Riccardo Neumarker

Varun Sunkaraneni, Pierfrancesco Beneventano, Riccardo Neumarker et al.

Can a committee of weak reasoning-model calls reach the performance of much stronger models? We study verifier-backed committee search as inference-time boosting for reasoning language models. The mechanism is not simply that ``more agents help'': samples expose latent correct solutions, while critics and comparators must recover them without access to the hidden verifier. We formalize this view by separating proposal coverage, local identifiability, progress, and diversity. We prove that coverage can be amplified by repeated sampling, but cannot by itself create useful critics or comparators; reliable amplification requires an additional local soundness signal, such as execution, proof checking, type checking, tests, or constraint solving. We give rank-based bounds showing when local selection errors compose into reliable trajectories, and characterize the proposer-side ceiling: oracle best-of-\(k\) converges only to the mass of task slices on which the proposal system assigns nonzero useful probability. Empirically, on SWE-bench Verified, a single \texttt{GPT-5.4 nano} proposal solves \(67.0\%\) of tasks. Using the same nano model, our critic--comparator orchestration reaches \(76.4\%\) with \(k=8\) proposals, matching the standalone performance of \texttt{Gemini 3 Pro} and \texttt{Claude Opus 4.5} Thinking and approaching the \(79.0\%\) oracle best-of-\(8\) upper bound. Thus, many correct patches are already present in weak-model proposal pools; the main challenge is selecting them. The remaining failures are mostly proposal-coverage failures, indicating shared blind spots that stronger selection alone cannot close.

Daniel Mitropolsky, Susan S. Hong, Riccardo Neumarker et al.

We introduce the Generalized Turing Test (GTT), a formal framework for comparing the capabilities of arbitrary agents via indistinguishability. For agents A and B, we define the Turing comparator A $\geq$ B to hold if B, acting as a distinguisher, cannot reliably distinguish between interactions with A (instructed to imitate B) and another instance of B. This yields a dataset- and task-agnostic notion of relative intelligence. We study the comparator's structure, including conditions under which it is transitive and therefore induces an ordering over equivalence classes, and we define and analyze variants with querying, bounded interaction, and fixed distinguishers. To complement the theory, we instantiate the framework on a collection of modern models, empirically evaluating pairwise indistinguishability across thousands of trials. The resulting comparisons exhibit a stratified structure consistent with existing rankings, hinting that the proposed framework yields meaningful empirical orderings. Our results position indistinguishability as a unifying lens for reasoning about intelligence, suggesting a foundation for evaluation and, potentially, training objectives that are inherently independent of fixed datasets or benchmarks.