Large language models (LMs) often struggle to generate diverse, human-like creative content, raising concerns about the long-term homogenization of human thought through repeated exposure to similar outputs. Yet scalable methods for evaluating LM output diversity remain limited, especially beyond narrow tasks such as random number or name generation, or beyond repeated sampling from a single model. To address this gap, we introduce INFINITY-CHAT, a largescale dataset of 26K diverse, real-world, open-ended user queries that admit a wide range of plausible answers with no single ground truth. We introduce the first comprehensive taxonomy for characterizing the full spectrum of open-ended prompts posed to LMs, comprising 6 top-level categories (e.g., creative content generation, brainstorm & ideation) that further breaks down to 17 subcategories.

Humans organize knowledge into compact conceptual categories that balance compression with semantic richness. Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit impressive linguistic abilities, but whether they navigate this same compression-meaning trade-off remains unclear. We apply an Information Bottleneck framework to compare human conceptual structure with embeddings from 40+ LLMs using classic categorization benchmarks. We find that LLMs broadly align with human category boundaries, yet fall short on fine-grained semantic distinctions. Unlike humans, who maintain ``inefficient'' representations that preserve contextual nuance, LLMs aggressively compress, achieving more optimal information-theoretic compression at the cost of semantic richness. Surprisingly, encoder models outperform much larger decoder models in human alignment, suggesting that understanding and generation rely on distinct representational mechanisms. Training-dynamics analysis reveals a two-phase trajectory: rapid initial concept formation followed by architectural reorganization, during which semantic processing migrates from deep to mid-network layers as the model discovers increasingly efficient, sparser encodings. These divergent strategies, where LLMs optimize for compression and humans for adaptive utility, reveal fundamental differences between artificial and natural intelligence. This highlights the need for models that preserve the conceptual ``inefficiencies'' essential for human-like understanding.

Language models (LMs) often struggle to generate diverse, human-like creative content, raising concerns about the long-term homogenization of human thought through repeated exposure to similar outputs. Yet scalable methods for evaluating LM output diversity remain limited, especially beyond narrow tasks such as random number or name generation, or beyond repeated sampling from a single model. We introduce Infinity-Chat, a large-scale dataset of 26K diverse, real-world, open-ended user queries that admit a wide range of plausible answers with no single ground truth. We introduce the first comprehensive taxonomy for characterizing the full spectrum of open-ended prompts posed to LMs, comprising 6 top-level categories (e.g., brainstorm & ideation) that further breaks down to 17 subcategories. Using Infinity-Chat, we present a large-scale study of mode collapse in LMs, revealing a pronounced Artificial Hivemind effect in open-ended generation of LMs, characterized by (1) intra-model repetition, where a single model consistently generates similar responses, and more so (2) inter-model homogeneity, where different models produce strikingly similar outputs. Infinity-Chat also includes 31,250 human annotations, across absolute ratings and pairwise preferences, with 25 independent human annotations per example. This enables studying collective and individual-specific human preferences in response to open-ended queries. Our findings show that LMs, reward models, and LM judges are less well calibrated to human ratings on model generations that elicit differing idiosyncratic annotator preferences, despite maintaining comparable overall quality. Overall, INFINITY-CHAT presents the first large-scale resource for systematically studying real-world open-ended queries to LMs, revealing critical insights to guide future research for mitigating long-term AI safety risks posed by the Artificial Hivemind.

As large language models (LLMs) become increasingly capable, ensuring that their self-generated explanations are faithful to their internal decision-making process is critical for safety and oversight. In this work, we conduct a comprehensive counterfactual faithfulness analysis across 62 models from 8 families, encompassing both pretrained and instruction-tuned variants and significantly extending prior studies of counterfactual tests. We introduce phi-CCT, a simplified variant of the Correlational Counterfactual Test, which avoids the need for token probabilities while explaining most of the variance of the original test. Our findings reveal clear scaling trends: larger models are consistently more faithful on our metrics. However, when comparing instruction-tuned and human-imitated explanations, we find that observed differences in faithfulness can often be attributed to explanation verbosity, leading to shifts along the true-positive/false-positive Pareto frontier. While instruction-tuning and prompting can influence this trade-off, we find limited evidence that they fundamentally expand the frontier of explanatory faithfulness beyond what is achievable with pretrained models of comparable size. Our analysis highlights the nuanced relationship between instruction-tuning, verbosity, and the faithful representation of model decision processes.

Reward models (RMs) are at the crux of successfully using RLHF to align pretrained models to human preferences, yet there has been relatively little study that focuses on evaluation of those models. Evaluating reward models presents an opportunity to understand the opaque technologies used for alignment of language models and which values are embedded in them. Resources for reward model training and understanding are sparse in the nascent open-source community around them. To enhance scientific understanding of reward models, we present RewardBench, a benchmark dataset and code-base for evaluation. The RewardBench dataset is a collection of prompt-chosen-rejected trios spanning chat, reasoning, and safety, to benchmark how reward models perform on challenging, structured and out-of-distribution queries. We create specific comparison datasets for RMs that have subtle, but verifiable reasons (e.g. bugs, incorrect facts) why one answer should be preferred to another. On the RewardBench leaderboard, we evaluate reward models trained with a variety of methods, such as the direct MLE training of classifiers and the implicit reward modeling of Direct Preference Optimization (DPO). We present many findings on propensity for refusals, reasoning limitations, and instruction following shortcomings of various reward models towards a better understanding of the RLHF process.

Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT demonstrate significant potential in the medical field, often evaluated using multiple-choice questions (MCQs) similar to those found on the USMLE. Despite their prevalence in medical education, MCQs have limitations that might be exacerbated when assessing LLMs. To evaluate the effectiveness of MCQs in assessing the performance of LLMs, we developed a fictional medical benchmark focused on a non-existent gland, the Glianorex. This approach allowed us to isolate the knowledge of the LLM from its test-taking abilities. We used GPT-4 to generate a comprehensive textbook on the Glianorex in both English and French and developed corresponding multiple-choice questions in both languages. We evaluated various open-source, proprietary, and domain-specific LLMs using these questions in a zero-shot setting. The models achieved average scores around 67%, with minor performance differences between larger and smaller models. Performance was slightly higher in English than in French. Fine-tuned medical models showed some improvement over their base versions in English but not in French. The uniformly high performance across models suggests that traditional MCQ-based benchmarks may not accurately measure LLMs' clinical knowledge and reasoning abilities, instead highlighting their pattern recognition skills. This study underscores the need for more robust evaluation methods to better assess the true capabilities of LLMs in medical contexts.