General Intelligence

The performance of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) models degrades when the problem they were trained on drifts. This is a near-universal feature of real-world problems, which often change unpredictably. Biological evolution has achieved intelligence by overcoming this obstacle through natural selection acting on heritable variation. AI/ML techniques have long incorporated forms of natural selection, but it has been challenging to maintain model diversity as optimization naturally drives convergence. Here we show that a swarm of AI/ML models subjected to deliberate mutations of their model coefficients away from optimality can reliably and sustainably improve performance in changing environments by acting as a statistical hedge against non-stationarity. We call this mechanism 'Flawed in Nature, Perfect through Evolution', reflecting that the collective performance gain goes at the expense of individual performance. We prove via four theorems that the resulting regret reduction is guaranteed under general conditions, establishing the Flawed-in-Nature mechanism as a generalizable design principle for AI/ML systems. We validate these results on synthetic linear regression tasks, demonstrating that the mutated swarm delivers the best model in $\sim80\%$ of environment changes and that inference synthesis successfully translates this individual advantage into a collective one. The mechanism proves to be most effective when the mutation drift rate matches the drift rate of the environment. We outline a simple, adaptive controller that enables practical applications by tuning the mutation drift rate to match the unknown drift rate of the environment. The close analogy of the Flawed-in-Nature mechanism to biological evolution suggests it may have been a critical missing ingredient for the organic discovery of AI forms that more closely mimic biological intelligence.

The pursuit of artificial general intelligence (AGI) rests on a seemingly self-evident premise: that general intelligence, the kind of flexible, domain-general cognitive capacity exemplified by Homo sapiens, is extraordinarily valuable. This paper subjects this premise to critical scrutiny. We first present the intuitive case for the value of general intelligence before mounting an evolutionary challenge. We argue that, on evolutionary timescales, its adaptive value is far from empirically established. Numerous taxa, from cyanobacteria to horseshoe crabs, have persisted for hundreds of millions or even billions of years without anything resembling general intelligence, while Homo sapiens has existed for roughly 300,000 years and already faces self-generated existential risks. Mass extinction events do not preferentially favour cognitively sophisticated species. We argue that general intelligence may be the only biological strategy that generates existential threats to the species possessing it, an existential risk paradox with no parallel among non-intelligent survival strategies. Unlike prevailing accounts of AI risk that trace the danger to misalignment, we locate it in structural features of general intelligence itself, implying that even well-aligned AGI would inherit this liability. If the long-term evolutionary value of general intelligence is uncertain or negative, this raises ethical questions about engineering AGI and, more urgently, creating artificial consciousness. Drawing on deontological ethics and the precautionary principle, we argue that this uncertainty imposes a duty of caution: if we create a new kind of intelligent being, we bear responsibility for ensuring the conditions under which it can flourish.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in language understanding, reasoning, and world knowledge. As embodied agents become increasingly capable, there is a growing demand for compact models that can serve as an on-device brain, preserving the broad general intelligence of LLMs while enabling effective high-level interaction with embodied environments. Existing approaches, however, often prioritize either general-purpose intelligence or specialized embodied capabilities, making it challenging to satisfy both requirements within a single model. We present \textbf{Athena-Brain-8B}, an 8B LLM designed to serve as an on-device brain for embodied intelligence for embodied intelligence. Through a multi-stage post-training pipeline consisting of General Supervised Fine-Tuning, General Reinforcement Learning, Embodied Expert training, and Model Merge, Athena-Brain-8B maintains strong general capabilities while acquiring strong high-level embodied interaction capabilities and generating concise responses for efficient embodied interaction. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of Athena across both general and embodied evaluations. Compared with the corresponding Qwen3-8B thinking model, Athena-Brain-8B achieves comparable performance on general language and reasoning benchmarks while generating substantially shorter responses. On in-domain embodied benchmarks, Athena-Brain-8B consistently outperforms models of similar scale and surpasses several substantially larger frontier models evaluated zero-shot, demonstrating that compact language models can effectively integrate strong general intelligence with embodied capabilities.

General intelligence, of the kind that underwrites the full range of human cognitive achievement, is not a property of computational architecture alone. This paper advances a single thesis: the structural constraints on general intelligence occupy distinct levels of description and are mutually non-reducible, in the sense that the special-sciences tradition gives to that term. It follows that no single architectural advance, and no continuation of the scaling programme by itself, can produce artificial general intelligence (AGI), and that research programmes must be evaluated against the full constraint profile rather than against performance on any one benchmark. The thesis is developed through a method that reads general intelligence through four evidential lenses, AI systems research, anthropology, law, and economics, each anchored to a distinct level of description, supplemented by speculative fiction used as a disciplined heuristic in the context of discovery rather than the context of justification. Applying the method yields a taxonomy of twenty-three structural constraints organised into eight clusters; six are examined in depth and ordered as an ascending ladder of levels, with explicit bridges showing why progress at one level cannot carry to the next. The argument issues in five falsifiable predictions, each stated with a named benchmark family and a disconfirmation condition, converting a descriptive framework into a research programme with a longer horizon than the scaling hypothesis implies.

