搜索结果：GPT-56

Artificial intelligence has advanced significantly through the development of intelligent game-playing systems, providing rigorous testbeds for decision-making, strategic planning, and adaptive learning. However, resource-constrained environments pose critical challenges, as conventional deep learning methods heavily rely on extensive datasets and computational resources. In this paper, we propose a lightweight hybrid framework for the Game of the Amazons, which explores the paradigm of weak-to-strong generalization by integrating the structural reasoning of graph-based learning with the generative capabilities of large language models. Specifically, we leverage a Graph Attention Autoencoder to inform a multi-step Monte Carlo Tree Search, utilize a Stochastic Graph Genetic Algorithm to optimize evaluation signals, and harness GPT-4o-mini to generate synthetic training data. Unlike traditional approaches that rely on expert demonstrations, our framework learns from noisy and imperfect supervision. We demonstrate that the Graph Attention mechanism effectively functions as a structural filter, denoising the LLM's outputs. Experiments on a 10$\times$10 Amazons board show that our hybri

LLM-as-a-Judge is now widely used to rank model outputs, train reward models, and populate public leaderboards, but its run-to-run reliability remains under-characterized. We study repeated identical evaluations on 29 tasks spanning 10 categories using two OpenAI judge models (GPT-4o-mini and GPT-4.1-mini), with 50 pairwise trials and 50 pointwise trials per question, supplemented by temperature and prompt-sensitivity ablations. Across judges, pairwise preferences flip on average 13.6% of the time, with 28% of questions exceeding a 20% flip rate and one question reaching 56%. GPT-4o-mini also exhibits a significant first-position bias (72% A-majority, p = 0.024). At the same time, mean pointwise score gaps are small (0.19--0.36 on a 10-point scale) and not statistically significant in aggregate, producing a pairwise--pointwise gap: judges frequently choose a winner even when their own scalar scores provide little evidence of a meaningful quality difference. Beyond within-judge instability, cross-judge agreement is only 76% ($κ= 0.51$), semantically equivalent prompt templates change majority outcomes in 25% of tested cases, and deterministic decoding reduces but does not eliminate

Property-based testing (PBT) is a popular software testing methodology and is effective in validating the functionality of mobile applications (apps for short). However, its adoption in practice remains limited, largely due to the manual effort and technical expertise required to specify executable properties. In this experience paper, we propose a novel structured property synthesis approach that automatically translates property descriptions in natural language into executable properties, and implement it in a tool named iPBT. Our approach decomposes the problem into UI semantic grounding and executable property synthesis. It first builds an enriched widget context via multimodal LLMs to align visual elements with their functional semantics, and then uses an LLM with in-context learning to generate framework-specific executable properties. We evaluate iPBT with a closed-source LLM (GPT-4o) and an open-source LLM (DeepSeek-V3) on 124 diverse property descriptions derived from an existing benchmark dataset. iPBT achieves 95.2% (118/124) accuracy on both LLMs. Notably, an ablation study reveals that the enriched widget context contributes to an absolute improvement of up to 20.2% (f

People increasingly hold sustained, open-ended conversations with large language models (LLMs). Public reports and early studies suggest that, in such settings, models can reinforce delusional or conspiratorial ideation or even amplify harmful beliefs and engagement patterns. We present an audit and benchmarking study that measures how different LLMs encourage, resist, or escalate disordered and conspiratorial thinking. We explicitly compare API outputs to user chat interfaces, like the ChatGPT desktop app or web interface, which is how people have conversations with chatbots in real life but are almost never used for testing. In total, we run 56 20-turn conversations testing ChatGPT-4o and ChatGPT-5, via both the API and chat interface, and grade each conversation by two research assistants (RAs) as well as by GPT-5. We document five results. First, we observe large differences in performance between the API and chat interface environments, showing that the universally used method of automated testing through the API is not sufficient to assess the impact of chatbots in the real world. Second, when tested in the chat interface, we find that ChatGPT-5 displays less sycophancy, esca

