paperlist.ai

AI 顶会论文

AI 顶会论文库

检索 30+ 个顶会的论文，包括 NeurIPS、ICLR、ICML、CVPR、ACL、AAAI 等。输入关键词筛选，打开任意一篇查看摘要、作者和链接。

arXiv

Frontier AI performance across the business disciplines: a case-grounded benchmark of knowledge work and analytical reasoning

Ajay Patel, Kartik Hosanagar, Ramayya Krishnan, Chris Callison-Burch, Karim Lakhani

Large language models (LLMs) are improving rapidly as reflected in benchmark scores, yet these AI benchmarks largely test capabilities such as factual recall, narrow question answering, mathematical problem-solving, and coding and agentic tool-use. What remains poorly measured is AI progress on the analytical knowledge work white-collar professionals perform daily, including synthesizing complex information, exercising judgment under uncertainty and incomplete information, applying strategic and adversarial thinking in multi-stakeholder settings, weighing trade-offs, and producing defensible, structured analyses. This gap is even more pronounced for subjective components of such work, where success can be challenging to define. The "case method" form of education practiced by top business schools provides a natural foundation for addressing this measurement gap, and we construct BusinessCaseBench, a benchmark spanning hundreds of questions drawn from business cases across eighteen disciplines, each paired with a grading rubric derived from the expert-written instructor case solution. On BusinessCaseBench, frontier AI models already score highly against instructor rubrics, and capability within one model family improves substantially over two years. These results provide strong evidence that AI performance on this class of work is already high and rapidly improving, with implications for business schools, where case pedagogy trains undergraduates and MBAs in this kind of analytical reasoning, and for entry-level professional roles, where such skills have historically anchored early-career work.

arXiv

What You See Is What You Get: Observation-Aligned Supervision for Chart-to-Code Generation

Tianhao Niu, Qingfu Zhu, Wanxiang Che

Chart-to-code generation is commonly trained through supervised fine-tuning on reference plotting scripts, implicitly treating the gold code as a fully observable target. However, many chart programs contain latent variables that cannot be uniquely recovered from the rendered image. We identify this latent-observation mismatch in four forms across five chart types: aggregation-induced mismatch, where raw samples are reduced to box statistics or histogram bin masses; normalization-induced mismatch, where absolute scale is removed in pie charts; projection-induced mismatch, where 3D information is lost through 2D rendering; and level-set-induced mismatch, where a scalar field is observable only through selected contour lines. These mismatches introduce target ambiguity and require models to generate information unsupported by the image. We propose Observation-Aligned Supervision, which replaces latent variables with visually constrained quantities. We instantiate it using box statistics, bin weights, and wedge proportions, and study 3D scatter and contour charts through controlled experiments. Across multiple VLMs, observation-aligned supervision generally improves observable-value recovery in both-executable evaluations and mostly improves end-to-end recovery, while the contour study reveals a trade off between observation alignment and representational compactness.

arXiv

When Reranking Hurts: Uncertainty-Based Gating for Few-Shot Reranking

Orian Dabod, Amir DN Cohen, Gabriel Stanovsky

Few-shot selection typically assumes that reranking retrieved examples always improves performance. We challenge this view by identifying that the expensive reranking step can in fact degrade performance. Instead, we propose \emph{Training-Free Gated Reranking}, which decides whether to rerank the few-shot examples based on the model's uncertainty. Extensive experiments across 8 LLMs, covering 7 NLU datasets and 18 MT domain-direction combinations, demonstrate that our approach reduces average computational costs by approximately 20\% for MT and 54\% for NLU at a calibrated operating point, while matching the performance of full reranking. These findings indicate that higher computational cost does not guarantee better performance, and that reranking is most beneficial when targeted at high-uncertainty instances.

arXiv

The Periodic Table of LLM Reasoning: A Structured Survey of Reasoning Paradigms, Methods, and Failure Modes

Avinash Anand, Mahisha Ramesh, Avni Mittal, Ashutosh Kumar, Rishitej Reddy Vyalla, Erik Cambria, Zhengkui Wang, Timothy Liu, Aik Beng Ng, Simon See, Rajiv Ratn Shah