Vision-language-action models, world models, and agentic planners each advance physical intelligence, yet their composition lacks a common execution abstraction, shared state, semantic verification, and persistent experience across heterogeneous embodiments. We present PhyAgentOS, a runtime foundation delivering scheduling, verification, memory, benchmarking, and safety as system-level services. Its Session-Centered Runtime treats a session, not an action, as the minimum unit of scheduling, compatibility preflight, supervised execution, evidence collection, and acceptance. To decouple cognition from physical execution, the cognition-physics boundary is a file system: the State-as-a-File protocol materializes cross-layer state as Markdown with YAML, yielding inspectable, versionable records without code dependencies between Agent and Runtime layers. These views form a unified cognitive state space aligning intent, capabilities, environment, execution, and experience. The SessionVerifier distinguishes execution termination from semantic task completion via evidence-grounded verdicts of success, failure, or replan. Verified outcomes are consolidated through epistemic memory into reusable knowledge and corrective lessons, closing a trial-and-error loop without retraining. Benchmarking reuses the deployment session and verification path, so results trace to real execution. Layered safety constrains both policy-driven and agent-driven execution: preflight, action bridges, SafetyGuard, heartbeat monitoring, and target-local constraints. Validation is progressive: games test cognitive planning, simulation adds dynamics and control, real robots add hardware noise, with the cognitive layer held constant. PhyAgentOS is benchmarked on Optimus-67, StarDojo, and DST-Dojo, validated on 19+ simulated and physical embodiments, and gains on LIBERO, Calvin, and RoboCasa365 across multiple VLA models.

The rapid digitalisation of elite sport has created new opportunities for integrating artificial intelligence (AI), performance analytics, and decision-support systems into athlete development and competition management. However, existing solutions remain fragmented, typically addressing isolated tasks such as performance analysis, athlete monitoring, or referee support. This paper presents \textbf{FST$\cdot$ai2.5}, an explainable, uncertainty-aware, and secure AI framework for Olympic and Para-Taekwondo. \textbf{FST$\cdot$ai2.5} introduces a unified digital ecosystem integrating athlete intelligence, competition analytics, federation-scale data management, AI-assisted decision support, athlete and event digital twins, explainable performance indicators, and adaptive training recommendations. The framework supports World Taekwondo (WT), Member National Associations (MNAs), coaches, referees, analysts, and athletes through transparent, secure, and federation-aware governance. By combining multi-source competition data, athlete-performance information, and contextual evidence, \textbf{FST$\cdot$ai~2.5} provides tactical diagnostics, longitudinal athlete monitoring, performance forecasting, personalised development planning, and federation-wide benchmarking using explainable and uncertainty-aware AI. Prototype deployments demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed framework. Although developed for Olympic and Para-Taekwondo, the methodology is broadly applicable to explainable AI, digital twins, and trustworthy decision support in combat sports and other high-performance sporting environments.

Modern video generation models are increasingly hailed as emerging world models with an internalized grasp of physical law. Yet existing benchmarks largely evaluate physical plausibility only at the output level, without verifying whether the model arrives there through a faithful, law-grounded reasoning process. We introduce Apple-PI, the first benchmark that anchors video-model evaluation explicitly in physical laws. Apple-PI comprises three components. 1) Orchard: a dataset of 400 videos covering ten canonical tasks in classical mechanics. It separates single-law tasks for confounder-free diagnosis from multi-law tasks for probing generalization. 2) Benchmark Protocol: a three-stage protocol based on scientific reasoning, including Perception, Formulation, and Deduction. It uses chain-of-frames prompting on infographic-annotated first frames, treating the generated video as the model's visible reasoning trace. 3) Evaluation Suite: a hybrid evaluation suite that combines MLLM-based subjective scoring with physics-law-grounded objective measures. This enables stage-resolved diagnosis of not only whether a model fails, but where it fails. Benchmarking 11 models shows that current video models remain far from reliable law-grounded world simulators, with the best video model scoring only 0.473. Our stage-, pillar-, and source-resolved analyses further expose a Perception-to-Formulation-to-Deduction bottleneck, weak multi-law state transfer, and a persistent Sim-to-Real gap. These findings position Apple-PI as a diagnostic foundation for guiding future video models toward world models with law-grounded physical intelligence.

