UQ: Assessing Language Models on Unsolved Questions

Benchmarks shape progress in AI research. A useful benchmark should be both difficult and realistic: questions should challenge frontier models while also reflecting real-world usage. Yet, current paradigms face a difficulty-realism tension: exam-style benchmarks are often made artificially difficult with limited real-world value, while benchmarks based on real user interaction often skew toward easy, high-frequency problems. In this work, we explore a radically different paradigm: assessing models on unsolved questions. Rather than a static benchmark scored once, we curate unsolved questions and evaluate models asynchronously over time with validator-assisted screening and community verification. We introduce UQ, a testbed of 500 challenging, diverse questions sourced from Stack Exchange, spanning topics from CS theory and math to sci-fi and history, probing capabilities including reasoning, factuality, and browsing. UQ is difficult and realistic by construction: unsolved questions are often hard and naturally arise when humans seek answers, thus solving them yields direct real-world value. Our contributions are threefold: (1) UQ-Dataset and its collection pipeline combining rule-based filters, LLM judges, and human review to ensure question quality (e.g., well-defined and difficult); (2) UQ-Validators, compound validation strategies that leverage the generator-validator gap to provide evaluation signals and pre-screen candidate solutions for human review; and (3) UQ-Platform, an open platform where experts collectively verify questions and solutions. The top model passes UQ-validation on only 15% of questions, and preliminary human verification has already identified correct answers among those that passed. UQ charts a path for evaluating frontier models on real-world, open-ended challenges, where success pushes the frontier of human knowledge. We release UQ at https://uq.stanford.edu.

Algorithmic Fairness amid Social Determinants: Reflection, Characterization, and Approach

Social determinants are variables that, while not directly pertaining to any specific individual, capture key aspects of contexts and environments that have direct causal influences on certain attributes of an individual. Previous algorithmic fairness literature has primarily focused on sensitive attributes, often overlooking the role of social determinants. Our paper addresses this gap by introducing formal and quantitative rigor into a space that has been shaped largely by qualitative proposals regarding the use of social determinants. To demonstrate theoretical perspectives and practical applicability, we examine a concrete setting of college admissions, using region as a proxy for social determinants. Our approach leverages a region-based analysis with Gamma distribution parameterization to model how social determinants impact individual outcomes. Despite its simplicity, our method quantitatively recovers findings that resonate with nuanced insights in previous qualitative debates, that are often missed by existing algorithmic fairness approaches. Our findings suggest that mitigation strategies centering solely around sensitive attributes may introduce new structural injustice when addressing existing discrimination. Considering both sensitive attributes and social determinants facilitates a more comprehensive explication of benefits and burdens experienced by individuals from diverse demographic backgrounds as well as contextual environments, which is essential for understanding and achieving fairness effectively and transparently.

Let's Measure Information Step-by-Step: LLM-Based Evaluation Beyond Vibes

We develop mechanisms for evaluating AI systems without ground truth by exploiting a connection between gaming resistance and output quality. The data processing inequality ensures post-hoc attempts to game a metric degrades both information content and task performance. We prove that f-mutual information measures are the unique gaming resistant mechanisms under natural conditions, with the overseer acting as an agent. While Shannon mutual information faces exponential sample complexity, bounded measures like total variation distance remain tractable. Empirically, across ten domains from translation to peer review, all information-theoretic mechanisms achieve perfect discrimination (d > 0.5) between faithful and strategic agents. In contrast, LLM judges exhibit systematic evaluation inversion, preferring fabricated content over accurate summaries. Our mechanisms show 10-100x better robustness to adversarial manipulation than current practices. We also find performance follows an inverted-U curve with compression ratio, peaking at 10:1 where agent responses exhibit optimal information diversity (3 effective dimensions), giving a bias-variance perspective on when our approach is expected to be most effective.

From Passive to Active Reasoning: Can Large Language Models Ask the Right Questions under Incomplete Information?

