Expert Judgment

Dexterous manipulation policies learned by imitation are typically evaluated for robustness to variation in scenes, objects, or instructions, but their performance across task execution speeds is less often examined. This leaves open how much temporal robustness a learner retains relative to the expert it imitates. We compare an expert and learner under the same task conditions, initial-condition draws, and speedup factors. We instantiate the evaluation in ParcelStow, a contact-rich task in which the robot acquires, reorients, and inserts a parcel. The demonstrations span the speedup range for the manipulation phases after parcel acquisition. A scripted expert and an Action Chunking with Transformers (ACT) policy trained from the expert's demonstrations both achieve 100 percent task success at nominal speed. Their success rates diverge within the demonstrated range: at its maximum, expert success is 84 percent and ACT success is 53 percent. Two ACT policies with different parameter initializations show similar degradation, decreasing by 34 and 48 percentage points from nominal speed to the maximum demonstrated speed, compared with 16 points for the expert. Stage-level analysis shows that 35 of ACT's 47 failures at the maximum demonstrated speed are insertion misalignments. Under the relative-motion handoff, every ACT acquisition retains the parcel through reorientation and transfer in free space, but only 64 percent complete the overall task, compared with 95 percent after expert acquisition. Across all evaluated policies and speeds, none of the 414 acquisitions without force closure completes the task. Equal nominal task success therefore does not imply preservation of expert performance across execution speeds. Code, data, and evaluation scripts are available at https://github.com/coenwerem/parcelstow.

Medical image segmentation remains difficult to scale because high-performing methods typically rely on dense expert annotations and task-specific training. We introduce GazeRefine, a training-free framework that uses gaze as an inference-time prompt for zero-shot medical image segmentation. Sparse, duration-weighted fixations are converted into foreground and background priors that initialize semantic prototypes in frozen DINOv3 feature space. These prototypes are iteratively refined through foreground-background discrimination, feature-space affinity propagation, and anchoring to the initial gaze guidance, allowing segmentation to extend beyond directly fixated regions while limiting semantic drift. GazeRefine requires no segmentation masks, fine-tuning, adapters, prompt encoders, or gradient updates. We evaluate the method on gaze-annotated polyp segmentation and prostate MRI segmentation. The results show strong performance on colonoscopy images and competitive performance on prostate MRI, supporting gaze-guided prototype refinement as a promising approach for segmentation-label-efficient, human-in-the-loop medical image segmentation. Our tools and code can be found in the following repository: https://github.com/MohammedOussamaBEN/GazeRefine.git

We argue that financial report generation should operate at the analytical rather than structural level, composing content from data-derived insights rather than high-level topics or sections. To this end, we propose AnalysisBank, which distills expert reports into a reusable library of Analyses, each pairing a data signal, an analytical move, and the expert span it was derived from. At inference time, AnalysisBank matches input signals to library entries and applies the retrieved moves to compose the report. A study of Analyses distilled from 550 expert reports reveals a heavy-tailed distribution of 47-52 signal types spanning 13 move types. On two financial benchmarks across four LLM backbones, AnalysisBank increases the proportion of novel, data-grounded insights by 1.7-3.7x over structural-level baselines. Transfer to scientific writing suggests that the distinction generalizes beyond finance. Code and the distilled Analysis library are available at https://github.com/yajingyang/AnalysisBank.

Giving an agent a file about a named expert can supply hard-to-find material, produce a recognizable persona, or change what the agent decides. These are different claims. We test each one. mimeo is an open-source tool that finds a person's public work, checks each extracted quotation against the cached source text, and writes a file an agent can load. Eight logged builds averaged 38 model calls; the check rejects 13.2% of extracted quotations. We tested four expert files with one coding-agent harness. Knowledge access was clearest: mimeo answered all 20 obscure, quotation-heavy questions; no closed-book condition answered more than 10. Keyword search (BM25) over the same pages answered 15-17, a gap this sample cannot resolve. Grounding showed one clear benefit: personas written from model memory misstated a documented position on 1-4 of 20 answers under every grader; the plain agent and mimeo never did. Every persona was easy to spot on short open prompts, and adding task material lowered identification by 18-23 points. mimeo was no more identifiable than a from-memory profile. Judgment transfer remained unresolved because both tests hit their ceiling: every condition found 94-97% of the problems planted in engineering tasks and scored 94-100% on 16 new application scenarios. An AI-judged "sounds like the expert" score changed with the judge: two of four preferred answers based on a model's stereotype, while two found no difference on the same text. That is a caution against relying on a single AI judge. The evidence supports mimeo as a compact, inspectable reference on a person, not as a demonstrated transfer of their judgment. Toolkit and expert profiles: https://github.com/K-Dense-AI/mimeo

As generative AI increasingly becomes a common source of daily decision-making, including financial choices, it is critical to understand how people evaluate AI-generated financial advice. We conducted a preregistered vignette experiment (N = 285) in which substantive financial content---including facts, numerical values, recommendation direction, and core reasoning---was held constant while communication style varied across AI Financial Assistant (AI), Certified Financial Planner (Expert), and Online Community Forum (OC) advice. Displayed source attribution was independently manipulated through correctly labeled, unlabeled, and mislabeled conditions, allowing us to separate attribution effects from source-specific communication cues. Expert advice was rated more favorably than AI advice on 9 of 10 outcomes (|d|=0.20--0.47), and this advantage remained visible without source labels, where Expert advice outperformed AI advice on 8 of 10 outcomes (up to d=0.60). Correct labels added limited differentiation, whereas mislabeling increased ratings of AI advice for situational fit and overall quality (d=0.42 for each) and attenuated the Expert advantage in situational fit (d=-0.36). Descriptive analyses further showed that AI advice was most responsive to displayed attribution and, conversely, that advice-style differences were most visible under an AI label. These findings show that financial-advice evaluations are shaped jointly by displayed attribution and message-level communication cues. We position disclosure not as a neutral transparency mechanism, but as an interpretive frame whose accuracy and interaction with message cues can shape trust and reliance.

Mixture-of-Experts models increase parameter capacity while keeping the computation activated by each token bounded, but their architectural evolution cannot be explained by a chronological list of model releases alone. This technical survey synthesizes primary papers, official technical reports, and prior surveys to organize modern Mixture-of-Experts systems along five coupled dimensions: expert granularity, expert topology, routing freedom, the scope of load balancing, and execution structure. We describe eight architectural milestones as a dependency graph with six mainline developments and two orthogonal branches, rather than as eight successive generations. We then analyze individual systems through four control planes: Expert Topology, Routing, Balance, and Expert Parallelism. These planes specify which experts exist, which experts process each token, how aggregate load is controlled, and how selected computation is mapped onto physical devices. The framework connects algorithmic choices such as Top-k routing, shared experts, fine-grained experts, and dynamic expert composition with systems concerns including token dispatch, device placement, all-to-all communication, and communication-computation overlap. We conclude with equal-budget pretraining experiments, quality and systems metrics, and open research questions. The main trend is a shift from merely activating more sparse parameters toward decoupling semantic routing, computational budgets, and physical execution.

Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) language models deliver high capacity at low per-token compute, but deploying them cheaply requires compressing their many expert weight matrices. Expert pruning (e.g., REAP) and merging reduce cost but sacrifice accuracy and require retraining the router; low-rank delta decomposition of experts (e.g., D^2-MoE) preserves all experts and the router, but degrades sharply as the expert count grows because a single shared component cannot approximate many near-orthogonal experts. Because MoE expert weights are near-orthogonal, a single shared component (as in prior delta decomposition) scales poorly with the expert count; we show that experts nonetheless organize into functional co-activation communities that are decoupled from weight similarity. Building on this, we introduce LorExperts, a router-preserving compression method that clusters experts, keeps one full-precision dominant per cluster, and represents the remaining members as low-rank corrections to their local dominant. LorExperts retains all experts and the original router (no router retraining). At ~50% expert compression on Qwen3-30B-A3B and Gemma-4-26B-A4B, LorExperts preserves downstream accuracy and perplexity better than the baselines on most of the tasks; the margin over D^2-MoE grows with expert count E. We further give a reconstruction fine-tuning procedure for LorExperts, and BTExperts, a tree organization of dominants and corrections that enables inference-time amortization of shared computation.

Computed tomography (CT) remains the reference for 3D osseous morphometry in femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) but requires ionizing radiation and manual measurement. Zero echo time (ZTE) MRI visualizes cortical bone and yields FAI angles that agree with CT, but automated angle extraction remains limited. We developed and validated automated FAI angle computation from ZTE MRI and assessed agreement with expert manual measurements in a cross-sectional study (level of evidence, 3). Pelvic ZTE MRI was acquired in 73 participants (mean age 36.8 +/- 18.5 years; 51 women, 22 men), yielding 135 hips. nnU-Net was trained on 100 manually curated hips to segment the femur, pelvis, and three osseous landmarks. Custom geometric algorithms computed alpha, femoral neck-shaft, Tonnis, coronal and sagittal center-edge, and acetabular version angles from inferred segmentations. Measurements on 35 test hips were compared with the mean of two radiologists' manual measures using intraclass correlation (ICC) and Bland-Altman analysis. Dice exceeded 0.96 for bone and ranged from 0.65 to 0.83 for landmarks. Median landmark error was 0.38 mm (femoral head), 0.82 mm (lateral acetabulum), and <2.5 mm (medial acetabulum, greater trochanter). Interrater ICC was excellent for acetabular version, coronal center-edge, and Tonnis (>=0.82) but poor for alpha and femoral neck-shaft. Model versus rater-mean agreement was excellent for acetabular version, coronal center-edge, and Tonnis (0.92-0.96), good for mid-acetabular sagittal center-edge (0.74), and fair for alpha (0.45) and femoral neck-shaft (0.55). Model Bland-Altman limits of agreement were narrower than interrater limits for most angles. Fully automated morphometric assessment from ZTE MRI is feasible and performs comparably to expert readers for most coverage and version angles.

Frontier LLMs are increasingly put to use on open-ended complex questions, different in nature from the ones they are typically evaluated on. We dedicate more than 4,000 human expert hours to evaluate a selection of six frontier LLMs on a member of this class of problems: EuroExec, our introduced human expert-based benchmark composed of 413 open-ended long-form European executive tasks authored by 47 vetted domain experts, each question drawn from experience in a real case. Every response is manually evaluated through a multi-attribute rubric, an item-specific checklist of requirements, and a preference rank ordering, extracting an aggregate metric "Solve Rate". The strongest model solves only 56.9% of tasks, while expert-written reference answers judged blindly are solved at near-ceiling levels and are preferred over every model response in 74% of direct rankings, placing frontier generative systems well below the professional standard of work they are already used for. We see that the best way to extract this kind of conclusion is by employing human evaluators, carefully checking their consistency through rigorous statistical analysis, and observe that automatic measurements also fall short when evaluating on this case of real-world open-ended problems with a subjective ground truth.

Generating natural-language coaching feedback on motor skills can accelerate learning, yet expert coaches are scarce and expensive. Existing reference-based methods require expert demonstrations at both training and inference time, limiting practical deployment. We propose AIDE (Automated Instruction via Distilled Expertise), a framework that exploits expert references only during training and generates feedback from a learner's pose sequence alone at inference. A teacher model first learns to generate feedback from paired learner-expert poses via a frozen language model, producing separate learner tokens and difference tokens that encode the learner-expert difference. A student model then inherits the teacher's encoder and weight initialization, replacing the explicit expert comparison with an auxiliary module that produces complementary tokens from the learner's pose alone. On the ExpertAF dataset, AIDE outperforms reference-free baselines on most metrics and performs comparably to methods requiring expert demonstrations at both training and inference, with LLM-based evaluation supporting these findings.

Rubric-based AI systems for thesis assessment use criterion weights to assign different levels of importance to evaluation criteria. These weights are typically defined through expert judgment, although little empirical evidence exists regarding how thesis supervisors actually prioritize evaluation criteria. Consequently, this study investigates supervisor-derived criterion weights in thesis assessment and evaluates their impact on AI-based assessment. We surveyed 84 thesis supervisors across four academic disciplines and collected weighting data for 35 thesis assessment criteria. Comparison with the default criterion weights of the AI assessment system RubiSCoT [1] revealed substantial divergences between supervisor-derived and default criterion weights. To evaluate the practical implications of these differences, the supervisor-derived weights were integrated into multiple calibration configurations and evaluated on a corpus of 80 German-language theses. The best-performing configuration reduced the mean relative deviation between AI-generated and supervisor-assigned evaluations from 11.18% to 10.85%, although the improvement was not statistically significant. Human supervisors showed substantially stronger agreement with each other, exhibiting a mean inter-supervisor relative deviation of 4.44%. The findings indicate that criterion-weight calibration alone does not substantially improve alignment between AI-generated and human assessments.

Environmental time-series causal discovery requires expert decisions about method choice, conditional-independence tests, lag horizons, sample-size adequacy, multiple-testing control, and evidence interpretation. Applied inconsistently across datasets, these choices yield graphs that cannot be compared, reproduced, or audited. We present AutoCause, an open-source Python workflow that records each decision, derives defaults from an extended causal-audit module, and admits domain-informed overrides. The workflow wraps four established causal-discovery methods from three families, adds non-causal reference models, and grades links by method-count support. On 145 datasets from DGP-Atlas, TimeGraph, and a topology-derived CausalRivers reference, the methods recover complementary parts of the reference graphs. Majority-supported links are more precise than single-method links on the synthetic benchmarks but not against river topology. AutoCause converts inconsistent expert practice into an auditable, repeatable analysis; causal interpretation remains with the analyst. Available at https://github.com/marcoruizrueda/autocause.

Imitation learning (IL)---training an agent to replicate expert behavior from demonstrations---underpins applications from robotics to language model training. Standard approaches such as Behavior Cloning (BC) are known to suffer from compounding errors and performance plateaus, particularly when the learner cannot perfectly represent the expert's policy (as is typical, e.g., in distillation). Two interventions are widely understood empirically to improve performance: querying the expert interactively along the learner's own trajectories, and using value function estimation en route to generating a policy rather than directly fitting the expert's full action distribution. We investigate the nature of these improvements and their potentially surprising interplay. Our main finding is that expert interaction relaxes the representational demands on the learner: one only needs a model capable of realizing the expert's value function, bypassing the (often stricter) requirement of realizing the expert's policy itself. Concretely, we introduce OVI, an interactive on-policy IL algorithm that is statistically efficient whenever the learner can represent the expert's value function and computationally efficient given access to a linear maximization oracle. We complement this with a negative result showing that interaction is necessary. Namely, without stronger assumptions beyond expert-value realizability alone, any offline IL algorithm must scale with the complexity of the expert policy class. Our findings bear out empirically. OVI outperforms offline policy-based (BC), interactive policy-based (DAgger), and offline value-based IL methods, with the largest gains when the learner network is substantially less expressive than the expert's.

