2606
83
Multi-Turn Reinforcement Learning (MTRL) on Amazon SageMaker AI trains models on the outcome of a whole multi-step task rather than labeled steps. This hands-on guide walks the full pipeline using Wordle: deploying the agent and reward on Amazon Bedrock AgentCore, preparing the dataset, training, and evaluating at serving settings.
Learn how OpenAI scaled Habitat with reliable multi-tenancy, global caching, and Azure Cosmos DB to deliver 12× faster reads for ChatGPT.
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to optimize code for performance. This practice often assumes that improvements in execution speed naturally translate into overall lower energy consumption. We challenge this assumption empirically by measuring whether performance-optimized code produced by LLM self-refinement pipelines is also energy-efficient relative to canonical human reference solutions, and whether the energy cost of the optimization process can be offset by subsequent execution-time savings. We evaluate 11 open-source models across four decoding configurations on all 1,000 problems of EffiBench, a state-of-the-art performance benchmark, while collecting per-process, hardware-level energy measurements throughout. Inference energy spans 0.79 to 8.68 MJ across model-variant pairs, which is roughly equivalent to the energy of 250 to 2800 GPT-4.1 queries. Limiting the maximum number of output tokens has the largest impact, reducing energy use by up to 69% compared to the default configuration. On the execution side, 42 of 44 configurations produce code that consumes more energy per problem than the canonical human reference, with overheads ranging from +4% to +886%. The two exceptions achieve only marginal gains, with break-even points on the order of 10^6 to 10^7 executions. Mixture-of-Experts architectures consume substantially less inference energy than equivalently-sized dense models without sacrificing correctness, making architectural choice a more consequential sustainability lever than decoding parameters. Performance optimization and energy efficiency are not always aligned goals: LLM self-refinement consistently produces faster-seeking but energy-heavier code relative to what a human engineer would write. All artifacts are available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23598170.
Large language models and agents have shown significant power in advanced physical research. In this paper, We introduce PHYRD, a living benchmark for theoretical-physics reasoning with 63 Reproduce and 43 Discover problems. Reproduce tests derivation of published results; Discover tests consequences of modified theoretical conditions. FormulaForest constructs the tasks with reference solutions and subquestion-level rubrics. Across five models, whole-problem accuracy ranges from 49.21% to 68.25% on Reproduce and from 18.60% to 74.42% on closed-book Discover. With tools, four models complete more Discover problems, but conceptual errors and missing arguments persist. Besides, our experimental results demonstrate the value of FormulaForest as synthetic data. On FrontierScience, a benchmark developed by OpenAI, it raises the accuracy of a Qwen-35B-A3B model from 61% to 72%.
LLM agents increasingly rely on external tools exposed via the Model Context Protocol (MCP), yet current benchmarks assume tools respond correctly and on time, leaving agent resilience to realistic tool failures untested. We introduce MCP-Injector, a drop-in, protocol-aware fault-injection middleware that interposes on the MCP tool-call path with controlled persistence (permanent, transient, intermittent) and seedable schedules. Its fault model is calibrated to the observed incident distribution (failure mode x persistence) of the public MCP ecosystem, mined from 57,240 issue and pull-request threads across 1,774 open-source MCP repositories. In a 1,350-cell experiment crossing two backbone sizes (20B, 120B), three agent stacks (custom multi-round plan-and-execute, OpenAI Agents SDK, LangChain), and three fault injection conditions, we find that faults drawn from this permanent-heavy stress profile cause severe quality degradation (task-completion score falls by 60%, from 8.08 to 3.23 out of 10), and that scale does not purchase fault tolerance for the two gpt-oss backbones we test: the 120B retains no larger share of its fault-free score under faults (resilience-ratio model, p = 0.96), and its completion rate under faults is, if anything, lower (91.1% vs. 95.6%; difference 4.4 points, 95% CI [-0.2, 9.3]). Agent stacks differ in how well they absorb faults, which suggests that framework-level error handling matters more than model scale. These results demonstrate that capability benchmarks alone can mask operational brittleness, motivating protocol-aware fault injection as a complementary evaluation dimension for tool-calling agents.
GUI grounding benchmarks ask whether an agent can localize a target that is already visible in a static screenshot. Real interfaces often violate this assumption: a target may be off-screen, appear only after a state change or hover, remain occluded, or become actionable after a delay. This leaves the ability to recover target visibility unevaluated. To measure this reveal step, we introduce Interactive GUI Grounding (IGG), a benchmark in which an agent must first make the target visible through interaction and then click it. IGG contains 601 tasks across 16 controllable GUI environments and seven visibility-constraint sub-types, with a compact action space of scrolling, moving, dragging, waiting, and clicking. In our human study, participants achieve 94.6% accuracy, while GPT-5.5 reaches 79.4% and the strongest evaluated open-source VLM reaches only 31.6%. To identify the source of this gap, we conduct two controlled interventions. Telling Qwen3-VL which interaction to perform raises its accuracy only from 30.8% to 33.9%, whereas performing the interaction for the model raises it to 81.9%. The bottleneck is executing the reveal interaction, not recognizing the target once it is exposed. We further show that this capability is learnable, demonstrating that visibility recovery can be strengthened consistently across model families.
Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly capable of supporting scientific workflows, but their capabilities across diverse research activities remain difficult to assess systematically. Existing benchmarks often focus on selected scientific capabilities or task types, limiting a comprehensive characterization of scientific agents' strengths and weaknesses in realistic research workflows. We introduce SCI-AGENT-EXAM, a workflow-oriented benchmark comprising 120 expert-curated tasks across 11 scientific fields and 7 research task types defined by the Scientific Workflow Task Taxonomy (SWTT). Each task requires both executable artifacts (e.g., code and scripts) and textual artifacts (e.g., reports and explanations). To evaluate the heterogeneous task outputs, we develop a hybrid evaluation protocol combining deterministic programmatic verification for executable artifacts with a calibrated, expert-validated LLM-based judge for textual artifacts. Beyond outcome assessment, we analyze progress and solution stability along execution trajectories to characterize how agents reach their final results. Experiments with 10 frontier LLM agents reveal substantial performance gaps: GPT-6 Astra achieves the highest overall score of 80.9, yet only 26.0% of its runs exceed the 0.95 success threshold. Further analyses uncover distinct capability profiles across scientific task types and substantial variation in execution efficiency and stability. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/SKYLENAGE-AI/Sci-Agent-Exam.
OpenAI explains how we strengthened containment for frontier model training and evaluation, including offline environments and high-compute red-teaming.
Anima expands what care teams can do with OpenAI models, giving them more capacity to respond to patients.
OpenAI and Poland’s NASK are partnering on AI safety, security, and technical research to strengthen safeguards and support a more resilient digital ecosystem.
DeepSeek V4 is not the "Sputnik moment" R1 was, but it is the cheapest credible alternative to Claude Opus and GPT-5.5 that anyone has shipped thus far.
Should OpenAI command an over $1 trillion valuation with this round, it would break records as the most highly valued private company ever.
Canva is diving even deeper into AI with the launch of an image generation model that competes directly with those from OpenAI, Microsoft, and Google.…
Fast, focused, low-cost decisions for any application.
OpenAI is launching its decision model to the world. Can it compete with the original Jev?
