Are We Done with Object-Centric Learning?

Object-centric learning (OCL) seeks to learn representations that only encode an object, isolated from other objects or background cues in a scene. This approach underpins various aims, including out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization, sample-efficient composition, and modeling of structured environments. Most research has focused on developing unsupervised mechanisms that separate objects into discrete slots in the representation space, evaluated using unsupervised object discovery. However, with recent sample-efficient segmentation models, we can separate objects in the pixel space and encode them independently. This achieves remarkable zero-shot performance on OOD object discovery benchmarks, is scalable to foundation models, and can handle a variable number of slots out-of-the-box. Hence, the goal of OCL methods to obtain object-centric representations has been largely achieved. Despite this progress, a key question remains: How does the ability to separate objects within a scene contribute to broader OCL objectives, such as OOD generalization? We address this by investigating the OOD generalization challenge caused by spurious background cues through the lens of OCL. We propose a novel, training-free probe called $\textbf{Object-Centric Classification with Applied Masks (OCCAM)}$, demonstrating that segmentation-based encoding of individual objects significantly outperforms slot-based OCL methods. However, challenges in real-world applications remain. We provide the toolbox for the OCL community to use scalable object-centric representations, and focus on practical applications and fundamental questions, such as understanding object perception in human cognition. Our code is available $\href{https://github.com/AlexanderRubinstein/OCCAM}{here}$.

A Sober Look at Progress in Language Model Reasoning: Pitfalls and Paths to Reproducibility

Reasoning has emerged as the next major frontier for language models (LMs), with rapid advances from both academic and industrial labs. However, this progress often outpaces methodological rigor, with many evaluations relying on benchmarking practices that lack transparency, robustness, or statistical grounding. In this work, we conduct a comprehensive empirical study and find that current mathematical reasoning benchmarks are highly sensitive to subtle implementation choices - including decoding parameters, random seeds, prompt formatting, and even hardware and software-framework configurations. Performance gains reported in recent studies frequently hinge on unclear comparisons or unreported sources of variance. To address these issues, we propose a standardized evaluation framework with clearly defined best practices and reporting standards. Using this framework, we reassess recent methods and find that reinforcement learning (RL) approaches yield only modest improvements - far below prior claims - and are prone to overfitting, especially on small-scale benchmarks like AIME24. In contrast, supervised finetuning (SFT) methods show consistently stronger generalization. To foster reproducibility, we release all code, prompts, and model outputs, for reasoning benchmarks, establishing more rigorous foundations for future work.

Understanding the Limits of Lifelong Knowledge Editing in LLMs

Keeping large language models factually up-to-date is crucial for deployment, yet costly retraining remains a challenge. Knowledge editing offers a promising alternative, but methods are only tested on small-scale or synthetic edit benchmarks. In this work, we aim to bridge research into lifelong knowledge editing to real-world edits at practically relevant scale. We first introduce WikiBigEdit; a large-scale benchmark of real-world Wikidata edits, built to automatically extend lifelong for future-proof benchmarking. In its first instance, it includes over 500K question-answer pairs for knowledge editing alongside a comprehensive evaluation pipeline. Finally, we use WikiBigEdit to study existing knowledge editing techniques' ability to incorporate large volumes of real-world facts and contrast their capabilities to generic modification techniques such as retrieval augmentation and continual finetuning to acquire a complete picture of the practical extent of current lifelong knowledge editing.

Project Alexandria: Towards Freeing Scientific Knowledge from Copyright Burdens via LLMs

Paywalls, licenses and copyright rules often restrict the broad dissemination and reuse of scientific knowledge. We take the position that it is both legally and technically feasible to extract the scientific knowledge in scholarly texts. Current methods, like text embeddings, fail to reliably preserve factual content, and simple paraphrasing may not be legally sound. We urge the community to adopt a new idea: convert scholarly documents into Knowledge Units using LLMs. These units use structured data capturing entities, attributes and relationships without stylistic content. We provide evidence that Knowledge Units: (1) form a legally defensible framework for sharing knowledge from copyrighted research texts, based on legal analyses of German copyright law and U.S. Fair Use doctrine, and (2) preserve most (~95%) factual knowledge from original text, measured by MCQ performance on facts from the original copyrighted text across four research domains. Freeing scientific knowledge from copyright promises transformative benefits for scientific research and education by allowing language models to reuse important facts from copyrighted text. To support this, we share open-source tools for converting research documents into Knowledge Units. Overall, our work posits the feasibility of democratizing access to scientific knowledge while respecting copyright.

Can Language Models Falsify? Evaluating Algorithmic Reasoning with Counterexample Creation

There is growing excitement about the potential of Language Models (LMs) to accelerate scientific discovery. Falsifying hypotheses is key to scientific progress, as it allows claims to be iteratively refined over time. This process requires significant researcher effort, reasoning, and ingenuity. Yet current benchmarks for LMs predominantly assess their ability to generate solutions rather than challenge them. We advocate for developing benchmarks that evaluate this inverse capability - creating counterexamples for subtly incorrect solutions. To demonstrate this approach, we start with the domain of algorithmic problem solving, where counterexamples can be evaluated automatically using code execution. Specifically, we introduce REFUTE, a dynamically updating benchmark that includes recent problems and incorrect submissions from programming competitions, where human experts successfully identified counterexamples. Our analysis finds that the best reasoning agents, even OpenAI o3-mini (high) with code execution feedback, can create counterexamples for only <9% of incorrect solutions in REFUTE, even though ratings indicate its ability to solve up to 48% of these problems from scratch. We hope our work spurs progress in evaluating and enhancing LMs' ability to falsify incorrect solutions - a capability that is crucial for both accelerating research and making models self-improve through reliable reflective reasoning.