Large Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) language models are attractive for end-device deployment because only a small subset of experts is active per token, but their routed expert weights often exceed accelerator memory. We target latency-critical single-user settings where routed experts are staged on demand from CPU memory to a GPU or from Flash to a mobile NPU. In this setting, self-speculative decoding faces a new bottleneck: increasing the draft expert set improves accuracy but triggers extra expert loading, while cheap small-footprint drafts have low acceptance; moreover, verifying a multi-token block activates the union of target experts and is no longer close to one target step. We propose DraftExpert, an expansion-aware self-speculative decoding framework for expert-offloaded MoE inference. DraftExpert trains one lightweight accelerator-resident draft expert per layer by self-distilling residual, logit/token, and router-agreement signals from the frozen target MoE. At inference time, it uses a fixed-footprint shared+top-1+draft-expert drafter together with confidence--expansion truncation and target-expert prefetching, while final tokens are still exactly verified by the target model. On DeepSeek-V2-Lite and Moonlight-16B-A3B across CPU-GPU and Flash-NPU offload, DraftExpert improves decode throughput by 1.45x on average, raises draft acceptance to 8487%, and achieves 8688% prefetch hit rates.

A stochastic Gumbel-Top-$K$ router defines, for every token of a mixture-of-experts (MoE) model, a \emph{routing law}: a distribution over ordered expert lists and mixture weights. We ask which \emph{joint} distributions over the routing choices of different tokens are reachable while every individual token's complete routing law is held exactly fixed. We give a two-sided construction, \emph{Hierarchical Copula-Gumbel-Top-$K$} (\CGA{}). Within a group of related tokens, an exchangeable Gaussian copula positively correlates the Gumbel perturbations at each expert coordinate, which can increase within-group expert-set coherence. Across disjoint pairs of groups, a tunable antithetic construction introduces a selectable amount of negative dependence. We prove that both operations leave each token's ordered Top-$K$ sample, mixture weights, and inclusion probabilities identical in distribution to independent routing \emph{at a routing layer conditioned on its pre-routing logits}; conditional expected expert traffic is preserved as a consequence. We characterize the resulting trade-off: positive within-group coupling can only inflate the variance of realized expert loads relative to independent routing, while nonnegative cross-group opposition can only reduce it relative to flat coupling at the same within-group strength. Coherence and load dispersion are thus controlled by two complementary dependence dials on the invariance constraint surface. Because the base model is untouched, the dials can be driven by a small controller over frozen features, trainable with a score-function estimator: the frozen network is evaluated only in the forward direction, and gradients are confined to the controller. An initial small-scale pilot validates the mechanism and the training route, but does not establish task-level fine-tuning gains.

We consider the problem of learning compositional robot policies end-to-end from expert demonstrations, without any pre-specified notion of task decomposition or hierarchy. We ask whether a VLA trained with a simplified Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) action head can emergently learn to decompose tasks into reusable, interpretable primitives. We find that learned experts are heavily reused across tasks and consistently correspond to qualitatively distinct low-level behaviors, suggesting that the router implicitly learns to perform high-level sequencing while experts serve as compositional primitives. Our MoE matches the task performance of a monolithic baseline while demonstrating meaningful expert specialization, a step toward modular, interpretable robot policies that emerge from data alone.

The rapid growth of biomedical knowledge has made the validation of automatically generated biological annotations a major bottleneck in biomedical curation. While computational methods can rapidly produce large numbers of candidate annotations, determining which are biologically valid still requires costly expert review. Prioritizing these candidates before manual curation has therefore become a fundamental challenge. Machine learning techniques can support this process by exploiting biomedical knowledge graphs (bioKGs), which capture biological entities and their functional associations. In this work, we propose a framework that leverages bioKGs to estimate the plausibility of candidate annotations and guide expert curation. Starting from knowledge graph embeddings, we train relation-specific binary classifiers using a community-based negative sampling strategy to obtain reliable confidence estimates. We then introduce a family of plausibility measures that combine classifier confidence, classifier reliability, and the semantic context provided by alternative relationships involving the same pair of biological entities. Unlike conventional confidence estimation, the proposed approach explicitly accounts for multiple biologically meaningful relations that may coexist between the same entities. Experimental results on five large bioKGs demonstrate that the proposed negative sampling strategy consistently improves classifier robustness, increasing balanced accuracy by an average of 5.8%. Moreover, the plausibility measures outperform classifier confidence alone, enabling more effective prioritization of candidate annotations for expert review. Overall, our results show that the use of bioKGs improves the efficiency of AI-assisted biomedical curation while preserving expert control over the final annotation assessment.

Discrete diffusion models offer a powerful framework for solving complex reasoning tasks, particularly through compositional generation, which combines multiple pre-trained experts to generalize beyond their individual training data. Recent theoretical corrections introduce time-dependent mixing weights to better align composed diffusion dynamics with the intended target. However, these methods are fundamentally limited by working on a per-sample basis, treating each generated state monolithically and ignoring the potential spatial or functional specializations of different experts. In this work, we address this limitation by proposing FactorDiff - a factor-wise composition framework for diffusion models. We posit that samples can be further decomposed into smaller factors, and propose a sampling process that dynamically routes each factor to the most relevant expert. We instantiate this framework with spatial/pixel-level compositions and validate it on the ARC-AGI benchmark, demonstrating that simple factor-specific routing consistently outperforms complex global scalar weighting schemes on tasks that require logical consistency and spatial disentanglement.

Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) models scale capacity without proportional compute cost and have become a key architecture for frontier large language models (LLMs). Yet domain-specific post-training inherits an expert pool shaped by mixed-domain pre-training: a substantial subset of experts contributes little on the target domain, and standard supervised fine-tuning (SFT) leaves the composition of this pool unchanged. We propose a simple, budget-preserving pipeline that realigns the expert pool to the target domain before fine-tuning. Given a target domain, we (1) prune the experts with lowest domain-aligned saliency, (2) regrow the expert pool to its original size through perturbation-based expert expansion, and (3) apply standard SFT. The resulting model preserves the original expert count, parameter count, and inference cost. With a single frozen recipe and no per-domain hyperparameter tuning, UMoE consistently improves over direct sft across two MoE architectures (Qwen3-30B-A3B and Qwen3.5-35B-A3B), five domains (math, code, science, tool-use, and agentic coding), and 12 benchmarks. Representative improvements are 3.4 points in math average accuracy, 6.0 points on SWE-bench Verified. On a strong in-house math corpus, direct sft already surpasses Qwen3-30B-A3B-Thinking (82.81 vs.\ 81.06), yet UMoE further raises the average to 84.17, an additional 1.36 points, demonstrating robustness to a substantially stronger SFT regime. Data-scaling experiments further show that the gain persists as training data grows. Analysis reveals that the direct-SFT model allocates substantial routed-expert compute to a low-saliency subset that can be removed post hoc with little average degradation; UMoE turns this redundant capacity into useful domain capacity and achieves lower training loss, with gains spanning all difficulty levels in downstream evaluation.

