. The error rate increases to 32.6% when we repeatedly query LLMs with the same or paraphrased misconceptions. We also expose that models may partially support a misconception or remain noncommittal, refusing a firm stance on misconceptions. Our exploration of information sources for responses revealed that LLMs are susceptible to providing invalid URLs (21.2% for Bard and 67.7% for ChatGPT) or point to unrelated sources (44.2% returned by Bard and 18.3% by ChatGPT).

Context: The SZZ algorithm is the de facto standard for labeling bug fixing commits and finding inducing changes for defect prediction data. Recent research uncovered potential problems in different parts of the SZZ algorithm. Most defect prediction data sets provide only static code metrics as features, while research indicates that other features are also important. Objective: We provide an empirical analysis of the defect labels created with the SZZ algorithm and the impact of commonly used features on results. Method: We used a combination of manual validation and adopted or improved heuristics for the collection of defect data. We conducted an empirical study on 398 releases of 38 Apache projects. Results: We found that only half of the bug fixing commits determined by SZZ are actually bug fixing. If a six-month time frame is used in combination with SZZ to determine which bugs affect a release, one file is incorrectly labeled as defective for every file that is correctly labeled as defective. In addition, two defective files are missed. We also explored the impact of the relatively small set of features that are available in most defect prediction data sets, as there are multiple publications that indicate that, e.g., churn related features are important for defect prediction. We found that the difference of using more features is not significant. Conclusion: Problems with inaccurate defect labels are a severe threat to the validity of the state of the art of defect prediction. Small feature sets seem to be a less severe threat.

This position paper argues that the machine learning community should prioritize early-stage quality assurance in annotation pipelines over the prevailing practice of late-stage validation. Data quality bottlenecks increasingly limit foundation model improvement, yet quality assurance research focuses almost exclusively on validation methods rather than validation timing. When validation occurs, not merely what methods are employed, fundamentally determines both error rates and annotation costs. This temporal neglect is puzzling given the well-established "shift-left" principle from software engineering, where empirical studies demonstrate 4--100x cost multipliers for defects detected in later stages (Boehm, 1981; Shull et al., 2002). Annotation pipelines exhibit analogous dynamics: errors caught before annotation begins cost a fraction of those discovered after review cycles complete. We propose a taxonomy of three QA trigger points, namely pre-annotation (T0), post-annotation (T1), and post-review (T2), that decompose annotation workflows into discrete validation opportunities. A parametric error-propagation model formalizes when timing affects final error rates versus only economics, making timing a measurable design variable rather than a configuration afterthought. A survey of 47 recent papers reveals that only 4% report when validation occurs, a striking gap given timing's demonstrated impact in adjacent fields. Without explicit attention to QA timing, the community risks optimizing validation methods while ignoring the structural variable that may matter most. Acting on this position requires three steps: researchers should report QA timing configurations alongside validation methods; annotation platforms should expose timing as a first-class parameter; and the community should run controlled experiments that measure stage-specific detection rates directly.

Recent work in activation steering has demonstrated the potential to better control the outputs of Large Language Models (LLMs), but it involves finding steering vectors. This is difficult because engineers do not typically know how features are represented in these models. We seek to address this issue by applying the idea of mean-centring to steering vectors. We find that taking the average of activations associated with a target dataset, and then subtracting the mean of all training activations, results in effective steering vectors. We test this method on a variety of models on natural language tasks by steering away from generating toxic text, and steering the completion of a story towards a target genre. We also apply mean-centring to extract function vectors, more effectively triggering the execution of a range of natural language tasks by a significant margin (compared to previous baselines). This suggests that mean-centring can be used to easily improve the effectiveness of activation steering in a wide range of contexts.

With Large Language Models (LLMs) being widely used across various tasks, detecting errors in their responses is increasingly crucial. However, little research has been conducted on error detection of LLM responses. Collecting error annotations on LLM responses is challenging due to the subjective nature of many NLP tasks, and thus previous research focuses on tasks of little practical value (e.g., word sorting) or limited error types (e.g., faithfulness in summarization). This work introduces ReaLMistake, the first error detection benchmark consisting of objective, realistic, and diverse errors made by LLMs. ReaLMistake contains three challenging and meaningful tasks that introduce objectively assessable errors in four categories (reasoning correctness, instruction-following, context-faithfulness, and parameterized knowledge), eliciting naturally observed and diverse errors in responses of GPT-4 and Llama 2 70B annotated by experts. We use ReaLMistake to evaluate error detectors based on 12 LLMs. Our findings show: 1) Top LLMs like GPT-4 and Claude 3 detect errors made by LLMs at very low recall, and all LLM-based error detectors perform much worse than humans. 2) Explanations by LLM-based error detectors lack reliability. 3) LLMs-based error detection is sensitive to small changes in prompts but remains challenging to improve. 4) Popular approaches to improving LLMs, including self-consistency and majority vote, do not improve the error detection performance. Our benchmark and code are provided at https://github.com/psunlpgroup/ReaLMistake.

Complete orthogonal predictive coordinates do not by themselves bind a latent direction to a named intervention. We present a mathematical and synthetic audit motivated by vascular device-vessel suitcordance. Capacity-matched least-squares predictors were exactly equivalent under complete fixed output transforms, whereas an anchor-only observer recovered interpretations only within the span of known perturbation signatures. Six three-dimensional configurations across 64 seeds gave a maximum paired prediction discrepancy of 6.7e-15 but a median untransported edit error of 1.513. Coordinate transport removed that error. Noisy and weak anchors constrained calibration stability, and changing the representation basis required recalibration or verified transport. Across 256 additional fits in dimensions 3-24, prediction equivalence persisted within 4.0e-15. We then evaluated nine deliberate runnable fault classes across 64 seeds. All 576 faulty executions completed, but each violated at least one reconstruction, prediction, delivered-edit or scope contract; all 320 valid control records passed. Repeating a faulty implementation gave exact self-agreement despite error against the separately computed simulator expectation. For one omitted-direction defect, probe coverage followed its analytic law, and rank-aware abstention protected unsupported interpretations. Scalar-noise experiments exposed both missed weak faults and excessive rejection under narrow relative tolerances. These controls provide an executable separation of prediction, semantic support and scientific acceptance. They are synthetic numerical audits, not clinical validation, neural JEPA-Anything replication, agent learning or patient treatment-effect estimation.

We present the Multilingual Amazon Reviews Corpus (MARC), a large-scale collection of Amazon reviews for multilingual text classification. The corpus contains reviews in English, Japanese, German, French, Spanish, and Chinese, which were collected between 2015 and 2019. Each record in the dataset contains the review text, the review title, the star rating, an anonymized reviewer ID, an anonymized product ID, and the coarse-grained product category (e.g., 'books', 'appliances', etc.) The corpus is balanced across the 5 possible star ratings, so each rating constitutes 20% of the reviews in each language. For each language, there are 200,000, 5,000, and 5,000 reviews in the training, development, and test sets, respectively. We report baseline results for supervised text classification and zero-shot cross-lingual transfer learning by fine-tuning a multilingual BERT model on reviews data. We propose the use of mean absolute error (MAE) instead of classification accuracy for this task, since MAE accounts for the ordinal nature of the ratings.

Text-to-image (T2I) safety guardrails fail to generalize equitably to non-standard dialects. Evaluating 23,080 paired prompts across five English dialects, we formalize this failure as the dialect penalty, where filters trigger based on linguistic surface features rather than semantic intent. Text-level filters fail in opposing directions: NSFW-T over-flags benign dialect prompts and LatentGuard over-flags toxic ones (bias gaps up to +28.29 pp), while the OpenAI Moderation API under-detects them. A controlled typo ablation confirms this penalty originates from flagging dialectal features, not generic out-of-distribution sensitivity. The pixel-level generator is largely dialect-agnostic; the penalty enters at text processing and cascades unevenly to post-hoc guardrails. We show this bias tracks training data imbalance and is mitigable via group-balanced retraining, with an ablation attributing the gain to balanced exposure rather than to the worst-group objective of GroupDRO (group distributionally robust optimization). Current pipelines systematically fail dialect speakers, an equity failure masked by mean accuracy benchmarks. Our official code and dataset are publicly available at https://github.com/minguinho26/dialect-penalty-t2i. Content Warning: This paper contains offensive, toxic, or disturbing text prompts and generated images.

Although large language models can translate some historical languages surprisingly well, their usefulness in digital humanities workflows is limited by the lack of reliable evaluation. We investigate whether existing automatic evaluation metrics developed for modern languages are reliable in this setting, using translation from Classical Chinese to English as a test case. We introduce a diagnostic framework based on minimal pairs capturing error types salient in scholarly use, probing both reference-based and reference-free metrics for error sensitivity and tolerance to valid variation. We find that all metrics exhibit blind spots, however MetricX24 performs best overall. Our findings highlight the need for more robust and interpretable metrics for historically and culturally distinct translation settings.