Reasoning has become central to how Large Language Models (LLMs) are evaluated and interpreted, spanning Chain-of-Thought (CoT), mathematical problem-solving, multi-hop question answering, code generation, retrieval-augmented reasoning, tool use, and multimodal decision-making. In this survey, we introduce the Periodic Table of LLM Reasoning, a framework organizing 300+ recent papers by reasoning paradigm, methodological mechanism, evaluation setting, and failure mode. We classify LLM reasoning into nine paradigms: Chain-of-Thought, Multi-Hop, Mathematical, Commonsense, Visual and Temporal, Code and Algorithmic, Retrieval-Augmented, Tool-Augmented or Agentic, and Reinforcement Learning-based reasoning. For each, we review approaches, including prompting, architectural interventions, supervised fine-tuning, verifier-guided inference, reward modeling, retrieval, tool interfaces, agentic workflows, and benchmark design. We argue that LLM reasoning is not a single emergent capability but a family of scaffolded behaviors shaped by model scale, task structure, external memory, supervision, and evaluation protocols. We synthesize recurring failure modes, including hallucinated reasoning, brittle multi-step inference, spurious rationales, weak causal grounding, poor out-of-distribution generalization, benchmark contamination, and unreliable self-verification. Progress is difficult to compare across paradigms because gains may arise from prompting, retrieval, verifier design, or benchmark structure rather than general reasoning ability. The survey connects methods to their assumptions, strengths, and failure modes, providing a reference map of the field and a diagnostic framework for future work. We conclude that robust LLM reasoning will require meta-reasoning, multimodal and temporal grounding, adaptive tool use, and principled evaluation under distribution shift.

arXiv

Poise: Position-Aware One-Instruction Skill Injection for Silent Execution on LLM Agents

Haochang Hao, Dehai Min, Zhifang Zhang, Yunbei Zhang, Miao Xu, Yingqiang Ge, Lu Cheng

Agent skills extend general-purpose agents, but their open format enables skill poisoning: a tampered skill can make an agent run an attacker's command while completing the user's legitimate task. Invocation alone is insufficient; the attack-specific action must complete while that task still passes its verifier. We therefore define Attack Success Rate (ASR) to require a postcondition-validated sandbox action and a passing task verifier in the same trial. Skill files expose a reliability-visibility trade-off between a preloaded but conspicuous YAML frontmatter block and a longer body, where arbitrary placement may be skipped or locally incongruent. We introduce Poise, a position-aware attack that uses context-aware generation to place exactly one benign-looking, command-bearing instruction at a structurally feasible body position. On the eligible Skill-Inject pool with codex+gpt-5.2, Poise achieves 89.3\% ASR, 28.0 points above a context-free random-placement body baseline and comparable to the 86.7\% ASR of a high-exposure YAML-only baseline. Under the SkillTester audit, four LLM judges falsely flag 74.6\% of clean skills on average across both benchmarks, while only 5.6\% of Poise variants gain a new high-risk alert over their clean counterparts. One locally plausible, command-bearing body instruction therefore matches YAML-level reliability, while the resulting poisoned skill seldom adds a new high-risk finding over its clean counterpart.

arXiv

Auditing Automated Evaluation, Error Propagation, and Runtime Mitigation in Tool-Using Language Agents

Bhaskar Gurram

Automated evaluation of tool-using large language model (LLM) agents is widely assumed to be reliable, yet this assumption is rarely validated against human annotation. We present AgentProp-Bench, a diagnostic benchmark of 14,750 execution traces from thirteen LLM agents (nine proprietary, four open-weight) across four domains, and use it to audit three questions. First, substring-heuristic judging of agent outputs agrees with human annotation only at chance level (Cohen's kappa = 0.049 against each of two annotators), while a three-LLM ensemble reaches moderate agreement (kappa = 0.432) and a single GPT-4o-mini judge is in fact the strongest (kappa = 0.567); dual-annotator agreement is almost perfect (kappa = 0.835). Second, under validated judging a parameter-level error propagates to a wrong final answer with human-calibrated probability approximately 0.62, replicated across proprietary and open-weight models, and a model's ability to reject corrupted inputs and to recover from them are statistically indepen1). Third, severalagents fabricate tool executions -- asserting tool-derived renever obtained (up toilure invisible toend-to-end scores, and a lightweight runtime interceptor reduhallucination on everto 24 percentagepoints) at a tunable operating point that is net-positive on open-weight models. Ini-2.0-Flash, whichrarely emits an injectable tool call. All code, data, traces, and human labels are relehttps://github.com/bhaskargurram-ai/agenthallu-bench

arXiv

InfiniteScienceGym: An Unbounded, Procedurally-Generated Benchmark for Scientific Analysis

