Philip Torr

Hanwen Xing, Pengyun Wang, BingXu Meng et al.

Progress in large language models is often summarized using a single scalar measure, such as a time horizon, a latent ability estimate, or an aggregate benchmark score. These summaries capture the overall performance, but they do not test whether progress is distributed differently across task difficulty. We find that most of the apparent shift in gains toward harder tasks does not reflect a change in the shape of the difficulty-response curve. On METR time-horizon data, a single Rasch model with rising ability reproduces this pattern, so it is largely explained by ceiling effects rather than a qualitative change in capability. This echoes how the choice of metric can make claimed emergent abilities look like a property of the models themselves. We then identify a smaller hard-task effect that survives this control. Isolating it is difficult on agentic benchmarks, because newer models are usually run with newer agentic harnesses, so a gain on hard tasks cannot be assigned to the model or its scaffold. We break the confound with LiveCodeBench, a public competitive programming benchmark that runs no agentic scaffold while pairing dated models with an exogenous difficulty ordering. After accounting for the rise in overall ability, models released after September 2024 still gain on the hardest problems beyond what their easy and medium performance predicts, by about +0.40 logits under our most conservative assumption, raising the hard-problem solve rate from roughly 18% to 25%. The effect is led by the strongest reasoning models and holds for hard tasks that need only short reasoning, not autonomy over long horizons. We present this as a result specific to competitive programming, since our clean identification rests on a single coding benchmark. We release the LiveCodeBench Difficulty Panel (66 dated models x 1,055 problems) and our analysis code.

Yuqicheng Zhu, Jialin Yu, Lin Li et al.

Conformal prediction (CP) is a distribution-free framework for uncertainty quantification that has recently been adapted to large language models (LLMs), providing prediction sets with finite-sample coverage guarantees under exchangeability. Yet for LLMs, nonconformity scores are often induced by an inference pipeline, not just a fixed model, making them depend not only on the data distribution but also on configurable factors such as the prompt template, decoding parameters, and deployment setting. Since such configurations are routinely modified in practice but rarely treated as a source of shift, their impact on CP validity remains poorly understood. We call this \emph{configuration shift} and study it systematically along three axes: prompt template, decoding temperature, and weight quantization. In a broad empirical study spanning $9$ LLMs, $4$ datasets, and $4$ nonconformity scores, we find that configuration shift consistently erodes CP validity, often driving empirical coverage below the target. By contrast, efficiency is largely preserved: valid prediction sets remain close in size to the i.i.d. baseline. We derive coverage lower bounds that attribute this loss to a discrepancy between calibration and test score distributions, and use their finite-sample plug-in versions as empirical diagnostics of shift severity. We further show that these findings lead to practical mitigations: bound-inspired recalibration is effective with limited test examples, while fragility-aware calibration ensembling recovers much of the lost coverage without test data.