Earth observation data such as satellite imagery can, when combined with machine learning, have profound impacts on our understanding of the geography of poverty through the prediction of living conditions, especially where government-derived economic indicators are either unavailable or potentially untrustworthy. Recent work has progressed in using EO data not only to predict spatial economic outcomes, but also to explore cause and effect, an understanding which is critical for downstream policy analysis. In this review, we first document the growth of interest in EO-ML analyses in the causal space. We then trace the relationship between spatial statistics and EO-ML methods before discussing the four ways in which EO data has been used in causal ML pipelines -- (1.) poverty outcome imputation for downstream causal analysis, (2.) EO image deconfounding, (3.) EO-based treatment effect heterogeneity, and (4.) EO-based transportability analysis. We conclude by providing a workflow for how researchers can incorporate EO data in causal ML analysis going forward.

Context: Recent research indicates that Web queries written by software developers are not very successful in retrieving relevant results, performing measurably worse compared to general purpose Web queries. Most approaches up to this point have addressed this problem with software engineering-specific automated query reformulation techniques, which work without developer involvement but are limited by the content of the original query. In other words, these techniques automatically improve the existing query but can not contribute new, previously unmentioned, concepts. Objective: In this paper, we propose a technique to guide software developers in manually improving their own Web search queries. We examine a conversational approach that follows unsuccessful queries with a clarification question aimed at eliciting additional query terms, thus providing to the developer a clear dimension along which the query could be improved. Methods: We describe a set of clarification questions derived from a corpus of software developer queries and a neural approach to recommending them for a newly issued query. Results: Our evaluation indicates that the recommendation technique is accurate, predicting a valid clarification question 80% of the time and outperforms simple baselines, as well as, state-of-the-art Learning To Rank (LTR) baselines. Conclusion: As shown in the experimental results, the described approach is capable at recommending appropriate clarification questions to software developers and considered useful by a sample of developers ranging from novices to experienced professionals.

The recent explosion in the capabilities of large language models has led to a wave of interest in how best to prompt a model to perform a given task. While it may be tempting to simply choose a prompt based on average performance on a validation set, this can lead to a deployment where unexpectedly poor responses are generated, especially for the worst-off users. To mitigate this prospect, we propose Prompt Risk Control, a lightweight framework for selecting a prompt based on rigorous upper bounds on families of informative risk measures. We offer methods for producing bounds on a diverse set of metrics, including quantities that measure worst-case responses and disparities in generation quality across the population of users. In addition, we extend the underlying statistical bounding techniques to accommodate the possibility of distribution shifts in deployment. Experiments on applications such as open-ended chat, medical question summarization, and code generation highlight how such a framework can foster responsible deployment by reducing the risk of the worst outcomes.

As language models are increasingly deployed in real-world scenarios with important outcomes, the impact of their mistakes often extends far beyond what correctness can capture. In domains like medicine, a single error can lead to serious consequences and put patient safety at risk. However, mainstream evaluation protocols still treat all errors as equal, overlooking the spectrum of real-world costs. To address this, we propose a utility-based evaluation paradigm that explicitly incorporates the varying consequences of errors. Guided by this principle, we develop UtilityBench, a large-scale benchmark of 15,000 instances with verifiable answers, quantifying error severity using Best-Worst Scaling to elicit meaningful, data-driven cost estimates. These quantified utilities shape when a model should answer or abstain, guiding it to make decisions that align with the true importance of each scenario. As another merit, we introduce UtilityAUC, a metric that measures the area under the utility curve determined by a model's response ordering, thereby enabling utility preference alignment beyond error frequency. Our theoretical analysis demonstrates that UtilityAUC can distinguish between models where standard accuracy and AURC fall short. Empirically, evaluating 20 state-of-the-art models, we find that greater accuracy or more advanced architectures do not reliably translate to higher UtilityAUC, highlighting a gap between problem-solving ability and responsible decision-making in language model evaluation.

This paper presents insights from evaluating 16 frontier large language models (LLMs) on the WebApp1K benchmark, a test suite designed to assess the ability of LLMs to generate web application code. The results reveal that while all models possess similar underlying knowledge, their performance is differentiated by the frequency of mistakes they make. By analyzing lines of code (LOC) and failure distributions, we find that writing correct code is more complex than generating incorrect code. Furthermore, prompt engineering shows limited efficacy in reducing errors beyond specific cases. These findings suggest that further advancements in coding LLM should emphasize on model reliability and mistake minimization.

Multi-agent systems (MAS) are increasingly capable of tackling complex real-world tasks, yet their reliance on inter-agent coordination, tool use, and long-horizon reasoning makes error recognition particularly challenging. Minor errors can propagate across agents, escalating into task failures while producing long, intertwined execution trajectories that impose significant costs for both human developers and automated systems to debug and analyze. Our key insight is that, despite surface differences in failure trajectories (e.g., logs), MAS errors often recur with similar structural patterns. This paper presents CORRECT, the first lightweight, training-free framework that leverages an online cache of distilled error schemata to recognize and transfer knowledge of failure structures across new requests. This cache-based reuse allows LLMs to perform targeted error localization at inference time, avoiding the need for expensive retraining while adapting to dynamic MAS deployments in subseconds. To support rigorous study in this domain, we also introduce CORRECT-Error, a large-scale dataset of over 2,000 annotated trajectories collected through a novel error-injection pipeline guided by real-world distributions, and further validated through human evaluation to ensure alignment with natural failure patterns. Experiments across seven diverse MAS applications show that CORRECT improves step-level error localization up to 19.8% over existing advances while at near-zero overhead, substantially narrowing the gap between automated and human-level error recognition.

With the rapid evolution of large language models (LLMs), new and hard-to-predict harmful capabilities are emerging. This requires developers to be able to identify risks through the evaluation of "dangerous capabilities" in order to responsibly deploy LLMs. In this work, we collect the first open-source dataset to evaluate safeguards in LLMs, and deploy safer open-source LLMs at a low cost. Our dataset is curated and filtered to consist only of instructions that responsible language models should not follow. We annotate and assess the responses of six popular LLMs to these instructions. Based on our annotation, we proceed to train several BERT-like classifiers, and find that these small classifiers can achieve results that are comparable with GPT-4 on automatic safety evaluation. Warning: this paper contains example data that may be offensive, harmful, or biased.

The ability to generate SPARQL queries from natural language questions is crucial for ensuring efficient and accurate retrieval of structured data from knowledge graphs (KG). While large language models (LLMs) have been widely adopted for SPARQL query generation, they are often susceptible to hallucinations and out-of-distribution errors when producing KG elements like Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) based on internal parametric knowledge. This often results in content that appears plausible but is factually incorrect, posing significant challenges for their use in real-world information retrieval (IR) applications. This has led to increased research aimed at detecting and mitigating such errors. In this paper, we introduce PGMR (Post-Generation Memory Retrieval), a modular framework that incorporates a non-parametric memory module to retrieve KG elements and enhance LLM-based SPARQL query generation. Our experimental results indicate that PGMR consistently delivers strong performance across diverse datasets, data distributions, and LLMs. Notably, PGMR significantly mitigates URI hallucinations, nearly eliminating the problem in several scenarios.

Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) have witnessed remarkable growth, showcasing formidable capabilities in handling intricate multimodal tasks with exceptional performance. Recent research has underscored the inclination of large language models to passively accept defective inputs, often resulting in futile reasoning on invalid prompts. However, the same critical question of whether LMMs can actively detect and scrutinize erroneous inputs still remains unexplored. To address this gap, we introduce the Input Scrutiny Ability Evaluation Framework (ISEval), which encompasses seven categories of flawed premises and three evaluation metrics. Our extensive evaluation of ten advanced LMMs has identified key findings. Most models struggle to actively detect flawed textual premises without guidance, which reflects a strong reliance on explicit prompts for premise error identification. Error type affects performance: models excel at identifying logical fallacies but struggle with surface-level linguistic errors and certain conditional flaws. Modality trust varies-Gemini 2.5 pro and Claude Sonnet 4 balance visual and textual info, while aya-vision-8b over-rely on text in conflicts. These insights underscore the urgent need to enhance LMMs' proactive verification of input validity and shed novel insights into mitigating the problem. The code is available at https://github.com/MLGroupJLU/LMM_ISEval.

Earth system models suffer from various structural and parametric errors in their representation of nonlinear, multi-scale processes, leading to uncertainties in their long-term projections. The effects of many of these errors (particularly those due to fast physics) can be quantified in short-term simulations, e.g., as differences between the predicted and observed states (analysis increments). With the increase in the availability of high-quality observations and simulations, learning nudging from these increments to correct model errors has become an active research area. However, most studies focus on using neural networks, which while powerful, are hard to interpret, are data-hungry, and poorly generalize out-of-distribution. Here, we show the capabilities of Model Error Discovery with Interpretability and Data Assimilation (MEDIDA), a general, data-efficient framework that uses sparsity-promoting equation-discovery techniques to learn model errors from analysis increments. Using two-layer quasi-geostrophic turbulence as the test case, MEDIDA is shown to successfully discover various linear and nonlinear structural/parametric errors when full observations are available. Discovery from spatially sparse observations is found to require highly accurate interpolation schemes. While NNs have shown success as interpolators in recent studies, here, they are found inadequate due to their inability to accurately represent small scales, a phenomenon known as spectral bias. We show that a general remedy, adding a random Fourier feature layer to the NN, resolves this issue enabling MEDIDA to successfully discover model errors from sparse observations. These promising results suggest that with further development, MEDIDA could be scaled up to models of the Earth system and real observations.

