Stefano Teso retweeted
I let gpt-6 astra review 250 random ICLR submissions. It didn't recommend clear accept for a single paper.
Stefano Teso retweeted
..and Beyond Semantics--the paper I apparently can't stop talking about--is one of the @TmlrOrg papers that will be presented at #NeurIPS2026 Sydney. Both @VardhanPalod1 and I will be there on the first day morning poster session.. (openreview.net/pdf?id=gDE7Yc… ) – at Tempe, AZ
We are thrilled to announce this years accepted papers for the Journal Track, featuring 64 papers from the Transactions on Machine Learning Research (TMLR), 16 from the Journal of Machine Learning Research (JMLR), and 8 from the Annals of Statistics (AoS), all of which will be presented across our conference locations in Sydney, Atlanta, and Paris this December at the main conference event, alongside the Main Track, and Evaluations & Datasets Track.
You can find the full list of accepted papers in our blog post:
blog.neurips.cc/2026/10/15/a…
Stefano Teso retweeted
Human-in-the-loop (HITL) is widely recommended for oversight & safety, yet current AI agent design requires humans to keep up with unreasonable volume & complexity, promotes fatigue & disengagement, and degrades the very humans skills it relies on. 1/ arxiv.org/abs/2608.23642
Stefano Teso retweeted
What is TMLR doing under a 300% increase in submissions?
- Suspensions of >150 authors
- Publicly naming major violations
- Submission quotas distinguishing slop patterns
- Desk rejections 6% → 53%; focus on clarity
- AI reviews evaluating soundness
blog.tmlr.org/2026/adapting-…
Stefano Teso retweeted
📣 New in the @RealAAAI AI Magazine (open access link 👉onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/… ) – at Tempe, AZ
Stefano Teso retweeted
📣 If you are interested in doing a PhD with me in *Safety and Alignment* at Imperial College London, please apply here: imperial.ac.uk/computing/pro…
Stefano Teso retweeted
OpenAI’s faster Fourier transform is less a mathematical breakthrough and more a malicious exploit of mathematical traditions.
argmin.net/p/faster-fourier-…
Stefano Teso retweeted
Out today: a new DeepMind Institute essay from James Manyika and @AlexOlegImas that explores how scientists are using AI models to accelerate science. These findings are based on usage data from 15M Gemini interactions, 2,600 specialised models, and 600+ surveyed researchers.
New essay for the @GoogleDeepMind Institute with James Manyika on AI x Science, "Bending the Curve of Discovery".
While accelerating existing scientific practices is certainly useful, the real promise of AI is its potential to act as an invention of a method of invention (IMI) a la Griliches--e.g., the microscope or statistical inference--which would unlock questions and whole modes of discovery that were previously beyond human reach.
Today, LLMs and specialized models like AlphaFold act as economic complements. LLMs handle analysis, coding, and writing, while specialized tools handle domain-specific predictions. Most handoffs between them run through the scientist.
What may the future of science look like? LLMs orchestrating those handoffs automatically--prompting specialized models, auditing outputs, and looping until either the question is answered or a non-automated stage is reached (e.g., wet lab testing). The scientist's role shifts from running each step to designing this loop. We saw a glimpse of this workflow with Anthropic’s enzyme discovery a few weeks ago, and we're seeing this in our own work too.
This raises foundational epistemic questions:
1. What will scientific understanding look like when discoveries are made by black-box models whose output is increasingly difficult to interpret?
2. How do we extract underlying mechanisms, not just outputs, as science becomes more automated? What will theory look like?
3. If AI automates the writing and junior lab work, how do we train the next generation of scientists to push the frontier?
4. What will motivate scientists in this epistemic reality?
There's an economics angle too. Hypothesis generation gets cheap, so bottlenecks move downstream to verification and to choosing which questions are worth asking. Realizing AI’s full potential will take investment in infrastructure and institutional reform--making this as much an organizational challenge as a technical one
We don't have the answers yet, and I'd love to hear what others think.
Paper here: bit.ly/ai-in-science
Stefano Teso retweeted
Well worth reading: proofsandprompts.com/2026/10…
Stefano Teso retweeted
“In a three-month randomized controlled trial with practicing patent attorneys, we found that, while routinely using AI lifts work quality across the board, its effects on on-the-job learning depend on seniority: senior lawyers who used AI for 90 days demonstrate stronger judgment than those who didn’t, whereas junior lawyers show no average skill gain, their scores splitting into more strong scores and more low scores.”
Today we announce new findings from Visiting Fellow David Autor on how AI impacts how professionals build expertise. In a three-month randomized controlled trial with practicing patent attorneys, we test both short-term productivity & longer-term skill building that occur as a result of AI usage. More: goo.gle/4AVeOWf

ALT Estimated impact of AI access on patent drafting and redlining quality. Results are reported for all lawyers (black squares), junior lawyers under 7 years of experience (blue triangles), and senior lawyers with 7+ years of experience (orange diamonds). All estimates account for differences across law firms and adjust for slight variations in how many ratings each lawyer received.
