Mark E. Whiting

Akshansh, Leonardo Rosa Rodrigues, Michael Korostelev et al.

The supply of high-quality training tasks is a central bottleneck for reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards (RLVR) on agentic language models. Each task requires a sandboxed setup, a prompt, and a hand-authored reward function, and only tasks that pass a quality bar produce useful training signal. Hand-curation at this quality bar does not scale economically to the task counts effective RL training requires, and the substitution rate between automatically generated task variants and human-authored ones is not yet established. We investigate using pre-specified, gate-filtered augmentations of a small hand-authored base as a substitute for additional human curation during RLVR. We formalize the cost-adjusted trade rate $ρ_{\text{cost}}$ between augmented and human-authored tasks, measure it through a controlled ablation across training corpora with varying augmentation share, and characterize the end-to-end economics of the augmentation pipeline. Substituting augmented content for additional human-authored tasks retains aggregate held-out generalization on a ten-benchmark suite spanning code, instruction following, reasoning, and multi-turn agentic function-calling. The cost-adjusted trade rate $ρ_{\text{cost}}$ between gated synthetic and human-authored RLVR tasks stays in $[1.4\times, 11.6\times]$ across the plausible $c_{\text{human}}/c_{\text{aug}}$ range.

Kate M. Lubrano, Faisal Sayed, Ankita Rathod et al.

Emotional intelligence (EI), the ability to perceive, understand, and respond appropriately to others' emotional states, is central to human communication, and increasingly important to assess as LLMs assume conversational roles in everyday life. Existing EI benchmarks rely on synthetic prompts, single-turn cases, or third-party annotation. These approaches do not directly measure how models infer and respond to a participant's emotional state over the course of a real conversation. We introduce AttuneBench, a benchmark grounded in 200 genuine multi-turn human-model conversations in which participants conversed with anonymized LLMs and provided turn-by-turn annotations of their emotional state, the model's behavior, and their preferred responses. Across 11 evaluated models, we find that model rankings on emotion recognition, behavioral classification, preference prediction, and judged response quality are largely independent, indicating that emotionally intelligent behavior decomposes into separable capabilities. Preference alignment and response-quality judgments are substantially more model-discriminating than emotion-label accuracy. These results indicate that emotionally intelligent behavior requires predicting what kind of response a specific user wants in context, a distinction that aggregate scoring can obscure and that single-turn or synthetic formats cannot directly capture across turns. AttuneBench provides a framework for assessing each of these capabilities and for diagnosing model-specific strengths and failure modes in emotionally salient conversation.

Marilyn Zhang, Tianfeng Chen, Fabián Barzuna et al.

LLMs are increasingly deployed in autonomous laboratories, under the assumption that their domain priors and reasoning over iterative feedback let them converge on good designs in fewer iterations than feedback-only baselines. Current iterative scientific design benchmarks, however, score only outcome snapshots at fixed horizons. This leaves the learning trajectory unmeasured, even though the trajectory is what captures learning efficiency, where each iteration saved is a real saving in cost and time. Motivated by this, we examine three evaluation choices that change the conclusions one draws about LLM learning efficiency in iterative scientific design: what to measure, what baseline to compare against, and what to ground against. We introduce LEAPBench, Learning Efficiency in Adaptive Processes, a 55-task framework that pairs a best-so-far area under the curve (AUC) trajectory metric with a classical Bayesian-optimization reference and an audit grounded in published literature. Applied to eight contemporary LLMs, switching from final-outcome to trajectory scoring changes the best-model decision on 53% of tasks at matched horizons, and exposes efficiency gains overlooked by outcome-based scoring. LLMs do not outperform a classical Bayesian baseline. On 16 biology tasks where the oracle's reward signal is aligned with configurations from the published-best design, domain-aware prompting leads to LLM choices that match the published-best's approximately 10 percentage points less often than domain-agnostic prompting at iteration 30. The pattern is sharpest on 6 tasks where the literature-typical and published-best configurations diverge, and domain-agnostic prompting matches the published-best more often on all 6. The trajectory metric also doubles as a tractable training target. Offline reinforcement learning with the metric as a reward improves performance on 14 of 21 held-out tasks.