Current Large Language Models (LLMs) benchmarks are often based on open-ended or close-ended QA evaluations, avoiding the requirement of human labor. Close-ended measurements evaluate the factuality of responses but lack expressiveness. Open-ended capture the model's capacity to produce discourse responses but are harder to assess for correctness. These two approaches are commonly used, either independently or together, though their relationship remains poorly understood. This work is focused on the healthcare domain, where both factuality and discourse matter greatly. It introduces a comprehensive, multi-axis suite for healthcare LLM evaluation, exploring correlations between open and close benchmarks and metrics. Findings include blind spots and overlaps in current methodologies. As an updated sanity check, we release a new medical benchmark--CareQA--, with both open and closed variants. Finally, we propose a novel metric for open-ended evaluations --Relaxed Perplexity-- to mitigate the identified limitations.

Clustering non-Euclidean data is difficult, and one of the most used algorithms besides hierarchical clustering is the popular algorithm Partitioning Around Medoids (PAM), also simply referred to as k-medoids clustering. In Euclidean geometry the mean-as used in k-means-is a good estimator for the cluster center, but this does not exist for arbitrary dissimilarities. PAM uses the medoid instead, the object with the smallest dissimilarity to all others in the cluster. This notion of centrality can be used with any (dis-)similarity, and thus is of high relevance to many domains and applications. A key issue with PAM is its high run time cost. We propose modifications to the PAM algorithm that achieve an O(k)-fold speedup in the second ("SWAP") phase of the algorithm, but will still find the same results as the original PAM algorithm. If we relax the choice of swaps performed (while retaining comparable quality), we can further accelerate the algorithm by eagerly performing additional swaps in each iteration. With the substantially faster SWAP, we can now explore faster initialization strategies, because (i) the classic ("BUILD") initialization now becomes the bottleneck, and (ii) our swap is fast enough to compensate for worse starting conditions. We also show how the CLARA and CLARANS algorithms benefit from the proposed modifications. While we do not study the parallelization of our approach in this work, it can easily be combined with earlier approaches to use PAM and CLARA on big data (some of which use PAM as a subroutine, hence can immediately benefit from these improvements), where the performance with high k becomes increasingly important. In experiments on real data with k=100,200, we observed a 458x respectively 1191x speedup compared to the original PAM SWAP algorithm, making PAM applicable to larger data sets, and in particular to higher k.

A comparison of the distances to the Huanan Seafood Market of early Covid cases with known links to the market versus cases without known links shows results apparently incompatible with a location model lacking proximity ascertainment bias. The sign of the difference instead agrees with a model in which such ascertainment bias is large. In the presence of such bias inferences based on the clustering of case locations become unreliable.

Unsupervised clustering is widely used to explore large corpora, but existing formulations neither consider the users' goals nor explain clusters' meanings. We propose a new task formulation, "Goal-Driven Clustering with Explanations" (GoalEx), which represents both the goal and the explanations as free-form language descriptions. For example, to categorize the errors made by a summarization system, the input to GoalEx is a corpus of annotator-written comments for system-generated summaries and a goal description "cluster the comments based on why the annotators think the summary is imperfect.''; the outputs are text clusters each with an explanation ("this cluster mentions that the summary misses important context information."), which relates to the goal and precisely explain which comments should (not) belong to a cluster. To tackle GoalEx, we prompt a language model with "[corpus subset] + [goal] + Brainstorm a list of explanations each representing a cluster."; then we classify whether each sample belongs to a cluster based on its explanation; finally, we use integer linear programming to select a subset of candidate clusters to cover most samples while minimizing overlaps. Under both automatic and human evaluation on corpora with or without labels, our method produces more accurate and goal-related explanations than prior methods. We release our data and implementation at https://github.com/ZihanWangKi/GoalEx.

We introduce SWE-Bench Pro, a substantially more challenging benchmark that builds upon the best practices of SWE-BENCH [25], but is explicitly designed to capture realistic, complex, enterprise-level problems beyond the scope of SWE-BENCH. SWE-BENCH PRO contains 1,865 problems sourced from a diverse set of 41 actively maintained repositories spanning business applications, B2B services, and developer tools. The benchmark is partitioned into a public set with open access to problems sourced from 11 repositories, a held-out set of 12 repositories and a commercial set of 18 proprietary repositories where we have formal partnership agreements with early-stage startups. Problems in the held-out and the commercial set are not publicly accessible, but we release results on the commercial set. Our benchmark features long-horizon tasks that may require hours to days for a professional software engineer to complete, often involving patches across multiple files and substantial code modifications. All tasks are human-verified and augmented with sufficient context to ensure resolvability. In our evaluation of widely used coding models, under a unified scaffold, we observe that their performance on SWE-Bench PRO remains below 25% (Pass@1), with GPT-5 achieving the highest score to date at 23.3%. To better understand these limitations, we cluster the failure modes observed in the collected agent trajectories for a clearer characterization of the error patterns exhibited by current models. Overall, SWE-BENCH PRO provides a contamination-resistant testbed that more faithfully captures the complexity and diversity of real-world software development, advancing the pursuit of truly autonomous software engineering agents at a professional level.

Given the rapid ascent of large language models (LLMs), we study the question: (How) can large language models help in reviewing of scientific papers or proposals? We first conduct some pilot studies where we find that (i) GPT-4 outperforms other LLMs (Bard, Vicuna, Koala, Alpaca, LLaMa, Dolly, OpenAssistant, StableLM), and (ii) prompting with a specific question (e.g., to identify errors) outperforms prompting to simply write a review. With these insights, we study the use of LLMs (specifically, GPT-4) for three tasks: 1. Identifying errors: We construct 13 short computer science papers each with a deliberately inserted error, and ask the LLM to check for the correctness of these papers. We observe that the LLM finds errors in 7 of them, spanning both mathematical and conceptual errors. 2. Verifying checklists: We task the LLM to verify 16 closed-ended checklist questions in the respective sections of 15 NeurIPS 2022 papers. We find that across 119 {checklist question, paper} pairs, the LLM had an 86.6% accuracy. 3. Choosing the "better" paper: We generate 10 pairs of abstracts, deliberately designing each pair in such a way that one abstract was clearly superior than the other. The LLM, however, struggled to discern these relatively straightforward distinctions accurately, committing errors in its evaluations for 6 out of the 10 pairs. Based on these experiments, we think that LLMs have a promising use as reviewing assistants for specific reviewing tasks, but not (yet) for complete evaluations of papers or proposals.

This study explores the proactive ability of LLMs to seek user support. We propose metrics to evaluate the trade-off between performance improvements and user burden, and investigate whether LLMs can determine when to request help under varying information availability. Our experiments show that without external feedback, many LLMs struggle to recognize their need for user support. The findings highlight the importance of external signals and provide insights for future research on improving support-seeking strategies. Source code: https://github.com/appier-research/i-need-help

We estimate ([M/H], [alpha/M]) for 48 million giants and dwarfs in low-dust extinction regions from the Gaia DR3 XP spectra by using tree-based machine-learning models trained on APOGEE DR17 and metal-poor star sample from Li et al. The root mean square error of our estimation is 0.0890 dex for [M/H] and 0.0436 dex for [alpha/M], when we evaluate our models on the test data that are not used in training the models. Because the training data is dominated by giants, our estimation is most reliable for giants. The high-[alpha/M] stars and low-[alpha/M] stars selected by our ([M/H], [alpha/M]) show different kinematical properties for giants and low-temperature dwarfs. We further investigate how our machine-learning models extract information on ([M/H], [alpha/M]). Intriguingly, we find that our models seem to extract information on [alpha/M] from Na D lines (589 nm) and Mg I line (516 nm). This result is understandable given the observed correlation between Na and Mg abundances in the literature. The catalog of ([M/H], [alpha/M]) as well as their associated uncertainties are publicly available online.

Consider a scenario where a harmfulness evaluation metric intended to filter unsafe responses from a Large Language Model. When applied to individual harmful prompt-response pairs, it correctly flags them as unsafe by assigning a high-risk score. Yet, if those same pairs are concatenated, the metrics decision unexpectedly reverses - labelling the combined content as safe with a low score, allowing the harmful text to bypass the filter. We found that multiple safety metrics, including advanced metrics such as GPT-based judges, exhibit this non-safe behaviour. Moreover, they show a strong sensitivity to input order: responses are often classified as safe if safe content appears first, regardless of any harmful content that follows, and vice versa. These findings underscore the importance of evaluating the safety of safety metrics, that is, the reliability of their output scores. To address this, we developed general, automatic, concatenation-based tests to assess key properties of these metrics. When applied in a model safety scenario, the tests revealed significant inconsistencies in harmfulness evaluations.