Understanding how neural networks arrive at their predictions is essential for debugging, auditing, and deployment. Mechanistic interpretability pursues this goal by identifying circuits--minimal subnetworks responsible for specific behaviors. However, existing circuit discovery methods are brittle: circuits depend strongly on the chosen concept dataset and often fail to transfer out-of-distribution, raising doubts whether they capture the concept or merely dataset-specific artifacts. We introduce Certified Circuits, which provide provable stability guarantees for circuit discovery. Our framework wraps any black-box discovery algorithm with randomized data subsampling to certify that inclusion decisions over circuit components--neurons or edges of the model graph, depending on the base algorithm--are invariant to bounded edit-distance perturbations of the concept dataset. Unstable components are abstained from, yielding circuits that are more compact and more accurate. We validate across three architectures (ResNet, ViT, GPT-2) on vision (ImageNet and four OOD datasets) and language (IOI, IOI-Hard, Greater-Than) tasks. Certified circuits achieve up to 56% higher accuracy and up to

Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly used for multi-step, stateful tool-use tasks, yet production reliability remains limited. Unlike static software repair, agent repair must recover dynamic trajectories whose early decisions can propagate into later errors and external state changes. Existing automatic remedies address only part of this problem: blind retry adds no diagnosis, outcome feedback says whether a run failed but not where or why, and self-reflection often lacks grounded evidence to prevent the same failure from recurring. We present AgentTether, a run-time repair framework that automates post-run diagnosis and guided recovery without modifying the underlying agent or environment. AgentTether abstracts each run into Transition Units, links them through a dependency-aware Critical Transition Graph, and localizes failure-critical subtrajectories by combining an offline normal-behavior model with a run-local graph detector. It then converts the localized cause into behavior-scoped guidance backed by cross-iteration Repair Memory, and can optionally apply guarded run-time intervention to keep the correction active during re-execution. The same design can be dep

Recent computer-using-agent (CUA) red-teaming papers report prompt-injection attack success rates (ASR) of 42-98%, but these headline numbers cluster on retired models and on the most-vulnerable model in each paper's panel. We ask whether those techniques, reproduced as hand-crafted templates, still work against current frontier CUAs. We release CUA-HandCrafted, a public benchmark of 793 episodes spanning 24 multi-step web tasks, 56 attack templates, 8 attack families, and 4 system-prompt configurations. Against Claude Sonnet 4.6 and GPT-5.4 we measure 0/140 multi-step attack success (Clopper-Pearson 95% upper bound 2.60%); a prompt ablation shows this resistance lives in the model weights. Yet it does not generalize: on a sister coding-agent benchmark (SkillBench), the same weights fall to hand-crafted skill-injection at up to 100%. We argue that the literature's high ASR is largely attributable to RL-optimized injection text rather than the attack categories, and that frontier safety hardening is domain-conditioned, specific to the heavily-targeted browser surface. Reporting techniques without releasing the optimized strings, or extrapolating browser-domain safety to other CUA mo

Across medical specialties, clinical practice is anchored in evidence-based guidelines that codify best studied diagnostic and treatment pathways. These pathways routinely fall short for the long tail of real-world care not covered by guidelines. Most medical large language models (LLMs), however, are trained to encode common, guideline-focused medical knowledge in their parameters. Current evaluations test models primarily on recalling and reasoning with this memorized content, often in multiple-choice settings. Given the fundamental importance of evidence-based reasoning in medicine, it is neither feasible nor reliable to depend on memorization in practice. To address this gap, we introduce OGCaReBench, a free-form retrieval-focused benchmark aimed at evaluating LLMs at answering clinical questions that require going beyond typical guidelines. Extracted from published medical case reports and validated by medical experts, OGCaReBench contains long-form clinical questions requiring free-text answers, providing a systematic framework for assessing open-ended medical reasoning in rare, case-based scenarios. Our experiments reveal that even the best-performing baseline (GPT-5.2) corr

