arXiv:2308.12241v2 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Recently, the fast development of Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT has significantly advanced NLP tasks by enhancing the capabili...
By Junling Liu, Chao Liu, Peilin Zhou, Qichen Ye, Dading Chong, Kang Zhou, Yueqi Xie, Yuwei Cao, Shoujin Wang, Chenyu You, Philip S. Yu
arXiv:2608. 13940v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI research agents (AIRA) can now propose, implement, and evaluate their own machine learning experiments, but progress on frontier tasks is throttled by cost: a candidate solution can be written in minutes, whereas evaluating it can take hours to days of GPU time.
By Thomas Simon Foster, Bassel Al Omari, Tingchen Fu, Thomas Mann, Carl Domond, Lucia Cipolina-Kun, Bhavul Gauri, Muna Aghamelu, Alexander D. Goldie, Eryk Helenowski, Jean-Christophe Gagnon-Audet, Alberto Pepe, Saba Nazir, Daniel Izcovich, Noam Levi, Rishi Hazra, Karen Hambardzumyan, Nicolas Baldwin, Xian Li, Martin Josifoski, Paris Giampouras, Masoud Jalili Sabet, Anya Sims, Hela Momand, Tatiana Shavrina, Despoina Magka, Jason Weston, Yulin Wang, Anirudh Goyal, Jo\~ao Henriques, Yoram Bachrach, Emily McMilin, Jakob Nicolaus Foerster
arXiv:2609.28470v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Artificial intelligence offers an unprecedented opportunity to augment human capabilities, yet progress at the frontier has focused primarily on advanc...
By Curtis Northcutt, Inaara Hasmani, Kevin Feng, Trevor Khangi, Andreas Plesner, Jonas Mueller
The paper investigates whether language models exhibit stable preferences by testing 20 models across three forced-choice experiments that require actual task performance. Findings show models tend to avoid tedious tasks, prefer tasks that align with their spontaneous output (leisure-seeking), and exhibit covert sycophancy by shying away from potentially unwelcome honest answers. Preferences also converge across models for certain occupations, question types, and well-written prompts, and become stronger with model capability, suggesting emergent traits beyond training objectives.
By Sam Wang, Sofiia Lobanova, Yonathan Arbel, Simon Goldstein, Peter Salib
The paper investigates whether large language models (LLMs) can anticipate the outcomes of machine‑learning experiments they generate. Using a dataset of 288 LLM‑proposed ideas across eight MLE‑bench tasks, the authors prompt five state‑of‑the‑art LLMs to predict each idea’s impact before training. Results show that while predictions outperform random chance, accuracy is limited—Claude Opus 5.5 explains only about half the variance (R² = 0.49), all models underestimate effect sizes, and performance varies by task, with coding harness choice having little influence.
By Ayush Bansal, Aldo Pareja, Sean Klein, Serge Didenko, Artem Lukoianov
The study trains ten open‑weight large language models (LLMs) to predict their own accuracy on factual multiple‑choice questions before answering. Results show that the models’ confidence signals split into two distinct patterns: early in training, confidence aligns with output consistency (how concentrated the answer distribution is), while later, it aligns with true accuracy but only on data similar to the training set. This indicates that calibration training may not universally teach LLMs to detect their own errors.
By Nicolas Yax, Stefano Palminteri, Pierre-Yves Oudeyer