Similar to the natural capabilities of humans to sequentially learn new tasks, robots with Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models should possess lifelong learning ability to learn a new task when deployed in open-world environments. However, most recently proposed lifelong learning models aim to effectively learn the current task (plasticity) or maintain high accuracy on previous tasks (stability), while the plasticity-stability trade-off remains largely unsolved in robotic manipulation models. To address this fundamental challenge, we propose a cache-efficient lifelong Vision-Language-Action learning framework for robotic manipulation (i.e., LifelongVLA), which alleviates the plasticity-stability trade-off with a dual-timescale adaptation mechanism while achieving low-cost robotic deployment with a cache-efficient replay strategy. More concretely, we propose a dual-timescale LoRA gating module to decompose VLA adaptation into two lightweight pathways: a short-term adapter for plasticity and a long-term adapter for stable consolidation. These pathways are integrated via a task-aware gate, enabling explicit control of the plasticity-stability trade-off. In the skill replay phase, a cache-efficient stochastic replay strategy is proposed to preserve more balanced retention signals without full-trajectory storage. Finally, experiments show that LifelongVLA outperforms existing baselines, demonstrating efficient skill expansion, robust retention of learned manipulation behaviors, and reduced reliance on retraining for real-world deployment on an xArm robot.

Artificial general intelligence ultimately requires agents that can reason and act in the physical world. Action models, vision-language-action policies, and world models have advanced this goal, while World Action Models (WAMs) are particularly promising because they connect candidate interventions with predicted consequences. However, progress remains fragmented: models use incompatible action spaces and prediction targets, datasets and tasks follow different conventions, and runtime systems expose limited interfaces for reuse and evaluation. We review the evolution toward WAMs and organize these limitations into three coupled gaps: model roles and representations, objectives and standardization, and system composition. Building on this analysis, we propose a co-evolution roadmap for physical intelligence centered on the \emph{embodied brain}, a long-term model target for integrating multimodal context, comparing candidate interventions, and issuing state-transition or capability requests rather than direct actuator commands. WAMs provide promising prototypes for its predictive functions, while a physical harness grounds model outputs through tools, controllers, verification, and trace logging. Shared contracts align heterogeneous models, data, tasks, and embodiments, and closed-loop post-training converts verified interaction into reusable experience. Together, these components define a modular physical-intelligence stack for adaptive and self-improving embodied agents.

Two competing perspectives on fluid intelligence (gf) measures propose that performance is primarily constrained either by working memory capacity or by the ability to induce novel relations. The first perspective is currently dominant in measurement, as evident from the use of a limited set of recurring rules, whereas the second perspective is reflected in many definitions but rarely present in measurement. The ARC-AGI benchmark predominantly requires rule induction and was proposed as a measure of gf for both humans and artificial systems. However, its psychometric properties have not yet been examined in human samples. We therefore investigated the psychometric characteristics and nomological network of ARC-AGI in a first study with 100 participants. A compilation of ARC-AGI items showed good psychometric properties and correlated substantially with figural fluid intelligence as measured by a figural reasoning test ($ρ$ = .63). Associations with figural originality were weak. These findings provide initial support for the validity of ARC-AGI as a measure of human fluid intelligence. Future research should include more rule induction tasks as well as additional multivariate covariates. This study is unusual by studying a task in humans that was initially designed for machines. We suggest systematically embedding AI benchmarks into the nomological network of human cognitive abilities to enable more systematic evaluation and interdisciplinary cooperation.

How can we measure intelligence beyond human capability? Human-authored benchmarks saturate, and above human capability, examiners may not know which tasks are both hard and verifiable. We argue that this difficulty is inherent to absolute-scale evaluation and propose a new paradigm based on relative measurement in which models generate public challenges that separate other systems. Aggregating these outcomes yields an adversarial psychometric rating system that can scale with the systems being measured. We describe practical protocols that reduce incentives for private-information attacks, support judge-free adjudication, and naturally scale with agent capabilities. We instantiate the framework across verifiable and open-ended, non-verifiable domains, illustrating how model-generated evaluation can continue to measure systems beyond the human frontier.

Vision-language models (VLMs) struggle to generalize in interactive physical reasoning, particularly under unseen tasks and environments. Two key failure modes are prominent: hallucinated chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning that contradicts physical reality, and misalignment between the model's reasoning and actions. We present VAORA (Visual Action Outcome Reasoning Alignment), a novel reward design that directly addresses both issues. VAORA introduces two complementary rewards: Visual Alignment Reward, which anchors VLM reasoning to the visual context independent of the agent action itself, and Visual-Action Alignment Reward, which grounds reasoning in the visual outcome induced by the model's action. Together, these rewards suppress hallucinated CoT and reduce the gap between reasoning and behavior. To improve training stability, we further employ smooth, dense rewards by estimating success probabilities using a pre-trained in-domain expert agent. Experiments on PHYRE and Virtual Tool support our performances across novel-task and unseen-environment settings, confirming that grounded and generalizable physical intelligence can be induced through VAORA.

