arXiv subjects

Alexander von Recum

Publications and source records attributed to Alexander von Recum.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

FrontierPhysics: Evaluating Agents for End-to-End Physics Research

AI agents are playing an increasingly important role in physics research. However, existing physics benchmarks only evaluate fixed questions, isolated sub-tasks, or paper reproduction with given solutions, and rarely check research quality alongside correctness. We introduce FrontierPhysics, an end-to-end benchmark with 56 tasks made by 42 physicists based on their own research, covering nine domains across theoretical, computational, and experimental physics. Each task requires agents to review the literature, develop a research plan, conduct research and experiments, and produce structured outputs and scientific manuscripts. Combining deterministic verifiers with expert-authored rubrics, FrontierPhysics evaluates whether agents' research is correct and publishable. Across 22 models in 26 configurations, no configuration passes more than 46 of its 168 rollouts. Manual review of agent trajectories shows that frontier agents' main weaknesses are insufficiently rigorous reasoning and limited expert intuition, rather than gaps in physics knowledge or execution errors.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Detecting Fine-Grained Differences between Image Datasets

Detecting whether and in particular how two data distributions differ is a fundamental statistical problem. For example, we might be interested in which concepts (expressed in natural language) differ between two classes, the outputs of different generative models, or the same model with different prompt specifications. When working with large and complex image datasets, we intuitively think that first selecting concepts from a broad list using fine-grained patch embeddings, and then optimizing the concepts to better fit the data is an effective workflow. However, prior work instead uses MLLMs to propose concepts and image-level embeddings to select them. Therefore, we systematically compare these techniques and find that selecting concepts from broad lists can replace MLLM-proposals at obviously lower cost. MLLM inference can then be spent on optimizing selected concepts instead to achieve substantial improvements. Additionally, by designing a new benchmark that focuses on low-prevalence and multi-concept distinctions, we find that selecting nonredundant concepts instead of only the most distinguishing concepts matters, and we introduce techniques for how to effectively do this. Finally, we show how our methods address important problems like detecting spurious correlations and biases. Overall, our work presents a fundamental perspective shift on how we analyze interpretable distributional differences between datasets.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2026

Are Reasoning LLMs Robust to Interventions on Their Chain-of-Thought?

Reasoning LLMs (RLLMs) generate step-by-step chains of thought (CoTs) before giving an answer, which improves performance on complex tasks and makes reasoning more transparent. But how robust are these reasoning traces to disruptions that occur within them? To address this question, we introduce a controlled evaluation framework that perturbs a model's own CoT at fixed timesteps. We design seven interventions (benign, neutral, and adversarial) and apply them to multiple open-weight RLLMs across Math, Science, and Logic tasks. Our results show that RLLMs are generally robust, reliably recovering from diverse perturbations, with robustness improving with model size and degrading when interventions occur early. However, robustness is not style-invariant: paraphrasing suppresses doubt-like expressions and reduces performance, while other interventions trigger doubt and support recovery. Recovery also carries a cost: neutral and adversarial noise can inflate CoT length by more than 200%, whereas paraphrasing shortens traces but harms accuracy. These findings provide new evidence on how RLLMs maintain reasoning integrity, identify doubt as a central recovery mechanism, and highlight trade-offs between robustness and efficiency that future training methods should address.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2024

Cannot or Should Not? Automatic Analysis of Refusal Composition in IFT/RLHF Datasets and Refusal Behavior of Black-Box LLMs

Refusals - instances where large language models (LLMs) decline or fail to fully execute user instructions - are crucial for both AI safety and AI capabilities and the reduction of hallucinations in particular. These behaviors are learned during post-training, especially in instruction fine-tuning (IFT) and reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF). However, existing taxonomies and evaluation datasets for refusals are inadequate, often focusing solely on should-not-related (instead of cannot-related) categories, and lacking tools for auditing refusal content in black-box LLM outputs. We present a comprehensive framework for classifying LLM refusals: (a) a taxonomy of 16 refusal categories, (b) a human-annotated dataset of over 8,600 instances from publicly available IFT and RLHF datasets, (c) a synthetic dataset with 8,000 examples for each refusal category, and (d) classifiers trained for refusal classification. Our work enables precise auditing of refusal behaviors in black-box LLMs and automatic analyses of refusal patterns in large IFT and RLHF datasets. This facilitates the strategic adjustment of LLM refusals, contributing to the development of more safe and reliable LLMs.

cs.AI↗