TabularMath: Evaluating Computational Extrapolation in Tabular Learning via Program-Verified Synthesis

Standard tabular benchmarks mainly focus on the evaluation of a model's capability to interpolate values inside a data manifold, where models good at performing local statistical smoothing are rewarded. However, there exists a very large category of high-value tabular data, including financial modeling and physical simulations, which are generated based upon deterministic computational processes, as opposed to stochastic and noisy relationships. Therefore, we investigate if tabular models can provide an extension from statistical interpolation to computational extrapolation. We propose TabularMath, a diagnostic benchmark of 114 deterministic problems (233,472 rows) generated from verified programs based on GSM8K and AIME. We evaluate 9 tabular architectures and in-context learning (ICL) with GPT-OSS-120B. On standard regression metrics, TabPFN v2.5 performs remarkably well, achieving R^2=0.998 in-distribution and maintaining positive R^2 even under distribution shift, which is unique among the tabular models we tested. When we measure rounded consistency (exact integer match), a different picture emerges: TabPFN v2.5 drops below 10% on out-of-distribution data, while ICL maintains around 40%. This gap between R^2 and exact-match accuracy suggests that tabular models learn smooth function approximations but struggle to recover precise computational outputs under extrapolation. The two paradigms appear complementary: TabPFN scales efficiently with data; ICL achieves exact computation from few examples. We release all code and data to support further investigation.

FutureX-Pro: Extending Future Prediction to High-Value Vertical Domains

Building upon FutureX, which established a live benchmark for general-purpose future prediction, this report introduces FutureX-Pro, including FutureX-Finance, FutureX-Retail, FutureX-PublicHealth, FutureX-NaturalDisaster, and FutureX-Search. These together form a specialized framework extending agentic future prediction to high-value vertical domains. While generalist agents demonstrate proficiency in open-domain search, their reliability in capital-intensive and safety-critical sectors remains under-explored. FutureX-Pro targets four economically and socially pivotal verticals: Finance, Retail, Public Health, and Natural Disaster. We benchmark agentic Large Language Models (LLMs) on entry-level yet foundational prediction tasks -- ranging from forecasting market indicators and supply chain demands to tracking epidemic trends and natural disasters. By adapting the contamination-free, live-evaluation pipeline of FutureX, we assess whether current State-of-the-Art (SOTA) agentic LLMs possess the domain grounding necessary for industrial deployment. Our findings reveal the performance gap between generalist reasoning and the precision required for high-value vertical applications.

FrontierCS: Evolving Challenges for Evolving Intelligence

We introduce FrontierCS, a benchmark of 156 open-ended problems across diverse areas of computer science, designed and reviewed by experts, including CS PhDs and top-tier competitive programming participants and problem setters. Unlike existing benchmarks that focus on tasks with known optimal solutions, FrontierCS targets problems where the optimal solution is unknown, but the quality of a solution can be objectively evaluated. Models solve these tasks by implementing executable programs rather than outputting a direct answer. FrontierCS includes algorithmic problems, which are often NP-hard variants of competitive programming problems with objective partial scoring, and research problems with the same property. For each problem we provide an expert reference solution and an automatic evaluator. Combining open-ended design, measurable progress, and expert curation, FrontierCS provides a benchmark at the frontier of computer-science difficulty. Empirically, we find that frontier reasoning models still lag far behind human experts on both the algorithmic and research tracks, that increasing reasoning budgets alone does not close this gap, and that models often over-optimize for generating merely workable code instead of discovering high-quality algorithms and system designs.

LiveCodeBench Pro: How Do Olympiad Medalists Judge LLMs in Competitive Programming?

Recent reports claim that large language models (LLMs) now outperform elite humans in competitive programming. Drawing on knowledge from a group of medalists in international algorithmic contests, we revisit this claim, examining how LLMs differ from human experts and where limitations still remain. We introduce LiveCodeBench Pro, a benchmark composed of problems from Codeforces, ICPC, and IOI that are continuously updated to reduce the likelihood of data contamination. A team of Olympiad medalists annotates every problem for algorithmic categories and conducts a line-by-line analysis of failed model-generated submissions. Using this new data and benchmark, we find that frontier models still have significant limitations: without external tools, the best model achieves only 53% pass@1 on medium-difficulty problems and 0% on hard problems, domains where expert humans still excel. We also find that LLMs succeed at implementation-heavy problems but struggle with nuanced algorithmic reasoning and complex case analysis, often generating confidently incorrect justifications. High performance appears largely driven by implementation precision and tool augmentation, not superior reasoning. LiveCodeBench Pro thus highlights the significant gap to human grandmaster levels, while offering fine-grained diagnostics to steer future improvements in code-centric LLM reasoning.

