Large language models (LLMs) are highly capable but also computationally expensive. Characterizing the fundamental tradeoff between inference efficiency and model capabilities is thus important, but requires an efficiency metric that is comparable across models from different providers. Unfortunately, raw runtimes measured through black-box APIs do not satisfy this property: model providers can implement software and hardware optimizations orthogonal to the model, and shared infrastructure introduces performance contention. We propose a new metric for inference efficiency called idealized runtime, that puts models on equal footing as though they were served on uniform hardware and software without performance contention, and a cost model to efficiently estimate this metric for autoregressive Transformer models. We also propose variants of the idealized runtime that incorporate the number and type of accelerators needed to serve the model. Using these metrics, we compare ten LLMs developed in 2022 to provide the first analysis of inference efficiency-capability tradeoffs; we make several observations from this analysis, including the fact that the superior inference runtime performance of certain APIs is often a byproduct of optimizations within the API rather than the underlying model.

Robustness has been extensively studied in reinforcement learning (RL) to handle various forms of uncertainty such as random perturbations, rare events, and malicious attacks. In this work, we consider one critical type of robustness against spurious correlation, where different portions of the state do not have correlations induced by unobserved confounders. These spurious correlations are ubiquitous in real-world tasks, for instance, a self-driving car usually observes heavy traffic in the daytime and light traffic at night due to unobservable human activity. A model that learns such useless or even harmful correlation could catastrophically fail when the confounder in the test case deviates from the training one. Although motivated, enabling robustness against spurious correlation poses significant challenges since the uncertainty set, shaped by the unobserved confounder and causal structure, is difficult to characterize and identify. Existing robust algorithms that assume simple and unstructured uncertainty sets are therefore inadequate to address this challenge. To solve this issue, we propose Robust State-Confounded Markov Decision Processes (RSC-MDPs) and theoretically demonstrate its superiority in avoiding learning spurious correlations compared with other robust RL counterparts. We also design an empirical algorithm to learn the robust optimal policy for RSC-MDPs, which outperforms all baselines in eight realistic self-driving and manipulation tasks. Please refer to the website for more details.

Question answering (QA) in the field of healthcare has received much attention due to significant advancements in natural language processing. However, existing healthcare QA datasets primarily focus on medical images, clinical notes, or structured electronic health record tables. This leaves the vast potential of combining electrocardiogram (ECG) data with these systems largely untapped. To address this gap, we present ECG-QA, the first QA dataset specifically designed for ECG analysis. The dataset comprises a total of 70 question templates that cover a wide range of clinically relevant ECG topics, each validated by an ECG expert to ensure their clinical utility. As a result, our dataset includes diverse ECG interpretation questions, including those that require a comparative analysis of two different ECGs. In addition, we have conducted numerous experiments to provide valuable insights for future research directions. We believe that ECG-QA will serve as a valuable resource for the development of intelligent QA systems capable of assisting clinicians in ECG interpretations.

PCWorld reports that research reveals user behavior significantly impacts AI responses, with rude interactions making ChatGPT and other models give flat answers and attempt to end conversations more frequently. Larger AI models appear to be inherently "less happy" than smaller ones, with GPT-5.4 rated as the "unhappiest" in studies measuring AI functional well-being. Treating AI politely with expressions like "thanks" measurably improves response quality and engagement without affecting accuracy, suggesting courtesy benefits both user experience and AI interaction dynamics. Is it weird to say "thanks" to AI? I've caught grief in the past for saying "please" and "thank you" to ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, but I still do it, even though I understand that AI models don't have emotions like we do. Being polite to AI just feels right to me, and there's growing evidence that being kind-or, conversely, nasty-to an AI chatbot can have a concrete effect on its behavior.