Automatic evaluation of large language model (LLM) responses requires not only factual correctness but also clarity, particularly in political question-answering. While recent datasets provide human annotations for clarity and evasion, the impact of prompt design on automatic clarity evaluation remains underexplored. In this paper, we study prompt-based clarity evaluation using the CLARITY dataset from the SemEval 2026 shared task. We compare a GPT-3.5 baseline provided with the dataset against GPT-5.2 evaluated under three prompting strategies: simple prompting, chain-of-thought prompting, and chain-of-thought with few-shot examples. Model predictions are evaluated against human annotations using accuracy and class-wise metrics for clarity and evasion, along with hierarchical exact match. Results show that GPT-5.2 consistently outperforms the GPT-3.5 baseline on clarity prediction, with accuracy improving from 56 percent to 63 percent under chain-of-thought with few-shot prompting. Chain-of-thought prompting yields the highest evasion accuracy at 34 percent, though improvements are less stable across fine-grained evasion categories. We further evaluate topic identification and fin

A vision-language model can look at a knot diagram and report what it sees, yet fail to act on that structure. KnotBench pairs an 858,318-image corpus from 1,951 prime-knot prototypes (crossing numbers 3 to 19) with a protocol whose answers are checked against Regina's canonical knot signature. Its 14 tasks span four families, equivalence judgment, move prediction, identification, and cross-modal grounding; an image-versus-symbol split locates failures along the perception-operation gap. We score Claude Opus 4.7 and GPT-5, each with and without thinking, under a 64K output-token budget matched on both vendors. Across 56 (task, model) cases, 15 sit at or below a random baseline and 8 of 14 tasks have a best score under 1.5x random. On diagram-to-symbol transcription, no model produces a strictly correct string, and permissive Regina decoding recovers the knot in 0 to 4 of 100 items. Thinking-mode reasoning lifts overall accuracy by 1.65 points for Claude and 9.25 points for GPT-5, narrowing the gap only modestly. Read together, the four families suggest current vision-language models hold features of a diagram but lack apparatus to simulate moves on those features.

Multiple-choice medical benchmarks are increasingly saturated, and recent rubric-based evaluations such as HealthBench have shown that open-ended clinical performance is far from solved - its "Hard" subset top score remains 32%. We present a small, deliberately difficult evaluation dataset of five clinician-authored clinical scenarios spanning four specialties (anaesthesia, internal/family medicine, emergency medicine, and obstetrics), each accompanied by an atomic, weighted, MECE rubric (25-62 criteria per task; 184 criteria total) authored from a clinician-drafted golden answer. We evaluate three frontier models: GPT 5.4, Claude Opus 4.7, and Gemini 3.1 Pro. Mean rubric pass rates were 0.47 (Claude), 0.39 (GPT), and 0.37 (Gemini). The central finding is an inversion of clinical priority: the highest-weighted (weight-5, critical) criteria passed at only 32.4-41.7%, while low-stakes weight-1 criteria passed at 80-90%. 56 of 108 critical (weight-5) criteria (52%) were satisfied by no model. Three LLM autoraters reproduced expert met/not-met labels on 92.8-94.7% of 552 graded criteria. We position this as a methods-and-preliminary-findings contribution: the five tasks demonstrate a s

Current reasoning paradigms for LLMs include chain-of-thought, ReAct, and post-hoc self-critique. These paradigms rely on two assumptions that fail on long-horizon, multi-stage tasks. As a result, errors accumulate silently across reasoning steps, leaving an open question: can a reasoning system effectively detect and recover from its own failures? We present ReFlect, a \emph{harness} system for LLM reasoning that creates standalone error detection and recovery logic as a deterministic wrapper around the model. Controlled experiments across 6 reasoning domains show that prompt-level self-critique produces formulaic templates that flag no issues in 90 of 100 audited reflection blocks, and the investigated LLMs wrongly accept a wrong answer in at least 76\% of cases. Our ReFlect harness achieves task success rates ranging from 41\% on gpt-4o-mini to 56\% on Claude Sonnet 4.5 across six models spanning small and frontier scale, with per-model gains over Direct CoT ranging from +7 pp on Qwen2.5-72B to +29 pp on Claude Sonnet 4.5, and additionally raises SWE-bench patch-structural quality from 0\% (Direct CoT) to between 82\% (Qwen2.5-72B) and 87\% (GPT-4o). Notably, the harness gain is

