The rapid advancements in large language models (LLMs), particularly in their reasoning capabilities, hold transformative potential for addressing complex challenges in atmospheric science. However, leveraging LLMs effectively in this domain requires a robust and comprehensive evaluation benchmark. To address this need, we present AtmosSci-Bench, a novel benchmark designed to systematically assess LLM performance across five core categories of atmospheric science problems: hydrology, atmospheric dynamics, atmospheric physics, geophysics, and physical oceanography. We employ a template-based question generation framework, enabling scalable and diverse multiple-choice questions curated from graduate-level atmospheric science problems. We conduct a comprehensive evaluation of representative LLMs, categorized into four groups: instruction-tuned models, advanced reasoning models, math-augmented models, and domain-specific climate models. Our analysis provides some interesting insights into the reasoning and problem-solving capabilities of LLMs in atmospheric science. We believe AtmosSci-Bench can serve as a critical step toward advancing LLM applications in climate service by offering a standard and rigorous evaluation framework. Our source codes are currently available at https://github.com/Relaxed-System-Lab/AtmosSci-Bench.

Navigating densely vegetated environments poses significant challenges for autonomous ground vehicles. Learning-based systems typically use prior and in-situ data to predict terrain traversability but often degrade in performance when encountering out-of-distribution elements caused by rapid environmental changes or novel conditions. This paper presents a novel, lidar-only, online adaptive traversability estimation (TE) method that trains a model directly on the robot using self-supervised data collected through robot-environment interaction. The proposed approach utilises a probabilistic 3D voxel representation to integrate lidar measurements and robot experience, creating a salient environmental model. To ensure computational efficiency, a sparse graph-based representation is employed to update temporarily evolving voxel distributions. Extensive experiments with an unmanned ground vehicle in natural terrain demonstrate that the system adapts to complex environments with as little as 8 minutes of operational data, achieving a Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC) score of 0.63 and enabling safe navigation in densely vegetated environments. This work examines different training strategies for voxel-based TE methods and offers recommendations for training strategies to improve adaptability. The proposed method is validated on a robotic platform with limited computational resources (25W GPU), achieving accuracy comparable to offline-trained models while maintaining reliable performance across varied environments.

Test-time scaling is a promising new approach to language modeling that uses extra test-time compute to improve performance. Recently, OpenAI's o1 model showed this capability but did not publicly share its methodology, leading to many replication efforts. We seek the simplest approach to achieve test-time scaling and strong reasoning performance. First, we curate a small dataset s1K of 1,000 questions paired with reasoning traces relying on three criteria we validate through ablations: difficulty, diversity, and quality. Second, we develop budget forcing to control test-time compute by forcefully terminating the model's thinking process or lengthening it by appending "Wait" multiple times to the model's generation when it tries to end. This can lead the model to double-check its answer, often fixing incorrect reasoning steps. After supervised finetuning the Qwen2.5-32B-Instruct language model on s1K and equipping it with budget forcing, our model s1-32B exceeds o1-preview on competition math questions by up to 27% (MATH and AIME24). Further, scaling s1-32B with budget forcing allows extrapolating beyond its performance without test-time intervention: from 50% to 57% on AIME24. Our model, data, and code are open-source at https://github.com/simplescaling/s1

Large language models have been widely applied, but can inadvertently encode sensitive or harmful information, raising significant safety concerns. Machine unlearning has emerged to alleviate this concern; however, existing training-time unlearning approaches, relying on coarse-grained loss combinations, have limitations in precisely separating knowledge and balancing removal effectiveness with model utility. In contrast, we propose Fine-grained Activation manipuLation by Contrastive Orthogonal uNalignment (FALCON), a novel representation-guided unlearning approach that leverages information-theoretic guidance for efficient parameter selection, employs contrastive mechanisms to enhance representation separation, and projects conflict gradients onto orthogonal subspaces to resolve conflicts between forgetting and retention objectives. Extensive experiments demonstrate that FALCON achieves superior unlearning effectiveness while maintaining model utility, exhibiting robust resistance against knowledge recovery attempts.

Weak-to-strong generalization, where weakly supervised strong models outperform their weaker teachers, offers a promising approach to aligning superhuman models with human values. To deepen the understanding of this approach, we provide theoretical insights into its capabilities and limitations. First, in the classification setting, we establish upper and lower generalization error bounds for the strong model, identifying the primary limitations as stemming from the weak model's generalization error and the optimization objective itself. Additionally, we derive lower and upper bounds on the calibration error of the strong model. These theoretical bounds reveal two critical insights: (1) the weak model should demonstrate strong generalization performance and maintain well-calibrated predictions, and (2) the strong model's training process must strike a careful balance, as excessive optimization could undermine its generalization capability by over-relying on the weak supervision signals. Finally, in the regression setting, we extend the work of Charikar et al. (2024) to a loss function based on Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence, offering guarantees that the strong student can outperform its weak teacher by at least the magnitude of their disagreement. We conduct sufficient experiments to validate our theory.

