In studies of transferable learning, scaling laws are obtained for various important foundation models to predict their properties and performance at larger scales. We show here how scaling law derivation can also be used for model and dataset comparison, allowing to decide which procedure is to be preferred for pre-training. For the first time, full scaling laws based on dense measurements across a wide span of model and samples seen scales are derived for two important language-vision learning procedures, CLIP and MaMMUT, that use either contrastive only or contrastive and captioning text generative loss. Ensuring sufficient prediction accuracy for held out points, we use derived scaling laws to compare both models, obtaining evidence for MaMMUT's stronger improvement with scale and better sample efficiency than standard CLIP. To strengthen validity of the comparison, we show scaling laws for various downstream tasks, classification, retrieval, and segmentation, and for different open datasets, DataComp, DFN and Re-LAION, observing consistently the same trends. We show that comparison can also be performed when deriving scaling laws with a constant learning rate schedule, reducing compute cost. Accurate derivation of scaling laws provides thus means to perform model and dataset comparison across scale spans, avoiding misleading conclusions based on measurements from single reference scales only, paving the road for systematic comparison and improvement of open foundation models and datasets for their creation. We release all the pre-trained models with their intermediate checkpoints, including openMaMMUT-L/14, which achieves $80.3\%$ zero-shot ImageNet-1k accuracy, trained on 12.8B samples from DataComp-1.4B. Code for reproducing experiments in the paper and raw experiments data can be found at https://github.com/LAION-AI/scaling-laws-for-comparison.

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has become the de facto method to elicit reasoning capabilities from large language models (LLMs). However, to mitigate hallucinations in CoT that are notoriously difficult to detect, current methods such as process reward models (PRMs) or self-consistency operate as opaque boxes and do not provide checkable evidence for their judgments, possibly limiting their effectiveness. To address this issue, we draw inspiration from the idea that "the gold standard for supporting a mathematical claim is to provide a proof". We propose a retrospective, step-aware formal verification framework $Safe$. Rather than assigning arbitrary scores, we strive to articulate mathematical claims in formal mathematical language Lean 4 at each reasoning step and provide formal proofs to identify hallucinations. We evaluate our framework $Safe$ across multiple language models and various mathematical datasets, demonstrating a significant performance improvement while offering interpretable and verifiable evidence. We also propose $FormalStep$ as a benchmark for step correctness theorem proving with $30,809$ formal statements. To the best of our knowledge, our work represents the first endeavor to utilize formal mathematical language Lean 4 for verifying natural language content generated by LLMs, aligning with the reason why formal mathematical languages were created in the first place: to provide a robust foundation for hallucination-prone human-written proofs.

In-Context Learning (ICL) empowers Large Language Models (LLMs) for rapid task adaptation without Fine-Tuning (FT), but its reliance on demonstration selection remains a critical challenge. While many-shot ICL shows promising performance through scaled demonstrations, the selection method for many-shot demonstrations remains limited to random selection in existing work. Since the conventional instance-level retrieval is not suitable for many-shot scenarios, we hypothesize that the data requirements for in-context learning and fine-tuning are analogous. To this end, we introduce a novel gradient matching approach that selects demonstrations by aligning fine-tuning gradients between the entire training set of the target task and the selected examples, so as to approach the learning effect on the entire training set within the selected examples. Through gradient matching on relatively small models, e.g., Qwen2.5-3B or Llama3-8B, our method consistently outperforms random selection on larger LLMs from 4-shot to 128-shot scenarios across 9 diverse datasets. For instance, it surpasses random selection by 4% on Qwen2.5-72B and Llama3-70B, and by around 2% on 5 closed-source LLMs. This work unlocks more reliable and effective many-shot ICL, paving the way for its broader application.

We investigate the effectiveness of large language models (LLMs), including reasoning-based and non-reasoning models, in performing zero-shot financial sentiment analysis. Using the Financial PhraseBank dataset annotated by domain experts, we evaluate how various LLMs and prompting strategies align with human-labeled sentiment in a financial context. We compare three proprietary LLMs (GPT-4o, GPT-4.1, o3-mini) under different prompting paradigms that simulate System 1 (fast and intuitive) or System 2 (slow and deliberate) thinking and benchmark them against two smaller models (FinBERT-Prosus, FinBERT-Tone) fine-tuned on financial sentiment analysis. Our findings suggest that reasoning, either through prompting or inherent model design, does not improve performance on this task. Surprisingly, the most accurate and human-aligned combination of model and method was GPT-4o without any Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting. We further explore how performance is impacted by linguistic complexity and annotation agreement levels, uncovering that reasoning may introduce overthinking, leading to suboptimal predictions. This suggests that for financial sentiment classification, fast, intuitive "System 1"-like thinking aligns more closely with human judgment compared to "System 2"-style slower, deliberative reasoning simulated by reasoning models or CoT prompting. Our results challenge the default assumption that more reasoning always leads to better LLM decisions, particularly in high-stakes financial applications.