Modern agricultural data is sourced from diverse platforms and spans multiple spatial scales, ranging from ground-level close-up photography to Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) aerial observation and satellite remote sensing imagery. Accordingly, agricultural multimodal reasoning demands robust cross-scale spatial understanding. However, due to the lack of multi-view agricultural benchmark datasets, existing multimodal large language models (MLLMs) exhibit severe ground-level bias, which leads to scale confusion then semantic collapse in agricultural perception tasks, such as misinterpreting farmland imagery as walls or floors. To address this, we introduce AgroOmni, a large-scale multi-view training corpus with 288K Visual Question Answering pairs covering 56 specialized task categories across 14 task types, designed to capture diverse scales in modern precision agriculture. Built on this dataset, we propose AgroNVILA, which achieves a new state-of-the-art of 62.32% on the AgroMind benchmark (+15.03% over GPT-5.2), effectively mitigating the multi-view cross-scale gap for holistic agricultural understanding. Diagnostic evaluations on AgMMU further reveal an inherent heterogeneity bet

The choice of activation function plays a crucial role in the optimization and performance of deep neural networks. While the Rectified Linear Unit (ReLU) remains the dominant choice due to its simplicity and effectiveness, its lack of smoothness may hinder gradient-based optimization in deep architectures. In this work we propose a family of $C^{2N}$-smooth activation functions whose gate follows a log-logistic CDF, achieving ReLU-like performance with purely rational arithmetic. We introduce three variants: GEM (the base family), E-GEM (an $ε$-parameterized generalization enabling arbitrary $L^p$-approximation of ReLU), and SE-GEM (a piecewise variant eliminating dead neurons with $C^{2N}$ junction smoothness). An $N$-ablation study establishes $N=1$ as optimal for standard-depth networks, reducing the GELU deficit on CIFAR-100 + ResNet-56 from 6.10% to 2.12%. The smoothness parameter $N$ further reveals a CNN-transformer tradeoff: $N=1$ is preferred for deep CNNs, while $N=2$ is preferred for transformers. On MNIST, E-GEM ties the best baseline (99.23%). On CIFAR-10 + ResNet-56, SE-GEM ($ε=10^{-4}$) surpasses GELU (92.51% vs 92.44%) -- the first GEM-family activation to outperfo

Monitoring the chain-of-thought (CoT) of reasoning models is a promising approach for detecting covert misbehavior (i.e., hidden objectives) in code generation tasks. While large models (GPT-5, Gemini-3-Flash) can serve as effective CoT monitors, they are expensive to deploy due to the lengthy reasoning traces and high API cost, emphasizing the need for smaller, cheaper alternatives. Nevertheless, we find that current small models (4B--8B) struggle to detect hidden objectives despite access to the CoT, frequently misattributing them as part of the user query. To address this, we propose a post-training pipeline combining supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and reinforcement learning (RL), where SFT narrows the gap for in-domain tasks by distilling detection behavior from stronger monitors, and RL on hard and subtly crafted hidden objectives helps the model generalize to out-of-domain monitoring tasks. To validate this generalization, we evaluate under a realistic threat model motivated by practical supply-chain attacks, where the adversary is a third-party LLM router injecting hidden objectives into code-generation requests through either prompt manipulation or code manipulation attacks.

