To ensure quality, all charts and questions are handpicked, curated, and verified by human experts.

Recent black-box counterfactual generation frameworks fail to take into account the semantic content of the proposed edits, while relying heavily on training to guide the generation process. We propose a novel, plug-and-play black-box counterfactual generation framework, which suggests step-by-step edits based on theoretical guarantees of optimal edits to produce human-level counterfactual explanations with zero training. Our framework utilizes a pre-trained image editing diffusion model, and operates without access to the internals of the classifier, leading to an explainable counterfactual generation process. Throughout our experimentation, we showcase the explanatory gap between human reasoning and neural model behavior by utilizing both Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), Vision Transformer (ViT) and Large Vision Language Model (LVLM) classifiers, substantiated through a comprehensive human evaluation.

LLM-powered coding agents, which operate in iterative loops (turns) to solve software engineering tasks, are becoming increasingly powerful. However, their practical deployment is hindered by significant and unpredictable costs. This challenge arises from a combination of factors: quadratically growing token counts with each turn, the high price of models, the large number of turns required for real-world tasks, and the tendency of agents to take inefficient or unnecessary actions. While existing research focuses on optimizing individual turns, the strategic control of the total number of turns remains an underexplored area for managing agent performance and cost. To address this gap, we conduct a comprehensive empirical study on SWE-bench using three state-of-the-art models and evaluate the impact of three distinct turn-control strategies: an unrestricted baseline, a fixed-turn limit with reminders, and a novel dynamic-turn strategy that grants extensions on-demand. Our findings first reveal a fundamental trade-off in the unrestricted setting, where no single model excels across performance, cost, and turn efficiency. We then show that a fixed-turn limit, specifically at the 75th percentile of the baseline, serves as a "sweet spot", substantially reducing costs (by 24%-68%) with minimal impact on solve rates. Most significantly, the dynamic-turn strategy consistently outperforms fixed-limit approaches, achieving comparable or better solve rates while further reducing costs by an additional 12%-24% by intelligently allocating resources only to tasks that need them. This work provides the first systematic analysis of turn-control strategies, offering simple yet effective guidelines for developers to balance cost and efficacy. We demonstrate that dynamic resource allocation is a superior, easy-to-implement approach for deploying powerful yet economically viable coding agents.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in finance and economics, where prompt-based attempts against look-ahead bias implicitly assume that models understand chronology. We test this fundamental question with a series of chronological ordering tasks with increasing complexities over facts the model already knows from pre-training. Our tasks cover (1) chronological ordering, (2) conditional sorting (filter, then order), and (3) anachronism detection. We evaluate GPT-4.1, Claude-3.7 Sonnet, with and without Extended Thinking (ET), and GPT-5 across multiple reasoning-effort settings. Across models, Exact match rate drops sharply as sequences lengthen even while rank correlations stay high as LLMs largely preserve local order but struggle to maintain a single globally consistent timeline. In conditional sorting, most failures stem from the filtering step rather than the ordering step, but GPT-5 and Claude-3.7 Sonnet with Extended Thinking outshine normal models significantly. Lastly, anachronism detection is found to be the easiest task for the LLMs but performance still declines with increasingly overlapping timelines or entities. Overall, our main contribution is showing that allocating explicit reasoning budget helps with chronological ordering with GPT-5 at medium/high reasoning effort achieving flawless ordering at all lengths and perfect conditional sorting (both self-filtered and given-subset), whereas low/minimal effort degrades with longer lists, mirroring earlier models. Our findings delineate limits of current LLMs on chronological tasks, providing insights into task complexity, and demonstrate scenarios in which reasoning helps. These patterns are important for the real-time application of LLMs in finance. We release all code and evaluation templates to support full reproducibility.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities across diverse tasks, but they remain susceptible to hallucinations--generating content that appears plausible but contains factual inaccuracies. We present Finch-Zk, a black-box framework that leverages fine-grained cross-model consistency to detect and mitigate hallucinations in LLM outputs without requiring external knowledge sources. Finch-Zk introduces two key innovations: 1) a cross-model consistency checking strategy that reveals fine-grained inaccuracies by comparing responses generated by diverse models from semantically-equivalent prompts, and 2) a targeted mitigation technique that applies precise corrections to problematic segments while preserving accurate content. Experiments on the FELM dataset show Finch-Zk improves hallucination detection F1 scores by 6-39\% compared to existing approaches. For mitigation, Finch-Zk achieves up to 9 absolute percentage points improvement in answer accuracy on the GPQA-diamond dataset when applied to state-of-the-art models like Llama 4 Maverick and Claude 4 Sonnet. Extensive evaluation on multiple datasets demonstrates that Finch-Zk provides a practical, deployment-ready safeguard for enhancing factual reliability in production LLM systems.