Testing the limits of fine-tuning to improve reasoning in vision language models

Pre-trained vision language models still fall short of human visual cognition. In an effort to improve visual cognition and align models with human behavior, we introduce visual stimuli and human judgments on visual cognition tasks, allowing us to systematically evaluate performance across cognitive domains under a consistent environment. We fine-tune models on ground truth data for intuitive physics and causal reasoning and find that this improves model performance in the respective fine-tuning domain. Furthermore, it can improve model alignment with human behavior. However, we find that fine-tuning does not contribute to robust human-like generalization to data with other visual characteristics or to tasks in other cognitive domains.

LLMs on the Line: Data Determines Loss-to-Loss Scaling Laws

Scaling laws guide the development of large language models (LLMs) by offering estimates for the optimal balance of model size, tokens, and compute. More recently, loss-to-loss scaling laws that relate losses across pretraining datasets and downstream tasks have emerged as a powerful tool for understanding and improving LLM performance. In this work, we investigate which factors most strongly influence loss-to-loss scaling. Our experiments reveal that the pretraining data and tokenizer determine the scaling trend. In contrast, model size, optimization hyperparameters, and even significant architectural differences, such as between transformer-based models like Llama and state-space models like Mamba, have limited impact. Consequently, practitioners should carefully curate suitable pretraining datasets for optimal downstream performance, while architectures and other settings can be freely optimized for training efficiency.

Great Models Think Alike and this Undermines AI Oversight

As Language Model (LM) capabilities advance, evaluating and supervising them at scale is getting harder for humans. There is hope that other language models can automate both these tasks, which we refer to as "AI Oversight". We study how model similarity affects both aspects of AI oversight by proposing a probabilistic metric for LM similarity based on overlap in model mistakes. Using this metric, we first show that LLM-as-a-judge scores favor models similar to the judge, generalizing recent self-preference results. Then, we study training on LM annotations, and find complementary knowledge between the weak supervisor and strong student model plays a crucial role in gains from "weak-to-strong generalization". As model capabilities increase, it becomes harder to find their mistakes, and we might defer more to AI oversight. However, we observe a concerning trend -- model mistakes are becoming more similar with increasing capabilities, pointing to risks from correlated failures. Our work underscores the importance of reporting and correcting for model similarity, especially in the emerging paradigm of AI oversight.

How to Merge Your Multimodal Models Over Time?

Model merging combines multiple expert models - finetuned from a base foundation model on diverse tasks and domains - into a single, more capable model. However, most existing model merging approaches assume that all experts are available simultaneously. In reality, new tasks and domains emerge progressively over time, requiring strategies to integrate the knowledge of expert models as they become available: a process we call temporal model merging. The temporal dimension introduces unique challenges not addressed in prior work, raising new questions such as: when training for a new task, should the expert model start from the merged past experts or from the original base model? Should we merge all models at each time step? Which merging techniques are best suited for temporal merging? Should different strategies be used to initialize the training and deploy the model? To answer these questions, we propose a unified framework called TIME - Temporal Integration of Model Expertise - which defines temporal model merging across three axes: (1) Initialization Phase, (2) Deployment Phase, and (3) Merging Technique. Using TIME, we study temporal model merging across model sizes, compute budgets, and learning horizons on the FoMo-in-Flux benchmark. Our comprehensive suite of experiments across TIME allows us to uncover key insights for temporal model merging, offering a better understanding of current challenges and best practices for effective temporal model merging.

ONEBench to Test Them All: Sample-Level Benchmarking Over Open-Ended Capabilities

Traditional fixed test sets fall short in evaluating open-ended capabilities of foundation models. To address this, we propose ONEBench(OpeN-Ended Benchmarking), a new testing paradigm that consolidates individual evaluation datasets into a unified, ever-expanding sample pool. ONEBench allows users to generate custom, open-ended evaluation benchmarks from this pool, corresponding to specific capabilities of interest. By aggregating samples across test sets, ONEBench enables the assessment of diverse capabilities beyond those covered by the original test sets, while mitigating overfitting and dataset bias. Most importantly, it frames model evaluation as a collective process of selecting and aggregating sample-level tests. The shift from task-specific benchmarks to ONEBench introduces two challenges: (1)heterogeneity and (2)incompleteness. Heterogeneity refers to the aggregation over diverse metrics, while incompleteness describes comparing models evaluated on different data subsets. To address these challenges, we explore algorithms to aggregate sparse measurements into reliable model scores. Our aggregation algorithm ensures identifiability(asymptotically recovering ground-truth scores) and rapid convergence, enabling accurate model ranking with less data. On homogenous datasets, we show our aggregation algorithm provides rankings that highly correlate with those produced by average scores. We also demonstrate robustness to ~95% of measurements missing, reducing evaluation cost by up to 20x with little-to-no change in model rankings. We introduce ONEBench-LLM for language models and ONEBench-LMM for vision-language models, unifying evaluations across these domains. Overall, we present a technique for open-ended evaluation, which can aggregate over incomplete, heterogeneous sample-level measurements to continually grow a benchmark alongside the rapidly developing foundation models.