Creativity research has debated whether creativity is domain-specific (e.g., visual, writing, science), and if it is psychometrically separable from general intelligence. Both questions now apply to LLMs, but a unified benchmark of AI creativity remains elusive. We introduce AGC-Bench, an artificial general creativity benchmark built from a systematic review of the AI creativity literature (3,101 papers screened, 497 benchmarks identified), paired with an agentic harness that converts idiosyncratic codebases into HELM-standardized benchmarks. The first release covers 78 datasets spanning brainstorming, problem solving, STEM, narrative, figurative language, and humor. To address bias in LLM-as-judge, we apply Judge Response Theory -- a psychometric calibration of judge leniency/severity; we then fine-tune Qwen3-30B on the bias-corrected ratings of three frontier LLMs to produce AGC-Judge, an open-weight model that robustly scores new creativity benchmarks it was not trained on. Results reveal frontier models at the top of the AGC-Bench leaderboard, with open models close behind. LLMs show different creative strengths, ranking higher on some domains (e.g., writing) than others (e.g., scientific ideation). Extensive experiments yield three main findings. First, applying factor analysis across 83 LLMs, we recover a single creativity factor 'c', analogous to the 'g' factor of general intelligence, that explains 81.5% of variance, related to but separable from general knowledge/reasoning. Second, we show that prompting models to "be creative" boosts their performance far more than enabling reasoning, evidence that the benchmark tracks creativity over general ability. Third, on a human-matched subset, we find the top human still leads the top LLM on creativity. We release AGC-Bench with a public leaderboard, AGC-Judge, and human data as open infrastructure for measuring AI creativity at scale.

Video Intelligence Surveillance (VIDINT) on over-the-shoulder footage is a proposed vector for monitoring human-computer interaction patterns without direct screen recording access. In this paper, we evaluate a Behavioral Intelligence (BEHINT) touch-detection framework designed to reconstruct keystroke events on mobile keypad interfaces from physical finger interactions. Our system integrates four parallel detection modalities: (1) anatomical hand landmarks via MediaPipe, (2) HSV skin color filtering, (3) temporal frame differencing for motion detection, and (4) shape-guided Canny edge analysis. We map relative touch coordinates to a reference screen layout to reconstruct typing sequences. Evaluation on a 120-frame first-person staged video of passcode entry reveals that while MediaPipe and Skin Detection fail to run autonomously due to partial hand occlusion and ambient noise, Motion-Only and Edge-Only configurations achieve F1-scores of 18.5% and 18.2%, respectively. The combined multi-modal configuration achieves an F1-score of 16.7% and a sequence similarity of 3.0% when mapped to the iOS passcode layout. We conduct ablation, resolution decay, noise sensitivity, and proximity threshold tuning to characterize the system's operational envelope. We then audit generalization on 5 real, publicly licensed third-person phone videos and find that the detector emits a median of 57 touch points per frame (peaking at 205), one to three orders of magnitude more than the rate of real taps, because the skin filter responds to the whole hand rather than to fingertip contact. The staged keystroke result does not survive contact with uncontrolled footage; the system does not achieve reliable keystroke reconstruction outside the calibrated staged setting.

Ray Kurzweil described a thesis of accelerating returns, which is the most influential narratives in discussions of technological progress. Its central claim is that advances in multiple technological fields, especially compute, artificial intelligence, brain science, and biotechnology, interact in such a way that progress becomes self-amplifying and approximately exponential. This paper gives a simple mathematical interpretation of that claim and then argues that, even if such acceleration is real, it does not by itself resolve the central problem of scientific discovery. The reason is that accelerating returns apply most naturally to executional and infrastructural capability, whereas genuine discovery often depends on a different capacity: qualitative reasoning about when a current framework is structurally inadequate and what conceptual move is needed next. Recent ARC-AGI-3 results sharpen this distinction: humans solve the benchmark at ceiling, whereas frontier AI systems remain below 1%, indicating that the gap between current AI and human flexible reasoning is still very large. At the same time, Demis Hassabis has emphasized that humans must retain their sense of meaning and what they choose to focus their lives on, a reminder that the future of AI is not only a technical forecast but also a question of what forms of human understanding are worth preserving and transmitting. This paper positions the Qualitative Engine for Science (QES) [3] as a response to that missing capacity. In this view, the Kurzweil theory helps explain why quantitative capability may accelerate, while QES addresses the central problem in scientific discovery that acceleration alone does not solve. Its value does not depend on when AGI arrives, but on the fact that the processes of scientific discovery themselves constitute a form of human wisdom worth preserving, organizing, and making accessible.

Can intelligence be measured? We propose that intelligence can be defined as the lawful amplification of rare but valid futures: a system increases the probability of outcomes that would be unlikely under passive dynamics but remain admissible under the constraints of the domain. We start with the premise that an intelligent system must model the world and its own place within it. Because the system is part of the world it models, this leads naturally to recursive self-simulation: the system represents futures in which its own actions are part of the trajectory. Our central results give a necessity statement and a conditional near-sufficiency statement connecting this architecture to a precise thermodynamic measure of lawful amplification of rare-valid futures: high rare-valid lift is impossible unless the internal simulation identifies rare-valid futures with high fidelity; conversely, when rare-valid fidelity is high and the simulation contains an effective policy, the achievable lift approaches the actuation-limited optimum. Thus recursive self-simulation is not merely a plausible feature of intelligence but, under the stated assumptions, is necessary and nearly sufficient for high thermodynamic intelligence. The resulting framework makes intelligence measurable on a universal scale, from passive matter and feedback controllers, large language models, and humans as text generators to Maxwell-demon-like information engines.