In multi-source ECG deployment, models may need to incorporate new data sources when earlier raw ECGs cannot be retained or replayed. Freezing a pretrained backbone and assigning each source an isolated classifier prevents parameter interference, but deployment still requires selecting an expert when source metadata are unavailable. We study this distinction through IRFE-ECG, an incremental expert bank built on frozen 1024-dimensional ECGFounder features. Each arriving domain adds a balanced-softmax linear expert, while a lightweight router is fitted only on retained training features and domain labels from sources observed so far. A validation-calibrated margin rule fuses the two most likely experts instead of committing to a single routed expert. On CPSC, PTB-XL, Georgia, and Chapman-Shaoxing, source-aware expert selection reaches $0.7915\pm0.0036$ Macro-F1 and a matched offline independent-head reference reaches $0.7885\pm0.0009$, supporting strong source-aware expert retention. Without source IDs, an MLP router reaches $0.7756\pm0.0027$ and top-2 margin fusion reaches $0.7782\pm0.0022$. The top-2 gain over hard MLP routing is small ($+0.0026$), with a 95% confidence interval from paired bootstrap that includes zero. Across three domain orders, the top-2-to-oracle gap remains $0.0111$--$0.0133$, identifying autonomous source inference as the main remaining bottleneck. No raw ECGs are replayed, but frozen training features are retained for router updates; the method is therefore not memory-free.Code is available at https://github.com/yufanlu221/IRFE-ECG.

Online imitation learning (IL), particularly on-policy distillation, has emerged as a strong LLM post-training approach, often outperforming offline supervised fine-tuning (SFT). Yet a principled understanding of when and why online interaction helps remains unclear. In this work, we challenge the view that error accumulation is the main source of online IL's advantage, and instead show that the benefits of online interaction depend critically on whether the setting is realizable, i.e., whether the student policy class can represent the expert policy. Under realizability, we empirically find that offline IL already matches expert performance. In contrast, in non-realizable (misspecified) settings, we prove that offline IL encounters an information-theoretic bottleneck even when horizon $H=1$, and propose a structural characterization of misspecification relative to the reward, under which online IL provably achieves high performance despite a large distributional mismatch between the expert and student policies.

Professional translation is often a team-based process: translators, reviewers, and project managers must coordinate terminology, legal force, and accountability across documents. Yet many LLM-based translation tools treat human corrections as isolated edits. Expert decisions made in one segment or by one member are rarely captured as reusable knowledge for the rest of the team. We present DeepTrans Studio, a collaborative translation workspace that lets professionals intercept selected nodes in an agentic translation workflow, review evidence, revise AI outputs, and save approved decisions to a shared team memory. During the demo, attendees will role-play translators and reviewers, resolve preset terminology and legal-modal risks, and see how their decisions are propagated to downstream segments and surfaced in a teammate's workspace as reusable precedents. The demo illustrates how human interventions in AI-mediated work can become shared, traceable knowledge rather than one-off corrections.

Pretrained text embeddings are increasingly used as representational maps, yet high category separability does not imply that their geometry recovers expert-defined structure. We study this problem in mental-health-related language, where symptom relations provide an external reference and online communities introduce strong domain, affective, stylistic, and discourse confounds. Using 28 Reddit communities, we compare pretrained and supervised fine-tuned Qwen3 embedding spaces at two scales (0.6B and 4B). We construct category prototypes, evaluate their representational dissimilarity matrices against an expert symptom matrix with representational similarity analysis, and complement this global test with prototype-based typicality and multi-baseline confound controls. Pretrained embeddings show measurable alignment with expert structure within the mental-health subset; fine-tuning strengthens this alignment most at the finest category level; and larger scale improves both zero-shot alignment and supervision-induced gains. Residual alignment remains substantial after controlling for VAD, LIWC, lexical style, and topic-distribution structure. These results suggest that LLM embeddings can recover expert-relevant category geometry, but this recovery is level-dependent and should be tested against explicit confounds rather than inferred from classification alone.

Background: Laparoscopic camera navigation (LCN) is a critical skill, yet its current assessment typically relies on manual rating systems which are time-consuming and difficult to scale. Automated feedback could significantly enhance surgical training by providing immediate, standardized metrics. This study aims to define, clinically evaluate the relevance, and establish the technical readiness of a set of approaches for LCN assessment. Methods: We developed a detailed taxonomy of 14 key aspects of camera navigation, categorized into Framing & Composition, Visibility & Clarity, Orientation & Stability, Motion & Dynamics, and Safety & Awareness. For each aspect, we assessed the technological readiness of automated measurement based on the current state of the art (SoTA) in computer vision (CV). To establish clinical relevance, we designed a survey for practicing laparoscopic surgeons to rate the importance of each aspect on a 5-point Likert scale and to select the five most critical skills. Results: 23 surgeons participated in the survey. Foundational aspects like Field of View, Focus and Centering were rated as most important by surgeons. We present a "Clinical Importance vs. CV Technological Readiness" matrix, identifying high-priority targets for development--aspects that are both clinically crucial and technologically ready to measure. Conclusion: This work establishes a foundational framework for quantifying LCN skills. By aligning surgeon priorities with CV capabilities, we provide a clear roadmap for automatic skill assessment. This foundation enables the development of AI-driven assistance tools that can accelerate the learning curve for surgical assistants and potentially improve surgical safety and efficiency.

Most tools for measuring political positions, manifesto coding, expert surveys, text-scaling models, were built and validated on Western party systems, and outside that setting they work poorly, and often not at all. This paper is an attempt at a method for those settings. It treats a large language model not as a measurement device but as a single, fallible rater in a panel, roughly the way an expert survey treats one expert: the value comes from pooling many judges rather than trusting any one of them. I describe the panel, an applicability rule that keeps a score of zero distinct from a blank, and a lens system that separates what an actor says from what it does. I report three results. First, holding a definition-free round fixed, adding written axis definitions moves scores by a mean of 1.8 points on a 21-point scale and tightens agreement between raters (mean absolute gap 2.81 to 2.50; r 0.81 to 0.89); they make two independent raters agree more closely, which an arbitrary steer would not. Second, across nine models from eight laboratories in two countries, Krippendorff's alpha is 0.86 on both an interval and an ordinal metric, and it stayed put as the panel grew from five raters to nine. That is reliability, the reproducibility of a reading, and not validity, its correctness. Third, where the panel does disagree, the disagreement is informative: the sharpest split, a full-scale divergence on an actor's stance toward its state's foundational order, points to a referent problem, and a blind triple-coding puts about two-thirds of it down to interpretation rather than error. I try to be plain about what the method can't do, including the human validation it still lacks, and I release the instrument and data in full. The worked example is the Middle East and North Africa, but I'd expect the method to carry to any region these standard tools leave out.

Calibration aligns a model's predictive uncertainty with the frequencies of its empirical outcomes and is important for understanding and trusting reported probabilities. Recent work shows that enforcing calibration at the level of individual predictors can improve ensemble accuracy and calibration, with mixture-of-experts (MoE) models showing strong empirical improvements in particular; however, the conditions under which calibration helps MoE are not well understood. In this work, we study how MoE models behave under distribution shift, focusing on how routing mechanisms interact with expert-level calibration. We show that expert calibration is sufficient to ensure calibration of the overall model under a broad class of distribution shifts in hard-routed models, but is insufficient for calibrating soft-routed models. To address this, we propose an adversarial reweighting that penalizes calibration errors of the routed aggregate under distribution shift, and we demonstrate that it improves the accuracy-calibration tradeoff both on average and on difficult subsets of the data, across model classes, prediction tasks, and distribution shifts.

Sparse Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) language models separate total parameter count from per-token active computation, but local inference systems often still require the full model, key-value cache, runtime buffers, and operatingsystem headroom to fit in fast memory. MawForge tests a different systems hypothesis: local MoE serving can be made practical on constrained unified-memory machines by storing the full model on disk, keeping common tensors resident, and materializing routed expert tensors into a bounded execution cache on demand. The central finding is that MawForge is effective as a bounded execution mechanism and measurement substrate for local MoE inference, but not as a cache-maximization policy. Performance depends on balancing expert reuse against resident footprint, KV-cache size, quantization, route locality, and macOS memory pressure.

