OpenAI could be valued at $1tn if it launches an initial public offering, Reuters said. OpenAI could be valued at $1tn if it launches an initial public offering, Reuters said. The year of the'hectocorn': the $100bn tech companies that could float in 2026 Y ou've probably heard of "unicorns" - technology startups valued at more than $1bn - but 2026 is shaping up to be the year of the " hectocorn ", with several US and European companies potentially floating on stock markets at valuations over $100bn (£75bn). OpenAI, Anthropic, SpaceX and Stripe are among the big names said to be considering an initial public offering (IPO) this year. The success of their flotations - whether the shares maintain their value, rise or fall - could shape concerns about the AI race and whether the resulting market mania is a bubble .

Humans are good at compositional zero-shot reasoning; someone who has never seen a zebra before could nevertheless recognize one when we tell them it looks like a horse with black and white stripes. Machine learning systems, on the other hand, usually leverage spurious correlations in the training data, and while such correlations can help recognize objects in context, they hurt generalization. To be able to deal with underspecified datasets while still leveraging contextual clues during classification, we propose ProtoProp, a novel prototype propagation graph method. First we learn prototypical representations of objects (e.g., zebra) that are independent w.r.t.

Probabilistic forecasting consists in predicting a distribution of possible future outcomes. In this paper, we address this problem for non-stationary time series, which is very challenging yet crucially important. We introduce the STRIPE model for representing structured diversity based on shape and time features, ensuring both probable predictions while being sharp and accurate. STRIPE is agnostic to the forecasting model, and we equip it with a diversification mechanism relying on determinantal point processes (DPP). We introduce two DPP kernels for modelling diverse trajectories in terms of shape and time, which are both differentiable and proved to be positive semi-definite. To have an explicit control on the diversity structure, we also design an iterative sampling mechanism to disentangle shape and time representations in the latent space. Experiments carried out on synthetic datasets show that STRIPE significantly outperforms baseline methods for representing diversity, while maintaining accuracy of the forecasting model. We also highlight the relevance of the iterative sampling scheme and the importance to use different criteria for measuring quality and diversity. Finally, experiments on real datasets illustrate that STRIPE is able to outperform state-of-the-art probabilistic forecasting approaches in the best sample prediction.

Large language models (LLMs) memorize a vast amount of prior knowledge from the Internet that helps them on downstream tasks but also may notoriously sway their outputs towards wrong or biased answers. In this work, we test how the knowledge about popular subjects hurt the accuracy of vision language models (VLMs) on standard, objective visual tasks of counting and identification. We find that state-of-the-art VLMs are strongly biased (e.g., unable to recognize the 4th stripe has been added to a 3-stripe Adidas logo) scoring an average of 17.05% accuracy in counting (e.g., counting stripes in an Adidas-like logo) across 7 diverse domains from animals, logos, chess, board games, optical illusions, to patterned grids. Removing image backgrounds nearly doubles accuracy (21.09 percentage points), revealing that contextual visual cues trigger these biased responses. Further analysis of VLMs' reasoning patterns shows that counting accuracy initially rises with thinking tokens, reaching ~40%, before declining with excessive reasoning. Our work presents an interesting failure mode in VLMs and a human-supervised automated framework for testing VLM biases. Code and data are available at: vlmsarebiased.github.io.

Existing evaluation protocols for brain visual decoding predominantly rely on coarse metrics that obscure inter-model differences, lack neuroscientific foundation, and fail to capture fine-grained visual distinctions. To address these limitations, we introduce BASIC, a unified, multigranular evaluation framework that jointly quantifies structural fidelity, inferential alignment, and contextual coherence between decoded and ground-truth images. For the structural level, we introduce a hierarchical suite of segmentation-based metrics, including foreground, semantic, instance, and component masks, anchored in granularity-aware correspondence across mask structures. For the semantic level, we extract structured scene representations encompassing objects, attributes, and relationships using multimodal large language models, enabling detailed, scalable, and context-rich comparisons with ground-truth stimuli. We benchmark a diverse set of visual decoding methods across multiple stimulus-neuroimaging datasets within this unified evaluation framework. Together, these criteria provide a more discriminative, interpretable, and comprehensive foundation for evaluating brain visual decoding methods.

Feature attributions attempt to highlight what inputs drive predictive power. Good attributions or explanations are thus those that produce inputs that retain this predictive power; accordingly, evaluations of explanations score their quality of prediction. However, evaluations produce scores better than what appears possible from the values in the explanation for a class of explanations, called encoding explanations. Probing for encoding remains a challenge because there is no general characterization of what gives the extra predictive power. We develop a definition of encoding that identifies this extra predictive power via conditional dependence and show that the definition fits existing examples of encoding. This definition implies, in contrast to encoding explanations, that non-encoding explanations contain all the informative inputs used to produce the explanation, giving them a "what you see is what you get" property, which makes them transparent and simple to use.

This is the supplementary material for the paper'Pruning Filter in Filter'.

SWP is implemented by introducing a novel learnable matrix called Filter Skeleton, whose values reflect the shape of each filter.

Did you specify all the training details (e.g., data splits, hyperparameters, how they were chosen)?