Machine learning (ML) has the potential to support and improve expert performance in monitoring the brain function of at-risk newborns. Developing accurate and reliable ML models depends on access to high-quality, annotated data, a resource in short supply. ML competitions address this need by providing researchers access to expertly annotated datasets, fostering shared learning through direct model comparisons, and leveraging the benefits of crowdsourcing diverse expertise. We compiled a retrospective dataset containing 353 hours of EEG from 102 individual newborns from a multi-centre study. The data was fully anonymised and divided into training, testing, and held-out validation datasets. EEGs were graded for the severity of abnormal background patterns. Next, we created a web-based competition platform and hosted a machine learning competition to develop ML models for classifying the severity of EEG background patterns in newborns. After the competition closed, the top 4 performing models were evaluated offline on a separate held-out validation dataset. Although a feature-based model ranked first on the testing dataset, deep learning models generalised better on the validation sets. All methods had a significant decline in validation performance compared to the testing performance. This highlights the challenges for model generalisation on unseen data, emphasising the need for held-out validation datasets in ML studies with neonatal EEG. The study underscores the importance of training ML models on large and diverse datasets to ensure robust generalisation. The competition's outcome demonstrates the potential for open-access data and collaborative ML development to foster a collaborative research environment and expedite the development of clinical decision-support tools for neonatal neuromonitoring.

Language interpretation is a compositional process, in which the meaning of more complex linguistic structures is inferred from the meaning of their parts. Large language models possess remarkable language interpretation capabilities and have been successfully applied to interpret questions by mapping them to SPARQL queries. An open question is how systematic this interpretation process is. Toward this question, in this paper, we propose a benchmark for investigating to what extent the abilities of LLMs to interpret questions are actually compositional. For this, we generate three datasets of varying difficulty based on graph patterns in DBpedia, relying on Lemon lexica for verbalization. Our datasets are created in a very controlled fashion in order to test the ability of LLMs to interpret structurally complex questions, given that they have seen the atomic building blocks. This allows us to evaluate to what degree LLMs are able to interpret complex questions for which they "understand" the atomic parts. We conduct experiments with models of different sizes using both various prompt and few-shot optimization techniques as well as fine-tuning. Our results show that performance in terms of macro $F_1$ degrades from $0.45$ over $0.26$ down to $0.09$ with increasing deviation from the samples optimized on. Even when all necessary information was provided to the model in the input, the $F_1$ scores do not exceed $0.57$ for the dataset of lowest complexity. We thus conclude that LLMs struggle to systematically and compositionally interpret questions and map them into SPARQL queries.

With the emergence of large language models (LLMs), there is an expectation that LLMs can effectively extract explicit information from complex real-world documents (e.g., papers, reports). However, most LLMs generate paragraph-style answers that are chaotic, disorganized, and untraceable. To bridge this gap, we introduce the Arranged and Organized Extraction Benchmark (AOE), a new bilingual benchmark with data and documents of varying lengths designed to systematically evaluate the ability of LLMs to comprehend fragmented documents and reconstruct isolated information into one organized table. Unlike conventional text-to-table tasks, which rely on fixed schema and narrow task domains, AOE includes 11 carefully crafted tasks across three diverse domains, requiring models to generate context-specific schema tailored to varied input queries. In the experiment, we evaluated both open-source and closed-source state-of-the-art LLMs. The results show that even the most advanced models struggled significantly. The benchmark is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/AOE-Benchmark/.

Estimating treatment effects is crucial for personalized decision-making in medicine, but this task faces unique challenges in clinical practice. At training time, models for estimating treatment effects are typically trained on well-structured medical datasets that contain detailed patient information. However, at inference time, predictions are often made using textual descriptions (e.g., descriptions with self-reported symptoms), which are incomplete representations of the original patient information. In this work, we make three contributions. (1) We show that the discrepancy between the data available during training time and inference time can lead to biased estimates of treatment effects. We formalize this issue as an inference time text confounding problem, where confounders are fully observed during training time but only partially available through text at inference time. (2) To address this problem, we propose a novel framework for estimating treatment effects that explicitly accounts for inference time text confounding. Our framework leverages large language models together with a custom doubly robust learner to mitigate biases caused by the inference time text confounding. (3) Through a series of experiments, we demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework in real-world applications.

Low-rank pre-training and fine-tuning have recently emerged as promising techniques for reducing the computational and storage costs of large neural networks. Training low-rank parameterizations typically relies on conventional optimizers such as heavy ball momentum methods or Adam. In this work, we identify and analyze potential difficulties that these training methods encounter when used to train low-rank parameterizations of weights. In particular, we show that classical momentum methods can struggle to converge to a local optimum due to the geometry of the underlying optimization landscape. To address this, we introduce novel training strategies derived from dynamical low-rank approximation, which explicitly account for the underlying geometric structure. Our approach leverages and combines tools from dynamical low-rank approximation and momentum-based optimization to design optimizers that respect the intrinsic geometry of the parameter space. We validate our methods through numerical experiments, demonstrating faster convergence, and stronger validation metrics at given parameter budgets.