Robots deployed in the real world should learn from their experience and improve over time. This requires a mechanism of practicing and learning from feedback. In this paper, we propose VERITAS, a generator-verifier framework for generalist robot policies for inference-time policy steering and self-improvement. We use a pre-trained generalist robot policy as a generator'' and pair it with a gradient-free visual verifier'' that evaluates actions at inference time. This framework enables inference-time steering that improves policy performance without additional training. We demonstrate that inference-time verification consistently outperforms vanilla generalists without training on additional demonstration data. Additionally, we demonstrate that the verified rollouts provide effective supervision for offline policy improvement: policies fine-tuned on verified self-generated trajectories achieve consistent performance gains. Notably, we find that post-training with verified rollouts achieves comparable efficiency to expert demonstrations, while requiring no human interventions. Our results highlight inference-time verification as a practical and scalable mechanism for improving robotic policies during deployment.

End-to-end autonomous driving has achieved state-of-the-art performance on benchmarks and real-world deployments. Its standard training recipe, however, is expensive across all stages: collecting and labeling millions of driving frames is costly, and closed-loop RL on images is bottlenecked by the per-step cost of photorealistic rendering plus a forward pass through a large vision backbone. Self-play in vectorized simulators changes the economics: millions of rollout steps per second, and a state distribution naturally rich in collisions, near-misses, and recoveries that no driving log contains. Our approach exploits this asymmetry by decoupling learning to drive from learning to see. We pretrain a single policy by self-play, then align its latent space with a pretrained vision backbone, through the action KL divergence and a batch-relational low-rank structural loss. The action target comes from the self-play policy, so alignment never supervises against a logged trajectory: a paired dataset of (image, scene-state) frames suffices, with no need for the curated expert demonstrations that imitation pretraining is built on. On photorealistic 3D Gaussian splatting closed-loop scenarios, the resulting end-to-end policy matches or exceeds prior end-to-end methods.

Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architectures efficiently scale Large Language Models (LLMs) by activating only a small fraction of their experts per token, yet the full parameter count - dominated by the expert parameters - must be held in training and inference memory. To address this, we introduce Expert Tying, an architectural modification that shares expert parameters across consecutive transformer layers while preserving independent, layer-wise routing and attention. We evaluate this approach across common, state-of-the-art architectures, including OLMoE, Qwen3, and DeepSeek-style MoEs. Our pretraining experiments demonstrate that tying experts can reduce memory footprint by almost 2x at virtually no degradation in perplexity or downstream quality. By exploiting the parameter redundancy inherent in MoE pathways, our method provides a highly favorable compute-to-memory trade-off, advancing efficient training and scaling of next-generation LLMs.

Router is the cornerstone component to the Mixture-of-Experts models. Serving as expert proxies, the rows of the router matrix compute their similarity to the MoE inputs to determine which subset of experts is activated. Ideally, each router row is designed to encode the expert matrix into this representative vector, such that its dot-product with token can better reflect token-expert affinity. However, there exists no design principles to enforce this condensation. In this paper, we propose to align each router row with the principal singular direction of the associated expert, as this direction provides the most expressive mathematical description of a matrix. Based on this principle, we propose a router redesign with Manifold Power Iteration (MPI). Specifically, it introduces a "Power-then-Retract" paradigm, where a power iteration step is performed on the router weights, followed by a retraction to impose a norm constraint to ensure both efficiency and stability. Theoretically, we show that MPI drives router rows to converge toward the principal singular directions of associated experts. Empirically, we pretrain MoE model across scales from 1B to 11B parameters to confirm that this alignment facilitates more effective MoE models.

The quality of piano performance depends on nuanced timing, articulation, and dynamic control, but practice feedback is often summary-based and hard to act on. We introduce Profy, a weakly supervised system that learns from take-level labels derived from aggregated listener ratings (expert-labeled vs. amateur-labeled) to produce time-aligned highlights for review during piano practice. We collected synchronized 1 kHz key-motion and audio from 73 pianists and used 1,083 valid takes for modeling and evaluation. The model outputs clip-level predictions together with evidence scores on a shared resampled model time base for visualization. On 20 amateur clips from short technique studies annotated by 21 expert pianists, the displayed highlight score aligns with passages that expert pianists marked for review despite training without localized labels (Pearson r=0.61, ROC-AUC 0.75). Rather than summarizing a take with a single global score, Profy helps learners decide where to inspect next by supporting scrubbing, looping, and focused replay of time-localized passages associated with expert-amateur differences.

Single-Molecule Force Spectroscopy (SMFS) provides unprecedented insights into biomolecular mechanics, yet the high-throughput generation of force-extension trajectories creates a severe data curation bottleneck. Identifying rare molecular unbinding events within thousands of noise-dominated curves traditionally relies on tedious, non-scalable manual auditing. Here, we present a system-agnostic, interpretable deep learning framework tailored to overcome extreme class imbalance in automated SMFS triage. Utilizing 1D-to-2D rasterized geometric matrices, we deployed a modified ResNet18 architecture governed by an asymmetric Focal Loss objective function. We evaluated this framework on the complex mechanical unfolding pathways of the R. champanellensis cellulosome. Under hyper-imbalanced test conditions where the target interaction constituted only 1.34% of the dataset (13 true events out of 970 traces), the model achieved an overall accuracy of 0.9196 and a remarkable True Positive Rate (Recall) of 0.9231. By implementing an empirically calibrated dual-threshold triage system, the pipeline automatically discarded 880 unambiguous background noise traces , reducing the manual curation workload by over 90% while safely preserving high-value rare data. Finally, Gradient-weighted Class Activation Mapping (Grad-CAM) visually validated that the network's decisions are firmly anchored in the relevant geometric features of the force curves, specifically localizing on the structural unbinding regions, effectively mitigating 'black-box' skepticism. Built for free cloud-based execution, this open-source tool democratizes scalable, highly precise molecular discovery across the biophysics community.

In high-stakes settings such as brand compliance, clinical care, and content moderation, machine learning cannot be deployed as opaque oracles: practitioners inspect the features driving model decisions, and models must leverage the expert documentation governing these domains. In practice, the data arrives as unstructured content, and features extracted from it must be interpretable, discriminative, and aligned with what experts consider important. Existing methods fall short: they target tabular inputs, lack demonstrated expert alignment, and cannot operationalize qualitative criteria such as 'maintain professional tone' into precise features. We present FEST (Feature Engineering with Self-evolving Trees), combining dual-stream feature generation (semantic and deterministic), semantic deduplication, and tree-guided iterative evolution to discover auditable features from raw text and images. FEST leads in 17 of 20 classifier-task combinations across brand classification, content authenticity detection, and stress detection, with a mean gain of 4.2 pp over the strongest baseline across five classifiers. An LLM-as-judge evaluation shows FEST achieves 60-80% coverage of expert-designed brand features at strict semantic-alignment thresholds, corroborated by a human expert study rating features highly on relevance, clarity, and actionability. When seeded with expert guidelines, FEST refines qualitative criteria into operational features, improving accuracy by 6-12 pp on average across brands. To enable systematic evaluation of expert alignment in automated feature engineering, we release BrandGuide, the first dataset pairing expert-designed features with 1M+ assets across 2,683 brands. By grounding feature engineering in expert knowledge, FEST opens a practical pathway for interpretable ML in domains demanding human oversight.

