LGOct 29, 2025Code
Exploring Human-AI Conceptual Alignment through the Prism of ChessSemyon Lomasov, Judah Goldfeder, Mehmet Hamza Erol et al.
Do AI systems truly understand human concepts or merely mimic surface patterns? We investigate this through chess, where human creativity meets precise strategic concepts. Analyzing a 270M-parameter transformer that achieves grandmaster-level play, we uncover a striking paradox: while early layers encode human concepts like center control and knight outposts with up to 85\% accuracy, deeper layers, despite driving superior performance, drift toward alien representations, dropping to 50-65\% accuracy. To test conceptual robustness beyond memorization, we introduce the first Chess960 dataset: 240 expert-annotated positions across 6 strategic concepts. When opening theory is eliminated through randomized starting positions, concept recognition drops 10-20\% across all methods, revealing the model's reliance on memorized patterns rather than abstract understanding. Our layer-wise analysis exposes a fundamental tension in current architectures: the representations that win games diverge from those that align with human thinking. These findings suggest that as AI systems optimize for performance, they develop increasingly alien intelligence, a critical challenge for creative AI applications requiring genuine human-AI collaboration. Dataset and code are available at: https://github.com/slomasov/ChessConceptsLLM.
CLNov 9, 2025
You Had One Job: Per-Task Quantization Using LLMs' Hidden RepresentationsAmit LeVi, Raz Lapid, Rom Himelstein et al.
Large Language Models (LLMs) excel across diverse tasks, yet many applications require only limited capabilities, making large variants inefficient in memory and latency. Existing approaches often combine distillation and quantization, but most post-training quantization (PTQ) methods are task-agnostic, ignoring how task-specific signals are distributed across layers. In this work, we propose to use hidden representations that encode task-salient signals as a guideline for quantization. In order to fully utilize our innovative idea, this paper compares two new task-aware PTQ methods: Task-Aware Quantization (TAQ), which allocates bitwidths using task-conditioned statistics from hidden activations, and TAQO, which allocates precision based on direct layer sensitivity tests. From a small calibration set, these approaches identify task-relevant layers, preserving their precision while aggressively quantizing the rest. This yields stable task sensitivity profiles and efficient task-specialized models. Across models, TAQ and TAQO outperform the baselines; TAQ leads on Phi-4, while TAQO leads on Llama-3.1, Qwen3, and Qwen2.5. For instances, on Phi-4 it achieves 42.33 EM / 50.81 F1, far surpassing Activation-aware Weight Quantization (AWQ) (2.25 / 7.07), while remaining within < 1.0% of the original accuracy at lower average precision.
AIJan 9
The Illusion of Human AI Parity Under Uncertainty: Navigating Elusive Ground Truth via a Probabilistic ParadigmAparna Elangovan, Lei Xu, Mahsa Elyasi et al.
Benchmarking the relative capabilities of AI systems, including Large Language Models (LLMs) and Vision Models, typically ignores the impact of uncertainty in the underlying ground truth answers from experts. This ambiguity is not just limited to human preferences, but is also consequential even in safety critical domains such as medicine where uncertainty is pervasive. In this paper, we introduce a probabilistic paradigm to theoretically explain how - high certainty in ground truth answers is almost always necessary for even an expert to achieve high scores, whereas in datasets with high variation in ground truth answers there may be little difference between a random labeller and an expert. Therefore, ignoring uncertainty in ground truth evaluation data can result in the misleading conclusion that a non-expert has similar performance to that of an expert. Using the probabilistic paradigm, we thus bring forth the concepts of expected accuracy and expected F1 to estimate the score an expert human or system can achieve given ground truth answer variability. Our work leads to the recommendation that when establishing the capability of a system, results should be stratified by probability of the ground truth answer, typically measured by the agreement rate of ground truth experts. Stratification becomes critical when the overall performance drops below a threshold of 80\%. Under stratified evaluation, performance comparison becomes more reliable in high certainty bins, mitigating the effect of the key confounding factor -- uncertainty.
CLNov 22, 2025Code
A superpersuasive autonomous policy debating systemAllen Roush, Devin Gonier, John Hines et al.
The capacity for highly complex, evidence-based, and strategically adaptive persuasion remains a formidable great challenge for artificial intelligence. Previous work, like IBM Project Debater, focused on generating persuasive speeches in simplified and shortened debate formats intended for relatively lay audiences. We introduce DeepDebater, a novel autonomous system capable of participating in and winning a full, unmodified, two-team competitive policy debate. Our system employs a hierarchical architecture of specialized multi-agent workflows, where teams of LLM-powered agents collaborate and critique one another to perform discrete argumentative tasks. Each workflow utilizes iterative retrieval, synthesis, and self-correction using a massive corpus of policy debate evidence (OpenDebateEvidence) and produces complete speech transcripts, cross-examinations, and rebuttals. We introduce a live, interactive end-to-end presentation pipeline that renders debates with AI speech and animation: transcripts are surface-realized and synthesized to audio with OpenAI TTS, and then displayed as talking-head portrait videos with EchoMimic V1. Beyond fully autonomous matches (AI vs AI), DeepDebater supports hybrid human-AI operation: human debaters can intervene at any stage, and humans can optionally serve as opponents against AI in any speech, allowing AI-human and AI-AI rounds. In preliminary evaluations against human-authored cases, DeepDebater produces qualitatively superior argumentative components and consistently wins simulated rounds as adjudicated by an independent autonomous judge. Expert human debate coaches also prefer the arguments, evidence, and cases constructed by DeepDebater. We open source all code, generated speech transcripts, audio and talking head video here: https://github.com/Hellisotherpeople/DeepDebater/tree/main