Abstractitations, recent work explores online RLHF that iterates between generating on-policy responses and collecting preferences [Lee et al., 2024, Park et al., 2022]. Among online The Self-Improving Alignment (SAIL) algorithmapproaches, SAIL reduces a bilevel alignment formulation addresses distribution shift by reducing a bilevelto a computationally efficient single-level surrogate and formulation of the problem to an efficient, single-reports strong empirical gains [Ding et al., 2024]. Empirically, SAIL has demonstratedisting online pipelines are largely heuristic and do not anastrong performance on this task. However, a for-lytically control the distributional shift induced by iterative mal analysis of its convergence properties has beendata collection [Chakraborty et al., 2024, Shen et al., 2024], lacking. We identify a key theoretical challenge: which has been linked to suboptimal performance in practice the standard SAIL objective function is not guar- [Sharma et al., 2024]. To address this limita-A growing line of work argues that the coupling between tion, we propose a regularized objective, SAILreward learning and policy updates is fundamentally bilevel and should be modeled as such [Chakraborty et al., 2024].RevKL, which incorporates a reverse KullbackAs a follow-up, Ding et al. [2024] reduces the bilevel align-Leibler (KL) divergence penalty to improve the optimization landscape. Our central theoretical con-ment objective to a tractable single-level surrogate and retribution is to prove that this regularized objectiveports strong empirical gains, yet it lacks formal convergence satisfies the Polyak-Lojasiewicz (PL) conditionguarantees. Related theoretical analyses in bilevel/RLHFstyle problems exist [e.g., Yang et al., 2025, Chakrabortywithin a bounded parameter space. We establish et al., 2024, Gaur et al., 2025], yet they either focus onglobal convergence guarantees, achieving a nearlinear sample complexity.

Accurate energy demand forecasting is essential for the reliable operation and planning of modern sustainable energy systems. Spatial-temporal graph neural networks (STGNNs) have recently achieved strong performance in point forecasting by jointly modeling temporal dynamics and relational dependencies across interconnected energy nodes. However, in real-world energy systems, accurate point forecasts alone are insufficient, as operators also require reliable uncertainty estimates to support risk-aware decision-making, grid stability, and operational planning under uncertainty. Conformal prediction provides a principled and model-agnostic framework for uncertainty quantification with statistical coverage guarantees, making it particularly attractive for safety-critical energy applications. However, existing conformal prediction approaches often fail to fully capture the complex spatial-temporal structure of energy systems. To address these limitations, we propose STOIC (Spatial-Temporal Graph Conformal Prediction with In-Context Learning), a novel framework that integrates graph-based forecasting with the zero-shot calibration capabilities of tabular foundation models. STOIC first generates point forecasts using an STGNN and subsequently reformulates spatial-temporal residuals into a tabular representation suitable for in-context learning. Leveraging a tabular foundation model, STOIC calibrates prediction intervals without task-specific retraining, effectively capturing both sequential and relational dependencies. We evaluate STOIC on five diverse benchmarks, including synthetic simulations as well as real-world electricity and district heating networks. Across all datasets, STOIC consistently outperforms existing conformal prediction baselines, delivering more reliable and robust uncertainty estimates for complex graph-structured energy time series.

Modern LLM workflows move coordinate-indexed objects across checkpoints: steering vectors, sparse autoencoders, top-$k$ neuron sets, attribution lists, and merge alignments. This is only well posed after fixing the model's residual-stream gauge, which we show is architecture-dependent: LayerNorm residual charts have permutation gauge $S_d$ (up to a global sign flip), while RMSNorm charts with generic per-channel gain have signed-permutation gauge $B_d = S_d \ltimes \{\pm 1\}^d$. Permutation-only alignment is therefore symmetry-incomplete for RMSNorm models. We introduce sign-marginalized Hungarian matching and prove a sharp failure mode: with decorrelated coordinates, raw signed-correlation matching has a structural permutation-accuracy ceiling at the positive-sign fraction of the true gauge, which sign-marginalization removes. We then make coordinate-preserving transport, not function-level merging, the primary object: composing saved-checkpoint local $B_d$ gauges along same-base fine-tuning trajectories recovers 91.1% of cross-run coordinates at 1500 steps versus 60.3% for endpoint matching, and the gain is not explained by merely routing through the base. The recovered gauge transfers tools that permutation-only alignment breaks: TinyLlama SAE reconstruction has NMSE 0.004 under $B_d$ versus 1.08 under $S_d$; Qwen sentiment steering preserves 95.8% of its effect versus 17.2%; refusal steering reverses sign under $S_d$; coordinate-preserving merges behave the same way. The same covariance governs stateful training: signed transport of AdamW state preserves the resumed trajectory, while permutation-only state follows a different one from a functionally identical checkpoint. Finally, gauge-sweep audits show index-level interpretability claims are reproducible only relative to an explicit gauge.

At an event for pharmaceutical executives, biotech founders, and researchers on Tuesday, Anthropic announced Claude Science, a major new product intended to support scientific research in the same way that Claude Code supports software engineering. Like Claude Code, Claude Science can autonomously carry out meaningful work when given concise, high-level instructions, and it has access to tools that make it particularly useful for research in computational biology and drug development. Along with launching and previewing Claude Science, which is now available to all paid Claude subscribers, Anthropic also announced that it will be using the product to pursue some of its own research into drugs for rare, neglected diseases. This is not Anthropic's first foray into AI for science. In October, the company released plug-ins that help Claude make use of scientific software and databases under the heading "Claude for Life Sciences." But unlike this earlier release, Claude Science is a full-featured, standalone product. Anthropic's decision to elevate Claude Science to the same rank as Claude Code and Claude Cowork indicates that the company is taking AI's scientific applications very seriously--or at least wants to give the impression that it is.

