Daily Papers

As Large Language Models (LLMs) scale, data curation has shifted from maximizing volume to optimizing the signal-to-noise ratio by performing quality filtering. However, for many languages, native high quality data is insufficient to train robust quality classifiers. This work investigates the idea that quality markers in embedding space may show cross-lingual consistency, which would allow high-resource languages to subsidize the filtering of low-resource ones. We evaluate various filtering strategies, including cross-lingual transfer, third quartile sampling (Q3), and retention rate tuning. Our results demonstrate that massive multilingual pooling frequently outperforms monolingual baselines in both rank stability and aggregate accuracy for a 1B model trained on 103B tokens, delivering gains for high resource languages (1.2% increase in aggregate normalized accuracy for French) and matching or exceeding monolingual baselines for low-resource languages. However, we find that scale alone does not guarantee stability. Furthermore, for high-resource languages like French, we show that refining the decision boundary through third quartile sampling (Q3) or tuning the retention rate is necessary to fully leverage the multilingual signal.

Assessing the capabilities and risks of frontier AI systems is a critical area of research, and recent work has shown that repeated sampling from models can dramatically increase both. For instance, repeated sampling has been shown to increase their capabilities, such as solving difficult math and coding problems, but it has also been shown to increase their potential for harm, such as being jailbroken. Such results raise a crucial question for both capability and safety forecasting: how can one accurately predict a model's behavior when scaled to a massive number of attempts, given a vastly smaller sampling budget? This question is directly relevant to model providers, who serve hundreds of millions of users daily, and to governmental regulators, who seek to prevent harms. To answer this questions, we make three contributions. First, we find that standard methods for fitting these laws suffer from statistical shortcomings that hinder predictive accuracy, especially in data-limited scenarios. Second, we remedy these shortcomings by introducing a robust estimation framework, which uses a beta-binomial distribution to generate more accurate predictions from limited data. Third, we propose a dynamic sampling strategy that allocates a greater budget to harder problems. Combined, these innovations enable more reliable prediction of rare risks and capabilities at a fraction of the computational cost.

We propose a new test to measure a text model's multitask accuracy. The test covers 57 tasks including elementary mathematics, US history, computer science, law, and more. To attain high accuracy on this test, models must possess extensive world knowledge and problem solving ability. We find that while most recent models have near random-chance accuracy, the very largest GPT-3 model improves over random chance by almost 20 percentage points on average. However, on every one of the 57 tasks, the best models still need substantial improvements before they can reach expert-level accuracy. Models also have lopsided performance and frequently do not know when they are wrong. Worse, they still have near-random accuracy on some socially important subjects such as morality and law. By comprehensively evaluating the breadth and depth of a model's academic and professional understanding, our test can be used to analyze models across many tasks and to identify important shortcomings.

We test whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can be used to simulate human participants in social-science studies. To do this, we run replications of 14 studies from the Many Labs 2 replication project with OpenAI's text-davinci-003 model, colloquially known as GPT3.5. Based on our pre-registered analyses, we find that among the eight studies we could analyse, our GPT sample replicated 37.5% of the original results and 37.5% of the Many Labs 2 results. However, we were unable to analyse the remaining six studies due to an unexpected phenomenon we call the "correct answer" effect. Different runs of GPT3.5 answered nuanced questions probing political orientation, economic preference, judgement, and moral philosophy with zero or near-zero variation in responses: with the supposedly "correct answer." In one exploratory follow-up study, we found that a "correct answer" was robust to changing the demographic details that precede the prompt. In another, we found that most but not all "correct answers" were robust to changing the order of answer choices. One of our most striking findings occurred in our replication of the Moral Foundations Theory survey results, where we found GPT3.5 identifying as a political conservative in 99.6% of the cases, and as a liberal in 99.3% of the cases in the reverse-order condition. However, both self-reported 'GPT conservatives' and 'GPT liberals' showed right-leaning moral foundations. Our results cast doubts on the validity of using LLMs as a general replacement for human participants in the social sciences. Our results also raise concerns that a hypothetical AI-led future may be subject to a diminished diversity-of-thought.

While AI shows promise for enhancing the efficiency of qualitative analysis, the unique human-AI interaction resulting from varied coding strategies makes it challenging to develop a trustworthy AI-assisted qualitative coding system (AIQCs) that supports coding tasks effectively. We bridge this gap by exploring the impact of varying coding strategies on user trust and reliance on AI. We conducted a mixed-methods split-plot 3x3 study, involving 30 participants, and a follow-up study with 6 participants, exploring varying text selection and code length in the use of our AIQCs system for qualitative analysis. Our results indicate that qualitative open coding should be conceptualized as a series of distinct subtasks, each with differing levels of complexity, and therefore, should be given tailored design considerations. We further observed a discrepancy between perceived and behavioral measures, and emphasized the potential challenges of under- and over-reliance on AIQCs systems. Additional design implications were also proposed for consideration.

In LLM-agent opinion simulations, each agent reports the probability that a claim is true after seeing its own previous probability and the probabilities reported by its neighbors, and that number becomes its state in the next round. If the number describes the agent's position rather than the sentence it was shown, then rewriting the claim as its complement and replacing every probability p with 1 - p should return the complementary answer, so the two reports should sum to one. We test this with three small open models: Qwen3-4B, Llama-3.2-3B and Gemma-3-4B. On 2,304 agent states taken from a running network simulation, Qwen's paired reports sum to 1.18 on average, and on 48 real fact-checking claims from AVeriTeC they again exceed one. A controlled benchmark of 24 worlds, each with exactly two possible outcomes, shows the same failure in all three models. The discrepancy is two to ten times larger than the change produced by a same-meaning paraphrase, and it persists under repeated sampling and across peer group sizes and report strengths. When the reports are fed back into two populations that start from complementary states, the populations do not remain mirror images: their divergence is positive after five rounds for every model. Averaging each answer with the complement of its paired answer restores consistency by construction and lowers Brier loss averaged over the two wordings, but at the final round it beats the better of the two original wordings for only one of the three models. A schedule-by-targeting experiment on the same model gives a small, stable interaction because such sweeps keep the claim wording fixed. Consistency under rewording therefore needs its own test before simulated probabilities are read as beliefs

Introductory texts on statistics typically only cover the classical "two sigma" confidence interval for the mean value and do not describe methods to obtain confidence intervals for other estimators. The present technical report fills this gap by first defining different methods for the construction of confidence intervals, and then by their application to a binomial proportion, the mean value, and to arbitrary estimators. Beside the frequentist approach, the likelihood ratio and the highest posterior density approach are explained. Two methods to estimate the variance of general maximum likelihood estimators are described (Hessian, Jackknife), and for arbitrary estimators the bootstrap is suggested. For three examples, the different methods are evaluated by means of Monte Carlo simulations with respect to their coverage probability and interval length. R code is given for all methods, and the practitioner obtains a guideline which method should be used in which cases.

Hoffmann et al. (2022) propose three methods for estimating a compute-optimal scaling law. We attempt to replicate their third estimation procedure, which involves fitting a parametric loss function to a reconstruction of data from their plots. We find that the reported estimates are inconsistent with their first two estimation methods, fail at fitting the extracted data, and report implausibly narrow confidence intervals--intervals this narrow would require over 600,000 experiments, while they likely only ran fewer than 500. In contrast, our rederivation of the scaling law using the third approach yields results that are compatible with the findings from the first two estimation procedures described by Hoffmann et al.