From a first-principles perspective, it may seem odd that the strongest results in foundation model fine-tuning (FT) are achieved via a relatively complex, two-stage training procedure. Specifically, one first trains a reward model (RM) on some dataset (e.g. human preferences) before using it to provide online feedback as part of a downstream reinforcement learning (RL) procedure, rather than directly optimizing the policy parameters on the dataset via offline maximum likelihood estimation. In fact, from an information-theoretic perspective, we can only lose information via passing through a reward model and cannot create any new information via on-policy sampling. To explain this discrepancy, we scrutinize several hypotheses on the value of RL in FT through both theoretical and empirical lenses. Of the hypotheses considered, we find the most support for the explanation that on problems with a generation-verification gap, the combination of the ease of learning the relatively simple RM (verifier) from the preference data, coupled with the ability of the downstream RL procedure to then filter its search space to the subset of policies (generators) that are optimal for relatively simple verifiers is what leads to the superior performance of online FT.

Large language models (LLMs) can answer questions and reason about complex tasks, also from the scientific domain. We assess several multimodal LLMs (MLLMs) on ScienceQA and find that Gemini models show the highest accuracy with little context, and the highest textual similarity to human explanations with richer context. Adapter-tuning of smaller MLLMs did not lead to any reliable performance. Training from Gemini outputs consistently underperformed training from the original data.

Fair clustering has attracted remarkable attention from the research community. Many fairness measures for clustering have been proposed; however, they do not take into account the clustering quality w.r.t. the values of the protected attribute. In this paper, we introduce a new visual-based fairness measure for fair clustering through ROC curves, namely FACROC. This fairness measure employs AUCC as a measure of clustering quality and then computes the difference in the corresponding ROC curves for each value of the protected attribute. Experimental results on several popular datasets for fairness-aware machine learning and well-known (fair) clustering models show that FACROC is a beneficial method for visually evaluating the fairness of clustering models.

This paper poses two critical issues in evaluating base models (without post-training): (1) Unstable evaluation during training: in the early stages of pre-training, the models lack the capability to answer questions as required, leading to unstable evaluation results. This instability makes it difficult to provide solid conclusions to guide the training, especially for key experiments such as data ablation and scaling law. (2) Inconsistency between base and instruct models: base models generally exhibit poorer evaluation performance compared to corresponding instruct models. This gap poses a challenge for assessing whether a base model with better evaluation can truly lead to a better instruct model. To address these issues, we propose Base model Oriented Systematic Evaluation (BOSE), a method specifically designed to optimize the evaluation of base models. Specifically, BOSE introduces two key innovations: In-Context Light-instruction Prompt (ICLiP) for open-ended tasks and Blank-ppl for multi-choice tasks with candidate options, which transforms the standard perplexity (ppl) metric into a fill-in-the-blank format to mitigate early-stage evaluation fluctuations. Furthermore, we are the first to propose Kendall's rank correlation to quantitatively measure the evaluation stability and consistency. Experimental results demonstrate that BOSE significantly enhances both the stability of evaluations during pre-training and the consistency between base and instruct models, thereby providing more reliable guidance for the LLMs' training.

Generating knowledge-intensive and comprehensive long texts, such as encyclopedia articles, remains significant challenges for Large Language Models. It requires not only the precise integration of facts but also the maintenance of thematic coherence throughout the article. Existing methods, such as direct generation and multi-agent discussion, often struggle with issues like hallucinations, topic incoherence, and significant latency. To address these challenges, we propose RAPID, an efficient retrieval-augmented long text generation framework. RAPID consists of three main modules: (1) Retrieval-augmented preliminary outline generation to reduce hallucinations, (2) Attribute-constrained search for efficient information discovery, (3) Plan-guided article generation for enhanced coherence. Extensive experiments on our newly compiled benchmark dataset, FreshWiki-2024, demonstrate that RAPID significantly outperforms state-of-the-art methods across a wide range of evaluation metrics (e.g. long-text generation, outline quality, latency, etc). Our work provides a robust and efficient solution to the challenges of automated long-text generation.

In this paper, a novel dataset is introduced, designed to assess student attention within in-person classroom settings. This dataset encompasses RGB camera data, featuring multiple cameras per student to capture both posture and facial expressions, in addition to smartwatch sensor data for each individual. This dataset allows machine learning algorithms to be trained to predict attention and correlate it with emotion. A comprehensive suite of attention and emotion labels for each student is provided, generated through self-reporting as well as evaluations by four different experts. Our dataset uniquely combines facial and environmental camera data, smartwatch metrics, and includes underrepresented ethnicities in similar datasets, all within in-the-wild, in-person settings, making it the most comprehensive dataset of its kind currently available. The dataset presented offers an extensive and diverse collection of data pertaining to student interactions across different educational contexts, augmented with additional metadata from other tools. This initiative addresses existing deficiencies by offering a valuable resource for the analysis of student attention and emotion in face-to-face lessons.

