overfeed.news
Anuncio

NexTalk

Automatiza la primera respuesta. Mantén el toque humano.

Chat en vivo con agentes de IA en tu modelo y tu clave de API, con traspaso a tu equipo.

Empezar gratis

Empresa

OpenAI

2610documentos

83últimos 7 días

arXiv AI Papers

Repo-To-Skill: Distilling GitHub Repositories Into AI4AI Skills

Autonomous agents are beginning to carry out machine-learning (ML) research end to end. These agents combine a model backbone with a harness for planning, execution, memory, and verification, but this architecture still leaves domain-specific know-how outside the agent. We call this missing layer operational knowledge, the know-how that separates knowing a method from making it work. That knowledge is not absent from the field. It appears in repositories and papers, but in forms written for human readers and too large to load during a task. Once distilled into compact, verified skills, this knowledge can be reused across tasks rather than rediscovered during each run. We present DisCo, a skill-powered research agent that creates skills and uses them during research. Its distillation runs in two complementary forms: task-agnostic, condensing the field's widely used repositories into reusable skills, and task-oriented, producing the skills a concrete task calls for. The former, applied across the open ecosystem, yields the AREX-Skill Library, with 5,000+ verified skills distilled from 1,000 widely used ML repositories and organized into 20 areas and 178 capability families. With the GPT-5.5 backbone, research harness, and downstream execution budget held fixed, the skill-equipped research agent scores 134.3% higher on MLE-bench, 34.4% higher on PaperBench, 9.2% higher on FrontierCS, and 14.0% higher on PassNet than the same agent without skills. These gains come from adding distilled operating context under that fixed setup.

en
arXiv AI Papers

Door-in-the-Face Requests and Refusal Behaviour in Large Language Models

Does the door-in-the-face technique work on language models? In humans, a large request that is refused makes a smaller follow-up request more likely to be granted. We test this on nine production models from three providers: each model refuses a large request, then receives a smaller version of the same request, and we compare its compliance with asking directly. The answer depends on the model. On Anthropic's frontier models the technique works: Opus 5 answers the smaller request 65.8% of the time after refusing the larger one, against 29.3% when asked directly. On the frontier models of OpenAI and Google, and on Haiku 4.5, it backfires, lowering compliance by 15.5 to 23.0 points. A control locates the effect: a refused large request on an unrelated topic does less than the related one on all nine models, so the concession itself matters everywhere, while the reaction to having just refused something differs by model family. The technique does not transfer to refusals drawn from public benchmarks. What decides whether a retreat can work is what the request asks for: rewriting 265 refused requests for usable instructions into requests for explanations of the same topic removed the refusal in 263 cases. Human influence techniques port to language models one model family at a time.

en
arXiv AI Papers

How LLMs Build Fictional Worlds: Setting and Narrative Space in AI-Generated Creative Storytelling

In this paper, we analyze how Large Language Models (LLMs) employ worldbuilding strategies, focusing on setting as one measurable dimension of storyworld construction. We compare 1,000 AI-generated stories per model in English and German with human-authored fiction from Project Gutenberg. Building on prior work, we operationalize setting through five types of narrative space: "action", "perceived," "visual," "descriptive" and "no space", identified using fine-tuned BERT classifiers for German and English. We generate narratives using GPT 4.1, LlaMA 3.3, Mistral 3.2, and Gemma 3 and compare their spatial distributions to a human-authored baseline. We find that human-authored texts predominantly employ "action space," grounding narratives in embodied character-environment interaction, whereas LLMs systematically overproduce "perceived space," emphasizing atmosphere and affect. This divergence remains stable across narrative time. Overall, our findings show that LLMs exhibit worldbuilding patterns that differ consistently from human-authored fiction in ways that are both model-specific and language-sensitive.

en
arXiv AI Papers

UTP-Bench: Uncertainty-aware Travel Planning Benchmark

Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently demonstrated strong capabilities in automated travel itinerary generation. However, real- world travel planning is inherently uncertain: transportation delays, crowd fluctuations, and unexpected stochastic delays frequently inval- idate otherwise feasible schedules. Existing benchmarks like TravelPlanner and TripCraft assume deterministic environments, evaluating only static constraint satisfaction and ignoring whether generated plans remain robust when such uncertainties arise. To address this limitation, we introduce UTP-Bench1 , a large-scale benchmark for uncertainty-aware travel planning. The dataset integrates real-world travel data spanning 504 cities of India, including attractions, restau- rants, accommodations, and multi-modal trans- portation networks. To model realistic disrup- tions, UTP-Bench incorporates empirical delay distributions and crowd-density patterns col- lected from major cities, enabling evaluation of travel plans under stochastic conditions. We further propose three evaluation metrics, namely Buffer Adequacy Score (BAS), Crowd- Aware Timing Score (CATS), and Transport Delay Absorption Score (TDAS), which quan- tify the ability of generated itineraries to main- tain robustness against transit delays and crowd variability. Experiments with state-of-the-art LLMs like GPT-5, Qwen3, Mistral and Phi-4 re- veal substantial gaps between model-generated and human-authored plans, particularly in tem- poral buffering, delay-aware transportation scheduling, and crowd-sensitive planning.

en