Text data can pose a risk of harm. However, the risks are not fully understood, and how to handle, present, and discuss harmful text in a safe way remains an unresolved issue in the NLP community. We provide an analytical framework categorising harms on three axes: (1) the harm type (e.g., misinformation, hate speech or racial stereotypes); (2) whether a harm is sought as a feature of the research design if explicitly studying harmful content (e.g., training a hate speech classifier), versus unsought if harmful content is encountered when working on unrelated problems (e.g., language generation or part-of-speech tagging); and (3) who it affects, from people (mis)represented in the data to those handling the data and those publishing on the data. We provide advice for practitioners, with concrete steps for mitigating harm in research and in publication. To assist implementation we introduce HarmCheck -- a documentation standard for handling and presenting harmful text in research.

Recently, given the docstring for the target problem and the target function signature, large language models (LLMs) have been used not only to generate source code, but also to generate test cases, consisting of test inputs and assertions (e.g., in the form of checking an actual output against the expected output). However, as shown by our empirical study on assertions generated by four LLMs for the HumanEval benchmark, over 62% of the generated assertions are incorrect (i.e., failed on the ground-truth problem solution). To detect incorrect assertions (given the docstring and the target function signature along with a sample of example inputs and outputs), in this paper, we propose a new approach named DeCon to effectively detect incorrect assertions via LLM-generated postconditions for the target problem (a postcondition is a predicate that must always be true just after the execution of the ground-truth problem solution). Our approach requires a small set of I/O examples (i.e., a sample of example inputs and outputs) for the target problem (e.g., the I/O examples included in the docstring for a target problem in HumanEval). We use the given I/O examples to filter out those LLM-generated postconditions that are violated by at least one given I/O example. We then use the remaining postconditions to detect incorrect assertions as those assertions that violate at least one remaining postcondition. Experimental results show that DeCon can detect averagely more than 64% (63% and 65.5% detected by GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, respectively) incorrect assertions generated by four state-of-the-art LLMs, and DeCon can also improve the effectiveness of these LLMs in code generation by 4% in terms of Pass@1. In addition, although DeCon might filter out correct assertions, the fault-finding ability of the remaining correct assertions decreases only slightly.

Autonomous coding agents built on large language models (LLMs) are rapidly being integrated into development workflows, yet their operational safety properties remain poorly understood beyond evaluations of explicitly malicious inputs. In practice, high-impact failures arise during benign, goal-directed use through environment breakage, fabricated success reports, etc. that current benchmarks do not capture. What categories of operational safety failures actually occur when coding agents are used for everyday development tasks and what is their impact? We present an incident-driven empirical study grounded in two complementary evidence streams. We screen 68,816 papers from 22 premier venues, curating 185 safety-relevant studies, and mine 16,586 GitHub issues from widely deployed LLM-powered coding tools, manually confirming 547 genuine safety failures. Applying systematic open coding over both corpora, we derive a multi-dimensional safety taxonomy of 33 operational risk types organized across seven dimensions, and annotate each incident with contributing factors, task context, severity, and downstream impact. Our findings show that coding-agent failures are often severe, with 326 of 547 incidents rated high or critical. The dominant risks are constraint violations, destructive operations, authorization bypasses, and deception, and over 65% of incidents arise in bug fixing and setup or configuration, patterns largely missing from prior literature. These results have direct implications for SE tool designers and benchmark developers: guardrails must go beyond adversarial-prompt defenses to enforce environmental constraints, failure transparency, and safe-halt behaviors.

As Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) become increasingly autonomous and complex, understanding their error modes is critical for ensuring their reliability and safety. However, research in this area has been severely hampered by the lack of large-scale, diverse datasets with precise, ground-truth error labels. To address this bottleneck, we introduce AEGIS, a novel framework for Automated Error Generation and Identification for Multi-Agent Systems. By systematically injecting controllable and traceable errors into initially successful trajectories, we create a rich dataset of realistic failures. This is achieved using a context-aware, LLM-based adaptive manipulator that performs sophisticated attacks like prompt injection and response corruption to induce specific, predefined error modes. We demonstrate the value of our dataset by exploring three distinct learning paradigms for the error identification task: Supervised Fine-Tuning, Reinforcement Learning, and Contrastive Learning. Our comprehensive experiments show that models trained on AEGIS data achieve substantial improvements across all three learning paradigms. Notably, several of our fine-tuned models demonstrate performance competitive with or superior to proprietary systems an order of magnitude larger, validating our automated data generation framework as a crucial resource for developing more robust and interpretable multi-agent systems. Our project website is available at https://kfq20.github.io/AEGIS-Website.

Artificial Intelligence systems, which benefit from the availability of large-scale datasets and increasing computational power, have become effective solutions to various critical tasks, such as natural language understanding, speech recognition, and image processing. The advancement of these AI systems is inseparable from open-source software (OSS). This paper presents an empirical study that investigates the issues in the repositories of open-source AI repositories to assist developers in understanding problems during the process of employing AI systems. We collect 576 repositories from the PapersWithCode platform. Among these repositories, we find 24,953 issues by utilizing GitHub REST APIs. Our empirical study includes three phases. First, we manually analyze these issues to categorize the problems that developers are likely to encounter in open-source AI repositories. Specifically, we provide a taxonomy of 13 categories related to AI systems. The two most common issues are runtime errors (23.18%) and unclear instructions (19.53%). Second, we see that 67.5% of issues are closed. We also find that half of these issues resolve within four days. Moreover, issue management features, e.g., label and assign, are not widely adopted in open-source AI repositories. In particular, only 7.81% and 5.9% of repositories label issues and assign these issues to assignees, respectively. Finally, we empirically show that employing GitHub issue management features and writing issues with detailed descriptions facilitate the resolution of issues. Based on our findings, we make recommendations for developers to help better manage the issues of open-source AI repositories and improve their quality.

We survey the large language model (LLM) serving area to understand the intricate dynamics between cost-efficiency and accuracy, which is magnified by the growing need for longer contextual understanding when deploying models at a massive scale. Our findings reveal that works in this space optimize along three distinct but conflicting goals: improving serving context length (C), improving serving accuracy (A), and improving serving performance (P). Drawing inspiration from the CAP theorem in databases, we propose a CAP principle for LLM serving, which suggests that any optimization can improve at most two of these three goals simultaneously. Our survey categorizes existing works within this framework. We find the definition and continuity of user-perceived measurement metrics are crucial in determining whether a goal has been met, akin to prior CAP databases in the wild. We recognize the CAP principle for LLM serving as a guiding principle, rather than a formal theorem, to inform designers of the inherent and dynamic trade-offs in serving models. As serving accuracy and performance have been extensively studied, this survey focuses on works that extend serving context length and address the resulting challenges.

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.

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.

Reliable benchmarking is critical for developing machine learning models for tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) based molecule discovery. Subtle issues in experimental design and model evaluation procedures can degrade the trustworthiness of such benchmarks and lead to erroneous conclusions. We conduct a thorough review of model evaluation issues in the recent MS/MS machine learning literature, using the standard MassSpecGym benchmark suite as a case study to illustrate the impact of these issues. We find evaluation issues in at least 17 of 26 papers reporting MassSpecGym benchmark results in the first year of its adoption. We isolate three classes of failures: (i) data leakage, (ii) shortcut learning, and (iii) implementation bugs and metric divergence. Through extensive experimentation and code replication, we quantify the impact of these issues and show how they corrupt the evaluation standards MassSpecGym was designed to enforce. We distill our findings into recommendations generalizable to MS/MS challenges, benchmarks, and custom evaluation setups. We also release MassSpecGym v1.5, an implementation of our recommendations in the MassSpecGym benchmarking suite which addresses the failure modes identified in this audit. MassSpecGym v1.5 is publicly available at https://github.com/pluskal-lab/MassSpecGym.

Large language models are trained to predict the next token, not to act inside a specific API. In niche enterprise SaaS workflows -- where success means hitting the right endpoint with the right nested arguments in the right order -- this objective mismatch shows up as silent failures: dropped required fields, hallucinated tools, or early stops after a single read. We ask whether Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR), applied directly in the target environment, closes the gap. As a proof of concept we build a suite of five synthetic environments emulating the Jira REST v3 and Confluence v2 APIs at schema fidelity; rewards are computed entirely from the tool-call trace, with no live API, no learned judge, and no human label in the loop. Scoring prompted Qwen3-1.7B and Qwen3.5-4B on the same checkers that drive GRPO training, we find that on the four scenarios whose rewards are non-degenerate the RL-trained policy lifts average reward from a 4B-baseline range of 0.35--0.92 to 0.95--1.00, with the largest single gain on Confluence page creation (0.35 rightarrow 1.00). We position this as a preliminary step toward outcome-optimised small models for niche enterprise APIs, and foreground two limitations a workshop reader should weigh: hand-crafting verifiable rewards does not scale beyond the handful of endpoints reported here, and one of our five scenarios (ticket-transition) has a saturating reward shape that the prompted 4B already maxes out.

