Neural Information Processing Systems http://nips.cc/

Recent approaches to evaluating Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) typically summarize a system's capability using the arithmetic mean of its proficiencies across multiple cognitive domains. While simple, this implicitly assumes compensability: exceptional performance in some areas can offset severe deficiencies in others. Genuine general intelligence, however, requires coherent sufficiency: balanced competence across all essential faculties. We introduce a coherence-based measure of AGI that integrates the generalized mean over a continuum of compensability exponents. This yields an area-under-the-curve (AUC) metric spanning arithmetic, geometric, and harmonic regimes, quantifying how robust an evaluated capability remains as compensability assumptions become stricter. Unlike the arithmetic mean, which rewards specialization, the AUC penalizes imbalance and exposes bottlenecks that constrain performance. To illustrate the framework, we apply it to cognitive profiles derived from the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) model, showing how coherence-based aggregation highlights imbalances that are obscured by arithmetic averaging. As a second, independent example, we apply the same methodology to a set of 17 heterogeneous benchmarks, demonstrating how coherence-based evaluation can reveal unevenness even in narrower task collections. These examples show that the proposed approach offers a principled, interpretable, and stricter foundation for measuring progress toward AGI.

Prompt engineering is crucial for achieving reliable and effective outputs from large language models (LLMs), but its design requires specialized knowledge of prompting techniques and a deep understanding of target tasks. To address this challenge, we propose a novel method that adaptively selects task-appropriate prompting techniques based on users' abstract task descriptions and automatically generates high-quality prompts without relying on pre-existing templates or frameworks. The proposed method constructs a knowledge base that associates task clusters, characterized by semantic similarity across diverse tasks, with their corresponding prompting techniques. When users input task descriptions, the system assigns them to the most relevant task cluster and dynamically generates prompts by integrating techniques drawn from the knowledge base. An experimental evaluation of the proposed method on 23 tasks from BIG-Bench Extra Hard (BBEH) demonstrates superior performance compared with standard prompts and existing automatic prompt-generation tools, as measured by both arithmetic and harmonic mean scores. This research establishes a foundation for streamlining and standardizing prompt creation, enabling non-experts to effectively leverage LLMs.

Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) has significantly enhanced the reasoning capability of large language models by optimizing the arithmetic mean of token-level rewards. Unfortunately, GRPO is observed to suffer from unstable policy updates when facing tokens with outlier importance-weighted rewards, which manifest as extreme importance sampling ratios during training. In this study, we propose Geometric-Mean Policy Optimization (GMPO), with the aim to improve the stability of GRPO through suppressing token reward outliers. Instead of optimizing the arithmetic mean, GMPO maximizes the geometric mean of token-level rewards, which is inherently less sensitive to outliers and maintains a more stable range of importance sampling ratio. GMPO is plug-and-play-simply replacing GRPO's arithmetic mean with the geometric mean of token-level rewards, as the latter is inherently less sensitive to outliers. GMPO is theoretically plausible-analysis reveals that both GMPO and GRPO are weighted forms of the policy gradient while the former enjoys more stable weights, which consequently benefits policy optimization and performance. Experiments on multiple mathematical reasoning benchmarks show that GMPO-7B improves the average Pass@1 of GRPO by up to 4.1%, outperforming many state-of-the-art approaches. Code is available at https://github.com/callsys/GMPO.

