Avi Shporer

Evan Tey, Dan Moldovan, Michelle Kunimoto et al.

The TESS mission produces a large amount of time series data, only a small fraction of which contain detectable exoplanetary transit signals. Deep learning techniques such as neural networks have proved effective at differentiating promising astrophysical eclipsing candidates from other phenomena such as stellar variability and systematic instrumental effects in an efficient, unbiased and sustainable manner. This paper presents a high quality dataset containing light curves from the Primary Mission and 1st Extended Mission full frame images and periodic signals detected via Box Least Squares (Kovács et al. 2002; Hartman 2012). The dataset was curated using a thorough manual review process then used to train a neural network called Astronet-Triage-v2. On our test set, for transiting/eclipsing events we achieve a 99.6% recall (true positives over all data with positive labels) at a precision of 75.7% (true positives over all predicted positives). Since 90% of our training data is from the Primary Mission, we also test our ability to generalize on held-out 1st Extended Mission data. Here, we find an area under the precision-recall curve of 0.965, a 4% improvement over Astronet-Triage (Yu et al. 2019). On the TESS Object of Interest (TOI) Catalog through April 2022, a shortlist of planets and planet candidates, Astronet-Triage-v2 is able to recover 3577 out of 4140 TOIs, while Astronet-Triage only recovers 3349 targets at an equal level of precision. In other words, upgrading to Astronet-Triage-v2 helps save at least 200 planet candidates from being lost. The new model is currently used for planet candidate triage in the Quick-Look Pipeline (Huang et al. 2020a,b; Kunimoto et al. 2021).

Keith Tyser, Ben Segev, Gaston Longhitano et al.

Automatic reviewing helps handle a large volume of papers, provides early feedback and quality control, reduces bias, and allows the analysis of trends. We evaluate the alignment of automatic paper reviews with human reviews using an arena of human preferences by pairwise comparisons. Gathering human preference may be time-consuming; therefore, we also use an LLM to automatically evaluate reviews to increase sample efficiency while reducing bias. In addition to evaluating human and LLM preferences among LLM reviews, we fine-tune an LLM to predict human preferences, predicting which reviews humans will prefer in a head-to-head battle between LLMs. We artificially introduce errors into papers and analyze the LLM's responses to identify limitations, use adaptive review questions, meta prompting, role-playing, integrate visual and textual analysis, use venue-specific reviewing materials, and predict human preferences, improving upon the limitations of the traditional review processes. We make the reviews of publicly available arXiv and open-access Nature journal papers available online, along with a free service which helps authors review and revise their research papers and improve their quality. This work develops proof-of-concept LLM reviewing systems that quickly deliver consistent, high-quality reviews and evaluate their quality. We mitigate the risks of misuse, inflated review scores, overconfident ratings, and skewed score distributions by augmenting the LLM with multiple documents, including the review form, reviewer guide, code of ethics and conduct, area chair guidelines, and previous year statistics, by finding which errors and shortcomings of the paper may be detected by automated reviews, and evaluating pairwise reviewer preferences. This work identifies and addresses the limitations of using LLMs as reviewers and evaluators and enhances the quality of the reviewing process.

Iddo Drori, Gaston Longhitano, Mao Mao et al.

Reasoning LLMs such as OpenAI o1, o3 and DeepSeek R1 have made significant progress in mathematics and coding, yet find challenging advanced tasks such as International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO) combinatorics problems, Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC) puzzles, and Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) questions. We use a diverse inference approach that combines multiple models and methods at test time. We find that verifying mathematics and code problems, and rejection sampling on other problems is simple and effective. We automatically verify correctness of solutions to IMO problems by Lean, and ARC puzzles by code, and find that best-of-N effectively answers HLE questions. Our approach increases answer accuracy on IMO combinatorics problems from 33.3% to 77.8%, accuracy on HLE questions from 8% to 37%, and solves 80% of ARC puzzles that 948 humans could not and 26.5% of ARC puzzles that o3 high compute does not. Test-time simulations, reinforcement learning, and meta-learning with inference feedback improve generalization by adapting agent graph representations and varying prompts, code, and datasets. Our approach is reliable, robust, and scalable, and in the spirit of reproducible research, we will make it publicly available upon publication.

Iddo Drori, Sarah Zhang, Reece Shuttleworth et al.

We demonstrate that a neural network pre-trained on text and fine-tuned on code solves mathematics course problems, explains solutions, and generates new questions at a human level. We automatically synthesize programs using few-shot learning and OpenAI's Codex transformer and execute them to solve course problems at 81% automatic accuracy. We curate a new dataset of questions from MIT's largest mathematics courses (Single Variable and Multivariable Calculus, Differential Equations, Introduction to Probability and Statistics, Linear Algebra, and Mathematics for Computer Science) and Columbia University's Computational Linear Algebra. We solve questions from a MATH dataset (on Prealgebra, Algebra, Counting and Probability, Intermediate Algebra, Number Theory, and Precalculus), the latest benchmark of advanced mathematics problems designed to assess mathematical reasoning. We randomly sample questions and generate solutions with multiple modalities, including numbers, equations, and plots. The latest GPT-3 language model pre-trained on text automatically solves only 18.8% of these university questions using zero-shot learning and 30.8% using few-shot learning and the most recent chain of thought prompting. In contrast, program synthesis with few-shot learning using Codex fine-tuned on code generates programs that automatically solve 81% of these questions. Our approach improves the previous state-of-the-art automatic solution accuracy on the benchmark topics from 8.8% to 81.1%. We perform a survey to evaluate the quality and difficulty of generated questions. This work is the first to automatically solve university-level mathematics course questions at a human level and the first work to explain and generate university-level mathematics course questions at scale, a milestone for higher education.