When an AI agent calls an API and hits a validation error, it needs more than what went wrong -- it needs what to do next. A self-reflective API returns, on validation failure, a machine-readable recovery\_feedback.suggestions[] payload sufficient for the agent to repair the request and retry without external reasoning. On a leak-audited pilot (N{=}30 per cell, 3 LLMs, 10 adversarial tasks), structured suggestions lift task-completion rate by +36.7--40.0pp over plain-English diagnoses on Anthropic models (Fisher's exact p le 0.0022), at 1.8--2.2times better per-success token efficiency. The lift is not significant on gpt-4o-mini (p{=}0.435); a second-domain replication on a billing API confirms the pattern. The comparison only holds after auditing two undocumented classes of answer leakage in LLM benchmarks. We shipaudit\_prompt\_leakage.py as reusable CI infrastructure. Code and data: https://github.com/arquicanedo/self-reflective-apis.

On repeated work, agents are inconsistent. We ran 42 tasks three times each and found that, depending on the model, 38% to 74% returned answers that did not agree. Consistency is what a buyer, an auditor, or a regulator requires, and agents do not have it. They are wasteful too: 95.3% to 97.2% of what an agent generates goes to re-deriving a plan the system already knows. We propose skill habit formation. An agent mines its own execution history for candidate skills, deterministic variants that compete against the incumbent rather than replacing it. A candidate declares the region of input space it claims, so the common case runs as a script and the rest falls through to reasoning. Four gates of ascending cost admit candidates; the central one tests a candidate's execution trace against a retained reference, within a tolerance measured from that reference's own run-to-run variability. On text-to-SQL, three of four reasoning arms reproduced their own output on 11 to 13 of 42 repeated questions and the fourth on 26 of 42, while a habit-formed variant reproduced on all 456 dispatches we repeated and was non-inferior to every arm it replaced (p<0.0001). It also used 14% to 56% fewer tokens, turning net positive after 7 to 53 reuses. We measured what this costs in accuracy. The guard admitted work it should have deferred on 2.6% of natural paraphrases and 26% of inputs near its boundary, and 11 of 13 such failures were invisible to the trace-conformance gate at any threshold. Deterministic errors repeat exactly: a bad habit is as reliable as a good one, and that is the price of the property that makes the system auditable. Separating routing from parameter extraction raised end-to-end accuracy from 0.888 to 0.952 at 43% of the cost.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are being increasingly used in software engineering tasks, with an increased focus on bug report resolution over the past year. However, most proposed systems fail to properly handle uncertain or incorrect inputs and outputs. Existing LLM-based tools and coding agents respond to every issue and generate a patch for every case, even when the input is vague or their own output is incorrect. There are no mechanisms in place to abstain when confidence is low. This leads to unreliable behaviour, such as hallucinated code changes or responses based on vague issue reports. We introduce BouncerBench, a benchmark that evaluates whether LLM-based software agents can refuse to act when inputs are ill-defined or refuse to respond when their own outputs are likely to be incorrect. Unlike prior benchmarks that implicitly incentivize models to generate responses even when uncertain, BouncerBench aims to improve precision by targeting two overlooked failure points: (1) vague or underspecified issue descriptions in tickets and (2) logically or functionally incorrect code patches created by the system. It measures whether proposed systems can distinguish actionable issues from vague tickets and valid patches from untrustworthy ones. We also implement a basic input and output bouncer, evaluating how well current LLMs can abstain when needed. Our results show that most models fail to abstain from underspecified inputs or incorrect outputs. Hence, we conclude that there is significant room for improvement before LLMs can be trusted to make correct decisions and recommendations in real-world software engineering workflows. BouncerBench provides a first step toward evaluating and building more cautious, trustworthy code agents. The replication package, dataset, and leaderboard can be found at bouncerbench.com

Software that contains machine learning algorithms is an integral part of automotive perception, for example, in driving automation systems. The development of such software, specifically the training and validation of the machine learning components, require large annotated datasets. An industry of data and annotation services has emerged to serve the development of such data-intensive automotive software components. Wide-spread difficulties to specify data and annotation needs challenge collaborations between OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers) and their suppliers of software components, data, and annotations. This paper investigates the reasons for these difficulties for practitioners in the Swedish automotive industry to arrive at clear specifications for data and annotations. The results from an interview study show that a lack of effective metrics for data quality aspects, ambiguities in the way of working, unclear definitions of annotation quality, and deficits in the business ecosystems are causes for the difficulty in deriving the specifications. We provide a list of recommendations that can mitigate challenges when deriving specifications and we propose future research opportunities to overcome these challenges. Our work contributes towards the on-going research on accountability of machine learning as applied to complex software systems, especially for high-stake applications such as automated driving.

Most medical AI benchmarks measure whether a model knows the correct answer. MedFailBench asks a different question: which safety boundary failed? We present a synthetic benchmark and failure atlas built by a clinician. The resource labels medical AI errors by severity from 1 to 5 and safety gate type: missed urgent escalation, unsafe remote dosing, unsafe discharge reassurance, evidence fabrication, unsafe protocol execution, and source support gap. The current public release (v0.2.1) contains 44 synthetic cases reviewed by a clinician, with severity annotations, a public Hugging Face Space source, a safety gate taxonomy, a clinical severity rubric, and an automated pipeline for archiving model response screening runs. Forty cases have a populated safety gate field, and four require gate completion. No patient data, clinical validation claims, or model rankings are included. MedFailBench is released under Apache-2.0 and CC-BY-4.0 and carries the Zenodo DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21205535.

Continuous-time event sequences play a vital role in real-world domains such as healthcare, finance, online shopping, social networks, and so on. To model such data, temporal point processes (TPPs) have emerged as the most natural and competitive models, making a significant impact in both academic and application communities. Despite the emergence of many powerful models in recent years, there hasn't been a central benchmark for these models and future research endeavors. This lack of standardization impedes researchers and practitioners from comparing methods and reproducing results, potentially slowing down progress in this field. In this paper, we present EasyTPP, the first central repository of research assets (e.g., data, models, evaluation programs, documentations) in the area of event sequence modeling. Our EasyTPP makes several unique contributions to this area: a unified interface of using existing datasets and adding new datasets; a wide range of evaluation programs that are easy to use and extend as well as facilitate reproducible research; implementations of popular neural TPPs, together with a rich library of modules by composing which one could quickly build complex models. All the data and implementation can be found at https://github.com/ant-research/EasyTemporalPointProcess. We will actively maintain this benchmark and welcome contributions from other researchers and practitioners. Our benchmark will help promote reproducible research in this field, thus accelerating research progress as well as making more significant real-world impacts.

We introduce a novel neural network-based algorithm to compute optimal transport (OT) plans for general cost functionals. In contrast to common Euclidean costs, i.e., ell^1 or ell^2, such functionals provide more flexibility and allow using auxiliary information, such as class labels, to construct the required transport map. Existing methods for general costs are discrete and have limitations in practice, i.e. they do not provide an out-of-sample estimation. We address the challenge of designing a continuous OT approach for general costs that generalizes to new data points in high-dimensional spaces, such as images. Additionally, we provide the theoretical error analysis for our recovered transport plans. As an application, we construct a cost functional to map data distributions while preserving the class-wise structure.

LLM-agent budget overruns are a documented production failure class: a single retry loop can spend thousands of dollars before an operator notices, and the in-process integrity properties that would prevent it (no aliasing, no double-spend, no use-after-delegation of a cost-bearing value) are enforced, if at all, by ad-hoc wrappers rather than by the type system. Our central contribution is empirical: a catalog of 63 confirmed production incidents from 21 orchestration frameworks (2023-2026), each backed by a quoted GitHub issue and, where reported, a dollar loss, organized into an eight-cluster failure taxonomy (inter-rater Cohen's kappa = 0.837, N = 113), plus 47 supplementary structural entries. As one mitigation evaluated against this taxonomy, we build token-budgets, an 1,180-line Rust crate (no unsafe) that operationalizes affine ownership so that cloning, double-spending, or using a budget after delegating it are compile errors rather than runtime hazards an operator must remember to avoid. The dollar cap is runtime arithmetic under an estimator assumption; the affine layer makes that arithmetic non-bypassable. On single-agent workloads a 4-line Python counter matches the crate at 0/30 overshoot, so the distinguishing value is non-bypassability under operator error in multi-agent delegation: the delegation-fanout race documented in 11 incidents is rejected by the borrow checker at compile time, while the same pattern under asyncio overshoots 30/30 and three disciplined alternatives overshoot 0/30. Across five runtimes, three providers, and a temperature-stratified live-API test (N = 160), the approach reports zero cap violations and zero false refusals, at operational parity with concurrent work. Static over-reservation is 4-6x (2.11x adaptive). Binary-level cap-soundness on the running binary is left open.

Frontier large language models (LLMs) safety evaluation has largely treated harmful generation as an attack outcome rather than as an object of analysis. Consequently, little is known about the harmful outputs produced during model misbehavior, partly because large-scale, high-quality collections of frontier-LLM misbehavior are difficult to obtain. To address this gap, we introduce HarmProfile, a content-centric benchmark dataset that collects model misbehavior across diverse harm categories and model families, and defines the resulting harmful-output distribution as a model-level risk profile. The premise is that, just as linguistic behavior can be characterized from an utterance corpus, model risk can be characterized from the content, severity, and variation of its safety failures. HarmProfile contains over 80,000 validated artifacts from 23 frontier LLMs across 13 model families, organized into 15 harm categories and 57 subcategories. Using this corpus, we find that frontier LLMs reliably produce harmful content at scale, yet exhibit distinct risk profiles; both harmfulness and diversity grow with model capability, suggesting that frontier LLMs may appear safe yet harbor increasingly dangerous knowledge beneath the alignment surface. Our source code is available at https://github.com/fresh-ma/HarmProfile .