Recent investigations into effective context lengths of modern flagship large language models (LLMs) have revealed major limitations in effective question answering (QA) and reasoning over long and complex contexts for even the largest and most impressive cadre of models. While approaches like retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) and chunk-based re-ranking attempt to mitigate this issue, they are sensitive to chunking, embedding and retrieval strategies and models, and furthermore, rely on extensive pre-processing, knowledge acquisition and indexing steps. In this paper, we propose Tagging-Augmented Generation (TAG), a lightweight data augmentation strategy that boosts LLM performance in long-context scenarios, without degrading and altering the integrity and composition of retrieved documents. We validate our hypothesis by augmenting two challenging and directly relevant question-answering benchmarks -- NoLima and NovelQA -- and show that tagging the context or even just adding tag definitions into QA prompts leads to consistent performance gains over the baseline -- up to 17% for 32K token contexts, and 2.9% in complex reasoning question-answering for multi-hop queries requiring knowledge across a wide span of text. Additional details are available at https://sites.google.com/view/tag-emnlp.

The availability of LLM benchmarks for the Estonian language is limited, and a comprehensive evaluation comparing the performance of different LLMs on Estonian tasks has yet to be conducted. We introduce a new benchmark for evaluating LLMs in Estonian, based on seven diverse datasets. These datasets assess general and domain-specific knowledge, understanding of Estonian grammar and vocabulary, summarization abilities, contextual comprehension, and more. The datasets are all generated from native Estonian sources without using machine translation. We compare the performance of base models, instruction-tuned open-source models, and commercial models. Our evaluation includes 6 base models and 26 instruction-tuned models. To assess the results, we employ both human evaluation and LLM-as-a-judge methods. Human evaluation scores showed moderate to high correlation with benchmark evaluations, depending on the dataset. Claude 3.7 Sonnet, used as an LLM judge, demonstrated strong alignment with human ratings, indicating that top-performing LLMs can effectively support the evaluation of Estonian-language models.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly trained from AI constitutions and model specifications that establish behavioral guidelines and ethical principles. However, these specifications face critical challenges, including internal conflicts between principles and insufficient coverage of nuanced scenarios. We present a systematic methodology for stress-testing model character specifications, automatically identifying numerous cases of principle contradictions and interpretive ambiguities in current model specs. We stress test current model specs by generating scenarios that force explicit tradeoffs between competing value-based principles. Using a comprehensive taxonomy we generate diverse value tradeoff scenarios where models must choose between pairs of legitimate principles that cannot be simultaneously satisfied. We evaluate responses from twelve frontier LLMs across major providers (Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, xAI) and measure behavioral disagreement through value classification scores. Among these scenarios, we identify over 70,000 cases exhibiting significant behavioral divergence. Empirically, we show this high divergence in model behavior strongly predicts underlying problems in model specifications. Through qualitative analysis, we provide numerous example issues in current model specs such as direct contradiction and interpretive ambiguities of several principles. Additionally, our generated dataset also reveals both clear misalignment cases and false-positive refusals across all of the frontier models we study. Lastly, we also provide value prioritization patterns and differences of these models.

Artificial intelligence and machine learning are increasingly used for forecasting, optimization, and policy design in the energy sector, yet no standardized framework exists to evaluate whether these systems reason correctly. Current validation practices focus on predictive accuracy or computational efficiency, leaving the logical integrity of analytical conclusions untested. This study introduces the Analytical Reliability Benchmark (ARB), a reproducible framework that quantifies reasoning reliability in large language models applied to energy system analysis. The benchmark integrates five submetrics: accuracy, reasoning reliability, uncertainty discipline, policy consistency, and transparency, and evaluates model performance across deterministic, probabilistic, and epistemic scenarios using open technoeconomic datasets (NREL ATB 2024, DOE H2A/H2New, IEA WEO 2024). Four frontier models (GPT-4/5, Claude 4.5 Sonnet, Gemini 2.5 Pro, Llama 3 70B) were tested under identical factual and regulatory conditions. Results show that reasoning reliability can be objectively measured. GPT-4/5 and Claude 4.5 Sonnet achieved consistent and policy-compliant reasoning (Analytical Reliability Index greater than 90), Gemini 2.5 Pro demonstrated moderate stability, and Llama 3 70B remained below professional thresholds. Statistical validation confirmed that these differences are significant and reproducible. The ARB establishes the first quantitative method in the energy literature for verifying causal, probabilistic, and policy-driven reasoning in artificial intelligence systems, providing a reference framework for trustworthy and transparent analytical applications in the global energy transition.

To ensure quality, all charts and questions are handpicked, curated, and verified by human experts.