Ke Wei

Yuming Yang, Xiao Sun, Yuanwei Zou et al.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown strong performance on isolated psychiatric tasks, including dialogue, diagnosis, and treatment planning, yet existing benchmarks rarely simulate complete psychiatric clinical encounters. We introduce $\textbf{MentalHospital}$, a virtual evaluation environment for LLM-based psychiatric clinical encounters. MentalHospital instantiates the Subjective Interviewing, Objective Examination, Diagnostic Assessment, and Treatment Planning (S.O.A.P.) workflow, using skill-augmented standardized patients constructed from 1,193 de-identified psychiatric electronic health record (EHR) cases spanning all major ICD-11 categories and 76 disorders. Each encounter is assessed through a dual-track protocol that combines objective comparison against EHR-derived references with subjective assessment of clinical process quality. To scale specialist judgment, we develop $\textbf{MentalEval}$, five domain-specific evaluators covering communication empathy, interviewing professionalism, clinical-note quality, diagnostic rigor, and treatment appropriateness, trained with rubric-grounded SFT and expert-guided DPO. Survey responses from 22 clinicians support MentalHospital's clinical fidelity (3.88/5), while MentalEval achieves strong expert alignment with an average QWK of 0.944. Benchmarking shows that even the strongest LLM trails clinicians by 37.28 percentage points in objective psychiatric competence, with mental status assessment as a key bottleneck.

Wenhao Yu, Zhicong Lu, Bo Lv et al.

Knowledge editing aims to efficiently update factual information in Large Language Models (LLMs) without full retraining. However, existing methods still suffer from performance degradation in batch knowledge editing. We identify that semantic representation entanglement, such as overlapping concepts and shared syntactic patterns, accumulates interference in the representation space and reduces editing precision. To bridge this gap, in this paper, we propose Orthogonal Representation Editing (ORE), which performs edits in the hidden representation space of LLMs by constructing a general semantic subspace and enforcing orthogonal constraints on edit vectors, effectively decoupling semantic entanglement. Furthermore, we introduce a gated non-linear representation head to enable adaptive learning of editing locations and precise control over knowledge injection. Extensive experiments show that ORE outperforms existing methods and achieves superior performance in cross-lingual knowledge editing scenarios. We release our code at https://github.com/YVVH/ORE.

Jessica McFadyen, Ole Jorgensen, Harry Coppock et al.

AI evaluations are shifting toward harder tasks that benefit from longer trajectories involving tool use and iterative problem solving. As a result, performance is increasingly sensitive to the amount and allocation of compute available at test time ("inference compute"). Yet many evaluations still report performance at a single restrictive budget, meaning that low scores may reflect the evaluation setup rather than the model's underlying capability. To test this, we evaluate up to 12 frontier language models on seven challenging benchmarks spanning software engineering, mathematics, medicine, and cybersecurity. We use a controlled setup combining three simple inference-scaling interventions: larger token budgets, context compaction, and repeated submission attempts, guided either by the model itself or by minimal correctness feedback. We find three main results. First, larger token budgets substantially improve performance on benchmarks across multiple domains, including cybersecurity, FrontierMath, Humanity's Last Exam, and TerminalBench. Second, fixed-budget evaluations can increasingly understate frontier capability as models advance. Newer models reach higher performance at large budgets, where they unlock harder tasks and solve them more reliably. Third, benchmarks differ in which inference-scaling methods help most: repeated submission broadly improves performance, but the value of larger token budgets, external feedback, and parallel attempts varies by benchmark. Overall, our results show that benchmark scores are protocol-dependent. We therefore argue that evaluations should report capability as a function of inference-time compute, specify protocol choices explicitly, and compare model generations over a large shared compute range at matched budgets, especially in safety- or policy-relevant settings.