Long-term causal inference has drawn increasing attention in many scientific domains. Existing methods mainly focus on estimating average long-term causal effects by combining long-term observational data and short-term experimental data. However, it is still understudied how to robustly and effectively estimate heterogeneous long-term causal effects, significantly limiting practical applications. In this paper, we propose several two-stage style nonparametric estimators for heterogeneous long-term causal effect estimation, including propensity-based, regression-based, and multiple robust estimators. We conduct a comprehensive theoretical analysis of their asymptotic properties under mild assumptions, with the ultimate goal of building a better understanding of the conditions under which some estimators can be expected to perform better. Extensive experiments across several semi-synthetic and real-world datasets validate the theoretical results and demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed estimators.

Jules White used to believe his 11-year-old son needed to know how to code to be successful. Now, though, the Vanderbilt computer science professor says it's more crucial for James to learn a new, more useful skill: how to prompt artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots. The Guardian's journalism is independent. We will earn a commission if you buy something through an affiliate link. Since OpenAI released ChatGPT in 2022, White has been showing his son the ropes of generative AI.

To address these concerns, many Higher Education Institutions ( HEI s) have released institutional gui dance for researchers . To better understand the guidance that is being provided we report findings from a thematic analysis of guidelines from thirty HEIs in the United States that are classified as R1 or "very high research activity. " We found that guidance provided to researchers: 1) asks them to refer to external sources of information such as funding agencies and publishers to keep updated and use institutional resources for training and education; 2) asks them to understand and learn about specific GenAI attributes that shape research such as predictive modeling, knowledge cutoff date, data provenance, and model limitations, and about ethical concerns such as authorship, attribution, privacy, and intellectual property issues; 3) incl udes instructions on how to acknowledge sources and disclose the use of GenAI, and how to communicate effectively about their GenAI use, and alerts researchers to long term implications such as over reliance on GenAI, legal consequences, and risks to their institutions from GenAI use. Overall, g uidance places the onus of compliance on individual researchers making them accountable for any lapses, thereby increasing their responsibility. Keywords: Generative Artificial Intelligence; Academic Research, Thematic Analysis, Policy and Guidance, Qualitative Data Analysis, Framework 1 Introduction As the use of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) increases across all facets of society, one area of significant impact is higher education institutions (HEIs). Although the initial scholarship on the use of GenAI within HEIs has focused on teaching and learning (McDonald et al., 202 5; Ali et al., 2025) increasingly, studies are starting to examine how academic research is being impacted by GenAI ( Abernethy, 2024; Lehr, et al., 2024; Lin, 2024; Liu and Jagadish, 2024; Godwin et al., 2024) This shift is in keeping with increased uptake of the use of GenAI for research. GenAI has many potential benefits for researchers across different stages of the research process such as data analysis, creation of content for research dissemination, and as a tool to brainstorm new ideas (Joosten et al., 2024) For instance, Delios et al. (2024) report that almost 30% of scientists are using GenAI as partners in their tasks related to research such as summarizing l iterature review, data analysis, grant writing and assisting with other aspects of manuscript preparation (Morocco - Clarke et al., 2024; Xames and Shefa, 2023). In a 2023 Nature survey of 1600 scientists, 30% acknowledged that they used GenAI to write acade mic papers, conduct literature reviews, and/or develop grant applications (Chawla, 2024).

Comparative Judgement (CJ) provides an alternative assessment approach by evaluating work holistically rather than breaking it into discrete criteria. This method leverages human ability to make nuanced comparisons, yielding more reliable and valid assessments. CJ aligns with real-world evaluations, where overall quality emerges from the interplay of various elements. However, rubrics remain widely used in education, offering structured criteria for grading and detailed feedback. This creates a gap between CJ's holistic ranking and the need for criterion-based performance breakdowns. This paper addresses this gap using a Bayesian approach. We build on Bayesian CJ (BCJ) by Gray et al., which directly models preferences instead of using likelihoods over total scores, allowing for expected ranks with uncertainty estimation. Their entropy-based active learning method selects the most informative pairwise comparisons for assessors. We extend BCJ to handle multiple independent learning outcome (LO) components, defined by a rubric, enabling both holistic and component-wise predictive rankings with uncertainty estimates. Additionally, we propose a method to aggregate entropies and identify the most informative comparison for assessors. Experiments on synthetic and real data demonstrate our method's effectiveness. Finally, we address a key limitation of BCJ, which is the inability to quantify assessor agreement. We show how to derive agreement levels, enhancing transparency in assessment.