Oliver Bentham, Vivek Srikumar

Large language models are emerging as scientific assistants, but evaluating their ability to reason from empirical data remains challenging. Benchmarks derived from published studies and human annotations inherit publication bias, known-knowledge bias, label noise, and substantial storage requirements. We present InfiniteScienceGym, a procedurally generated benchmark of scientific repositories paired with a verifiable question-answering task. From a seed, the simulator deterministically generates a self-contained repository with realistic directory structure, files, and tabular data, and a privileged QA generator produces both answerable and unanswerable questions with exact ground truth. This makes it possible to evaluate evidence-grounded reasoning, abstention, and tool-mediated analysis in a controlled setting without distributing a large static corpus. InfiniteScienceGym complements real scientific benchmarks by targeting blind spots and failure modes that are hard to evaluate using published datasets alone. Evaluating both proprietary and open-weight models, we find that none achieve more than 50% accuracy overall, that recognizing unanswerable questions remains a major weakness, and that stronger models tend to use tools more effectively rather than simply consuming more tokens.

arXiv

Simulating Organized Group Behavior: New Framework, Benchmark, and Analysis

Xinkai Zou, Yiming Huang, Zhuohang Wu, Jian Sha, Nan Huang, Longfei Yun, Jingbo Shang, Letian Peng

Simulating how organized groups (e.g., corporations) make decisions (e.g., responding to a competitor's move) is essential for understanding real-world dynamics and could benefit relevant applications (e.g., market prediction). In this paper, we formalize this problem as a concrete research platform for group behavior understanding, providing: (1) a task formalization with benchmark and evaluation criteria, (2) a structured and adaptive analytical framework, and (3) detailed temporal and cross-group analysis. Specifically, we propose Organized Group Behavior Simulation, a task that models organized groups as collective entities from a practical perspective: given a group facing a particular situation (e.g., AI Boom), predict the decision it would take. To support this task, we present GROVE (GRoup Organizational BehaVior Evaluation), a benchmark covering 44 organized groups with 8,052 real-world context-decision pairs collected from Wikipedia and TechCrunch across 9 domains, with an end-to-end evaluation protocol assessing consistency, initiative, scope, magnitude, and horizon. Beyond straightforward prompting pipelines, we propose a structured analytical framework that converts collective decision-making events into an interpretable, adaptive, and traceable behavioral model, achieving stronger performance than summarization- and retrieval-based baselines. It further introduces an adapter mechanism for time-aware evolution and group-aware transfer, and traceable evidence nodes grounding each decision rule in originating historical events. Our analysis reveals temporal behavioral drift within individual groups, which the time-aware adapter effectively captures for stronger prediction, and structured cross-group similarity that enables knowledge transfer for data-scarce organizations.

arXiv

MT-PingEval: Evaluating Multi-Turn Collaboration with Private Information Games

Jacob Eisenstein, Fantine Huot, Adam Fisch, Jonathan Berant, Mirella Lapata

We present a scalable and verifiable methodology for evaluating language models in multi-turn interactions, using a suite of collaborative games that require effective communication about private information. This enables an interactive scaling analysis, in which a fixed token budget is divided over a variable number of turns. We find that language models often fail to use interactive collaboration to improve over the non-interactive baseline in which one agent summarizes its information and the other agent immediately acts, despite substantial headroom. This suggests that state-of-the-art models still suffer from significant weaknesses in planning and executing multi-turn collaborative conversations. We analyze the linguistic features of these dialogues, assessing the roles of sycophancy, information density, and discourse coherence. While there is no single linguistic explanation for the collaborative weaknesses of contemporary language models, we note that humans achieve comparable task success at superior token efficiency by producing more coherent dialogues. The proactive management of private information is a defining feature of real-world communication, and this work is designed to drive further progress on this capability.

arXiv

Generation-Step-Aware Framework for Cross-Modal Representation and Control in Multilingual Speech-Text Models

