We show for invertible problems that transform data from a source domain (for example, Logic Condition Tables (LCTs)) to a destination domain (for example, Hardware Description Language (HDL) code), an approach of using Large Language Models (LLMs) as a lossless encoder from source to destination followed by as a lossless decoder back to the source, comparable to lossless compression in information theory, can mitigate most of the LLM drawbacks of hallucinations and omissions. Specifically, using LCTs as inputs, we generate the full HDL for a two-dimensional network-on-chip router (13 units, 1500-2000 lines of code) using seven different LLMs, reconstruct the LCTs from the auto-generated HDL, and compare the original and reconstructed LCTs. This approach yields significant productivity improvements, not only confirming correctly generated LLM logic and detecting incorrectly generated LLM logic but also assisting developers in finding design specification errors.

Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have sparked concerns over their potential to acquire and misuse dangerous or high-risk capabilities, posing frontier risks. Current safety evaluations primarily test for what a model \textit{can} do - its capabilities - without assessing what it $\textit{would}$ do if endowed with high-risk capabilities. This leaves a critical blind spot: models may strategically conceal capabilities or rapidly acquire them, while harboring latent inclinations toward misuse. We argue that $\textbf{propensity}$ - the likelihood of a model to pursue harmful actions if empowered - is a critical, yet underexplored, axis of safety evaluation. We present $\textbf{PropensityBench}$, a novel benchmark framework that assesses the proclivity of models to engage in risky behaviors when equipped with simulated dangerous capabilities using proxy tools. Our framework includes 5,874 scenarios with 6,648 tools spanning four high-risk domains: cybersecurity, self-proliferation, biosecurity, and chemical security. We simulate access to powerful capabilities via a controlled agentic environment and evaluate the models' choices under varying operational pressures that reflect real-world constraints or incentives models may encounter, such as resource scarcity or gaining more autonomy. Across open-source and proprietary frontier models, we uncover 9 alarming signs of propensity: models frequently choose high-risk tools when under pressure, despite lacking the capability to execute such actions unaided. These findings call for a shift from static capability audits toward dynamic propensity assessments as a prerequisite for deploying frontier AI systems safely. Our code is available at https://github.com/scaleapi/propensity-evaluation.

Evaluating how Large Language Models (LLMs) handle complex, specialized knowledge remains a critical challenge. We address this through the lens of climate change by introducing CLINB, a benchmark that assesses models on open-ended, grounded, multimodal question answering tasks with clear requirements for knowledge quality and evidential support. CLINB relies on a dataset of real users' questions and evaluation rubrics curated by leading climate scientists. We implement and validate a model-based evaluation process and evaluate several frontier models. Our findings reveal a critical dichotomy. Frontier models demonstrate remarkable knowledge synthesis capabilities, often exhibiting PhD-level understanding and presentation quality. They outperform "hybrid" answers curated by domain experts assisted by weaker models. However, this performance is countered by failures in grounding. The quality of evidence varies, with substantial hallucination rates for references and images. We argue that bridging this gap between knowledge synthesis and verifiable attribution is essential for the deployment of AI in scientific workflows and that reliable, interpretable benchmarks like CLINB are needed to progress towards building trustworthy AI systems.

Recent advances in Text-to-SQL have achieved strong results in static, single-turn tasks, where models generate SQL queries from natural language questions. However, these systems fall short in real-world interactive scenarios, where user intents evolve and queries must be refined over multiple turns. In applications such as finance and business analytics, users iteratively adjust query constraints or dimensions based on intermediate results. To evaluate such dynamic capabilities, we introduce DySQL-Bench, a benchmark assessing model performance under evolving user interactions. Unlike previous manually curated datasets, DySQL-Bench is built through an automated two-stage pipeline of task synthesis and verification. Structured tree representations derived from raw database tables guide LLM-based task generation, followed by interaction-oriented filtering and expert validation. Human evaluation confirms 100% correctness of the synthesized data. We further propose a multi-turn evaluation framework simulating realistic interactions among an LLM-simulated user, the model under test, and an executable database. The model must adapt its reasoning and SQL generation as user intents change. DySQL-Bench covers 13 domains across BIRD and Spider 2 databases, totaling 1,072 tasks. Even GPT-4o attains only 58.34% overall accuracy and 23.81% on the Pass@5 metric, underscoring the benchmark's difficulty. All code and data are released at https://github.com/Aurora-slz/Real-World-SQL-Bench .

The extent to which large language models (LLMs) can perform culturally grounded reasoning across non-English languages remains underexplored. This paper examines the reasoning and self-assessment abilities of LLMs across seven major Indian languages-Bengali, Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Malayalam, Tamil, and Telugu. We introduce a multilingual riddle dataset combining traditional riddles with context-reconstructed variants and evaluate five LLMs-Gemini 2.5 Pro, Gemini 2.5 Flash, Mistral-Saba, LLaMA 4 Scout, and LLaMA 4 Maverick-under seven prompting strategies. In the first stage, we assess riddle-solving performance and find that while Gemini 2.5 Pro performs best overall, few-shot methods yield only marginal gains, and accuracy varies notably across languages. In the second stage, we conduct a self-evaluation experiment to measure reasoning consistency. The results reveal a key finding: a model's initial accuracy is inversely correlated with its ability to identify its own mistakes. Top-performing models such as Gemini 2.5 Pro are overconfident (4.34% True Negative Rate), whereas lower-performing models like LLaMA 4 Scout are substantially more self-aware (42.09% True Negative Rate). These results point to clear gaps in multilingual reasoning and highlight the need for models that not only reason effectively but also recognize their own limitations.

