The paper proposes measuring a language model’s understanding via no‑arbitrage, defining it as the inability of a bounded trader to profit from Dutch books against the model’s probabilities on logically related claims. It shows that full logical coherence is computationally infeasible, that standard next‑token training yields incoherent predictions across formats, and that uncertainty grows predictably along reasoning chains, creating arbitrage opportunities. The authors introduce Arbitr, a training framework that penalizes logical inconsistencies while maintaining accuracy, reducing exploitability by orders of magnitude and revealing a scaling illusion where large models appear coherent yet exhibit extreme unjustified confidence.
arXiv:2607. 00164v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards can in principle train calibrated probabilistic forecasters, since a proper scoring rule such as the Brier score is computed from outcomes alone and is minimized in expectation by the true probability.
arXiv:2608. 15445v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: When a reward is correct on every training example yet consistent with more than one goal, a model can acquire an unintended one, a failure known as goal misgeneralization.
arXiv:2606. 29657v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As AI systems become more capable, training procedures that optimize for downstream outcomes risk introducing implicit agency: goal-directed behavior that designers never specified.
arXiv:2608. 06108v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Investment competence is inherently personalized: the same market evidence can justify different actions for investors with different goals, horizons, portfolios, and risk boundaries.
arXiv:2609.24290v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Instruction-tuned LLMs faced with underspecified queries often commit to a single interpretation rather than ask for clarification, producing confident...
arXiv:2603. 20381v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Understanding the fundamental mechanisms governing the production of meaning in the processing of natural language is critical for designing safe, thoughtful, engaging, and empowering human-agent interactions.
arXiv:2603. 01437v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As chain of thought (CoT) has become central to scaling reasoning capabilities in large language models (LLMs), it has also emerged as a promising tool for interpretability, suggesting the opportunity to understand model decisions through verbalized reasoning.
As AI systems become more capable, training procedures that optimize for downstream outcomes risk introducing implicit agency: goal-directed behavior that designers never specified. We present a formal safety argument for the Scientist AI (SAI) Predictor, trained to approximate the Bayesian posterior conditioned on a dataset of "epistemically contextualized" natural-language statements.
arXiv:2605.31378v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) still struggle with fine-grained translation quality estimation (QE), even with long reasoning chains. We argue that...
arXiv:2608. 06933v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Today, we improve models by training and evaluating them on problems at the frontier of their abilities.
The paper introduces the concept of proof‑carrying cognition, aiming to close the verification gap in language‑model reasoning by using reality‑settled rewards. It presents a theoretical framework linking verifier‑gold correlation to compute‑capability trade‑offs, demonstrates that unsound verifiers degrade under best‑of‑N selection while sound verifiers improve, and proposes a new benchmark metric, Soundness‑under‑Pressure, for evaluating reality‑settled reasoning systems.
arXiv:2606. 11445v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Trust in an AI system is often anchored by explanations of how it works, which one then uses to forecast its behavior on new inputs.