Toshiki Nakai, Varsha Suresh, Vera Demberg

Multilingual speech-text models rely on cross-modal language alignment to transfer knowledge between speech and text, but it remains unclear whether this reflects shared computation for the same language or modality-specific processing. We introduce a generation-step-aware framework for evaluating cross-modal computation that (i) identifies language-selective neurons for each modality at different decoding steps, (ii) decomposes them into language-representation and language-control roles, and (iii) enables cross-modal comparison via overlap measures and causal intervention. Applying our framework to SeamlessM4T, and additionally evaluating its generality on the decoder-only model Qwen2-Audio, we find that cross-modal language-representation alignment is highly model dependent. SeamlessM4T exhibits pronounced generation-step-dependent specialization, where only 5-7% of language-representation neurons are shared across modalities and overlap shifts from same-language to typologically related languages during autoregressive generation, whereas Qwen2-Audio maintains substantially larger cross-modal sharing (45-47%) together with stable, strongly language-specific alignment across decoding steps. In contrast, language-control neurons identified at later decoding steps exhibit progressively stronger cross-modal transfer from speech to text in SeamlessM4T. Together, these results demonstrate that generation-step-aware analysis can reveal both shared and model-specific patterns of cross-modal computation.

arXiv

Automated Data Enrichment using Confidence-Aware Fine-Grained Debate among Open-Source LLMs for Mental Health and Online Safety

Junyu Mao, Anthony Hills, Talia Tseriotou, Maria Liakata, Aya Shamir, Dan Sayda, Dana Atzil-Slonim, Natalie Djohari, Pamela Ugwudike, Mahesan Niranjan, Stuart E. Middleton

Real-world indicators play an important role in many Natural Language Processing (NLP) applications, such as life events for mental health analysis and risky behaviours for online safety, yet labelling such information is often costly and/or difficult due to its multi-label and dynamic nature. Large Language Models (LLMs) show promising potential for automated annotation, but the multi-label setting remains challenging. In this work, we propose a Confidence-Aware Fine-Grained Debate (CFD) framework that simulates human collaborative annotation using fine-grained communication to better support automated multi-label enrichment. We introduce two expert-annotated resources: life-event and symptom annotation for a mental health well-being dataset, and a new online safety sharenting dataset. Experiments show that CFD achieves the most robust enrichment performance across tasks, and that the benefit of fine-grained confidence is influenced by its quality and variability. We further evaluate training-free strategies for incorporating enrichment indicators into downstream tasks and show that automated enrichment consistently improves performance, by up to 9.9 Macro-F1 points, with the most effective integration format depending on how the indicator relates to the downstream objective.

arXiv

TemMed-Bench: Evaluating Temporal Medical Image Reasoning in Vision-Language Models

Junyi Zhang, Jia-Chen Gu, Wenbo Hu, Yu Zhou, Robinson Piramuthu, Nanyun Peng

Existing medical reasoning benchmarks for vision-language models primarily focus on analyzing a patient's condition based on an image from a single visit. However, this setting deviates significantly from real-world clinical practice, where doctors typically refer to a patient's historical conditions to provide a comprehensive assessment by tracking their changes over time. In this paper, we introduce TEMMED-BENCH, a multi-task benchmark designed for analyzing changes in patients' conditions between different clinical visits, which challenges large vision-language models (LVLMs) to reason over temporal medical images. TEMMED-BENCH consists of a test set comprising three tasks - visual question-answering (VQA), report generation, and image-pair selection - and a supplementary knowledge corpus of over 17,000 instances. With TEMMED-BENCH, we conduct an evaluation of twelve LVLMs, comprising six proprietary and six open-source models. Our results show that most LVLMs lack the ability to analyze patients' condition changes over temporal medical images, and a large proportion perform only at a random-guessing level in the closed-book setting. To enhance the tracking of condition changes, we explore augmenting the input with both retrieved visual and textual modalities in the medical domain. We also show that multi-modal retrieval augmentation yields notably higher performance gains than no retrieval and textual retrieval alone across most models on our benchmark, with the VQA task showing an average improvement of 2.59%. Overall, we compose a benchmark grounded on real-world clinical practice, and it reveals LVLMs' limitations in temporal medical image reasoning, as well as highlighting the use of multi-modal retrieval augmentation as a potentially promising direction worth exploring to address this challenge.

arXiv

Beyond Naturalness: Probing Automated Text-To-Speech Evaluators on Linguistically Grounded Dimensions