We introduce Embodied-R1.5, a unified Embodied Foundation Model (EFM) that integrates comprehensive embodied reasoning capabilities, spanning embodied cognition, task planning, correction, and pointing, within a single architecture toward general physical intelligence. Leveraging three automated data construction pipelines to significantly expand the data coverage of critical capabilities, we build a large-scale data system of over 15B tokens, and design a multi-task balanced RL recipe to alleviate heterogeneous task conflicts. We further introduce a Planner-Grounder-Corrector (PGC) closed-loop framework that enables a single model to autonomously execute and self-correct over long-horizon tasks. With only 8B parameters, Embodied-R1.5 achieves SOTA on 16 out of 24 embodied VLM benchmarks, surpassing leading models like Gemini-Robotics-ER-1.5 and GPT-5.4. Benefiting from the internalized embodied capabilities, Embodied-R1.5 can be fine-tuned into a VLA with only a small amount of data, outperforming leading VLA models like $π_{0.5}$ across 4 popular manipulation benchmark suites. We further conduct extensive zero-shot real-robot experiments, validating performance in instruction following, affordance grounding, articulated object manipulation, and long-horizon complex tasks, demonstrating strong generalization to the physical world. We open-source model weights, datasets, training code, and EmbodiedEvalKit, an evaluation framework tailored for embodied tasks, to facilitate future research in EFMs.

Despite widespread discussion of AGI, there is no clear framework for measuring progress toward it. This ambiguity fuels subjective claims, makes it difficult to track progress, and risks hindering responsible governance. As a starting point to address this gap, we present a framework for understanding system capabilities in relation to human cognitive abilities. Drawing from decades of research in psychology, neuroscience, and cognitive science, we introduce a Cognitive Taxonomy that deconstructs general intelligence into 10 key cognitive faculties. We then propose a rigorous evaluation protocol in which a system's performance is measured across a suite of targeted, held-out cognitive tasks, generating a 'cognitive profile' that can be used to understand a system's strengths and weaknesses. We hope this framework will provide a practical roadmap and an initial step toward more rigorous, empirical evaluation of AGI.

Large multimodal models (LMMs) have rapidly advanced in perception and reasoning; however, it remains unclear whether these capabilities generalize to discovering visually grounded solutions in open-ended environments, beyond pattern recognition. In such settings, intelligence requires more than answering well-posed questions: it involves identifying how elements in a scene can be repurposed in non-obvious yet physically feasible ways. This form of creative problem-solving is central to human intelligence, but remains largely untested in current benchmarks. To evaluate this ability, we introduce MM-CreativityBench, a benchmark for affordance-grounded creative tool use in visually rich, physically constrained environments. Each instance presents a scenario image with structured views of candidate entities and their parts, enabling fine-grained, interactive evaluation of how models iteratively inspect the scene, identify relevant affordances, and compose visually and physically grounded solutions. Our experiments show that current LMMs often fall short, not due to lack of generative capability, but because they do not sustain grounded exploration. Models often overlook relevant entities, under-examine critical parts, or hallucinate attributes not grounded in the image. Motivated by this failure mode, we propose affordance-grounded alignment, which casts creative tool use as a preference learning problem. Using Direct Preference Optimization, we encourage models to prefer attribute-affordance reasoning grounded in visual evidence over hallucinated alternatives. In addition, we incorporate supervision derived from an affordance knowledge base to guide broader entity exploration and multi-turn planning. Our results show consistent gains in selecting the correct entities and parts, while substantially reducing hallucination and grounding-related errors.

High-quality expert chain-of-thought (CoT) data is one of the core bottlenecks in large language model (LLM) post-training. Existing data production methods each have structural limitations: crowdsourced annotation lacks deep reasoning paths; expert solo writing is constrained by the "expert blind spot" -- experts structurally skip reasoning steps they consider obvious; RLHF only produces preference signals rather than reasoning chains. This paper proposes the BC Protocol -- a structured dual-expert elicitation method for LLM post-training data production. The method carefully pairs a domain expert (crystallized intelligence) with a knowledge engineer (fluid intelligence), systematically externalizing the expert's implicit judgments as natural language reasoning chains. We introduce the Participant Aptitude Model, which defines six participant characteristic dimensions that affect elicitation quality. "Calibrated Ignorance" is an original concept proposed in this paper. We further propose "Selection-over-Prescription" as a methodological principle: for implicit knowledge elicitation tasks, investing quality-control resources in personnel selection yields a higher return than investing the same resources in process design. In a controlled experiment in the narrative fiction domain, we directly compared CoT produced by BC Protocol dual dialogue (Group A, (n=20)) against CoT written independently by the same domain expert (Group B, (n=20)). Three cross-vendor judge models -- GPT-4o, Claude Opus 4.5, and Gemini 2.5 Pro -- conducted blind evaluation across five dimensions (600 ratings total). Results show that the BC Protocol achieves an overwhelming advantage in "naturalness of reasoning process" (Group A mean 4.80 vs. Group B mean 1.30, (p=2.4\times10^{-8}), Cliff's (δ=1.0)).