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. Did ChatGPT give you a perfect answer? Take an AI's effective answer and turn it into a reusable template. I've written before about how to ask ChatGPT to improve a so-so prompt . But what about those times with ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini absolutely crushes it, giving you exactly what you needed from your prompt?

Lumo 2.0 can also search for relevant background information. Proton has rolled out its biggest update yet for the Lumo chatbot, almost a year after it launched . Lumo version 2.0 now comes with image recognition and generation, finally making it a legitimate competitor to ChatGPT and Gemini. Proton says the updated chatbot has the capability to generate images, as well as to analyze and edit them. Conversations involving images are still protected by zero-access encryption like all chats on Lumo, which means they can only be accessed on your device.

'There's this deep mystery of what, actually, is this thing?': the philosopher inside Google DeepMind AI Since 2017, Iason Gabriel has worked at the tech giant, trying to anticipate - and think through - the impact of AI. But as commercial and geopolitical pressures escalate, can ethicists make any difference? In 2017, a 33-year-old political philosopher named Iason Gabriel was told by a friend that he ought to apply for a job at DeepMind, the London-based subsidiary of Google where much of its AI research was concentrated. The suggestion was not an obvious one. Gabriel was a cheerful but intense junior academic with a passion for Vipassana meditation and what his brother calls "enthusiastic" rock climbing. At the University of Oxford, where he was a fellow at St John's College, Gabriel taught courses on political theory and wrote papers on the moral contortions of "yuppie ethics" and the ethical blind spots of effective altruism. When he wasn't there, he did crisis work for the United Nations Development Programme in Sudan and Lebanon. DeepMind, meanwhile, was the world's leading AI research lab. In part, this was because it had the financial and computational backing of Google, which had bought the company in 2014 for $650m. In part, it was because DeepMind had recently shown it could put those resources to stunning use. In Seoul, in 2016, a DeepMind system called AlphaGo defeated Lee Sedol, a South Korean Go champion, in a five-game match. The victory was significant not least because of Go's legendary complexity; the game has more possible configurations than there are atoms in the universe. Thanks to the fuss around AlphaGo, Gabriel was aware of DeepMind.

An essential catalyst for the remarkable breakthroughs in AI that led to the modern large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT and Gemini has been the algorithms used to train these models on massive datasets. While the LLM architectures have gotten progressively more complex, the training algorithms have stayed relatively simple, and in fact, they have all been based on the decades-old paradigm of stochastic gradient descent (SGD). The key idea behind SGD is that in order to minimize a certain objective function (such as an LLM's error on the training data), it suffices to access only a noisy estimate of that objective at any given time (e.g., based on a small sample of the data) while making incremental progress towards the solution. This is essential for LLM training, as the datasets have become so massive one could not hope to perform computations on everything all at once. Commonly attributed to a 1951 paper by Robbins and Monro [34], SGD has seen a resurgence of interest over the last 20 years by AI researchers and computer scientists striving to understand its effectiveness, leading to numerous variants and extensions used in modern LLMs [12, 9], most notably the Adam algorithm [25]. As a result, we have gained a robust mathematical understanding of the computational complexity of SGD algorithms in a wide range of settings (e.g., see [11, 15, 5, 17]). Yet, despite this progress there is a surprising gap in the understanding of SGD: The complexity of an algorithm proposed by Stefan Kaczmarz in 1937 [24] for solving a system of linear equations - the oldest published example of an SGD algorithm, which predates Robbins and Monro's paper by over a decade - has not been settled.

People overthink; language models over-sample, and the extra effort can talk both into a worse answer. Reasoning systems answer a hard question by sampling it many times (test-time scaling), and the more they draw, the more often a correct answer turns up somewhere, so coverage, the fraction of problems with at least one correct try, climbs and appears to be progress. But a deployed system must return one answer, and choosing it, not knowing which try is right, is selection; selection is capped, and past a point extra samples only make the model surer of a confident mistake, even as every draw adds cost. The gap between climbing coverage and stalled selection, the identifiability gap, is the answer a model can produce but not pick. So the real question is not whether to sample but how far, and the answer is: not far. For picking an answer, the vote has already settled within a few dozen draws, the modal ceiling; for scoring a benchmark, sooner still, the correlation ceiling. Beyond that, extra draws cost compute and add nothing, and can even make the answer worse. This paper turns the cutoff into a single number, the effective number of samples, that any sampling run already reveals. The bottleneck is recognizing a right answer, not generating one.

Outlier detection (OD) aims to identify anomalous instances by learning the underlying structure of normal data (inliers), and is particularly challenging in fully unsupervised settings where no information about anomalies is available during training. Recent advances have leveraged the inlier-memorization (IM) effect, a phenomenon in which deep models memorize inlier patterns earlier than those of outliers, as a powerful signal for distinguishing outliers. However, despite its empirical success, the theoretical understanding of the IM effect remains limited. In this work, we present a theoretical study of the IM effect. Focusing on a simple autoencoder, we show that, under mild assumptions, the model can successfully memorize inliers while failing to memorize outliers during certain stages of early training. In particular, we characterize not only the emergence of the IM effect, but also its strength and persistence, and analyze how these properties depend on the data distribution and parameter initialization. In addition, building on these insights, we derive simple yet practical guidelines for enhancing the IM effect, including data preprocessing and parameter initialization schemes, achieving state-of-the-art performance on the ADBench datasets. Our findings provide a theoretical foundation for the IM effect and offer actionable directions for improving IM-based outlier detection methods.