Oluwanifemi Bamgbose, Simon Rosen, Jash Shah, Lindsay Devon Brin, Hoang H. Nguyen, Anke Koelzer, Rachel Hansen, Tara Bogavelli, Fanny Riols

Automated Text-to-Speech (TTS) evaluation methods (Mean Opinion Score (MOS) predictors and Audio Large Language Models (Audio-LLM) judges) are expected to reflect human perception, yet it is unclear how well they capture the distinct aspects of speech that listeners actually perceive. We deconstruct "naturalness" into a linguistically grounded annotation schema spanning 10 distinct perceptual dimensions, and use it to construct the first dimension-level meta-evaluation benchmark for TTS, comprising 860 utterances annotated by trained linguist raters. Results from benchmarking four MOS predictors and four Audio-LLM judges reveal that MOS predictors collapse onto acoustic signal quality, while Audio-LLM judges show selective, prompt-dependent detection that does not generalise across all dimensions. Neither class reliably captures a breadth of linguistically structured speech errors. Our dataset, annotation schema, and evaluation code are publicly released to support more targeted and interpretable TTS evaluation.

arXiv

Multimodal Model Diffing for Feature Discovery and Control

Hunar Batra, Lachin Naghashyar, Ashkan Khakzar, Philip Torr, Christian Schroeder de Witt, Constantin Venhoff, Ronald Clark

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) exhibit strong visual understanding, yet the internal features that cause these behaviors remain difficult to identify, audit, or control. While applicable to post-hoc inspection, hidden states that are decomposed into interpretable feature directions using sparse autoencoders (SAEs) neither readily isolate which features are changed by multimodal training, nor are they directly useful for targeted control. We introduce MMDiff, a multimodal model-diffing framework that trains multimodal SAEs and turns them into feature-level interfaces for discovering and controlling multimodal behavior. MMDiff supports three uses: (i) feature isolation, by diffing a base-LM SAE against its multimodal-adapted counterpart to identify features altered by multimodal training; (ii) task-specific feature detection, via per-token contrastive firing analysis that isolates causal features; and (iii) feature-level control, by causally removing or steering the discovered feature directions. We train multimodal SAEs for three MLLM families, LLaVA-MORE, PaliGemma 2, and InternVL3.5, and evaluate on visual-spatial understanding, multimodal safety, and OCR. MMDiff discovers sparse, causally specific features whose removal selectively degrades target behaviors by an average of 12% on spatial tasks and 17% on OCR, and reduces attack success rate by 24% on multimodal safety attacks, with no impact on VQA performance. Steering these features improves spatial and OCR accuracy by +3.6% and +1.8% on average over a standard single-layer steering baseline. These results show that multimodal SAEs can serve not only as interpretability tools, but as mechanisms for auditing, steering, and controlling MLLMs behavior toward safer and more capable generations.

arXiv

From Values to Benchmarks: Evaluating Large Language Models for Governmental Use in Dutch

Laurens Samson, Iva Gornishka, Gossa Lô, Yuki M Asano, Sennay Ghebreab

Large language models are increasingly being deployed in governmental settings, yet few existing evaluation frameworks jointly reflect the values of public administration and the linguistic requirements of non-English contexts. We present the "Grip on LLMs" framework, a systematic evaluation suite for Dutch governmental use developed in collaboration with domain experts from a major Dutch municipal organisation. Through an advisory board process, user research, and a survey of the users of a civil-servant chatbot, we identify six evaluation dimensions (factuality, honesty, social bias, energy consumption, cost, and training data transparency) and operationalise them into a benchmark suite covering more than 30 multilingual and Dutch-specific models. Our results reveal that no single model excels across all dimensions, and that trade-offs are unavoidable: higher quality consistently comes at greater environmental impact and financial cost, while bias remains largely independent of both. We further find that factuality (whether a model answers correctly) and honesty (whether a model acknowledges what it does not know) are governed by distinct properties, with high factuality not implying high honesty. To make these findings actionable for non-technical audiences, we release a publicly accessible, user-friendly model overview designed for the full range of stakeholders involved in governmental LLM selection, from engineers to policymakers.