SPIN-Bench: How Well Do LLMs Plan Strategically and Reason Socially?

Reasoning and strategic behavior in \emph{social interactions} is a hallmark of intelligence. This form of reasoning is significantly more sophisticated than isolated planning or reasoning tasks in static settings (e.g., math problem solving). In this paper, we present \textit{Strategic Planning, Interaction, and Negotiation} (\textbf{SPIN-Bench}), a new multi-domain evaluation designed to measure the intelligence of \emph{strategic planning} and \emph{social reasoning}. While many existing benchmarks focus on narrow planning or single-agent reasoning, SPIN-Bench combines classical PDDL tasks, competitive board games, cooperative card games, and multi-agent negotiation scenarios in one unified framework. The framework includes both a benchmark as well as an arena to simulate and evaluate the variety of social settings to test reasoning and strategic behavior of AI agents. We formulate the benchmark SPIN-Bench by systematically varying action spaces, state complexity, and the number of interacting agents to simulate a variety of social settings where success depends on not only methodical and step-wise decision making, but also \emph{conceptual inference} of other (adversarial or cooperative) participants. Our experiments reveal that while contemporary LLMs handle \emph{basic fact retrieval} and \emph{short-range planning} reasonably well, they encounter significant performance bottlenecks in tasks requiring \emph{deep multi-hop reasoning} over large state spaces and \emph{socially adept} coordination under uncertainty. We envision SPIN-Bench as a catalyst for future research on robust multi-agent planning, social reasoning, and human--AI teaming.

Humanity's Last Exam

Benchmarks are important tools for tracking the rapid advancements in large language model (LLM) capabilities. However, benchmarks are not keeping pace in difficulty: LLMs now achieve over 90\% accuracy on popular benchmarks like MMLU, limiting informed measurement of state-of-the-art LLM capabilities. In response, we introduce Humanity's Last Exam (HLE), a multi-modal benchmark at the frontier of human knowledge, designed to be the final closed-ended academic benchmark of its kind with broad subject coverage. HLE consists of 3,000 questions across dozens of subjects, including mathematics, humanities, and the natural sciences. HLE is developed globally by subject-matter experts and consists of multiple-choice and short-answer questions suitable for automated grading. Each question has a known solution that is unambiguous and easily verifiable, but cannot be quickly answered via internet retrieval. State-of-the-art LLMs demonstrate low accuracy and calibration on HLE, highlighting a significant gap between current LLM capabilities and the expert human frontier on closed-ended academic questions. To inform research and policymaking upon a clear understanding of model capabilities, we publicly release HLE at https://lastexam.ai.

OML: Open, Monetizable, and Loyal AI

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has steadily improved across a wide range of tasks. However, the development and deployment of AI are almost entirely controlled by a few powerful organizations that are racing to create Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). The centralized entities make decisions with little public oversight, shaping the future of humanity, often with unforeseen consequences. In this paper, we propose OML, which stands for Open, Monetizable, and Loyal AI, an approach designed to democratize AI development. OML is realized through an interdisciplinary framework spanning AI, blockchain, and cryptography. We present several ideas for constructing OML using technologies such as Trusted Execution Environments (TEE), traditional cryptographic primitives like fully homomorphic encryption and functional encryption, obfuscation, and AI-native solutions rooted in the sample complexity and intrinsic hardness of AI tasks. A key innovation of our work is introducing a new scientific field: AI-native cryptography. Unlike conventional cryptography, which focuses on discrete data and binary security guarantees, AI-native cryptography exploits the continuous nature of AI data representations and their low-dimensional manifolds, focusing on improving approximate performance. One core idea is to transform AI attack methods, such as data poisoning, into security tools. This novel approach serves as a foundation for OML 1.0 which uses model fingerprinting to protect the integrity and ownership of AI models. The spirit of OML is to establish a decentralized, open, and transparent platform for AI development, enabling the community to contribute, monetize, and take ownership of AI models. By decentralizing control and ensuring transparency through blockchain technology, OML prevents the concentration of power and provides accountability in AI development that has not been possible before.