arXiv:2608.23308v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: An LLM asked for a trading strategy returns three artifacts at once: a natural-language rationale, an executable implementation, and once run, a trac...
By Arther Tian, Alex Ding, Simon Wu, Aaron Chan
arXiv:2607. 17765v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We introduce WC2026-Agents, a benchmark and dataset for evaluating large language models (LLMs) as autonomous forecasting agents on real, future events.
By Jiacheng Ding, Cong Guo, Jason Xu
arXiv:2608. 04240v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Superhuman game engines in domains like chess have made expert-level evaluations easily accessible, yet they communicate what is true without the natural-language explanations that make such expertise educationally useful to experts and non-experts alike.
By S. Ashwin Hebbar, Peiyao Sheng, Sewoong Oh, Pramod Viswanath
The paper evaluates how three large mixture‑of‑experts models (Alibaba, OpenAI, NVIDIA) can be fine‑tuned to reason in a low‑resource language, specifically Greek. Accuracy metrics show little change, but the authors uncover significant qualitative improvements: after supervised fine‑tuning, models reason in Greek on ~98% of items, with better grammaticality and retained general ability. Reinforcement learning with pre‑registered rewards further eliminates reasoning‑channel leaks and format skips, while the Greek‑reasoning habit remains robust to an accuracy‑only gradient.
By Ayoub Kirouane, Christos Petrocheilos
An LLM asked for a trading strategy returns three artifacts at once: a natural-language rationale, an executable implementation, and once run, a track record. Whether these are the same object is rare...
Kepler is an open‑source harness that represents hypotheses as executable world models and validates them through retrospective transition checks and conditional prediction checks. In the ARC‑AGI‑3 benchmark, a frozen Claude Opus 5 configuration achieved a perfect 100.00 RHAE on all 25 public games without per‑game model selection or score‑conditioned reruns, and matched or outperformed median‑human action counts on 181 of 183 levels. The study also identified three evaluation failures and highlighted that public‑set score alone has limited discriminative value, advocating for first‑attempt, cost‑conditioned, and verification‑aware reporting.
whyItMatters":"The results demonstrate that a purely score‑based evaluation can be misleading, underscoring the need for more rigorous, cost‑aware, and verification‑aware metrics in AI benchmark assessments."
By Wensen Wu