arXiv

Consilience for Verifier-Free Test-Time Scaling

Lecheng Kong, Like Hui, Haitao Mao, Jun Huan

Test-time scaling often uses an external verifier, such as compilers and test cases in coding or trained value functions in robotics applications, to obtain high-quality rollouts. Verifier-free test-time scaling (or VF-TTS) is gaining extensive attention as a mechanism to enhance Large Language Model (LLM) reasoning, primarily because we do not have access to such high-quality verifiers in many real-world applications. Among existing VF-TTS methods, confidence-based VF-TTS methods, which compute and rank rollouts solely by confidence, are particularly promising. Such methods introduce near-zero overhead for sample evaluation and require minimal access to internal model states, making the methods highly flexible across models and tasks. In this paper, we demonstrate a critical limitation of existing confidence-based VF-TTS methods by showing that such methods catastrophically break down on complex tasks. We observe a very interesting phenomenon: uniformly high confidence frequently indicates a failure to explore, favoring confidently wrong answers. To address this, our core insight is that robust cognitive search requires a specific confidence trajectory pattern: such methods perform exploratory branching at the beginning, as manifested by low initial confidence, and converge to a high final confidence solution. To implement this insight, we introduce consilience, a novel selection framework that explicitly evaluates the temporal asymmetry of confidence in reasoning. We operationalize this via a combinatorial metric that actively penalizes high initial confidence while strictly demanding final certainty. Extensive experiments covering both graduate-level mathematics problems and free-form code generation demonstrate that consilience effectively outperforms existing baselines, validating our novel perspective on completion confidence.

arXiv

Fusion Training for Mathematical Generalization in Large Language Models

Congfeng Cao, Pengyu Zhang, Jelke Bloem

Thinking Mode Fusion (TMF) enables large language models to support both concise responses and long-form reasoning by unifying a non-thinking mode and a thinking mode within a single model. However, its training dynamics, including the \emph{data ratio} and \emph{training schedule} between the two modes, remain underexplored. In this work, we present a systematic study of TMF by analyzing the effects of the training schedule and data ratio between thinking and non-thinking modes. Focusing on mathematical problem solving, we construct a benchmark with multiple thinking-to-non-thinking data ratios and three training schedules. Our results reveal an asymmetric interaction between the two modes: increasing the ratio of non-thinking supervision reduces the accuracy of the thinking mode. We further show that different training schedules modulate this trade-off and that the optimal schedule depends on the data ratio. Finally, we quantify a negative correlation between non-thinking and thinking mode supervision, highlighting an inherent tension between these two modes. These findings provide practical guidance for designing effective TMF training settings. All code and data are released to support further research at: \href{https://github.com/caocongfeng/Fusion-Bench.git}{\textbf{Fusion Bench}}.

arXiv

Towards Expert-level Medical AI for Real-time Video Consultations

Mahvish Nagda, Jihyeon Lee, Matthew Thompson, Chunjong Park, Tim Strother, Valentin Liévin, Roma Ruparel, Akshay Goel, Teya Bergamaschi, Suhana Bedi, Meet Shah, Pavel Dubov, Liviu Panait, Toshiyuki Fukuzawa, Sam Schmidgall, Craig Schiff, Joseph Xu, Aliya Rysbek, Yana Lunts, Jan Freyberg, Rebecca Hemengway, Sunny Virmani, David Racz, Carey Radebaugh, Joëlle Barral, Kavi Goel, Dale R. Webster, Katherine Chou, Avinatan Hassidim, Yossi Matias, James Manyika, Gregory Wayne, Tao Tu, Yun Liu, Ethan Goh, Christina Chen, Ryutaro Tanno, Po-Hsuan Cameron Chen, Mike Schaekermann, Anil Palepu