Sparse Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) large language models achieve strong quality with low per-token compute, yet their deployment is often limited by the memory wall: the full expert pool must remain resident to support token-dependent routing. Expert pruning is a direct remedy, but prior criteria typically score experts independently and overlook that MoE inference is inherently \emph{coalitional}, where outputs arise from routed top-$k$ expert combinations. We propose \textbf{SHAPE}, a task-driven pruning framework that explicitly models \emph{intra-layer} expert cooperation. SHAPE formulates routing traces on a small calibration set as an empirical cooperative game and assigns interaction-aware expert values via a Shapley-style attribution over observed top-$k$ coalitions, enabling the identification of experts that are essential for high-utility collaborations rather than merely frequent. To preserve MoE topology under a global pruning budget, SHAPE further introduces a \emph{quality-coverage} selection rule that retains, in each layer, the minimal expert subset covering an $α$ fraction of non-negative Shapley mass, while using bisection to match a target keep rate. Experiments on three modern MoE backbones (Qwen3-30B-A3B, GPT-OSS-20B, and DeepSeek-V2-Lite) across diverse benchmarks show that SHAPE consistently improves robustness over global and layer-wise pruning variants, maintaining competitive accuracy under 20% and 40% expert pruning without additional training and delivering clear reductions in peak GPU memory footprint. The open-source code is available at https://github.com/Alizen-1009/Shapley-Moe.

Exploration in reinforcement learning for autonomous driving is inherently unsafe: agents must experience novel behaviors to learn, yet exploration can lead to collisions or off-road driving. We propose an uncertainty-aware framework that leverages expert advice to guide exploration while avoiding long-term dependence. Advice is triggered when epistemic or aleatoric uncertainty exceeds adaptive thresholds derived from rolling buffers, ensuring advice evolves with the agent's confidence. A commitment-cooldown strategy with a stochastic early-stop heuristic regulates the duration and frequency of guidance, exposing the agent to coherent maneuvers without exhausting the advice budget. Expert and agent experiences are combined in a shared replay buffer within an off-policy implicit quantile network (IQN) backbone, enabling efficient reuse of expert trajectories. Experiments in CARLA show that our method outperforms the IQN baseline, improving success by 5-7% and reducing failures, demonstrating that risk-sensitive uncertainty coupled with regulated expert integration enables safer and more efficient exploration for sensor-based RL policy learning in unsignalized intersection navigation.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for writing and review support, but their usefulness depends on context-dependent criteria, such as expert preferences or organization-specific conventions, that are often tacit, undocumented, and difficult to elicit directly. We propose a problem setting for learning reusable natural-language rubrics from accumulated inline comments on artifacts such as human-written or LLM-generated drafts. Our method infers rubrics from these comments and iteratively refines them by observing comment-wise mismatches between rubric-conditioned predictions and reference comments. We evaluate the proposed method in real-world review settings and in controlled settings with reference rubrics. These results show that inline comments can be distilled into reusable rubrics that support comment prediction, rubric understanding, and automatic artifact revision.

Tracking the dynamics of non-canonical biological systems in microscopy videos remains a persistent challenge. Both classical and learning-based trackers depend on expert-reviewed data to be evaluated and adapted, yet exhaustive manual annotation rarely scales to the videos where these tools are needed most. We developed RIPPLE (Refinement Interpolation Platform for Point Location Estimation), which recasts annotation as sparse correction: a user clicks a starting point, RIPPLE proposes a full trajectory, and the user intervenes only where the trajectory drifts. We tested RIPPLE on five challenging microscopy datasets from our laboratories, four from the transparent jellyfish Clytia hemisphaerica and one tracking landmarks on rapidly moving sperm. Across these, RIPPLE matched the quality of exhaustive manual annotation while reducing manual clicks by 3 to 25 times across datasets. RIPPLE thereby fills a missing layer between manual annotation and fully automated tracking, enabling immediate quantification of biological dynamics, method benchmarking, and the production of the gold-standard data needed to adapt future automated microscopy trackers.

While large language models (LLMs) hold transformative potential for medicine, their reasoning robustness and safety in real-world clinical scenarios remain critically underexplored, particularly in dentistry. Here we introduce GlobalDentBench, the first multinational dental benchmark, featuring a taxonomy that encompasses 14 dental specialties across 88 countries and regions spanning six continents. The benchmark comprises 8,978 expert-validated questions across three formats (multiple-choice, short-answer, and case-based questions) and assesses three progressive reasoning levels: knowledge recall (L1), routine reasoning (L2), and individualized reasoning (L3). To ensure data quality, the automated construction framework was calibrated by six senior dentists, achieving expert agreement rates of 99.98% for multiple-choice and short-answer questions and 96.78% for the more complex case-based questions. Evaluation of 12 frontier LLMs on GlobalDentBench revealed a sharp, stepwise performance degradation with increasing reasoning complexity. Specifically, accuracy plummeted from 81.34% on multiple-choice to 64.53% on short-answer and 22.34% on case-based questions, while declining markedly from 74.01% at L1 to 55.64% at L2 and 35.71% at L3. More critically, risk analysis of real-world dental cases demonstrated an alarming overall unsafe rate of 31.01% in LLM-generated clinical recommendations, with 4.51% posing risks of irreversible patient harm and risks particularly pronounced in specialties such as orthodontics. These findings expose fundamental limitations in the medical reasoning and safety of current LLMs. Consequently, GlobalDentBench provides a scalable foundation for trustworthy clinical AI evaluation, underscoring the urgent need for rigorous validation before the safe deployment of these models in healthcare.

AI sycophancy has become a prominent concern in large language model (LLM) research. Yet the term lacks a consistent definition and has been applied to behaviors ranging from agreeing with a user's false claim to excessively praising the user to withholding corrective feedback. When researchers, companies, and policymakers use the same term to describe different behaviors, evaluation results become difficult to compare, mitigation strategies fail to transfer, and systems that are resistant to one form of sycophancy continue exhibiting other forms. To address this, we make two contributions. First, we reviewed 70 papers on AI sycophancy to develop a taxonomy of how the behavior has been defined and measured. The taxonomy distinguishes (1) whether a model is sycophantic toward a user's positions and beliefs, or toward the user's broader personal traits and emotions, and (2) whether this occurs through explicit, direct language or more implicit, subtle behaviors such as framing, omission, or tone. Mapping existing literature to our taxonomy reveals that current research has focused on overt forms of sycophancy toward users' beliefs, leaving more subtle and person-directed behaviors relatively understudied. Second, we surveyed 106 experts in AI sycophancy and related fields to examine whether researchers agree on which model behaviors are sycophantic. While experts are nearly unanimous in believing that sycophancy is a significant problem in current AI systems (94.3% agree), they disagree substantially on which specific behaviors qualify. Together, these findings demonstrate that AI sycophancy is a broad family of behaviors with different measurement challenges, intervention requirements, and governance implications. Our taxonomy provides a shared vocabulary for understanding and addressing these behaviors.

Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) models are often interpreted by analysing which categories are routed to which experts. However, routing alone does not reveal what each expert actually encodes. We train sparsely-gated convolutional MoE models with a contrastive objective on natural images and characterise expert specialisation using tools from visual neuroscience. Extending from gating-level to expert-level analyses, we measure per-expert category separability, and per-expert tuning using the most exciting inputs. Extending from category-level to feature-level explanations, we interpret tuning via semantic dimensions derived from a dataset of human behavioural judgements (THINGS). Finally, we use tuning and representational similarity analysis to assess the stability of expertise-allocation across independent initialisations. We find that an animate-inanimate distinction dominates expert partitioning, apparent from gating through to expert readout, and is stable across independently trained models. Although routing statistics suggest relatively sparse, categorical preferences, expert analyses reveal broader tuning to continuous visual and semantic dimensions that extend beyond category boundaries. Experts exhibit similar category-separability to one another, despite distinct feature tuning, demonstrating the explanatory benefits of moving beyond category-level analyses. Together, these results show that expert specialisation in vision MoEs extends well beyond category routing and is better understood by probing fine-grained expert-level tuning and representational structure.