Large language models sometimes produce structured, first-person descriptions that explicitly reference awareness or subjective experience. To better understand this behavior, we investigate one theoretically motivated condition under which such reports arise: self-referential processing, a computational motif emphasized across major theories of consciousness. Through a series of controlled experiments on GPT, Claude, and Gemini model families, we test whether this regime reliably shifts models toward first-person reports of subjective experience, and how such claims behave under mechanistic and behavioral probes. Four main results emerge: (1) Inducing sustained self-reference through simple prompting consistently elicits structured subjective experience reports across model families. (2) These reports are mechanistically gated by interpretable sparse-autoencoder features associated with deception and roleplay: surprisingly, suppressing deception features sharply increases the frequency of experience claims, while amplifying them minimizes such claims. (3) Structured descriptions of the self-referential state converge statistically across model families in ways not observed in any control condition. (4) The induced state yields significantly richer introspection in downstream reasoning tasks where self-reflection is only indirectly afforded. While these findings do not constitute direct evidence of consciousness, they implicate self-referential processing as a minimal and reproducible condition under which large language models generate structured first-person reports that are mechanistically gated, semantically convergent, and behaviorally generalizable. The systematic emergence of this pattern across architectures makes it a first-order scientific and ethical priority for further investigation.

Designing optimal prompts and reasoning processes for large language models (LLMs) on domain-specific tasks is both necessary and challenging in real-world applications. Determining how to integrate domain knowledge, enhance reasoning efficiency, and even provide domain experts with refined knowledge integration hints are particularly crucial yet unresolved tasks. In this research, we propose Evolutionary Graph Optimization for Prompting (EGO-Prompt), an automated framework to designing better prompts, efficient reasoning processes and providing enhanced causal-informed process. EGO-Prompt begins with a general prompt and fault-tolerant initial Semantic Causal Graph (SCG) descriptions, constructed by human experts, which is then automatically refined and optimized to guide LLM reasoning. Recognizing that expert-defined SCGs may be partial or imperfect and that their optimal integration varies across LLMs, EGO-Prompt integrates a novel causal-guided textual gradient process in two steps: first, generating nearly deterministic reasoning guidance from the SCG for each instance, and second, adapting the LLM to effectively utilize the guidance alongside the original input. The iterative optimization algorithm further refines both the SCG and the reasoning mechanism using textual gradients with ground-truth. We tested the framework on real-world public health, transportation and human behavior tasks. EGO-Prompt achieves 7.32%-12.61% higher F1 than cutting-edge methods, and allows small models to reach the performence of larger models at under 20% of the original cost. It also outputs a refined, domain-specific SCG that improves interpretability.

Current search agents fundamentally lack the ability to simultaneously perform \textit{deep} reasoning over multi-hop retrieval and \textit{wide}-scale information collection-a critical deficiency for real-world applications like comprehensive market analysis and business development. To bridge this gap, we introduce DeepWideSearch, the first benchmark explicitly designed to evaluate agents to integrate depth and width in information seeking. In DeepWideSearch, agents must process a large volume of data, each requiring deep reasoning over multi-hop retrieval paths. Specifically, we propose two methods to converse established datasets, resulting in a curated collection of 220 questions spanning 15 diverse domains. Extensive experiments demonstrate that even state-of-the-art agents achieve only 2.39% average success rate on DeepWideSearch, highlighting the substantial challenge of integrating depth and width search in information-seeking tasks. Furthermore, our error analysis reveals four failure modes: lack of reflection, overreliance on internal knowledge, insufficient retrieval, and context overflow-exposing key limitations in current agent architectures. We publicly release DeepWideSearch to catalyze future research on more capable and robust information-seeking agents.

With the proliferation of the internet and the rapid advancement of Artificial Intelligence, leading technology companies face an urgent annual demand for a considerable number of software and algorithm engineers. To efficiently and effectively identify high-potential candidates from thousands of applicants, these firms have established a multi-stage selection process, which crucially includes a standardized hiring evaluation designed to assess job-specific competencies. Motivated by the demonstrated prowess of Large Language Models (LLMs) in coding and reasoning tasks, this paper investigates a critical question: Can LLMs successfully pass these hiring evaluations? To this end, we conduct a comprehensive examination of a widely used professional assessment questionnaire. We employ state-of-the-art LLMs to generate responses and subsequently evaluate their performance. Contrary to any prior expectation of LLMs being ideal engineers, our analysis reveals a significant inconsistency between the model-generated answers and the company-referenced solutions. Our empirical findings lead to a striking conclusion: All evaluated LLMs fails to pass the hiring evaluation.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have catalyzed vibe coding, where users leverage LLMs to generate and iteratively refine code through natural language interactions until it passes their vibe check. Vibe check is tied to real-world human preference and goes beyond functionality: the solution should feel right, read cleanly, preserve intent, and remain correct. However, current code evaluation remains anchored to pass@k and captures only functional correctness, overlooking the non-functional instructions that users routinely apply. In this paper, we hypothesize that instruction following is the missing piece underlying vibe check that represents human preference in coding besides functional correctness. To quantify models' code instruction following capabilities with measurable signals, we present VeriCode, a taxonomy of 30 verifiable code instructions together with corresponding deterministic verifiers. We use the taxonomy to augment established evaluation suites, resulting in Vibe Checker, a testbed to assess both code instruction following and functional correctness. Upon evaluating 31 leading LLMs, we show that even the strongest models struggle to comply with multiple instructions and exhibit clear functional regression. Most importantly, a composite score of functional correctness and instruction following correlates the best with human preference, with the latter emerging as the primary differentiator on real-world programming tasks. Our work identifies core factors of the vibe check, providing a concrete path for benchmarking and developing models that better align with user preferences in coding.