While ubiquitous wearable sensors capture a wealth of behavioral and physiological information, effectively transforming these signals into personalized health insights is challenging. Specifically, converting low-level sensor data into representations capable of characterizing higher-level states is difficult due to high phenotypic diversity and variation in individual baseline health, physiology, and lifestyle factors. Moreover, collecting wearable data paired with health outcome annotations is laborious and expensive, and retrospective annotation remains practically unfeasible, contributing to a scarcity of data with high-quality labels. To overcome these limitations, we propose a foundation model for wearable health that is pretrained on more than one trillion minutes of unlabeled sensor signals drawn from a large cohort of five million participants. We demonstrate that the joint scaling of model capacity and pretraining data volume leads to systematic improvements in performance, as evaluated on a diverse set of 35 health prediction tasks, spanning cardiovascular, metabolic, sleep, and mental health, as well as lifestyle choices and demographic factors. We find that this population scale representation unlocks label-efficient few-shot learning and generative capabilities for robust daily metric estimation. To further leverage this learned representation, we deploy a classroom of LLM agents to autonomously search the space of downstream predictive heads built on the model embeddings, showing broad performance improvements that increase with LLM model capacity. Finally, we show how integrating these downstream predictors into a Personal Health Agent can support model responses that are more relevant, contextually aware, and safe, and we validate this via 1,860 ratings from a cohort of clinicians.

Between the narrow systems we deploy and the general intelligence we speculate about lies an entire regime of machine behavior that has never received its own name. This monograph argues that this regime is not empty: it is where meta-learning, neural architecture search, AutoML, continual learning, evolutionary computation, and physics-informed modeling have quietly converged on a common principle, namely the steady removal of the human from the loop of parameter specification. We name this regime Artificial Adaptive Intelligence (AAI) and define it operationally: a system exhibits AAI to the extent that it requires no human-specified tunable hyperparameters while maintaining competitive performance across a diverse distribution of tasks. To make the definition quantitative, we introduce an adaptivity index that measures progress along an axis orthogonal to scale, combining the fraction of hyperparameters absorbed by the system with the performance ratio against a task-specialized baseline. We develop the principle of parametric minimality and ground it in the minimum description length framework, showing that the appropriate hyperparameter count is data-determined rather than designer-determined. We then organize the field around three pathways to minimality: data- and task-aware configuration, structural and evolutionary morphing, and in-training self-adaptation. We analyze their stability, convergence, and governance implications, and illustrate them through case studies spanning aerospace design, financial regime detection, turbulence modeling, ecological dynamics, and vision-language systems. The thesis is that the path from ANI to AGI passes through AAI, and that naming this stage changes what we measure, what we build, and what we call a success.

LLM-based autonomous agents have demonstrated strong capabilities in reasoning, planning, and tool use, yet remain limited when tasks require sustained coordination across roles, tools, and environments. Multi-agent systems address this through structured collaboration among specialized agents, but tighter coordination also amplifies a less explored risk: errors can propagate across agents and interaction rounds, producing failures that are difficult to diagnose and rarely translate into structural self-improvement. Existing surveys cover individual agent capabilities, multi-agent collaboration, or agent self-evolution separately, leaving the causal dependencies among them unexamined. This survey provides a unified review organized around four causally linked stages, which we term the LIFE progression: Lay the capability foundation, Integrate agents through collaboration, Find faults through attribution, and Evolve through autonomous self-improvement. For each stage, we provide systematic taxonomies and formally characterize the dependencies between adjacent stages, revealing how each stage both depends on and constrains the next. Beyond synthesizing existing work, we identify open challenges at stage boundaries and propose a cross-stage research agenda for closed-loop multi-agent systems capable of continuously diagnosing failures, reorganizing structures, and refining agent behaviors, extending current coordination frameworks toward more self-organizing forms of collective intelligence. By bridging these previously fragmented research threads, this survey aims to offer both a systematic reference and a conceptual roadmap toward autonomous, self-improving multi-agent intelligence.

