论文库

Debate has been recently proposed as a training protocol that is hoped to produce more aligned models even as model capabilities scale. The idea is that the human, instead of providing supervision in the form of labels, judges a debate between two models that compete to prove the correctness of opposite labels. It can be shown that functions of a much higher computational complexity can be correctly judged in this way, compared to the complexity of functions that can be directly evaluated using a computationally weak evaluator. This suggests that perhaps debate can be used to teach very complicated functions to models. However, previous work has largely ignored the fact that this is a training protocol, and simply analyzes the game being played between the two debaters for a known judge. We take the first steps towards understanding the learning problem implicit within the protocol, by formulating it as an online learning problem. We show that once we formulate the learning problem precisely, there are cases where the best way to learn given access to a judge is different from running an adversarial debate. This motivates us to define a cooperative version of the protocol, whose learnability we characterize using a combinatorial dimension. We also consider the possibility of the human judge being fallible and occasionally judging the debate incorrectly. We show that a small number of errors in judgement can lead to a large error in learning.

Existing natural-language-to-SQL benchmarks primarily evaluate queries over bounded relational data, leaving streaming semantics underexplored. We introduce FlinkEval, an execution-grounded synthetic benchmark comprising 3,903 question--SQL pairs across 45 industry domains and 45 semantic labels. We create diverse schemas and domain-plausible, temporally consistent data through iterative generation and validation. SQL patterns collected from the human-written NL2SQL pairs and vendor documentation drive quota-balanced generation, and execution with a repair loop on Confluent Cloud Apache Flink produces reference queries covering windowing, temporal joins, pattern matching, nested types, and data manipulation. The corpus includes paired schema-explicit and business-language requests, with annotations for analysis by query pattern, complexity, and execution mode. A seven-level Question Specification Ladder examines semantics-preserving reformulation and underspecified requests augmented with oracle-derived clues. Baseline evaluations combine execution outcomes with adjudicated LLM judgments, revealing challenges in pattern composition and request specification.

Traditional nonverbal behavior generation systems for virtual agents typically take utterances as input and generate behaviors that match or illustrate the spoken words. However, human nonverbal behavior is shaped by more than speech content. It is influenced by speaker roles, interpersonal relationships, social context, and cognitive and emotional states of interactants. Therefore, the nonverbal channel carries information or emotions hidden in words. Modeling these complex verbal-nonverbal mismatches is critical for realistic virtual agents, particularly in training applications. We propose a taxonomy of mismatches, strengthening, mitigating, and leaking, and evaluate whether LLMs can select contextually appropriate mismatched behaviors. Through human-subject studies, we assess whether these context-driven behaviors, realized in a virtual human framework, produce the intended effects. Our results demonstrate that LLMs, when prompted with social context, successfully select targeted mismatched behaviors (e.g., sarcasm). Furthermore, the human-subject evaluation confirms that these nonverbal cues significantly shift observers' perceptions of the agent's attitude and emotional valence. Participants successfully distinguished between distinct mismatch functions, such as strengthening, mitigating, and leaking, perceiving clear directional shifts in social meaning compared to matching baselines.

Users often complain that AI assistants such as ChatGPT are getting worse. Some versions do change, but human evaluation leaves a second possibility untested: the people judging may change. We separate the two on Chatbot Arena, a public platform where people compare answers from two anonymous large language models (LLMs) and pick the better one or say both are bad. We study 1,260,967 blind votes cast from May 2023 to August 2024 on pairs of models whose versions are fixed: dated vendor snapshots and models with fixed open weights. For the same pair of unchanged models, the share of votes saying "both are bad" rises by 1.71 percentage points a month on a mean of 17.1%, and by 1.91 points a month in 2024. In fourteen pairs observed often in both 2023 and 2024, it rose in every one, from 15.5% to 23.3%. The ranking does not trend: in 2024, the stronger model's share of decisive votes is flat. The rise holds within the same voter and on the same pair, and across arrival cohorts from their first recorded vote. It holds with prompt controls, in every major language, for dated vendor snapshots, open-weight models and models with stable answer length, and between interface changes. The drift is shared across models: month effects estimated from other models' pairs remove it from each model's own pairs. Platform-wide, the average model would be expected to score 78% against the 2023 average, yet the share of "both are bad" votes ended near where it began. The pattern fits a standard that follows the category's progress, so a product that stands still is judged as declining. Absolute verdicts on AI drifted while relative comparisons held steady, an evaluation drift that matters for LLM leaderboards and for the human feedback used to train models.