Claim, counter-claim and tech's seedy side exposed: Five things we learned in the Musk-Altman trial It is the legal showdown that has pitted two of the biggest names in tech, Elon Musk and Sam Altman, against each other. At stake is the future of one of the world's most valuable start-ups, ChatGPT-maker OpenAI, along with the reputations of Altman - the company's boss - and Musk, the man he founded it with. The central claim the jury has now retired to consider is Musk's argument his former friend stole a charity, cheating him out of a fortune (albeit a tiny one, by Musk's standards) along the way - something Altman strongly rejects. But there's been much more to the trial than that. Over the past three weeks, myself and other reporters have been glued to our seats at the federal court in California as the evidence ranged from explosive text messages to revelations of free Teslas allegedly offered in exchange for power.

A federal jury is now deciding whether Elon Musk will win his lawsuit against OpenAI and Sam Altman--but the trial has made everyone look bad. Attorneys delivered closing arguments in the trial on Thursday in a final attempt to convince a judge and jury that their respective clients, Elon Musk and Sam Altman, are the most well-intentioned, truth-telling stewards of OpenAI's founding nonprofit mission. A judgement could be delivered as soon as next week, ending a decade-long battle between two of the technology industry's most influential entrepreneurs. But regardless of the outcome, there is a wide set of losers in this case. Based on ample amounts of evidence, it appears that the people worst off are the employees, policymakers, and members of the public who believed in the mission of a nonprofit research lab--and supported OpenAI because of it.

Reinforcement learning (RL) for large language models (LLMs) is dominated by the cost of rollout generation, which has motivated the use of low-precision rollouts (e.g., FP8) paired with a BF16 trainer to improve throughput and reduce memory pressure. This introduces a rollout-training mismatch that biases the policy gradient and can cause training to collapse outright on reasoning benchmarks. We show that the mismatch is non-stationary and acts as a double-edged sword: early in training it provides a stochastic exploration bonus, exposing the gradient to trajectories the trainer would otherwise under-sample, but the same perturbation transitions into a destabilizing source of bias as the policy concentrates. To solve this, we propose Adaptive Importance Sampling (AIS), a correction framework that adjusts the strength of its intervention on a per-batch basis. AIS combines three real-time diagnostics, namely weight reliability, divergence severity, and variance amplification, into a single mixing coefficient that interpolates between the uncorrected and fully importance-weighted gradients, suppressing the destabilizing component of the mismatch while preserving its exploratory benefit. We integrate AIS into GRPO and evaluate it on the diffusion-based LLaDA-8B-Instruct and the autoregressive Qwen3-8B and Qwen3.5-9B across mathematical reasoning and planning benchmarks. AIS matches the BF16 baseline on most tasks while retaining the 1.5 to 2.76x rollout speedup of FP8.

Tabular data underpins most high-value prediction problems in science and industry, and TabPFN has driven the foundation model revolution for this modality. Designed with feedback from our users, TabPFN-3 builds on this foundation to scale state-of-the-art performance to datasets with 1M training rows and substantially reduce training and inference time. Pretrained exclusively on synthetic data from our prior, TabPFN-3 dramatically pushes the frontier of tabular prediction and brings substantial gains on time series, relational, and tabular-text data. On the standard tabular benchmark TabArena, a forward pass of TabPFN-3 outperforms all other models, including tuned and ensembled baselines, by a significant margin, and pareto-dominates the speed/performance frontier. On more diverse datasets, TabPFN-3 ranks first on datasets with many classes, and beats 8-hour-tuned gradient-boosted-tree baselines on datasets up to 1M training rows and 200 features. TabPFN-3 introduces test-time compute scaling to tabular foundation models. Our API offering TabPFN-3-Plus (Thinking) exploits this to beat all non-TabPFN models by over 200 Elo on TabArena, rising to 420 Elo on the largest data subset, and outperforms AutoGluon 1.5 extreme while being 10x faster, without using LLMs, real data, internet search or any other model besides TabPFN. TabPFN-3 extends the capabilities of our models, enabling SOTA prediction on relational data (new SOTA foundation model on RelBenchV1) and tabular-text data (SOTA on TabSTAR via TabPFN-3-Plus); and improves existing integrations: a specialized checkpoint, TabPFN-TS-3, ranks 2nd on the time-series benchmark fev-bench, and SHAP-value computation is up to 120x faster. TabPFN-3 achieves this performance while being up to 20x faster than TabPFN-2.5. In addition, a reduced KV cache and row-chunking scale to 1M rows on one H100 with fast inference speed.

Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning with self-consistency improves performance by aggregating multiple sampled reasoning paths. In this setting, correctness is no longer tied to a single reasoning trace but to the aggregation rule over a pool of candidate paths, making aggregation uncertainty the central challenge. This issue is critical where confidently incorrect answers are far more costly than abstentions. We introduce a conformal procedure for CoT reasoning that directly addresses aggregation uncertainty. Our approach replaces majority voting with weighted score aggregation over reasoning paths and calibrates an abstention rule using conformal risk control. This approach leads to finite-sample guarantees on the confident-error rate--the probability that the system answers and is wrong. We further identify score separability as the key condition under which abstention provably improves selective accuracy, and derive closed-form expressions that predict accuracy gains from calibration data alone. The method is fully inference-time, and requires no retraining. Across four benchmarks, four open-source models, and three score classes, realized confident-error rates are consistent with the prescribed targets up to calibration-split and test-set variability. Our method achieves $90.1\%$ selective accuracy on GSM8K by abstaining on less than $5\%$ of problems, compared with $82\%$ accuracy under majority-voting baseline.

