The paper investigates whether training classical machine learning models remains worthwhile when large language models (LLMs) can label tabular data without training. By defining a labeled‑data crossover point (N*) where a trained classical model surpasses a frozen LLM’s flat error, the authors analyze 126 student evaluations of GPT models across 18 datasets and compare them to power‑law learning curves of six classical model families. Results show that in 86% of cases a classical model outperforms the LLM with no more labeled data than already available, and the crossover occurs at a median of about 6% of the training set, suggesting that collecting a few hundred labels and training a gradient‑boosted model is typically advantageous.
arXiv:2608. 02412v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have become the default tool for a remarkable range of tasks, yet they have had conspicuously little success at one of the most common machine learning workloads: predictive analytics over tabular data.
arXiv:2606. 01682v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Selecting the best response from multiple small-model samples using a stronger scorer is a simple inference-time strategy, but fails when the small model has already committed to incorrect reasoning paths.
arXiv:2606. 15314v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Industrial retrofit planning depends on structured operational data rather than free text: planners must estimate whether a newly registered prototype will require a retrofit, which retrofit package it will need, and how long the work will take.
arXiv:2605. 24417v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Supervised classification on tabular data remains a central machine learning task, but its dependence on large labeled datasets limits its applicability in data-scarce settings.
Whether large language models perform genuine algorithmic reasoning or mere pattern completion is hard to test, because most benchmarks lack a ground truth for correct inductive inference. We introduce F-ICL, an in-context-learning benchmark that supplies one exactly.
arXiv:2606. 26836v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Existing benchmarks typically report accuracy for a single model on a single run.
Selecting the best response from multiple small-model samples using a stronger scorer is a simple inference-time strategy, but fails when the small model has already committed to incorrect reasoning paths. PRM guided search avoids this by scoring candidate continuations during generation, but requires a reward model trained with step-level labels.
arXiv:2606. 07527v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The prevailing paradigm for training LLMs has evolved to rely on a massive post-training phase consisting of SFT and RL.
arXiv:2606. 12117v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Benchmark scores often misrepresent a large language model's (LLM's) knowledge, because they rely, e.
Every supervised fine-tuning run forces the same chain of decisions, such as learning rate, batch size, LoRA or full fine-tuning, how many epochs, which optimiser, and what data to feed the model. Eac...
The paper investigates how reinforcement learning post‑training of large language models (LLMs) tends to sharpen existing behaviors, improving single‑shot accuracy but reducing solution coverage. It shows that pre‑trained LLMs, when paired with a lightweight inference harness, can outperform post‑trained models in coverage for agentic tasks that require multi‑turn tool use. The authors introduce the Sharpening Tax metric to quantify this trade‑off, analyze its prevalence across 14 model pairs and 42 benchmark cases, and propose a Bayesian sampler, PTGS, that mitigates the tax by adapting sampling temperature to prompt difficulty.
arXiv:2608. 15565v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Experience-learning agents for optimization modeling improve by storing verified skills, but existing learners admit knowledge by checking against known answers, which real ticket streams do not provide.