While existing benchmarks probe the reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs) across diverse domains, they predominantly assess passive reasoning, providing models with all the information needed to reach a solution. By contrast, active reasoning-where an LLM must interact with external systems to acquire missing evidence or data-has received little systematic attention. To address this shortfall, we present AR-Bench, a novel benchmark designed explicitly to evaluate an LLM's active reasoning skills. AR-Bench comprises three task families-detective cases, situation puzzles, and guessing numbers-that together simulate real-world, agentic scenarios and measure performance across commonsense, logical, and symbolic reasoning challenges. Empirical evaluation on AR-Bench demonstrates that contemporary LLMs exhibit pronounced difficulties with active reasoning: they frequently fail to acquire or leverage the information needed to solve tasks. This gap highlights a stark divergence between their passive and active reasoning abilities. Moreover, ablation studies indicate that even advanced strategies, such as tree-based searching or post-training approaches, yield only modest gains and fall short of the levels required for real-world deployment. Collectively, these findings highlight the critical need to advance methodology for active reasoning, e.g., incorporating interactive learning, real-time feedback loops, and environment-aware objectives for training. The benchmark is publicly available at: https://github.com/tmlr-group/AR-Bench.

Certified Unlearning for Neural Networks

We address the problem of machine unlearning, where the goal is to remove the influence of specific training data from a model upon request, motivated by privacy concerns and regulatory requirements such as the "right to be forgotten." Unfortunately, existing methods rely on restrictive assumptions or lack formal guarantees. To this end, we propose a novel method for certified machine unlearning, leveraging the connection between unlearning and privacy amplification by stochastic post-processing. Our method uses noisy fine-tuning on the retain data, i.e., data that does not need to be removed, to ensure provable unlearning guarantees. This approach requires no assumptions about the underlying loss function, making it broadly applicable across diverse settings. We analyze the theoretical trade-offs in efficiency and accuracy and demonstrate empirically that our method not only achieves formal unlearning guarantees but also performs effectively in practice, outperforming existing baselines. Our code is available at https://github.com/stair-lab/certified-unlearningneural-networks-icml-2025

The Optimization Paradox in Clinical AI Multi-Agent Systems

Multi-agent artificial intelligence systems are increasingly deployed in clinical settings, yet the relationship between component-level optimization and system-wide performance remains poorly understood. We evaluated this relationship using 2,400 real patient cases from the MIMIC-CDM dataset across four abdominal pathologies (appendicitis, pancreatitis, cholecystitis, diverticulitis), decomposing clinical diagnosis into information gathering, interpretation, and differential diagnosis. We evaluated single agent systems (one model performing all tasks) against multi-agent systems (specialized models for each task) using comprehensive metrics spanning diagnostic outcomes, process adherence, and cost efficiency. Our results reveal a paradox: while multi-agent systems generally outperformed single agents, the component-optimized or Best of Breed system with superior components and excellent process metrics (85.5% information accuracy) significantly underperformed in diagnostic accuracy (67.7% vs. 77.4% for a top multi-agent system). This finding underscores that successful integration of AI in healthcare requires not just component level optimization but also attention to information flow and compatibility between agents. Our findings highlight the need for end to end system validation rather than relying on component metrics alone.

Understanding challenges to the interpretation of disaggregated evaluations of algorithmic fairness

Disaggregated evaluation across subgroups is critical for assessing the fairness of machine learning models, but its uncritical use can mislead practitioners. We show that equal performance across subgroups is an unreliable measure of fairness when data are representative of the relevant populations but reflective of real-world disparities. Furthermore, when data are not representative due to selection bias, both disaggregated evaluation and alternative approaches based on conditional independence testing may be invalid without explicit assumptions regarding the bias mechanism. We use causal graphical models to predict metric stability across subgroups under different data generating processes. Our framework suggests complementing disaggregated evaluations with explicit causal assumptions and analysis to control for confounding and distribution shift, including conditional independence testing and weighted performance estimation. These findings have broad implications for how practitioners design and interpret model assessments given the ubiquity of disaggregated evaluation.