The pursuit of artificial general intelligence necessitates robust methods for evaluating the cognitive capabilities of models beyond narrow task performance. Here, we introduce a psychometric framework to assess the cognitive profiles of generative AI, comparing them to human norms and tracking their evolution across generations. Initial evaluation of leading multimodal models using tasks adapted from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale revealed a profoundly uneven cognitive architecture: near-ceiling performance in verbal comprehension and working memory (>$98^{\text{th}}$ percentile) contrasted with near-floor performance in perceptual reasoning (<$1^{\text{st}}$ percentile). To track developmental trajectories beyond human-normed limits, we developed the Artificial Intelligence Quotient (AIQ) Benchmark and applied it to six generations and two model families, revealing significant but asymmetric performance gains. Notably, we uncovered a sharp dissociation between modalities; abstract quantitative reasoning matured far more rapidly when presented linguistically compared to a visually analogous format, indicating an architectural bias towards language-based symbolic manipulation. While abstract visual reasoning improved, visual-perceptual organization remained largely stagnant. Collectively, these findings demonstrate that the cognitive abilities of generative models are evolving unevenly, suggesting that scaling and optimization approaches to AGI development alone may be insufficient to overcome fundamental architectural limitations in achieving balanced, human-like general intelligence.

The Robotic Service Ontology (RoSO) gives service robotics a typed semantic vocabulary for services, functions, interactions, and deployment-sensitive constraints. Its public revision trail makes visible a harder question than ontology conformance alone can settle: once a service is rebound, recomposed, repaired, or redeployed, under what conditions does the resulting configuration remain an admissible realization of the same protected service? This article argues that the Structural Model of General Intelligence (SMGI) is relevant exactly at that level \citep{osmani2026smgi}. SMGI adds not only a structural interface $θ$, but an induced behavioral semantics $T_θ$ and a governance discipline for norm-respecting change. We show that RoSO can be embedded into SMGI as a typed semantic layer, so that service descriptions become dynamically governable rather than merely well formed. This yields a RoSO-to-SMGI adequacy theorem, identity-preserving reconfiguration criteria, and compositional conditions under which locally acceptable updates remain globally admissible. The resulting claim is not that SMGI replaces RoSO, but that it provides a formal account of what admissible runtime change requires once service semantics must survive revision.

The Legg--Hutter universal intelligence measure provides a rigorous scalar assessment of general intelligence as expected reward across all computable environments, weighted by simplicity. However, the measure presupposes an externally specified reward function, raising the question of whether the reward primitive is inherently arbitrary or whether a canonical choice exists. We propose a new measure, called intervention complexity, that has five natural properties: environment-derivedness, universality, minimality, sensitivity, and achievement preference. Given a resource function rho encoding an inductive bias (such as program length, execution time, or energy), rho-intervention complexity is a universal reward. The result yields a family of canonical rewards indexed by resource bias, providing a principled completion of the Legg--Hutter framework that does not require external normative input. We further propose a two-dimensional characterisation of intelligence: agent competence (how well the agent performs relative to the oracle optimum) and learning efficiency (how quickly this competence improves with experience). A separation theorem establishes that the choice of resource bias determines the computability of the resulting measure: action-count IC is computable in polynomial time, while program-length IC without oracle access is uncomputable, with the gap between oracle and bare IC precisely quantifying the information-theoretic content of learning. We discuss implications for superintelligence and for pre-training universal agents.

Despite remarkable advances, today's AI systems remain narrow in scope, falling short of the flexible, adaptive, and multisensory intelligence that characterizes human capabilities. This gap has fueled longstanding debates about whether AI might one day achieve human-like generality or even consciousness, and whether theories of consciousness can inspire new architectures for AI. This paper presents an early blueprint for implementing a general AI system, CTM-AI, combining the Conscious Turing Machine (CTM), a formal machine model of consciousness, with today's foundation models. CTM-AI contains an enormous number of powerful processors ranging from specialized experts (e.g., vision-language models and APIs) to unspecialized general-purpose learners poised to develop their own expertise. Crucially, for whatever problem must be dealt with, information from many processors is selected, integrated, and exchanged appropriately to solve the task. CTM-AI achieves state-of-the-art accuracy on MUStARD (72.28) and UR-FUNNY (72.13), outperforming multimodal and multi-agent frameworks. On tool-using and agentic tasks, CTM-AI achieves 10+ points of improvement on StableToolBench and WebArena-Lite. Overall, CTM-AI offers a principled, testable blueprint for general AI inspired by a model of consciousness.