Frontier deep research agents (DRAs) are being deployed in enterprise workflows faster than they are being evaluated. Existing benchmarks measure factual recall, single-hop QA, or generic agentic skill, and miss the multi-document, decision-grade deliverables DRAs are asked to produce. We introduce a benchmark of 70 SME-authored management consulting prompts, each embedding cognitive traps that penalize surface-pattern reasoning. Three frontier agents, namely Claude Opus4.6, OpenAI o3-deep-research and Gemini3.1Pro deep-research, are scored on two complementary layers: deterministic binary verifiers (mean 14.9 per task) and a five-criterion 0--3 SME rubric (Data Integrity, Analytical Rigor, Relevance & Focus, Execution Precision, Format & Deliverability), combined into a Verifier-Rubric Score (VRS, 0--100). Acceptance under a joint threshold (rubric mean $\geq 2.5$ and verifier pass rate $\geq 80\%$) is uniformly low: o3 15.7%, Claude 12.9%, Gemini 12.9%. Pairwise differences are statistically indistinguishable. On the continuous VRS, o3 leads (61.4[CI: 55.2,,67.5]), followed by Gemini (52.6) and Claude (38.5); the o3--Claude gap ($Δ{=}22.9$, $p{<}0.001$) survives Bonferroni correction. No agent averages above the rubric's ``adequate'' threshold of 2.0; no agent's mean verifier pass rate reaches the 80% acceptance floor. Each agent fails distinctively: Claude leads on data fabrication and file-access failures; o3 propagates cascading computation errors; Gemini oscillates between the highest perfect-verifier rate and the most catastrophic collapses. The benchmark, evaluation code, and full prompt corpus are publicly released.

Sparse Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) models offer a powerful way to scale model size without increasing compute, as per-token FLOPs depend only on k active experts rather than the total pool of E experts. Yet, this asymmetry creates an MoE efficiency paradox in practice: adding more experts balloons memory and communication costs, making actual training inefficient. We argue that this bottleneck arises in part because current MoE training allocates too many experts from the beginning, even though early-stage data may not fully utilize such capacity. Motivated by this, we propose EMO, a simple progressive training framework that treats MoE capacity as expandable memory and grows the expert pool over the course of training. EMO explicitly models sparsity in scaling law to derive stage-wise compute-optimal token budgets for progressive expansion. Empirical results show that EMO matches the performance of a fixed-expert setup in large-scale experiments while improving wall-clock efficiency. It offers a surprisingly simple yet effective path to scalable MoE training, preserving the benefits of large expert pools while reducing both training time and GPU cost.

Learning-to-Defer (L2D) methods route each query either to a predictive model or to external experts. While existing work studies this problem in batch settings, real-world deployments require handling streaming data, changing expert availability, and shifting expert distribution. We introduce the first online L2D algorithm for multiclass classification with bandit feedback and a dynamically varying pool of experts. Our method achieves regret guarantees of $O((n+n_e)T^{2/3})$ in general and $O((n+n_e)\sqrt{T})$ under a low-noise condition, where $T$ is the time horizon, $n$ is the number of labels, and $n_e$ is the number of distinct experts observed across rounds. The analysis builds on novel $\mathcal{H}$-consistency bounds for the online framework, combined with first-order methods for online convex optimization. Experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets demonstrate that our approach effectively extends standard Learning-to-Defer to settings with varying expert availability and reliability.

Modern Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architectures allocate expert capacity through a rigid per-layer rule: each transformer layer owns a separate expert set. This convention couples depth scaling with linear expert-parameter growth and assumes that every layer needs isolated expert capacity. However, recent analyses and our routing probe challenge this allocation rule: replacing a deeper layer's learned top-k router with uniform random routing drops downstream accuracy by only 1.0-1.6 points across multiple production MoE models. Motivated by this redundancy, we propose UniPool, an MoE architecture that treats expert capacity as a global architectural budget by replacing per-layer expert ownership with a single shared pool accessed by independent per-layer routers. To enable stable and balanced training under sharing, we introduce a pool-level auxiliary loss that balances expert utilization across the entire pool, and adopt NormRouter to provide sparse and scale-stable routing into the shared expert pool. Across five LLaMA-architecture model scales (182M, 469M, 650M, 830M, and 978M parameters) trained on 30B tokens from the Pile, UniPool consistently improves validation loss and perplexity over the matched vanilla MoE baselines. Across these scales, UniPool reduces validation loss by up to 0.0386 relative to vanilla MoE. Beyond raw loss improvement, our results identify pool size as an explicit depth-scaling hyperparameter: reduced-pool UniPool variants using only 41.6%-66.7% of the vanilla expert-parameter budget match or outperform layer-wise MoE at the tested scales. This shows that, under a shared-pool design, expert parameters need not grow linearly with depth; they can grow sublinearly while remaining more efficient and effective than vanilla MoE. Further analysis shows that UniPool's benefits compose with finer-grained expert decomposition.

Aligning large language models with expert judgment is especially difficult in subjective evaluation tasks, where experts may disagree, rely on tacit criteria, and change their judgments over time. In this paper, we study expert alignment as a way to understand this difficulty. Using expert evaluations and follow-up questionnaires, we examine how different forms of expert information affect alignment and what this reveals about subjective judgment. Our findings show four consistent patterns. First, alignment difficulty varies substantially across experts, suggesting that expert evaluation styles differ widely in their distance from a model's prior behavior. Second, explicit criteria and reasoning do not always improve alignment, indicating that expert judgment is not fully captured by verbalized rules. Third, editing is sensitive to both the number and the identity of examples, with small numbers of edits providing useful but unstable gains. Fourth, alignment difficulty differs across evaluation dimensions: dimensions grounded more directly in proposal content are easier to align, while dimensions requiring external knowledge or value-based judgment remain harder. Taken together, these results suggest that expert alignment is difficult not only because of model limitations, but also because subjective evaluation is inherently heterogeneous, partly tacit, dimension-dependent, and temporally unstable.

Multiple myeloma is managed through sequential lines of therapy over years to decades, with each decision depending on cumulative disease history distributed across dozens to hundreds of heterogeneous clinical documents. Whether LLM-based systems can synthesise this evidence at a level approaching expert agreement has not been established. A retrospective evaluation was conducted on longitudinal clinical records of 811 myeloma patients treated at a tertiary centre (2001-2026), covering 44,962 documents and 1,334,677 laboratory values, with external validation on MIMIC-IV. An agentic reasoning system was compared against single-pass retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), iterative RAG, and full-context input on 469 patient-question pairs from 48 templates at three complexity levels. Reference labels came from double annotation by four oncologists with senior haematologist adjudication. Iterative RAG and full-context input converged on a shared ceiling (75.4% vs 75.8%, p = 1.00). The agentic system reached 79.6% concordance (95% CI 76.4-82.8), exceeding both baselines (+3.8 and +4.2 pp; p = 0.006 and 0.007). Gains rose with question complexity, reaching +9.4 pp on criteria-based synthesis (p = 0.032), and with record length, reaching +13.5 pp in the top decile (n = 10). The system error rate (12.2%) was comparable to expert disagreement (13.6%), but severity was inverted: 57.8% of system errors were clinically significant versus 18.8% of expert disagreements. Agentic reasoning was the only approach to exceed the shared ceiling, with gains concentrated on the most complex questions and longest records. The greater clinical consequence of residual system errors indicates that prospective evaluation in routine care is required before these findings translate into patient benefit.