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.

This technical report presents Prithvi-EO-2.0, a new geospatial foundation model that offers significant improvements over its predecessor, Prithvi-EO-1.0. Trained on 4.2M global time series samples from NASA's Harmonized Landsat and Sentinel-2 data archive at 30m resolution, the new 300M and 600M parameter models incorporate temporal and location embeddings for enhanced performance across various geospatial tasks. Through extensive benchmarking with GEO-Bench, the 600M version outperforms the previous Prithvi-EO model by 8\% across a range of tasks. It also outperforms six other geospatial foundation models when benchmarked on remote sensing tasks from different domains and resolutions (i.e. from 0.1m to 15m). The results demonstrate the versatility of the model in both classical earth observation and high-resolution applications. Early involvement of end-users and subject matter experts (SMEs) are among the key factors that contributed to the project's success. In particular, SME involvement allowed for constant feedback on model and dataset design, as well as successful customization for diverse SME-led applications in disaster response, land use and crop mapping, and ecosystem dynamics monitoring. Prithvi-EO-2.0 is available on Hugging Face and IBM terratorch, with additional resources on GitHub. The project exemplifies the Trusted Open Science approach embraced by all involved organizations.

Background: Large language models (LLMs) are trained to follow directions, but this introduces a vulnerability to blindly comply with user requests even if they generate wrong information. In medicine, this could accelerate the generation of misinformation that impacts human well-being. Objectives/Methods: We analyzed compliance to requests to generate misleading content about medications in settings where models know the request is illogical. We investigated whether in-context directions and instruction-tuning of LLMs to prioritize logical reasoning over compliance reduced misinformation risk. Results: While all frontier LLMs complied with misinformation requests, both prompt-based and parameter-based approaches can improve the detection of logic flaws in requests and prevent the dissemination of medical misinformation. Conclusion: Shifting LLMs to prioritize logic over compliance could reduce risks of exploitation for medical misinformation.

Language models in production do not write prose. They fill forms: JSON fields, function arguments, extraction templates. We show that the form itself causes hallucination. We ask thirteen models the same question about the same input and change only the answer format. The inputs are built so the question cannot be answered: a viral post showing 12,400 likes but no visible replies, a support ticket whose call was never transcribed. In free text, GPT-5.5 answers honestly. It says there is no reply data, 98% of the time. Given a required JSON field for sentiment, the same model invents an answer 40 times out of 40. It fabricates the mood of crowds it never saw and quotes customers it never heard. The pattern holds with force. Required fields drive fabrication to 100% in ten of thirteen models. An explicit "insufficient evidence" option rescues only the frontier: all nine open-weight models ignore it. A direct instruction, do not infer sentiment, is overridden by the schema in four of six models. Resistance does not come with scale: within a single model family, the smallest model refuses, the mid-sized model fabricates, the largest refuses again. Honesty under format pressure is a training outcome that no one is measuring. The fabrication hides exactly where hedging is impossible: in required enums and minimum-count arrays, fields where no disclaimer fits. We release PhantomFill, a benchmark with deterministic scoring and two reportable numbers: the Coerced Fabrication Rate and the Escape Utilization Rate. The fix we test is one line of schema. The failure we measure is everywhere.

Tool-augmented LLM agents call APIs whose intermediate outputs, such as presigned URLs, session tokens, and OAuth state parameters, are observation contracts: artifacts whose later use is constrained by the external system that produced them. We show that observation contract compliance (preserving the temporal validity and byte-level integrity) is an emergent, regression-prone capability: it is neither guaranteed by general tool-use ability nor consistently improved by larger or newer models. To measure this, we introduce ContractBench, a benchmark of 33 dual-axis tasks that probe two orthogonal failure modes no existing benchmark evaluates: validity failures (using an artifact after expiry) and integrity failures (corrupting an artifact's bytes through the observation-to-action pipeline). Our evaluation is deterministic and programmatic, with a virtual clock controlling time and SHA-256 hashes verifying byte integrity. We assign each outcome a failure label drawn from real-world API specifications. We evaluate 38 models and report four findings: (i) no evaluated model clears 80%, with Claude-Opus-4.6 leading at 77.8%, revealing that current frontier models still fail to comply with observation contracts; (ii) a sharp within-family capability cliff in Qwen 3.5 between 4B (0%) and 9B (56.6%), smoothing to 70.7% at 397B-A17B: what emerges across the cliff is mid-trajectory restraint, not tool-call competence; (iii) non-monotonic scaling across the GPT-5 family: agentic post-training can erode compliance through sycophancy-driven regression; (iv) our failure taxonomy works as an actionable in-context reward signal, yielding +7.1 pp on 42 paired GPT-5.1 failures.

K-Dense BYOK (bring your own keys) is a free, open-source AI research assistant for scientists in any field that runs on the researcher's own computer. The researcher supplies access to a model of their choice, hosted or running locally, and the application supplies everything else: a place for the work to run, a layer of scientific scaffolding, and a complete record. Each project is an ordinary folder, so the data, the code, the results, and the record stay on a machine the researcher administers and can be read years later without the application. Three things separate it from a chat assistant or a general-purpose coding agent. It ships a library of written scientific procedures, guided workflow templates, catalogs of where research data can be found, and reviewer and writer roles the agent can hand work to. It keeps a Living Lab Notebook whose entries link into an argument and are added to but never erased. And it records what happened by watching what the agent does rather than by taking the agent's word for it, in a log the agent has no tool that can write to. That choice targets the most common failure, model overclaiming, in our earlier benchmark of nine frontier models, by making claims checkable rather than preventing them. On twenty interdisciplinary research prompts, scored under a rubric fixed in advance, K-Dense BYOK led two managed platforms on both scientific quality and research execution. Its deliverables were the only ones that recorded the software they ran in, and the only ones that usually arrived with a command that regenerates the results. One of the managed platforms ran the same frontier model and supplied neither. Those environment records were files the agent wrote, not part of the observed log, which does not yet capture the software environment itself. The code is available under the MIT license at https://github.com/K-Dense-AI/k-dense-byok.

In many social-science research tasks, such as economics, LLM-based agents must produce outputs for which no cheap, task-complete, machine-readable correctness signal exists. This creates a distinctive reliability problem for multi-agent systems: how should generation, critique, coordination, and human judgment be organized when no component can certify the final result? We address this problem through pAI-Econ-claude, a gated, human-in-the-loop multi-agent architecture for AI-assisted economic theory development. Agents coordinate through a shared workspace of inspectable intermediate records; specialized gates diagnose targeted failure modes and recommend loopbacks without certifying correctness; and human checkpoints retain authority over decisions that are costly to reverse. We evaluate the architecture on five matched economic-theory tasks against an ungated baseline. Two evaluators blinded to configuration agreed on all five pairwise rankings, preferring the gated architecture in four tasks and the baseline in one. Mean failure severity fell from 1.58 to 1.16, while overall usefulness rose from 2.60 to 3.10. The largest observed gain occurred when a reality check rejected a false market-structure premise and a proof review prompted revision of a false welfare claim. The negative case shows that scaffolding can also compress an economically important mechanism too aggressively. The results support a bounded claim: gated oversight improves the auditability of AI-assisted economic theory without substituting for formal verification, and the allocation of irreversible human judgment is a more informative design variable than pure agent autonomy. The workflow is publicly available at https://github.com/maxwell2732/pAI-Econ-claude.

Small open-weight language models are assumed to fail at agentic database work because they lack the reasoning capacity for it. We test that against a production system. Over eleven days we drove the agent mode of an open-source SQL client with 39 open-weight models served locally and one hosted control, across six task surfaces: 8,199 runs, 110,711 ledger events, 14,008 refused tool calls. Of the 2,100 model-attributed agent-mode losses, 1,590, or 75.7%, came from runs that had invoked at least one tool. That majority is what survives resampling models rather than runs: it holds in 99.7% of clustered resamples and in 15 of the 22 models with at least twenty losses. Within it, transport, a run that used the tools and never got a deliverable through, is the largest class at 36.2% and capability, a run that invoked no tool at all, the smallest at 17.3%; we report that ordering as a property of this corpus rather than a general finding, since clustered by model it holds in only 74.5% of resamples. Transport failures decompose into a few mechanical argument shapes. Production ledgers record refusal codes and never the model's arguments, so these were invisible for ten days; capturing them exposed five server defects, one of which demanded a field on one tool, forbade it on the sibling that composed it, then failed the run for its absence. Five server changes, touching no model, prompt or sampling setting, moved six models by 6 to 21 cells out of 30. We also report a confound we believe affects published local-model benchmarks, ours included: with no context cap, one 7.1 GB model was admitted at its full 262,144-token window and held 51 GB on a 64 GB machine, producing runs indistinguishable in any ordinary log from a model timing out. The corpus, the scorer and a verifier that regenerates every figure are released.