Emergent intelligence have played a major role in the modern AI development. While existing studies primarily rely on empirical observations to characterize this phenomenon, a rigorous theoretical framework remains underexplored. This study attempts to develop a mathematical approach to formalize emergent intelligence from the perspective of limit theory. Specifically, we introduce a performance function E(N, P, K), dependent on data size N, model size P and training steps K, to quantify intelligence behavior. We posit that intelligence emerges as a transition from finite to effectively infinite knowledge, and thus recast emergent intelligence as existence of the limit $\lim_{N,P,K \to \infty} \mathcal{E}(N,P,K)$, with emergent abilities corresponding to the limiting behavior. This limit theory helps reveal that emergent intelligence originates from the existence of a parameter-limit architecture (referred to as the limit architecture), and that emergent intelligence rationally corresponds to the learning behavior of this limit system. By introducing tools from nonlinear Lipschitz operator theory, we prove that the necessary and sufficient conditions for existence of the limit architecture. Furthermore, we derive the scaling law of foundation models by leveraging tools of Lipschitz operator and covering number. Theoretical results show that: 1) emergent intelligence is governed by three key factors-training steps, data size and the model architecture, where the properties of basic blocks play a crucial role in constructing foundation models; 2) the critical condition Lip(T)=1 for emergent intelligence provides theoretical support for existing findings. 3) emergent intelligence is determined by an infinite-dimensional system, yet can be effectively realized in practice through a finite-dimensional architecture. Our empirical results corroborate these theoretical findings.

We develop a thermodynamic theory of algorithmic catalysis within the watts per intelligence framework, identifying reusable computational structures that reduce irreversible operations for a task class while satisfying bounded restoration and structural selectivity constraints. We prove that any class specific speed-up is upper-bounded by the algorithmic mutual information between the substrate and the class descriptor, and that encoding this information incurs a minimum thermodynamic cost via Landauer erasure. Combining these results yields a coupling theorem that lower-bounds the deployment horizon required for an algorithmic catalyst to be energetically favourable. The framework is illustrated on an affine SAT class and situates contemporary learned systems within an information thermodynamic constraint on intelligent computation.

Generative AI-powered by Large Language Models (LLMs)-is increasingly deployed in industry across healthcare decision support, financial analytics, enterprise retrieval, and conversational automation, where reliability, efficiency, and cost control are critical. In such settings, models must satisfy strict constraints on energy, latency, and hardware utilization-not accuracy alone. Yet prevailing evaluation pipelines remain accuracy-centric, creating a Deployment-Evaluation Gap-the absence of operational and economic criteria in model assessment. To address this gap, we present EDGE-EVAL-a industry-oriented benchmarking framework that evaluates LLMs across their full lifecycle on legacy NVIDIA Tesla T4 GPUs. Benchmarking LLaMA and Qwen variants across three industrial tasks, we introduce five deployment metrics-Economic Break-Even (Nbreak), Intelligence-Per-Watt (IPW ), System Density (\r{ho}sys), Cold-Start Tax (Ctax), and Quantization Fidelity (Qret)-capturing profitability, energy efficiency, hardware scaling, serverless feasibility, and compression safety. Our results reveal a clear efficiency frontier-models in the <2B parameter class dominate larger baselines across economic and ecological dimensions. LLaMA-3.2-1B (INT4) achieves ROI break-even in 14 requests (median), delivers 3x higher energy-normalized intelligence than 7B models, and exceeds 6,900 tokens/s/GB under 4-bit quantization. We further uncover an efficiency anomaly-while QLoRA reduces memory footprint, it increases adaptation energy by up to 7x for small models-challenging prevailing assumptions about quantization-aware training in edge deployment.

Recent progress in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) has demonstrated remarkable advances in perception and reasoning, suggesting their potential for embodied intelligence. While recent studies have evaluated embodied MLLMs in interactive settings, current benchmarks mainly target capabilities to perceive, understand, and interact with external objects, lacking a systematic evaluation of self-centric intelligence. To address this, we introduce MirrorBench, a simulation-based benchmark inspired by the classical Mirror Self-Recognition (MSR) test in psychology. MirrorBench extends this paradigm to embodied MLLMs through a tiered framework of progressively challenging tasks, assessing agents from basic visual perception to high-level self-representation. Experiments on leading MLLMs show that even at the lowest level, their performance remains substantially inferior to human performance, revealing fundamental limitations in self-referential understanding. Our study bridges psychological paradigms and embodied intelligence, offering a principled framework for evaluating the emergence of general intelligence in large models. Project page: https://fflahm.github.io/mirror-bench-page/.

Human intelligence scales through cumulative cultural evolution (CCE), a ratchet process in which innovations are retained against entropic drift. Large language model training, by contrast, still depends primarily on static corpora and parameter growth, leaving little room for endogenous accumulation through interaction. We present POLIS (Population Orchestrated Learning and Inference Society), a framework in which heterogeneous agents generate solutions, verify one another's outputs, retain validated artifacts in shared cultural memory, and internalize them through parameter updates. On mathematical reasoning benchmarks, populations of 1--4B-parameter models achieved average gains of 8.8--18.9 points over base models and narrowed the gap to 70B+ monoliths. Mechanistic ablations identify peer verification as the main ratchet operator and show that internalization sustains accumulation across rounds, providing computational evidence that epistemic vigilance organizes durable knowledge growth. These results position structured social interaction as a scaling lever orthogonal to parameter count.