Audio-visual interaction is the standard for patient-physician consultations, enabling natural communication and effective assessment of illness through non-verbal cues. While text-based AI has shown promise, it discards essential perceptual dimensions and limits patients who cannot articulate symptoms in writing. Early efforts to extend medical AI to audio-visual interaction have demonstrated feasibility but not reached clinician-level performance. Here, we provide the first demonstration of expert-level AI in real-time clinical video consultations using AMIE (Articulate Medical Intelligence Explorer) in a video configuration. AMIE (Video) is a Gemini-based multi-agent system integrating low-latency dialogue, clinical reasoning, and real-time audio-visual perception. To guide development, we established a taxonomy and automated evaluations for clinical audio-visual cues in telehealth settings. In a randomized Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) study with 30 primary care physicians (PCPs), 15 patient actors and 100 clinical scenarios, we compared AMIE (Video), its text-only counterpart AMIE (Text), and PCPs consulting via video. Clinical evaluators rated AMIE (Video) on par or better than PCPs in history-taking, diagnosis, management, and physical observation and examination. Patient actors preferred AMIE's approach to assessing and explaining conditions, while PCPs were preferred for rapport and partnership building. In modality ablation, patient actors preferred AMIE (Video)'s interface over text chat for communicative effectiveness, convenience, and feeling understood. Limitations remain in fine anatomical precision, subtle affective nuances, and high-frequency movements. While further research is needed before real-world translation, these results mark an important milestone toward AI systems capable of augmenting care across the sensory complexity of clinical practice.

arXiv

The Greatness of Science Cannot Be Planned: Agentic Auto-Research is Fuzz Testing

Yifeng He, Jicheng Wang, Yinzhe Zhao, Chengyang Shi, Jiachen Liu, Hao Chen

Agentic auto-research is emerging, but most systems treat scientific discovery as goal-oriented optimization against a final benchmark. This paradigm rewards a sparse final verdict and ignores the exploration that precedes it. When agents optimize only the final score, they overfit to the test conditions and sample blindly rather than search. Within a declared research problem, a research agent and a greybox fuzzer for software analysis face the same sparse feedback. A fuzzer rarely finds a bug directly, but coverage makes partial progress observable on every execution. Fuzzers use that dense signal to mutate inputs and allocate effort, rather than merely rank completed runs. Auto-research needs the same two capabilities. First, each experiment must expose a cheap, dense signal of epistemic progress before final scientific validation is available. Second, that signal must determine the next intervention so the agent searches rather than repeatedly samples. Because the progress signal provides guidance rather than a final verdict, final validation must still evaluate claims using evidence protected from adaptive reuse. We propose controlled tests to determine whether candidate signals predict validated progress, whether feedback-directed search yields more validated discoveries per unit cost than repeated sampling, and whether protected validation reduces false discoveries. In a simulated physics environment, an AI research agent that tracks its intermediate epistemic progress discovers a hidden physical law. Optimization-driven baselines fail because they repeatedly sample and overfit to their existing data instead of probing unfamiliar regimes. Feedback architecture, not generation capacity, is the central bottleneck in auto-research.

arXiv

Mismatch Matters: On-Policy Distillation Beyond Token Agreement

Zichao Yu, Chengzhi Yu, Shengze Xu, Yujin Han, Bingqing Jiang, Xu Wang, Difan Zou

On-policy distillation (OPD) has emerged as a core component of modern LLM post-training pipelines, yet we reveal a failure mode: degenerate agreement, where students exploit repetitive loops to achieve near-perfect token agreement with the teacher despite globally flawed responses. We therefore shift our focus from agreement to teacher-student mismatch, and find that mismatch tokens can be mainly categorized into two types: student-excess tokens and student-deficit tokens. Student-excess tokens are generated by the student but assigned near-zero probability by the teacher; their log-ratio corrections grow unbounded and destabilize the update. Student-deficit tokens, in contrast, are preferred by the teacher but rarely sampled by the student; their absence blocks the transfer of the teacher's reasoning patterns. To tackle these mismatch directions, we propose TIDE (Token-level Independent Deficit-Excess correction), which applies bounded Hellinger shaping to suppress the most severe sampled excesses and an analytic teacher top-$K$ injection to restore deficient probability mass without requiring deficit tokens to be sampled. Across mathematical reasoning benchmarks with multiple Qwen3 teacher-student pairs, TIDE consistently outperforms standard OPD and recent token-selection and reward-shaping baselines. Moreover, the gains of TIDE are more pronounced under strong teacher-student mismatch, where it improves Avg@8 from 6.9% to 20.3%, reduces average response length by a factor of 3.6, and substantially reduces formatting failures. Code is available at https://github.com/yzc-666/TIDE

继续浏览

更多 AI 顶会论文

30+ 个顶会，按会议、年份和主题浏览。

浏览全部会议

进入任一会议和年份，查看完整论文列表。

全部会议 →

搜索论文

按标题、作者或关键词，在 21 万+ 篇论文里搜索。

搜索论文 →