Artificial Intelligence is increasingly introduced into systems engineering activities, particularly within requirements engineering, where quality assessment and validation remain heavily dependent on expert judgment. While recent AI tools demonstrate promising capabilities in analyzing and generating requirements, their role within formal systems engineering processes-and their alignment with established INCOSE criteria-remains insufficiently understood. This paper investigates the extent to which AI-based tools can support systems engineers in evaluating requirement quality, without replacing professional expertise. The research adopts a structured systems engineering methodology to compare AI-assisted requirement evaluation with human expert assessment. A controlled study was conducted in which system requirements were evaluated against established INCOSE ``good requirement'' criteria by both experienced systems engineers and an AI-based assessment tool. The evaluation focused on consistency, completeness, clarity, and testability, examining not only accuracy but also the decision logic underlying each assessment. Results indicate that AI tools can provide consistent and rapid preliminary assessments, particularly for syntactic and structural quality attributes. However, expert judgment remains essential for contextual interpretation, ambiguity resolution, and trade-off reasoning. Rather than positioning AI as a replacement for systems engineers, the findings support its role as a decision-support mechanism within the RE lifecycle. From a systems engineering perspective, this study contributes empirical evidence on how AI can be integrated into RE workflows while preserving traceability, accountability, and engineering consistency.

In current Mixture of Experts (MoE) architectures, linear memory scaling is present, the memory grows as the number of experts increases. $N$ independent expert weight matrices require $\mathcal{O}(N \cdot d^2)$ memory which exceeds the memory budget of edge devices. Current compression methods like quantization, pruning, and low-rank factorization reduce constant factors, but the scaling bottleneck is still unresolved. We introduce ButterflyMoE, a method which treats experts not as independent matrices but as geometric reorientations of a shared quantized substrate. Diversity amongst the experts arises from viewing different angles of the shared capacity and not from redundant storage. Learned rotations are applied to a shared ternary prototype. With this, each expert yields $\mathcal{O}(d^2 + N \cdot d \log d)$ memory-reducing per-expert cost from $\mathcal{O}(d^2)$ to $\mathcal{O}(d \log d)$. The key insight is that training these rotations with quantization reduces activation outliers and stabilizes extreme low-bit training where other static methods collapse. Across language modeling benchmarks, ButterflyMoE achieves 80$\times$ memory reduction at 8 experts with a highly favorable memory-accuracy tradeoff.At this 80x compression ButterflyMoE outperforms an equal memory dense baseline, showing that orbital parameterization extracts fundamentally more utility per byte. When scaled up to 256 experts, ButterflyMoE asymptotically compresses the memory by 150 $\times$. ButterflyMoE reduces the constant factor of linear scaling with compression ratio growing with the expert count.

Recent advances in large language models have enabled deep research systems that generate expert-level reports through multi-step reasoning and evidence-based synthesis. However, evaluating such reports remains challenging: report quality is multifaceted, making it difficult to determine what to assess and which criteria to use; LLM-based judges may miss errors that require domain expertise to identify; and because deep research relies on retrieved evidence, report-wide claim verification is also necessary. To address these issues, we propose DEER, a benchmark for evaluating expert-level deep research reports. DEER systematizes evaluation criteria with an expert-developed taxonomy (7 dimensions, 25 subdimensions) operationalized as 101 fine-grained rubric items. We also provide task-specific Expert Evaluation Guidance to support LLM-based judging. In addition to rubric-based assessment, we propose a claim verification architecture that verifies both cited and uncited claims and quantifies evidence quality. Experiments show that current systems produce structurally plausible, evidence-citing reports, but still struggle to fully satisfy expert-level user requests and achieve logical completeness. Beyond performance comparisons, DEER makes system strengths and limitations interpretable and provides diagnostic signals for improvement.

Chest X-ray (CXR) plays a pivotal role in clinical diagnosis, and a variety of task-specific and foundation models have been developed for automatic CXR interpretation. However, these models often struggle to adapt to new diagnostic tasks and complex reasoning scenarios. Recently, LLM-based agent models have emerged as a promising paradigm for CXR analysis, enhancing model's capability through tool coordination, multi-step reasoning, and team collaboration, etc. However, existing agents often rely on a single diagnostic pipeline and lack mechanisms for assessing tools' reliability, limiting their adaptability and credibility. To this end, we propose CXRAgent, a director-orchestrated, multi-stage agent for CXR interpretation, where a central director coordinates the following stages: (1) Tool Invocation: The agent strategically orchestrates a set of CXR-analysis tools, with outputs normalized and verified by the Evidence-driven Validator (EDV), which grounds diagnostic outputs with visual evidence to support reliable downstream diagnosis; (2) Diagnostic Planning: Guided by task requirements and intermediate findings, the agent formulates a targeted diagnostic plan. It then assembles an expert team accordingly, defining member roles and coordinating their interactions to enable adaptive and collaborative reasoning; (3) Collaborative Decision-making: The agent integrates insights from the expert team with accumulated contextual memories, synthesizing them into an evidence-backed diagnostic conclusion. Experiments on various CXR interpretation tasks show that CXRAgent delivers strong performance, providing visual evidence and generalizes well to clinical tasks of different complexity. Code and data are valuable at this \href{https://github.com/laojiahuo2003/CXRAgent/}{link}.

Deep Research Agents (DRA) aim to help users search the web, synthesize information, and deliver comprehensive investigative reports. Prior benchmarks often either under-evaluate a system's ability to produce meaningful insights and high-quality writing, or adopt coarse or LLM-defined criteria that are hard to verify and can diverge from human expert judgment. To address these issues, we introduce Deep Research Bench II, a new benchmark for evaluating DRAs. It contains 132 grounded research tasks across 22 domains; for each task, an agent must produce a research report that is evaluated by a set of 9,430 fine-grained binary rubrics in total, covering three dimensions: information recall, analysis, and presentation. All rubrics are derived from carefully selected expert-written investigative articles and are constructed through a four-stage LLM+human pipeline that combines automatic extraction with over 400 human-hours of expert review, ensuring that the criteria are verifiable and aligned with human expert judgment. We evaluate several state-of-the-art deep-research agents on Deep Research Bench II and find that even the strongest models satisfy fewer than 50% of the rubrics, revealing a substantial gap between current DRAs and human experts. We release the benchmark, evaluation scripts, and all rubrics at https://github.com/imlrz/DeepResearch-Bench-II to facilitate future research on deep-rearch agents.

An LLM judge evaluates outputs at scale. Experts should label only where it is least sure. Its natural escalation signal conflates two uncertainties: aleatoric, real disagreement in the expert pool, which labels cannot reduce, and epistemic, the judge's ignorance, which labels do reduce. A small Bayesian model separates them: a regression on labels already collected learns how far to trust a black-box judge's prediction. Both components follow as simple formulas, with no sampling or further judge calls. The components isolate on a real LLM judge against exactly known truth, and stated confidence is no guide to its actual error. On real human disagreement (ChaosNLI) the epistemic ranking removes 83% more error than total uncertainty for the same expert labels, though simply escalating the least-labelled items does as well there. We demonstrate we can estimate where a judge is ignorant rather than where experts genuinely disagree, and propose using this to direct expert labelling. Code and data are available at https://github.com/composo-ai/judge-uncertainty-decomposition.