Bias-transforming methods of fairness-aware machine learning aim to correct a non-neutral status quo with respect to a protected attribute (PA). Current methods, however, lack an explicit formulation of what drives non-neutrality. We introduce privilege scores (PS) to measure PA-related privilege by comparing the model predictions in the real world with those in a fair world in which the influence of the PA is removed. At the individual level, PS can identify individuals who qualify for affirmative action; at the global level, PS can inform bias-transforming policies. After presenting estimation methods for PS, we propose privilege score contributions (PSCs), an interpretation method that attributes the origin of privilege to mediating features and direct effects. We provide confidence intervals for both PS and PSCs. Experiments on simulated and real-world data demonstrate the broad applicability of our methods and provide novel insights into gender and racial privilege in mortgage and college admissions applications.

Online Continual Learning (OCL) models continuously adapt to nonstationary data streams, usually without task information. These settings are complex and many traditional CL methods fail, while online methods (mainly replay-based) suffer from instabilities after the task shift. To address this issue, we formalize replay-based OCL as a second-order online joint optimization with explicit KL-divergence constraints on replay data. We propose Online Curvature-Aware Replay (OCAR) to solve the problem: a method that leverages second-order information of the loss using a K-FAC approximation of the Fisher Information Matrix (FIM) to precondition the gradient. The FIM acts as a stabilizer to prevent forgetting while also accelerating the optimization in non-interfering directions. We show how to adapt the estimation of the FIM to a continual setting stabilizing second-order optimization for non-iid data, uncovering the role of the Tikhonov regularization in the stability-plasticity tradeoff. Empirical results show that OCAR outperforms state-of-the-art methods in continual metrics achieving higher average accuracy throughout the training process in three different benchmarks.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained unprecedented prominence, achieving widespread adoption across diverse domains and integrating deeply into society. The capability to fine-tune general-purpose LLMs, such as Generative Pre-trained Transformers (GPT), for specific tasks has facilitated the emergence of numerous Custom GPTs. These tailored models are increasingly made available through dedicated marketplaces, such as OpenAI's GPT Store. However, their black-box nature introduces significant safety and compliance risks. In this work, we present a scalable framework for the automated evaluation of Custom GPTs against OpenAI's usage policies, which define the permissible behaviors of these systems. Our framework integrates three core components: (1) automated discovery and data collection of models from the GPT store, (2) a red-teaming prompt generator tailored to specific policy categories and the characteristics of each target GPT, and (3) an LLM-as-a-judge technique to analyze each prompt-response pair for potential policy violations. We validate our framework with a manually annotated ground truth, and evaluate it through a large-scale study with 782 Custom GPTs across three categories: Romantic, Cybersecurity, and Academic GPTs. Our manual annotation process achieved an F1 score of 0.975 in identifying policy violations, confirming the reliability of the framework's assessments. The results reveal that 58.7% of the analyzed models exhibit indications of non-compliance, exposing weaknesses in the GPT store's review and approval processes. Furthermore, our findings indicate that a model's popularity does not correlate with compliance, and non-compliance issues largely stem from behaviors inherited from base models rather than user-driven customizations. We believe this approach is extendable to other chatbot platforms and policy domains, improving LLM-based systems safety.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are becoming increasingly competent across various domains, educators are showing a growing interest in integrating these LLMs into the learning process. Especially in software engineering, LLMs have demonstrated qualitatively better capabilities in code summarization, code generation, and debugging. Despite various research on LLMs for software engineering tasks in practice, limited research captures the benefits of LLMs for pedagogical advancements and their impact on the student learning process. To this extent, we analyze 126 undergraduate students' interaction with an AI assistant during a 13-week semester to understand the benefits of AI for software engineering learning. We analyze the conversations, code generated, code utilized, and the human intervention levels to integrate the code into the code base. Our findings suggest that students prefer ChatGPT over CoPilot. Our analysis also finds that ChatGPT generates responses with lower computational complexity compared to CoPilot. Furthermore, conversational-based interaction helps improve the quality of the code generated compared to auto-generated code. Early adoption of LLMs in software engineering is crucial to remain competitive in the rapidly developing landscape. Hence, the next generation of software engineers must acquire the necessary skills to interact with AI to improve productivity.

Language models (LMs) should provide reliable confidence estimates to help users detect mistakes in their outputs and defer to human experts when necessary. Asking a language model to assess its confidence ("Score your confidence from 0-1.") is a natural way of evaluating its uncertainty. However, models struggle to provide absolute assessments of confidence (i.e. judging confidence in answering a question independent of other questions) and the coarse-grained scores they produce are not useful for evaluating the correctness of their answers. We propose relative confidence estimation, where we match up questions against each other and ask the model to make relative judgments of confidence ("Which question are you more confident in answering correctly?"). Treating each question as a "player" in a series of matchups against other questions and the model's preferences as match outcomes, we can use rank aggregation methods like Elo rating and Bradley-Terry to translate the model's confidence preferences into confidence scores. We evaluate relative confidence estimation against absolute confidence estimation and self-consistency confidence methods on five state-of-the-art LMs -- GPT-4, GPT-4o, Gemini 1.5 Pro, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, and Llama 3.1 405B -- across 14 challenging STEM, social science, and commonsense reasoning question answering tasks. Our results demonstrate that relative confidence estimation consistently provides more reliable confidence scores than absolute confidence estimation, with average gains of 3.5% in selective classification AUC over direct absolute confidence estimation methods and 1.7% over self-consistency approaches across all models and datasets.