How to allocate limited resources to projects that will yield the greatest long-term benefits is a problem that often arises in decision-making under uncertainty. For example, organizations may need to evaluate and select innovation projects with risky returns. Similarly, when allocating resources to research projects, funding agencies are tasked with identifying the most promising proposals based on idiosyncratic criteria. Finally, in participatory budgeting, a local community may need to select a subset of public projects to fund. Regardless of context, agents must estimate the uncertain values of a potentially large number of projects. Developing parsimonious methods to compare these projects, and aggregating agent evaluations so that the overall benefit is maximized, are critical in assembling the best project portfolio. Unlike in standard sorting algorithms, evaluating projects on the basis of uncertain long-term benefits introduces additional complexities. We propose comparison rules based on Quicksort and the Bradley--Terry model, which connects rankings to pairwise "win" probabilities. In our model, each agent determines win probabilities of a pair of projects based on his or her specific evaluation of the projects' long-term benefit. The win probabilities are then appropriately aggregated and used to rank projects. Several of the methods we propose perform better than the two most effective aggregation methods currently available. Additionally, our methods can be combined with sampling techniques to significantly reduce the number of pairwise comparisons. We also discuss how the Bradley--Terry portfolio selection approach can be implemented in practice.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in interactive applications, and human evaluation remains the gold standard for assessing their performance in multi-turn conversations. Since human studies are costly, time-consuming, and hard to reproduce, recent work explores using LLMs to simulate users for automatic assistant evaluation. However, there is no benchmark or systematic study to evaluate whether these simulated users are reliable stand-ins for real users. To address this, we introduce SimulatorArena, a benchmark of 909 annotated human-LLM conversations on two interactive tasks -- math tutoring and document creation. SimulatorArena evaluates simulators based on how closely their messages match human behavior and how well their assistant ratings align with human judgments. Experiments on various simulator methods show that simulators conditioned on user profiles, capturing traits like background and message styles, align closely with human judgments. They reach Spearman's $ρ$ of 0.7 on both tasks, providing a practical, scalable alternative to human evaluation. Using the best simulator for each task, we benchmark 18 assistants, including the latest LLMs such as GPT-5, Claude 4.1 Opus, and Gemini 2.5 Pro.

Thanks for this excellent suggestion which makes the paper stronger! We now clarify the difference between "high-level strategy" and "decision rule" (for We now discuss this point in the main paper and show the simulations in the appendix. R3: A closer analysis of error differences would be helpful. Top row: "Hard" images for CNNs (correctly classified by all humans but not by any SF.8, SF.9); now linked & discussed more prominently.

We present specialized Large Language Models for theoretical High-Energy Physics, obtained as 20 fine-tuned variants of the 8-billion parameter Llama-3.1 model. Each variant was trained on arXiv abstracts (through August 2024) from different combinations of hep-th, hep-ph and gr-qc. For a comparative study, we also trained models on datasets that contained abstracts from disparate fields such as the q-bio and cs categories. All models were fine-tuned using two distinct Low-Rank Adaptation fine-tuning approaches and varying dataset sizes, and outperformed the base model on hep-th abstract completion tasks. We compare performance against leading commercial LLMs (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, DeepSeek) and derive insights for further developing specialized language models for High-Energy Theoretical Physics.

This paper introduces KZImputer, a novel adaptive imputation method for univariate time series designed for short to medium-sized missed points (gaps) (1-5 points and beyond) with tailored strategies for segments at the start, middle, or end of the series. KZImputer employs a hybrid strategy to handle various missing data scenarios. Its core mechanism differentiates between gaps at the beginning, middle, or end of the series, applying tailored techniques at each position to optimize imputation accuracy. The method leverages linear interpolation and localized statistical measures, adapting to the characteristics of the surrounding data and the gap size. The performance of KZImputer has been systematically evaluated against established imputation techniques, demonstrating its potential to enhance data quality for subsequent time series analysis. This paper describes the KZImputer methodology in detail and discusses its effectiveness in improving the integrity of time series data. Empirical analysis demonstrates that KZImputer achieves particularly strong performance for datasets with high missingness rates (around 50% or more), maintaining stable and competitive results across statistical and signal-reconstruction metrics. The method proves especially effective in high-sparsity regimes, where traditional approaches typically experience accuracy degradation.

While predictive accuracy is often prioritized in machine learning (ML) models, interpretability remains essential in scientific and high-stakes domains. However, diverse interpretability algorithms frequently yield conflicting explanations, highlighting the need for consensus to harmonize results. In this study, six ML models were trained on six synthetic datasets with known ground truths, utilizing various model-agnostic inter-pretability techniques. Consensus explanations were generated using established methods and a novel approach: WISCA (Weighted Scaled Consensus Attributions), which integrates class probability and normalized attributions. WISCA consistently aligned with the most reliable individual method, underscoring the value of robust consensus strategies in improving explanation reliability.