arXiv:2605.25272v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: While aggregate leaderboard scores drive AI development, they contain substantial measurement noise whose sources and magnitudes remain unquantified, making it unclear when rankings reflect genuine capability differences versus evaluation artifacts. We introduce a framework for measuring the latent landscape in AI benchmark ecosystems. Applying Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Generalizability Theory to 4,000+ models from the Open LLM Leaderboard, we decompose sources of ranking variance and establish: (1) structures assumed in current reporting practice underestimate the strength of relationships between benchmarks; (2) evidence of local dependence among leaderboard items, undermining uses of benchmarks as measurement instruments under current scoring systems; (3) contributor metadata explains more rank-relevant variance ($\approx9\%$) than architecture or deployment categories in this context; (4) a manifest-score "scaling law" slope has low reliability ($R_{\beta}=0.53$); by contrast, the latent general-factor size slope is highly stable across ecosystem controls ($R_g=0.97$). We are able to provide unique insights into benchmark dynamics, such as which benchmarks are a function of LLM size and which can be oppositely impacted by post-training practices. We provide actionable diagnostics to determine how benchmark rankings can be trusted and how benchmark design can be improved.

arXiv:2412.06154v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Countless science and engineering applications in multi-objective optimization (MOO) necessitate that decision-makers (DMs) select a Pareto-optimal (PO) solution which aligns with their preferences. Evaluating individual solutions is often expensive, and the high-dimensional trade-off space makes exhaustive exploration of the full Pareto frontier (PF) infeasible. We introduce a novel, principled two-step process for obtaining a compact set of PO points that aligns with user preferences, which are specified a priori as general monotonic utility functions (MFs). Our process (1) densely samples the user's region of interest on the PF, then (2) sparsifies the results into a small, diverse set for the DM. We instantiate this framework with soft-hard functions (SHFs), an intuitive class of MFs that operationalizes the common expert heuristic of imposing soft and hard bounds. We provide extensive empirical validation of our framework instantiated with SHFs on diverse domains, including brachytherapy, engineering design, and large language models. For brachytherapy, our approach returns a compact set of points with over 3% greater SHF-defined utility than the next best approach. Among the other domains, our approach consistently leads in utility, as a final compact set of just 5 points captures over 99% of the utility offered by the entire dense set.

arXiv:2603.06603v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Data duplication during pretraining can degrade generalization and lead to memorization, motivating aggressive deduplication pipelines. However, at web scale, it is unclear what constitutes a ``duplicate'': beyond surface-form matches, semantically equivalent documents (e.g. translations) may induce redundant training signals once models become sufficiently capable. Practically, this means that semantic duplicates operate increasingly like exact duplicates during training. We present evidence that duplication is scale-dependent in two ways. First, as model capability increases, cross-entropy loss gradients for semantically equivalent documents become more aligned. Smaller models, by contrast, produce gradients that reflect surface similarity (e.g., shared tokens) rather than semantic similarity. Second, we embedded all 192 million FineWeb-Edu-Dedup documents using EmbeddingGemma-300m. For moderate corpus sizes, the cosine similarity between nearest-neighbors follows an isotropic power law baseline. However, as corpus size grows to hundreds of billions of tokens, the nearest-neighbor similarities deviate sharply, indicating accelerated semantic collisions. Finally, controlled pretraining on data sampled with replacement from pools of finite unique documents shows that limited uniqueness yields mild degradation for small models, but rapidly increasing loss penalties for larger models, breaking naive scaling extrapolation. We derive explicit scaling laws that allow practitioners to estimate deviation from expected scaling due to limited semantic uniqueness of the pretraining corpus. Our results identify and resolve an unstudied source of scale-dependence, allowing for more accurate prediction at scale.

arXiv:2603.06612v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Pass@k and other methods of scaling inference compute can improve language model performance in domains with external verifiers, including mathematics and code, where incorrect candidates can be filtered reliably. This raises a natural question: can we similarly scale compute to elicit gains in truthfulness for domains without convenient verification? We show that across five benchmarks and models, surprisingly, it cannot. Even at 25x the inference cost of naive sampling, polling-style aggregation yields no consistent accuracy gains over single-sample baselines and often amplifies shared misconceptions. We find that under uncertainty, models are better at predicting what other models will say within model ensembles than at identifying what is true, revealing a separation between social prediction and truth verification. Across models and benchmarks, aggregation fails to provide a robust truth signal because language model errors are strongly correlated. The source of correlation goes beyond any individual benchmark: we show that even when conditioned on out of distribution random strings and asked to produce pseudo-random outputs, different models produce correlated outputs. Confidence-based weighting provides no benefit because self-reported confidence fails to reliably distinguish correct from incorrect answers. These results delineate a boundary for inference-time scaling: in verified domains, additional samples provide more candidates for a verifier to filter; in unverified domains, additional samples merely reinforce shared misconceptions.

arXiv:2602.13666v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: In complex clinical decision-making, clinicians must often track a variety of competing metrics defined by aim (ideal) and limit (strict) thresholds. Sifting through these high-dimensional tradeoffs to infer the optimal patient-specific strategy is cognitively demanding and historically prone to variability. In this paper, we address this challenge within the context of High-Dose-Rate (HDR) brachytherapy for cervical cancer, where planning requires strictly managing radiation hot spots while balancing tumor coverage against organ sparing. We present ALMo (Aim-Limit-defined Multi-Objective system), an interactive decision support system designed to infer and operationalize clinician intent. ALMo employs a novel optimization framework that minimizes manual input through automated parameter setup and enables flexible control over toxicity risks. Crucially, the system allows clinicians to navigate the Pareto surface of dosimetric tradeoffs by directly manipulating intuitive aim and limit values. In a retrospective evaluation of 25 clinical cases, ALMo generated treatment plans that consistently met or exceeded manual planning quality, with 65% of cases demonstrating dosimetric improvements. Furthermore, the system significantly enhanced efficiency, reducing average planning time to approximately 17 minutes, compared to the conventional 30-60 minutes. While validated in brachytherapy, ALMo demonstrates a generalized framework for streamlining interaction in multi-criteria clinical decision-making.