Compound Al Systems (CAIS) is an emerging paradigm that integrates large language models (LLMs) with external components, such as retrievers, agents, tools, and orchestrators, to overcome the limitations of standalone models in tasks requiring memory, reasoning, real-time grounding, and multimodal understanding. These systems enable more capable and context-aware behaviors by composing multiple specialized modules into cohesive workflows. Despite growing adoption in both academia and industry, the CAIS landscape remains fragmented, lacking a unified framework for analysis, taxonomy, and evaluation. In this survey, we define the concept of CAIS, propose a multi-dimensional taxonomy based on component roles and orchestration strategies, and analyze four foundational paradigms: Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), LLM Agents, Multimodal LLMs (MLLMs), and orchestration-centric architectures. We review representative systems, compare design trade-offs, and summarize evaluation methodologies across these paradigms. Finally, we identify key challenges-including scalability, interoperability, benchmarking, and coordination-and outline promising directions for future research. This survey aims to provide researchers and practitioners with a comprehensive foundation for understanding, developing, and advancing the next generation of system-level artificial intelligence.

Discourse particles are crucial elements that subtly shape the meaning of text. These words, often polyfunctional, give rise to nuanced and often quite disparate semantic/discourse effects, as exemplified by the diverse uses of the particle "just" (e.g., exclusive, temporal, emphatic). This work investigates the capacity of LLMs to distinguish the fine-grained senses of English "just", a well-studied example in formal semantics, using data meticulously created and labeled by expert linguists. Our findings reveal that while LLMs exhibit some ability to differentiate between broader categories, they struggle to fully capture more subtle nuances, highlighting a gap in their understanding of discourse particles.

Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at many tasks but struggle with ambiguous scenarios where multiple valid responses exist, often yielding unreliable results. Conversely, Small Language Models (SLMs) demonstrate robustness in such scenarios but are susceptible to misleading or adversarial inputs. We observed that LLMs handle negative examples effectively, while SLMs excel with positive examples. To leverage their complementary strengths, we introduce SLIDE (Small and Large Integrated for Dialogue Evaluation), a method integrating SLMs and LLMs via adaptive weighting. Building on SLIDE, we further propose a Dual-Refinement Evaluation (DRE) method to enhance SLM-LLM integration: (1) SLM-generated insights guide the LLM to produce initial evaluations; (2) SLM-derived adjustments refine the LLM's scores for improved accuracy. Experiments demonstrate that DRE outperforms existing methods, showing stronger alignment with human judgment across diverse benchmarks. This work illustrates how combining small and large models can yield more reliable evaluation tools, particularly for open-ended tasks such as dialogue evaluation.

--The Internet comprises of interconnected, independently managed Autonomous Systems (AS) that rely on the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) for inter-domain routing. BGP anomalies--such as route leaks and hijacks--can divert traffic through unauthorized or inefficient paths, jeopardizing network reliability and security. Although existing rule-based and machine learning methods can detect these anomalies using structured metrics, they still require experts with in-depth BGP knowledge of, for example, AS relationships and historical incidents, to interpret events and propose remediation. In this paper, we introduce BEAR (BGP Event Analysis and Reporting), a novel framework that leverages large language models (LLMs) to automatically generate comprehensive reports explaining detected BGP anomaly events. BEAR employs a multi-step reasoning process that translates tabular BGP data into detailed textual narratives, enhancing interpretability and analytical precision. T o address the limited availability of publicly documented BGP anomalies, we also present a synthetic data generation framework powered by LLMs. Evaluations on both real and synthetic datasets demonstrate that BEAR achieves 100% accuracy, outperforming Chain-of-Thought and in-context learning baselines. This work pioneers an automated approach for explaining BGP anomaly events, offering valuable operational insights for network management. The Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is the principal inter-domain routing protocol that facilitates data exchange across the Internet by enabling autonomous systems (ASes) to disseminate network reachability information [1]. As the backbone of Internet connectivity, BGP's proper functioning is critical for maintaining global network stability and performance [2].

Text-to-SQL systems translate natural language (NL) questions into SQL queries, enabling non-technical users to interact with structured data. While large language models (LLMs) have shown promising results on the text-to-SQL task, they often produce semantically incorrect yet syntactically valid queries, with limited insight into their reliability. We propose SQLens, an end-to-end framework for fine-grained detection and correction of semantic errors in LLM-generated SQL. SQLens integrates error signals from both the underlying database and the LLM to identify potential semantic errors within SQL clauses. It further leverages these signals to guide query correction. Empirical results on two public benchmarks show that SQLens outperforms the best LLM-based self-evaluation method by 25.78% in F1 for error detection, and improves execution accuracy of out-of-the-box text-to-SQL systems by up to 20%.

The NLP research community has made publicly available numerous instruments for measuring representational harms caused by large language model (LLM)-based systems. These instruments have taken the form of datasets, metrics, tools, and more. In this paper, we examine the extent to which such instruments meet the needs of practitioners tasked with evaluating LLM-based systems. Via semi-structured interviews with 12 such practitioners, we find that practitioners are often unable to use publicly available instruments for measuring representational harms. We identify two types of challenges. In some cases, instruments are not useful because they do not meaningfully measure what practitioners seek to measure or are otherwise misaligned with practitioner needs. In other cases, instruments - even useful instruments - are not used by practitioners due to practical and institutional barriers impeding their uptake. Drawing on measurement theory and pragmatic measurement, we provide recommendations for addressing these challenges to better meet practitioner needs.