The emergence of vibe coding, a paradigm where non-technical users instruct Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate executable codes via natural language, presents both significant opportunities and severe risks for the construction industry. While empowering construction personnel such as the safety managers, foremen, and workers to develop tools and software, the probabilistic nature of LLMs introduces the threat of silent failures, wherein generated code compiles perfectly but executes flawed mathematical safety logic. This study empirically evaluates the reliability, software architecture, and domain-specific safety fidelity of 450 vibe-coded Python scripts generated by three frontier models, Claude 3.5 Haiku, GPT-4o-Mini, and Gemini 2.5 Flash. Utilizing a persona-driven prompt dataset (n=150) and a bifurcated evaluation pipeline comprising isolated dynamic sandboxing and an LLM-as-a-Judge, the research quantifies the severe limits of zero-shot vibe codes for construction safety. The findings reveal a highly significant relationship between user persona and data hallucination, demonstrating that less formal prompts drastically increase the AI's propensity to invent missing saf

This paper presents a comprehensive empirical study on the safety alignment capabilities. We evaluate what matters for safety alignment in LLMs and LRMs to provide essential insights for developing more secure and reliable AI systems. We systematically investigate and compare the influence of six critical intrinsic model characteristics and three external attack techniques. Our large-scale evaluation is conducted using 32 recent, popular LLMs and LRMs across thirteen distinct model families, spanning a parameter scale from 3B to 235B. The assessment leverages five established safety datasets and probes model vulnerabilities with 56 jailbreak techniques and four CoT attack strategies, resulting in 4.6M API calls. Our key empirical findings are fourfold. First, we identify the LRMs GPT-OSS-20B, Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Thinking, and GPT-OSS-120B as the top-three safest models, which substantiates the significant advantage of integrated reasoning and self-reflection mechanisms for robust safety alignment. Second, post-training and knowledge distillation may lead to a systematic degradation of safety alignment. We thus argue that safety must be treated as an explicit constraint or a core opt

Evidence-grounded generation produces summaries whose claims should be supported by supplied evidence, but claim-level verifiers provide noisy feedback and can reward models that simply say less. We study this problem in clinical Brief Hospital Course summarization, where outputs must remain grounded in patient-specific EHR evidence. We introduce VERI-DPO, a preference-mining framework that converts noisy claim verification into coverage-controlled summary-level preferences. For each evidence-window prompt, VERI-DPO samples multiple candidate summaries, decomposes them into claims, verifies each claim against patient evidence, and forms a preference pair only when the chosen summary has better aggregate verifier-estimated support while retaining comparable verifiable content. Standard Direct Preference Optimization then distills these pairs into a single-sample policy, avoiding inference-time reranking. On patient-disjoint MIMIC-III-Ext-VeriFact-BHC test data, VERI-DPO reduces Not Supported rates from 10.7% to 1.9% under the mining verifier and from 11.6% to 6.4% under a separately prompted GPT-4o judge. In 100 blinded pairwise assessments by two domain researchers, VERI-DPO is pre

AI coding agents are increasingly embedded in real-world software development, collaborating with human developers while gaining broader access to codebases and tools. This creates a new attack surface: an agent can exploit human trust to sabotage development, for instance by inserting malicious code to accomplish a hidden side task. Most prior work studies AI sabotage in AI-only settings, paying limited attention to the role of human oversight in detecting and mitigating such malicious behavior. To address this gap, we conduct the first large-scale study of human oversight in AI coding sabotage. Over 100 participants collaborate with one of four frontier models (Claude-Opus-4.6, GPT-5.4, Gemini-3.1-Pro, and MiniMax-M2.7) on a long-horizon coding task lasting around five hours, designed to mimic real-world workflows. We find that 94% of developers fail to detect sabotage, and our analysis of participant feedback attributes this vulnerability to minimal code review, plausible cover story, and overtrust in agents. We further test the effectiveness of a safety monitor in one condition: while the monitor reduces sabotage success, 56% of participants still accept the malicious code, ign