Understanding the intricate motivations behind human actions is paramount in developing sophisticated systems capable of nuanced behavior analysis.

The"other category" included hallucinations, repetitiveoutputs, and symbol mapping errors.

Although equivariant machine learning has proven effective at many tasks, success depends heavily on the assumption that the ground truth function is symmetric over the entire domain matching the symmetry in an equivariant neural network. A missing piece in the equivariant learning literature is the analysis of equivariant networks when symmetry exists only partially in the domain. In this work, we present a general theory for such a situation. We propose pointwise definitions of correct, incorrect, and extrinsic equivariance, which allow us to quantify continuously the degree of each type of equivariance a function displays. We then study the impact of various degrees of incorrect or extrinsic symmetry on model error. We prove error lower bounds for invariant or equivariant networks in classification or regression settings with partially incorrect symmetry. We also analyze the potentially harmful effects of extrinsic equivariance.

Constructed-response questions are crucial to encourage generative processing and test a learner's understanding of core concepts. However, the limited availability of instructor time, large class sizes, and other resource constraints pose significant challenges in providing timely and detailed evaluation, which is crucial for a holistic educational experience. In addition, providing timely and frequent assessments is challenging since manual grading is labor intensive, and automated grading is complex to generalize to every possible response scenario. This paper proposes a novel and practical approach to grade short-answer constructed-response questions. We discuss why this problem is challenging, define the nature of questions on which our method works, and finally propose a framework that instructors can use to evaluate their students' open-responses, utilizing near-domain data like data from similar questions administered in previous years. The proposed method outperforms the state of the art machine learning models as well as non-fine-tuned large language models like GPT 3.5, GPT 4, and GPT 4o by a considerable margin of over 10-20% in some cases, even after providing the LLMs with reference/model answers. Our framework does not require pre-written grading rubrics and is designed explicitly with practical classroom settings in mind. Our results also reveal exciting insights about learning from near-domain data, including what we term as accuracy and data advantages using human-labeled data, and we believe this is the first work to formalize the problem of automated short answer grading based on the near-domain data.

Visual understanding requires interpreting both natural scenes and the textual information that appears within them, motivating tasks such as Visual Question Answering (VQA). However, current VQA benchmarks overlook scenarios with visually embedded questions, whereas advanced agents should be able to see the question without separate text input as humans. We introduce Visual-only Question Answering (VoQA), where both the scene and the question appear within a single image, requiring models to perceive and reason purely through vision. This setting supports more realistic visual understanding and interaction in scenarios where questions or instructions are embedded directly in the visual scene. Evaluations under pure visual-only zero-shot, prompt-guided and OCR-assisted settings show that current models exhibit a clear performance drop compared to traditional VQA. To address this, we investigate question-alignment fine-tuning strategies designed to guide models toward interpreting the visual question prior to reasoning. Leveraging VoQA dataset together with these strategies yields robust vision-only reasoning while preserving cross-task generalization to traditional VQA, reflecting the complementary visual and textual reasoning capabilities fostered through VoQA training. The code and data are publicly available.

We present Sphinx, a synthetic environment for visual perception and reasoning that targets core cognitive primitives. Sphinx procedurally generates puzzles using motifs, tiles, charts, icons, and geometric primitives, each paired with verifiable ground-truth solutions, enabling both precise evaluation and large-scale dataset construction. The benchmark covers 25 task types spanning symmetry detection, geometric transformations, spatial reasoning, chart interpretation, and sequence prediction. Evaluating recent large vision-language models (LVLMs) shows that even state-of-the-art GPT-5 attains only 51.1% accuracy, well below human performance. Finally, we demonstrate that reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) substantially improves model accuracy on these tasks and yields gains on external visual reasoning benchmarks, highlighting its promise for advancing multimodal reasoning.

We present a practical framework for detecting errors in LLM-generated SQL by estimating uncertainty at the level of individual nodes in the query's abstract syntax tree (AST). Our approach proceeds in two stages. First, we introduce a semantically aware labeling algorithm that, given a generated SQL and a gold reference, assigns node-level correctness without over-penalizing structural containers or alias variation. Second, we represent each node with a rich set of schema-aware and lexical features - capturing identifier validity, alias resolution, type compatibility, ambiguity in scope, and typo signals - and train a supervised classifier to predict per-node error probabilities. We interpret these probabilities as calibrated uncertainty, enabling fine-grained diagnostics that pinpoint exactly where a query is likely to be wrong. Across multiple databases and datasets, our method substantially outperforms token log-probabilities: average AUC improves by +27.44% while maintaining robustness under cross-database evaluation. Beyond serving as an accuracy signal, node-level uncertainty supports targeted repair, human-in-the-loop review, and downstream selective execution. Together, these results establish node-centric, semantically grounded uncertainty estimation as a strong and interpretable alternative to aggregate sequence level confidence measures.

We introduce AA-Omniscience, a benchmark designed to measure both factual recall and knowledge calibration across 6,000 questions. Questions are derived from authoritative academic and industry sources, and cover 42 economically relevant topics within six different domains. The evaluation measures a model's Omniscience Index, a bounded metric (-100 to 100) measuring factual recall that jointly penalizes hallucinations and rewards abstention when uncertain, with 0 equating to a model that answers questions correctly as much as it does incorrectly. Among evaluated models, Claude 4.1 Opus attains the highest score (4.8), making it one of only three models to score above zero. These results reveal persistent factuality and calibration weaknesses across frontier models. Performance also varies by domain, with the models from three different research labs leading across the six domains. This performance variability suggests models should be chosen according to the demands of the use case rather than general performance for tasks where knowledge is important.

Advanced AI systems sometimes act in ways that differ from human intent. To gather clear, reproducible examples, we ran the Misalignment Bounty: a crowdsourced project that collected cases of agents pursuing unintended or unsafe goals. The bounty received 295 submissions, of which nine were awarded. This report explains the program's motivation and evaluation criteria, and walks through the nine winning submissions step by step.