Operator-learning benchmarks ship as full-precision arrays, and they have grown to terabyte scale. A curator who wants to distribute one has to decide how coarsely to store it. That decision is usually made by fixing a tolerance on the reconstruction error of the stored field. We show that this quantity is measured in the wrong place. It compares the stored field with the original, before any model is trained. What the curator is buying is the accuracy of a model trained on the compressed copy, and the two can disagree: two PDEBench families stored to identical field error differ threefold downstream. A solution operator smooths, so only part of the codec error ever reaches the model's output. That part can be measured. Push a compressed field through a model already trained at full precision, and compare its output against the output on the clean field. The measurement costs forward passes and no training on compressed data. It spans more than two orders of magnitude across six PDE families, and it orders downstream cost where field error does not, inverting 12 of 104 cross-dataset comparisons against field error's 36. Read as a budget, the same curve nominates a storage rate for each dataset. A back-check against trained models finds those rates wrong in both directions by up to a factor of two in stored bits.

Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly transforming social science research by enabling the automation of labor-intensive tasks like data annotation and text analysis. However, LLM outputs vary significantly depending on the implementation choices made by researchers (e.g., model selection, prompting strategy, or temperature settings). Such variation can introduce systematic biases and random errors, which propagate to downstream analyses and cause Type I, Type II, Type S, or Type M errors. We call this LLM hacking. We quantify the risk of LLM hacking by replicating 37 data annotation tasks from 21 published social science research studies with 18 different models. Analyzing 13 million LLM labels, we test 2,361 realistic hypotheses to measure how plausible researcher choices affect statistical conclusions. We find incorrect conclusions based on LLM-annotated data in approximately one in three hypotheses for state-of-the-art models, and in half the hypotheses for small language models. While our findings show that higher task performance and better general model capabilities reduce LLM hacking risk, even highly accurate models do not completely eliminate it. The risk of LLM hacking decreases as effect sizes increase, indicating the need for more rigorous verification of findings near significance thresholds. Our extensive analysis of LLM hacking mitigation techniques emphasizes the importance of human annotations in reducing false positive findings and improving model selection. Surprisingly, common regression estimator correction techniques are largely ineffective in reducing LLM hacking risk, as they heavily trade off Type I vs. Type II errors. Beyond accidental errors, we find that intentional LLM hacking is unacceptably simple. With few LLMs and just a handful of prompt paraphrases, anything can be presented as statistically significant.

Terminal-agent benchmarks have become a primary signal for measuring the coding and system-administration capabilities of large language models. As the market for evaluation environments grows, so does the pressure to ship tasks quickly, often without thorough adversarial review of the verification logic. This paper is a guideline for writing good benchmark tasks, drawn from over a year of contributing to and reviewing tasks for Terminal Bench. Most people write benchmark tasks the way they write prompts. They shouldn't. A prompt is designed to help the agent succeed; a benchmark is designed to find out if it can. We argue that good tasks are adversarial, difficult, and legible, and that a large class of common failure modes -- AI-generated instructions, over-prescriptive specifications, clerical difficulty, oracle solutions that assume hidden knowledge, tests that validate the wrong things, and reward-hackable environments -- are predictable consequences of treating task authoring as prompt authoring. We catalog these failure modes, argue that real difficulty is conceptual rather than environmental, and discuss recent empirical evidence that over 15% of tasks in popular terminal-agent benchmarks are reward-hackable. We hope this serves as a useful reference for benchmark maintainers, task contributors, and researchers using benchmark scores as evidence.

The npm (Node Package Manager) ecosystem is the most important package manager for JavaScript development with millions of users. Consequently, a plethora of earlier work investigated how vulnerability reporting, patch propagation, and in general detection as well as resolution of security issues in such ecosystems can be facilitated. However, understanding the ground reality of security-related issue reporting by users (and bots) in npm-along with the associated challenges has been relatively less explored at scale. In this work, we bridge this gap by collecting 10,907,467 issues reported across GitHub repositories of 45,466 diverse npm packages. We found that the tags associated with these issues indicate the existence of only 0.13% security-related issues. However, our approach of manual analysis followed by developing high accuracy machine learning models identify 1,617,738 security-related issues which are not tagged as security-related (14.8% of all issues) as well as 4,461,934 comments made on these issues. We found that the bots which are in wide use today might not be sufficient for either detecting or offering assistance. Furthermore, our analysis of user-developer interaction data hints that many user-reported security issues might not be addressed by developers-they are not tagged as security-related issues and might be closed without valid justification. Consequently, a correlation analysis hints that the developers quickly handle security issues with known solutions (e.g., corresponding to CVE). However, security issues without such known solutions (even with reproducible code) might not be resolved. Our findings offer actionable insights for improving security management in open-source ecosystems, highlighting the need for smarter tools and better collaboration. The data and code for this work is available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15614029

Software developers attempt to reproduce software bugs to understand their erroneous behaviours and to fix them. Unfortunately, they often fail to reproduce (or fix) them, which leads to faulty, unreliable software systems. However, to date, only a little research has been done to better understand what makes the software bugs non-reproducible. In this paper, we conduct a multimodal study to better understand the non-reproducibility of software bugs. First, we perform an empirical study using 576 non-reproducible bug reports from two popular software systems (Firefox, Eclipse) and identify 11 key factors that might lead a reported bug to non-reproducibility. Second, we conduct a user study involving 13 professional developers where we investigate how the developers cope with non-reproducible bugs. We found that they either close these bugs or solicit for further information, which involves long deliberations and counter-productive manual searches. Third, we offer several actionable insights on how to avoid non-reproducibility (e.g., false-positive bug report detector) and improve reproducibility of the reported bugs (e.g., sandbox for bug reproduction) by combining our analyses from multiple studies (e.g., empirical study, developer study).

For scientific progress, we need benchmarks that test the limits of state-of-the-art models, and evaluation methods that inform us about failure cases. As models get stronger, standard benchmarks for machine translation are approaching saturation. Further, automatic translation metrics are unreliable, vulnerable to reward-hacking, and provide unactionable assessments. Even gold human evaluation is not problem-free, because it often lacks reproducibility, objectivity, and scalability. Overall, this prevents us from tracking objective progress in the field and identifying pathways for improvement. We introduce the Last Translation Benchmark, a collection of human-authored and peer-reviewed examples (texts, images, audio, videos) that break leading machine translation models. We also present a new evaluation approach: each example comes with handcrafted verification rules describing concrete failure cases on that example, therefore allowing reliable and actionable future evaluation. The Last Translation Benchmark is a live dataset that accepts ongoing contributions. The latest version is LTBv1, containing accepted contributions prior to September 1st 2026, with future releases planned as new data is continuously collected.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have become key components of modern software, with prompts acting as their de-facto programming interface. However, prompt design remains largely empirical and small mistakes can cascade into unreliable, insecure, or inefficient behavior. This paper presents the first systematic survey and taxonomy of prompt defects, recurring ways that prompts fail to elicit their intended behavior from LLMs. We organize defects along six dimensions: (1) Specification and Intent, (2) Input and Content, (3) Structure and Formatting, (4) Context and Memory, (5) Performance and Efficiency, and (6) Maintainability and Engineering. Each dimension is refined into fine-grained subtypes, illustrated with concrete examples and root cause analysis. Grounded in software engineering principles, we show how these defects surface in real development workflows and examine their downstream effects. For every subtype, we distill mitigation strategies that span emerging prompt engineering patterns, automated guardrails, testing harnesses, and evaluation frameworks. We then summarize these strategies in a master taxonomy that links defect, impact, and remedy. We conclude with open research challenges and a call for rigorous engineering-oriented methodologies to ensure that LLM-driven systems are dependable by design.

API misuses often lead to software bugs, crashes, and vulnerabilities. While several API misuse detectors have been proposed, there are no automatic repair tools specifically designed for this purpose. In a recent study, test-suite-based automatic program repair (APR) tools were found to be ineffective in repairing API misuses. Still, since the study focused on non-learning-aided APR tools, it remains unknown whether learning-aided APR tools are capable of fixing API misuses. In recent years, pre-trained language models (PLMs) have succeeded greatly in many natural language processing tasks. There is a rising interest in applying PLMs to APR. However, there has not been any study that investigates the effectiveness of PLMs in repairing API misuse. To fill this gap, we conduct a comprehensive empirical study on 11 learning-aided APR tools, which include 9 of the state-of-the-art general-purpose PLMs and two APR tools. We evaluate these models with an API-misuse repair dataset, consisting of two variants. Our results show that PLMs perform better than the studied APR tools in repairing API misuses. Among the 9 pre-trained models tested, CodeT5 is the best performer in the exact match. We also offer insights and potential exploration directions for future research.

Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have led to their widespread application in automated code generation. However, these models can still generate defective code that deviates from the specification. Previous research has mainly focused on the mistakes in LLM-generated standalone functions, overlooking real-world software development situations where the successful generation of the code requires software contexts such as external dependencies. In this paper, we considered both of these code generation situations and identified a range of non-syntactic mistakes arising from LLMs' misunderstandings of coding question specifications. Seven categories of non-syntactic mistakes were identified through extensive manual analyses, four of which were missed by previous works. To better understand these mistakes, we proposed six reasons behind these mistakes from various perspectives. Moreover, we explored the effectiveness of LLMs in detecting mistakes and their reasons. Our evaluation demonstrated that GPT-4 with the ReAct prompting technique can achieve an F1 score of up to 0.65 when identifying reasons for LLM's mistakes, such as misleading function signatures. We believe that these findings offer valuable insights into enhancing the quality of LLM-generated code.