Recent frontier large language models predominantly rely on Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architectures. Despite empirical progress, there is still no principled understanding of how hyperparameters should scale with network width $N$, expert width $N_e$, number of experts $M$, sparsity $K$, and depth $L$ to ensure both stability and optimal performance at scale. We take a principled step toward resolving this gap by analyzing three different scaling regimes: (I) co-scaling $N\asymp N_e$, (II) co-scaling $N\asymp M\asymp K$, and (III) full proportional scaling of $N, N_e, M$, and $K$. For each regime, we develop a novel Dynamical Mean Field Theory (DMFT) description of the limiting training dynamics of MoEs that provides a formal foundation for our analysis. Within this framework, we derive the unique parameterization for SGD and Adam satisfying all maximal-update ($μ$) desiderata. We then show that the resulting $μ$P prescription does not reliably induce monotonic improvement with scale or robust learning-rate transfer. We trace these pathologies to scale-dependent observables in the aggregation dynamics, which motivates a refined set of desiderata that we term maximal scale stability. Guided by this principle, we derive a Maximally Scale-Stable Parameterization (MSSP) for both SGD and Adam in all three scaling regimes, and characterize the corresponding limiting dynamics - qualitatively distinct from the $μ$P limit - through a separate DMFT analysis. Experiments verify that MSSP robustly recovers learning rate transfer and monotonic improvement with scale across regimes. Combined with existing depth-scaling theory, these results provide a complete scaling prescription for MoE architectures as a function of width, depth, expert width, and number of experts.

Domain adaptation faces a fundamental paradox in the cold-start regime. When target data is scarce, statistical methods fail to distinguish relevant source domains from irrelevant ones, which often leads to negative transfer. In this paper, we address this challenge by leveraging expert textual descriptions of the target domain, a resource that is often available but overlooked. We propose a probabilistic framework that translates these semantic descriptions into a choice model, namely a Language-Induced Prior (LIP), that learns the preferences from a pretrained Large Language Model (LLM). The LIP is then integrated into an Expectation-Maximization algorithm to identify source relevance. Methodologically, this framework is compatible with any parametric model where a likelihood is available. It allows the LIP to guide the selection of sources when target signals are weak, while gradually refining these choices as samples accumulate. Theoretically, we prove that the estimator roughly matches an oracle cold-start MSE under a correct prior, while remaining asymptotically consistent regardless of the quality of the LIP. Empirically, we validated the framework on a descriptive (Gaussian estimation), a predictive (C-MAPSS dataset), and a prescriptive task (MuJoCo hopper).

Supervised fine-tuning (SFT) provides the standard approach for teaching LLMs new behaviors from offline expert demonstrations. However, standard SFT uniformly fits all samples -- including those with low likelihood under the base model -- which can disproportionately drive training updates toward overfitting specific samples rather than learning the target behavior. Moreover, adapting to these unlikely samples induces substantial policy shifts that degrade prior capabilities. Existing methods mitigate this by filtering, regenerating, or down-weighting low-likelihood data. In doing so, they often suppress precisely the novel behaviors the base model has yet to learn. We propose InfoSFT, a principled weighting scheme for the SFT objective that concentrates learning signals on maximally informative, medium-confidence tokens -- those neither overly familiar to the base model nor too unlikely to cause instability. Requiring only a one-line modification to the standard token-wise loss, InfoSFT demonstrably improves generalization over vanilla SFT and likelihood-weighted baselines across math, code, and chain-of-thought tasks with diverse model families, while better preserving pre-existing capabilities.

Reconstructing precise clinical timelines is essential for modeling patient trajectories and forecasting risk in complex, heterogeneous conditions like sepsis. While unstructured clinical narratives offer semantically rich and contextually complete descriptions of a patient's course, they often lack temporal precision and contain ambiguous event timing. Conversely, structured electronic health record (EHR) data provides precise temporal anchors but misses a substantial portion of clinically meaningful events. We introduce a retrieval-augmented multimodal alignment framework that bridges this gap to improve the temporal precision of absolute clinical timelines extracted from text. Our approach formulates timeline reconstruction as a graph-based multistep process: it first extracts central anchor events from narratives to build an initial temporal scaffold, places non-central events relative to this backbone, and then calibrates the timeline using retrieved structured EHR rows as external temporal evidence. Evaluated using instruction-tuned large language models on the i2m4 benchmark spanning MIMIC-III and MIMIC-IV, our multimodal pipeline consistently improves absolute timestamp accuracy (AULTC) and improves temporal concordance across nearly all evaluated models over unimodal text-only reconstruction, without compromising event match rates. Furthermore, our empirical gap analysis reveals that 34.8% of text-derived events are entirely absent from tabular records, demonstrating that aligning these modalities can produce a more temporally faithful and clinically informative reconstruction of patient trajectories than either source alone.

OpenAI's CEO, Sam Altman, arrives at the federal courthouse in Oakland, California, on Thursday. OpenAI's CEO, Sam Altman, arrives at the federal courthouse in Oakland, California, on Thursday. Nine-person jury to consider whether AI firm bilked world's richest person and unjustly enriched themselves Closing arguments began on Thursday in Elon Musk's lawsuit against Sam Altman and OpenAI, bringing the weeks-long courtroom battle between the two tech moguls nearer to a decision. A nine-person jury is set to deliberate and return a verdict on whether they believe the AI firm and Altman are liable in the case. The trial, which began last month in an Oakland, California, federal courthouse, has gripped Silicon Valley and featured some of the tech industry's biggest names as witnesses.