GPT-5.4 mini brings some of the smarts of OpenAI's latest model to ChatGPT Free and Go users The new model offers performance improvements in reasoning, multimodal understanding and more. The ChatGPT icon, as seen on iPhone 12 running iOS. When OpenAI released GPT-5.4 at the start of March, the company said the new model was designed primarily for professional work like programming and data analysis. Now OpenAI is launching GPT-5.4 mini and nano, and while it is once again highlighting the usefulness of these new systems for tasks like coding, one of the new models is available to Free and Go users . What's more, that model, GPT-5.4 mini, even offers performance that approaches GPT-5.4 in a handful of areas.

Both the discounted and total reward episodic settings are amenable to function approximation.

As a valuable by-product, the regret analysis used in this paper can improve several existing results by a factor ofO(logK).

Many important datasets contain samples that are missing one or more feature values. Maintaining the interpretability of machine learning models in the presence of such missing data is challenging. Singly or multiply imputing missing values complicates the model's mapping from features to labels. On the other hand, reasoning on indicator variables that represent missingness introduces a potentially largenumber ofadditional terms, sacrificing sparsity.

Large language models (LLMs) excel at explicit reasoning, but their implicit computational strategies remain underexplored. Decades of psychophysics research show that humans intuitively process and integrate noisy signals using near-optimal Bayesian strategies in perceptual tasks. We ask whether LLMs exhibit similar behaviour and perform optimal multimodal integration without explicit training or instruction. Adopting the psychophysics paradigm, we infer computational principles of LLMs from systematic behavioural studies. We introduce a behavioural benchmark - BayesBench: four magnitude estimation tasks (length, location, distance, and duration) over text and image, inspired by classic psychophysics, and evaluate a diverse set of nine LLMs alongside human judgments for calibration. Through controlled ablations of noise, context, and instruction prompts, we measure performance, behaviour and efficiency in multimodal cue-combination. Beyond accuracy and efficiency metrics, we introduce a Bayesian Consistency Score that detects Bayes-consistent behavioural shifts even when accuracy saturates. Our results show that while capable models often adapt in Bayes-consistent ways, accuracy does not guarantee robustness. Notably, GPT-5 Mini achieves perfect text accuracy but fails to integrate visual cues efficiently. This reveals a critical dissociation between capability and strategy, suggesting accuracy-centric benchmarks may over-index on performance while missing brittle uncertainty handling. These findings reveal emergent principled handling of uncertainty and highlight the correlation between accuracy and Bayesian tendencies. We release our psychophysics benchmark and consistency metric (https://bayes-bench.github.io) as evaluation tools and to inform future multimodal architecture designs.

Assessing software test coverage at scale remains a bottleneck in QA pipelines. We present LLM-as-a-Judge (LAJ), a production-ready, rubric-driven framework for evaluating Gherkin acceptance tests with structured JSON outputs. Across 20 model configurations (GPT-4, GPT-5 with varying reasoning effort, and open-weight models) on 100 expert-annotated scripts over 5 runs (500 evaluations), we provide the first comprehensive analysis spanning accuracy, operational reliability, and cost. We introduce the Evaluation Completion Rate (ECR@1) to quantify first-attempt success, revealing reliability from 85.4% to 100.0% with material cost implications via retries. Results show that smaller models can outperform larger ones: GPT-4o Mini attains the best accuracy (6.07 MAAE), high reliability (96.6% ECR@1), and low cost ($1.01 per 1K), yielding a 78x cost reduction vs. GPT-5 (high reasoning) while improving accuracy. Reasoning effort is model-family dependent: GPT-5 benefits from increased reasoning (with predictable accuracy-cost tradeoffs), whereas open-weight models degrade across all dimensions as reasoning increases. Overall, cost spans 175x ($0.45-$78.96 per 1K). We release the dataset, framework, and code to support reproducibility and deployment.

Human cognitive biases in software engineering can lead to costly errors. While general-purpose AI (GPAI) systems may help mitigate these biases due to their non-human nature, their training on human-generated data raises a critical question: Do GPAI systems themselves exhibit cognitive biases? To investigate this, we present the first dynamic benchmarking framework to evaluate data-induced cognitive biases in GPAI within software engineering workflows. Starting with a seed set of 16 hand-crafted realistic tasks, each featuring one of 8 cognitive biases (e.g., anchoring, framing) and corresponding unbiased variants, we test whether bias-inducing linguistic cues unrelated to task logic can lead GPAI systems from correct to incorrect conclusions. To scale the benchmark and ensure realism, we develop an on-demand augmentation pipeline relying on GPAI systems to generate task variants that preserve bias-inducing cues while varying surface details. This pipeline ensures correctness (88-99% on average, according to human evaluation), promotes diversity, and controls reasoning complexity by leveraging Prolog-based reasoning. We evaluate leading GPAI systems (GPT, LLaMA, DeepSeek) and find a consistent tendency to rely on shallow linguistic heuristics over more complex reasoning. All systems exhibit bias sensitivity (6-35%), which increases with task complexity (up to 49%) and highlights risks in AI-driven software engineering.

The principle of minimal change in belief revision theory requires that, when accepting new information, one keeps one's belief state as close to the initial belief state as possible. This is precisely what the method known as minimal revision does. However, unlike less conservative belief revision methods, minimal revision falls short in learning power: It cannot learn everything that can be learned by other learning methods. We begin by showing that, despite this limitation, minimal revision is still a successful learning method in a wide range of situations. Firstly, it can learn any problem that is finitely identifiable. Secondly, it can learn with positive and negative data, as long as one considers finitely many possibilities. We then characterize the prior plausibility assignments (over finitely many possibilities) that enable one to learn via minimal revision, and do the same for conditioning and lexicographic upgrade. Finally, we show that not all of our results still hold when learning from possibly erroneous information.