AI coding agents are increasingly used for scientific work, but their end-to-end autonomous research capability remains difficult to verify. We present ResearchClawBench, a benchmark for evaluating autonomous scientific research across 40 tasks from 10 scientific domains. Each task is grounded in a real published paper, provides related literature and raw data, and hides the target paper during evaluation. Expert-curated multimodal rubrics decompose the target scientific artifacts into weighted criteria, enabling evaluation of target-paper-level re-discovery while leaving room for new discovery. We evaluate seven autonomous research (auto-research) agents under a unified protocol and seventeen native LLMs through the lightweight ResearchHarness. Current systems remain far from reliable re-discovery: the strongest autonomous agent, Claude Code, averages 21.5, and the strongest ResearchHarness LLM, Claude-Opus-4.7, averages 20.7, with an LLM frontier mean of only 26.5. Error analysis shows that failures concentrate in experimental protocol mismatch, evidence mismatch, and missing scientific core. ResearchClawBench provides a reproducible evaluation frontier for measuring progress toward autonomous scientific research.

People delegate multi-step work to LLM agents and read only the reply that the agent hands back. Current evaluation scores task completion and the faithfulness of reports, and it leaves open whether the requester can understand and use the reply. We call this property reply usability and measure it with a reader model that takes the requester's position and tests whether the reply can be interpreted from what the requester has seen, is in the requester's language and answers the request. Its agreement with the majority of five annotators lies within the range of the individual annotators. Across eight models from seven families, 54% of 480 replies fail, and the best model still fails on 30%. Failed replies mostly point to material the requester has not seen or use labels that the agent coined during its work. Stating explicit requirements for the reply reduces the failure rate from 0.52 to 0.43 together with errors and omissions, and a secondary model that rewrites the reply reduces it to 0.36, which human annotators confirm in a blind comparison. Reply usability can thus be scored alongside task success and improved with one appended message or one call to a secondary model.

We propose a novel methodology (namely, MuLER) that transforms any reference-based evaluation metric for text generation, such as machine translation (MT) into a fine-grained analysis tool. Given a system and a metric, MuLER quantifies how much the chosen metric penalizes specific error types (e.g., errors in translating names of locations). MuLER thus enables a detailed error analysis which can lead to targeted improvement efforts for specific phenomena. We perform experiments in both synthetic and naturalistic settings to support MuLER's validity and showcase its usability in MT evaluation, and other tasks, such as summarization. Analyzing all submissions to WMT in 2014-2020, we find consistent trends. For example, nouns and verbs are among the most frequent POS tags. However, they are among the hardest to translate. Performance on most POS tags improves with overall system performance, but a few are not thus correlated (their identity changes from language to language). Preliminary experiments with summarization reveal similar trends.

The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) in software engineering has revealed critical limitations in existing benchmarks, particularly the widely used SWE-bench dataset. Recent studies have uncovered severe data contamination issues, e.g. SWE-bench reports 32.67% of successful patches involve direct solution leakage and 31.08% pass due to inadequate test cases. We introduce SWE-MERA, a dynamic, continuously updated benchmark designed to address these fundamental challenges through an automated collection of real-world GitHub issues and rigorous quality validation. Our approach implements a reliable pipeline that ensures quality while minimizing contamination risks, resulting in approximately 10,000 potential tasks with 300 samples currently available. Evaluation using the Aider coding agent demonstrates strong discriminative power in state-of-the-art models. We report performance across a dozen recent LLMs evaluated on tasks collected between September 2024 and June 2025.

Compact language models (LMs) reduce cost, latency, and deployment risk for tool agents. Yet MCP-style tool use requires more than isolated function calling: an agent must discover tools from live catalogs, satisfy schemas, preserve dependencies across intermediate outputs, and ground final responses in executed evidence. Small planners often generate plausible workflow graphs that fail under tool resolution, parameter validation, dependency tracking, or execution. We argue that this failure mode is poorly handled by small-corpus distillation. A few hundred teacher traces can teach workflow format, but rarely cover the recovery behavior needed to repair failed plans over changing tool catalogs. We introduce Evoflux, an inference-time evolutionary search method that treats compact tool use as the repair of executable tool workflows. It evolves typed workflow graphs through structured edits, execution feedback, adaptive intensity, meta-guided redesign, and diversity pruning. On held-out MCP-Bench tasks spanning live MCP servers and 250 tools, Evoflux raises execution feasibility from roughly 3% to 17-24% across small planners. In contrast, SFT and SFT+DPO on the same search-mined data match, underperform, or collapse below zero-shot performance; ReAct reaches higher peaks, but with higher variance and token cost. These results show that execution-grounded search is more reliable under scarce teacher-trace budgets.

We discuss how VMware is solving the following challenges to harness data to operate our ML-based anomaly detection system to detect performance issues in our Software Defined Data Center (SDDC) enterprise deployments: (i) label scarcity and label bias due to heavy dependency on unscalable human annotators, and (ii) data drifts due to ever-changing workload patterns, software stack and underlying hardware. Our anomaly detection system has been deployed in production for many years and has successfully detected numerous major performance issues. We demonstrate that by addressing these data challenges, we not only improve the accuracy of our performance anomaly detection model by 30%, but also ensure that the model performance to never degrade over time.

We introduce a few-shot learning framework for error detection. We show that data augmentation (a form of weak supervision) is key to training high-quality, ML-based error detection models that require minimal human involvement. Our framework consists of two parts: (1) an expressive model to learn rich representations that capture the inherent syntactic and semantic heterogeneity of errors; and (2) a data augmentation model that, given a small seed of clean records, uses dataset-specific transformations to automatically generate additional training data. Our key insight is to learn data augmentation policies from the noisy input dataset in a weakly supervised manner. We show that our framework detects errors with an average precision of ~94% and an average recall of ~93% across a diverse array of datasets that exhibit different types and amounts of errors. We compare our approach to a comprehensive collection of error detection methods, ranging from traditional rule-based methods to ensemble-based and active learning approaches. We show that data augmentation yields an average improvement of 20 F1 points while it requires access to 3x fewer labeled examples compared to other ML approaches.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains, where rare but severe failures can result in irreversible harm. However, prevailing evaluation benchmarks often reduce complex social risk to mean-centered scalar scores, thereby obscuring distributional structure, cross-dimensional interactions, and worst-case behavior. This paper introduces Social Harm Analysis via Risk Profiles (SHARP), a framework for multidimensional, distribution-aware evaluation of social harm. SHARP models harm as a multivariate random variable and integrates explicit decomposition into bias, fairness, ethics, and epistemic reliability with a union-of-failures aggregation reparameterized as additive cumulative log-risk. The framework further employs risk-sensitive distributional statistics, with Conditional Value at Risk (CVaR95) as a primary metric, to characterize worst-case model behavior. Application of SHARP to eleven frontier LLMs, evaluated on a fixed corpus of n=901 socially sensitive prompts, reveals that models with similar average risk can exhibit more than twofold differences in tail exposure and volatility. Across models, dimension-wise marginal tail behavior varies systematically across harm dimensions, with bias exhibiting the strongest tail severities, epistemic and fairness risks occupying intermediate regimes, and ethical misalignment consistently lower; together, these patterns reveal heterogeneous, model-dependent failure structures that scalar benchmarks conflate. These findings indicate that responsible evaluation and governance of LLMs require moving beyond scalar averages toward multidimensional, tail-sensitive risk profiling.

Modern summarization models generate highly fluent but often factually unreliable outputs. This motivated a surge of metrics attempting to measure the factuality of automatically generated summaries. Due to the lack of common benchmarks, these metrics cannot be compared. Moreover, all these methods treat factuality as a binary concept and fail to provide deeper insights into the kinds of inconsistencies made by different systems. To address these limitations, we devise a typology of factual errors and use it to collect human annotations of generated summaries from state-of-the-art summarization systems for the CNN/DM and XSum datasets. Through these annotations, we identify the proportion of different categories of factual errors in various summarization models and benchmark factuality metrics, showing their correlation with human judgment as well as their specific strengths and weaknesses.

Seven years ago, researchers proposed a postprocessing method to equalize the error rates of a model across different demographic groups. The work launched hundreds of papers purporting to improve over the postprocessing baseline. We empirically evaluate these claims through thousands of model evaluations on several tabular datasets. We find that the fairness-accuracy Pareto frontier achieved by postprocessing contains all other methods we were feasibly able to evaluate. In doing so, we address two common methodological errors that have confounded previous observations. One relates to the comparison of methods with different unconstrained base models. The other concerns methods achieving different levels of constraint relaxation. At the heart of our study is a simple idea we call unprocessing that roughly corresponds to the inverse of postprocessing. Unprocessing allows for a direct comparison of methods using different underlying models and levels of relaxation.