Tuan Dung Nguyen, Duncan J. Watts, Mark E. Whiting

Commonsense intelligence in machines is often assessed by static benchmarks that compare a model's output against human-prescribed correct labels. An important, albeit implicit, assumption of these labels is that they accurately capture what any human would think, effectively treating human common sense as homogeneous. However, recent empirical work has shown that humans vary enormously in what they consider commonsensical; thus what appears self-evident to one benchmark designer may not be so to another. Here, we propose a method for evaluating common sense in artificial intelligence (AI), specifically in large language models (LLMs), that incorporates empirically observed heterogeneity among humans by measuring the correspondence between a model's judgment and that of a human population. We first find that, when treated as independent survey respondents, most LLMs remain below the human median in their individual commonsense competence. Second, when used as simulators of a hypothetical population, LLMs correlate with real humans only modestly in the extent to which they agree on the same set of statements. In both cases, smaller, open-weight models are surprisingly more competitive than larger, proprietary frontier models. Our evaluation framework, which ties commonsense intelligence to its cultural basis, contributes to the growing call for adapting AI models to human collectivities that possess different, often incompatible, social stocks of knowledge.

Hancheng Cao, Vivian Yang, Victor Chen et al.

Understanding team viability -- a team's capacity for sustained and future success -- is essential for building effective teams. In this study, we aggregate features drawn from the organizational behavior literature to train a viability classification model over a dataset of 669 10-minute text conversations of online teams. We train classifiers to identify teams at the top decile (most viable teams), 50th percentile (above a median split), and bottom decile (least viable teams), then characterize the attributes of teams at each of these viability levels. We find that a lasso regression model achieves an accuracy of .74--.92 AUC ROC under different thresholds of classifying viability scores. From these models, we identify the use of exclusive language such as `but' and `except', and the use of second person pronouns, as the most predictive features for detecting the most viable teams, suggesting that active engagement with others' ideas is a crucial signal of a viable team. Only a small fraction of the 10-minute discussion, as little as 70 seconds, is required for predicting the viability of team interaction. This work suggests opportunities for teams to assess, track, and visualize their own viability in real time as they collaborate.

Abdullah Almaatouq, Joshua Becker, James P. Houghton et al.

Virtual labs allow researchers to design high-throughput and macro-level experiments that are not feasible in traditional in-person physical lab settings. Despite the increasing popularity of online research, researchers still face many technical and logistical barriers when designing and deploying virtual lab experiments. While several platforms exist to facilitate the development of virtual lab experiments, they typically present researchers with a stark trade-off between usability and functionality. We introduce Empirica: a modular virtual lab that offers a solution to the usability-functionality trade-off by employing a "flexible defaults" design strategy. This strategy enables us to maintain complete "build anything" flexibility while offering a development platform that is accessible to novice programmers. Empirica's architecture is designed to allow for parameterizable experimental designs, reusable protocols, and rapid development. These features will increase the accessibility of virtual lab experiments, remove barriers to innovation in experiment design, and enable rapid progress in the understanding of distributed human computation.

Mark E. Whiting, Dilrukshi Gamage, Snehalkumar S. Gaikwad et al.

Crowd workers are distributed and decentralized. While decentralization is designed to utilize independent judgment to promote high-quality results, it paradoxically undercuts behaviors and institutions that are critical to high-quality work. Reputation is one central example: crowdsourcing systems depend on reputation scores from decentralized workers and requesters, but these scores are notoriously inflated and uninformative. In this paper, we draw inspiration from historical worker guilds (e.g., in the silk trade) to design and implement crowd guilds: centralized groups of crowd workers who collectively certify each other's quality through double-blind peer assessment. A two-week field experiment compared crowd guilds to a traditional decentralized crowd work model. Crowd guilds produced reputation signals more strongly correlated with ground-truth worker quality than signals available on current crowd working platforms, and more accurate than in the traditional model.