Still few days to the deadline! 🕜
Submit at 👉 openreview.net/group?id=UniR…
🔵🔴 Join us for the 4th edition of UniReps on December 12, 2026, in Paris!
Working on these or similar topics? Submit your paper by the extended deadline: October 10 (AoE)
Submit at: openreview.net/group?id=UniR…
full CFP: unireps.org/2026/call-for-pa…
Stefano Teso retweeted
We are hiring a ELLIS PhD student at @SIC_Saar Saarland University on #Causal Representation Learning for #Robotics, co-supervised with @egavves at the @UvA_Amsterdam
Apply directly through the ELLIS centralized application portal: ellis.eu/news/ellis-phd-prog…
Deadline: 31 October
Stefano Teso retweeted
Accurata analisi per il grande pubblico del nostro analista generale @gabrielecatania , pubblicata sulla testata Valigia Blu. Il rischio che la Russia attacchi una media o grande potenza europea - spiega Catania - è basso, e lo è pure il rischio di un attacco nucleare. 1/3
Stefano Teso retweeted
PSA: Those flashing commentary phrases from your favorite models are not their "thinking traces." #SundayHarangue
Most normal users of frontier models seem to assume that the comforting phrases/sentences flashed by them-- while they, the users, wait patiently for their answers-- are the model's thinking traces.
They are of course not. Frontier models don't show their think traces to normal paying users (even if it means you are paying for the tokens you aren't shown ;-)! They instead show a "commentary" that is generated in unexplained ways.
From the get go, o1 "hid" its thinking traces, and the other subsequent models all followed suit. The one clear exception being DeepSeek-R1, which actually showed its complete thinking traces. (And those go on for pages and pages--and often make little sense).
If the flashing commentary messages were indeed the prized thinking tokends, then:
➡️ there wouldn't be any "China is stealing our traces" angst (why do they have to be stolen if they are publicly available!)
➡️ and your token bills would be substantially lower!
tldr; the flashing "commentary" messages are not the ones frontier models are complaining about "distillation" attacks! The thinking traces--that they try to hide--but can sometimes be jailbroken--are the ones they are trying to protect.
Thinking traces instead are better seen as prompt augmentations ("incantations") that the model learns to mumble to itself to improve the solution token probability. Since these incantations need to be learned with costly RLVR, the frontier companies don't want the incantations to be copied thereby shortcutting their costly training. They however maintain an annoying deliberate ambiguity in this regard in all their press releases. 🙄 (see openreview.net/pdf?id=nP7rL3… for more..) – at Tempe, AZ
🔵🔴 Join us for the 4th edition of UniReps on December 12, 2026, in Paris!
Working on these or similar topics? Submit your paper by the extended deadline: October 10 (AoE)
Submit at: openreview.net/group?id=UniR…
full CFP: unireps.org/2026/call-for-pa…
Stefano Teso retweeted
New Paper: Turns out that LLM think traces don't necessarily have any end-user semantics even on benchmarks specifically designed to showcase such semantics.. 🤷♂️
As some of y'all know, we have been looking at the question of end-user interpretable semantics for the reasoning models for a while (c.f. arxiv.org/abs/2504.09762 (#ICML2026),
arxiv.org/abs/2505.13792 (#ACL2026) &
arxiv.org/abs/2505.13775 (#TMLR➡️#NeurIPS2026))
One question I get asked is whether that lack of semantics just an artifact of the benchmarks *we* made.
What if we look at benchmarks that were specifically proposed to show off the semantics of thinking traces?
As it happens, earlier work by AllenZhu @ZeyuanAllenZhu has indeed created such a benchmark, iGSM, and made claims about intermediate token semantics based on it.
Since AllenZhu's work on "Physics of LLMs"--that is partly based on their analysis on iGSM was influential, we wondered whether they found conditions under which traces do indeed have semantics.
Turns out, (perhaps unfortunately for the "please let thinking traces have semantics" contingent), that iGSM traces don't have semantics either, and models trained with swapped/corrupted traces can do well too. The results seem quite in line with--rather than being contrary to--the position we have taken in our earlier work.
Read the details of this very crisp work, lead by @ratishsp and Pranabendu, in the following thread.👇 – at Tempe, AZ
Happy to share our paper, "Correct Answers, Invalid Traces: What Verifiable Grade-School Math Reveals About Chain-of-Thought Traces".
When a model gets the right answer, is the reasoning it produces also right? We test this on synthetic grade-school math where every step of a trace can be checked by a program.
Thread below.
arXiv has updated our policy on rate limiting for all submitters.
This update was made to fairly distribute moderator time & support the arXiv community of staff, volunteers, readers & authors.
Please read our announcement to learn more: blog.arxiv.org/2026/10/01/up…
Stefano Teso retweeted
I encourage authors to publish "best publishable units" rather than "least publishable units"! end/






