Supervised fine-tuning (SFT) is a critical step in aligning large language models (LLMs) with human instructions and values, yet many aspects of SFT remain poorly understood. We trained a wide range of base models on a variety of datasets including code generation, mathematical reasoning, and general-domain tasks, resulting in 1,000+ SFT models under controlled conditions. We then identified the dataset properties that matter most and examined the layer-wise modifications introduced by SFT. Our findings reveal that some training-task synergies persist across all models while others vary substantially, emphasizing the importance of model-specific strategies. Moreover, we demonstrate that perplexity consistently predicts SFT effectiveness, often surpassing superficial similarity between the training data and the benchmark, and that mid-layer weight changes correlate most strongly with performance gains. We release these 1,000+ SFT models and benchmark results to accelerate further research. All resources are available at https://github.com/llm-jp/massive-sft.

With the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence, Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable capabilities in Natural Language Processing (NLP), including content generation, human-computer interaction, machine translation, and code generation. However, their widespread deployment has also raised significant safety concerns. In particular, LLM-generated content can exhibit unsafe behaviors such as toxicity, bias, or misinformation, especially in adversarial contexts, which has attracted increasing attention from both academia and industry. Although numerous studies have attempted to evaluate these risks, a comprehensive and systematic survey on safety evaluation of LLMs is still lacking. This work aims to fill this gap by presenting a structured overview of recent advances in safety evaluation of LLMs. Specifically, we propose a four-dimensional taxonomy: (i) Why to evaluate, which explores the background of safety evaluation of LLMs, how they differ from general LLMs evaluation, and the significance of such evaluation; (ii) What to evaluate, which examines and categorizes existing safety evaluation tasks based on key capabilities, including dimensions such as toxicity, robustness, ethics, bias and fairness, truthfulness, and related aspects; (iii) Where to evaluate, which summarizes the evaluation metrics, datasets and benchmarks currently used in safety evaluations; (iv) How to evaluate, which reviews existing mainstream evaluation methods based on the roles of the evaluators and some evaluation frameworks that integrate the entire evaluation pipeline. Finally, we identify the challenges in safety evaluation of LLMs and propose promising research directions to promote further advancement in this field. We emphasize the necessity of prioritizing safety evaluation to ensure the reliable and responsible deployment of LLMs in real-world applications.

State-of-the-art embeddings often capture distinct yet complementary discriminative features: For instance, one image embedding model may excel at distinguishing fine-grained textures, while another focuses on object-level structure. Motivated by this observation, we propose a principled approach to fuse such complementary representations through kernel multiplication. Multiplying the kernel similarity functions of two embeddings allows their discriminative structures to interact, producing a fused representation whose kernel encodes the union of the clusters identified by each parent embedding. This formulation also provides a natural way to construct joint kernels for paired multi-modal data (e.g., image-text tuples), where the product of modality-specific kernels inherits structure from both domains. We highlight that this kernel product is mathematically realized via the Kronecker product of the embedding feature maps, yielding our proposed KrossFuse framework for embedding fusion. To address the computational cost of the resulting high-dimensional Kronecker space, we further develop RP-KrossFuse, a scalable variant that leverages random projections for efficient approximation. As a key application, we use this framework to bridge the performance gap between cross-modal embeddings (e.g., CLIP, BLIP) and unimodal experts (e.g., DINOv2, E5). Experiments show that RP-KrossFuse effectively integrates these models, enhancing modality-specific performance while preserving cross-modal alignment. The project code is available at https://github.com/yokiwuuu/KrossFuse.

Previous research has primarily focused on the cognitive error detection capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), often prompting them to analyze mistakes in reasoning chains. However, few studies have examined the meta-cognitive abilities of LLMs (e.g., their self-awareness of step errors), which are crucial for their reliability. While studies on LLM self-evaluation present some measures, such as perplexity, which can reflect the answer correctness and be viewed as the lens of meta-cognition, they lack step-level analysis and adaptation. This paper studies the evaluation of LLM meta-cognition using the current lenses and how to improve these lenses. Specifically, we propose AutoMeco, an Automated Meta-cognition Evaluation framework for benchmarking the existing lenses. Furthermore, a training-free Markovian Intrinsic Reward Adjustment strategy, MIRA, is proposed to boost current meta-cognition lenses. Experimental results on three mathematical reasoning datasets and three LLMs show the reasonableness of AutoMeco by comparing it with Best-of-N verification. Moreover, the meta-cognition ability of LLMs can be better evaluated using MIRA.

In this paper, we introduce GradEscape, the first gradient-based evader designed to attack AI-generated text (AIGT) detectors. GradEscape overcomes the undifferentiable computation problem, caused by the discrete nature of text, by introducing a novel approach to construct weighted embeddings for the detector input. It then updates the evader model parameters using feedback from victim detectors, achieving high attack success with minimal text modification. To address the issue of tokenizer mismatch between the evader and the detector, we introduce a warm-started evader method, enabling GradEscape to adapt to detectors across any language model architecture. Moreover, we employ novel tokenizer inference and model extraction techniques, facilitating effective evasion even in query-only access. We evaluate GradEscape on four datasets and three widely-used language models, benchmarking it against four state-of-the-art AIGT evaders. Experimental results demonstrate that GradEscape outperforms existing evaders in various scenarios, including with an 11B paraphrase model, while utilizing only 139M parameters. We have successfully applied GradEscape to two real-world commercial AIGT detectors. Our analysis reveals that the primary vulnerability stems from disparity in text expression styles within the training data. We also propose a potential defense strategy to mitigate the threat of AIGT evaders. We open-source our GradEscape for developing more robust AIGT detectors.