MedHELM: Holistic Evaluation of Large Language Models for Medical Tasks

While large language models (LLMs) achieve near-perfect scores on medical licensing exams, these evaluations inadequately reflect the complexity and diversity of real-world clinical practice. We introduce MedHELM, an extensible evaluation framework for assessing LLM performance for medical tasks with three key contributions. First, a clinician-validated taxonomy spanning 5 categories, 22 subcategories, and 121 tasks developed with 29 clinicians. Second, a comprehensive benchmark suite comprising 35 benchmarks (17 existing, 18 newly formulated) providing complete coverage of all categories and subcategories in the taxonomy. Third, a systematic comparison of LLMs with improved evaluation methods (using an LLM-jury) and a cost-performance analysis. Evaluation of 9 frontier LLMs, using the 35 benchmarks, revealed significant performance variation. Advanced reasoning models (DeepSeek R1: 66% win-rate; o3-mini: 64% win-rate) demonstrated superior performance, though Claude 3.5 Sonnet achieved comparable results at 40% lower estimated computational cost. On a normalized accuracy scale (0-1), most models performed strongly in Clinical Note Generation (0.73-0.85) and Patient Communication & Education (0.78-0.83), moderately in Medical Research Assistance (0.65-0.75), and generally lower in Clinical Decision Support (0.56-0.72) and Administration & Workflow (0.53-0.63). Our LLM-jury evaluation method achieved good agreement with clinician ratings (ICC = 0.47), surpassing both average clinician-clinician agreement (ICC = 0.43) and automated baselines including ROUGE-L (0.36) and BERTScore-F1 (0.44). Claude 3.5 Sonnet achieved comparable performance to top models at lower estimated cost. These findings highlight the importance of real-world, task-specific evaluation for medical use of LLMs and provides an open source framework to enable this.

SATBench: Benchmarking LLMs' Logical Reasoning via Automated Puzzle Generation from SAT Formulas

We introduce SATBench, a benchmark for evaluating the logical reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) through logical puzzles derived from Boolean satisfiability (SAT) problems. Unlike prior work that focuses on inference rule-based reasoning, which often involves deducing conclusions from a set of premises, our approach leverages the search-based nature of SAT problems, where the objective is to find a solution that fulfills a specified set of logical constraints. Each instance in SATBench is generated from a SAT formula, then translated into a story context and conditions using LLMs. The generation process is fully automated and allows for adjustable difficulty by varying the number of clauses. All 2100 puzzles are validated through both LLM-assisted and solver-based consistency checks, with human validation on a subset. Experimental results show that even the strongest model, o4-mini, achieves only 65.0% accuracy on hard UNSAT problems, close to the random baseline of 50%. SATBench exposes fundamental limitations in the search-based logical reasoning abilities of current LLMs and provides a scalable testbed for future research in logical reasoning.

Measurement to Meaning: A Validity-Centered Framework for AI Evaluation

While the capabilities and utility of AI systems have advanced, rigorous norms for evaluating these systems have lagged. Grand claims, such as models achieving general reasoning capabilities, are supported with model performance on narrow benchmarks, like performance on graduate-level exam questions, which provide a limited and potentially misleading assessment. We provide a structured approach for reasoning about the types of evaluative claims that can be made given the available evidence. For instance, our framework helps determine whether performance on a mathematical benchmark is an indication of the ability to solve problems on math tests or instead indicates a broader ability to reason. Our framework is well-suited for the contemporary paradigm in machine learning, where various stakeholders provide measurements and evaluations that downstream users use to validate their claims and decisions. At the same time, our framework also informs the construction of evaluations designed to speak to the validity of the relevant claims. By leveraging psychometrics' breakdown of validity, evaluations can prioritize the most critical facets for a given claim, improving empirical utility and decision-making efficacy. We illustrate our framework through detailed case studies of vision and language model evaluations, highlighting how explicitly considering validity strengthens the connection between evaluation evidence and the claims being made.