In reasoning chains generated by large language models (LLMs), initial errors often propagate and undermine the reliability of the final conclusion. Current LLM-based error detection methods often fail to detect propagated errors because earlier errors can corrupt judgments of downstream reasoning. To better detect such errors, we introduce Autoregressive Reasoning Entailment Stability (ARES), a probabilistic framework that evaluates each reasoning step based solely on previously-verified premises. This inductive method yields a nuanced score for each step and provides certified statistical guarantees of its soundness, rather than a brittle binary label. ARES achieves state-of-the-art performance across four benchmarks (72.1% Macro-F1, +8.2 points) and demonstrates superior robustness on very long synthetic reasoning chains, where it excels at detecting propagated errors (90.3% F1, +27.6 points).

Language model evaluations often fail to characterize consequential failure modes, forcing experts to inspect outputs and build new benchmarks. We introduce task elicitation, a method that automatically builds new evaluations to profile model behavior. Task elicitation finds hundreds of natural-language tasks—an order of magnitude more than prior work—where frontier models exhibit systematic failures, in domains ranging from forecasting to online harassment. For example, we find that Sonnet 3.5 over-associates quantum computing and AGI and that o3-mini is prone to hallucination when fabrications are repeated in-context.

Temporal reasoning is the task of predicting temporal relations of event pairs. While temporal reasoning models can perform reasonably well on in-domain benchmarks, we have little idea of these systems’ generalizability due to existing datasets’ limitations. In this work, we introduce a novel task named TODAY that bridges this gap with temporal differential analysis, which as the name suggests, evaluates whether systems can correctly understand the effect of incremental changes. Specifically, TODAY introduces slight contextual changes for given event pairs, and systems are asked to tell how this subtle contextual change would affect relevant temporal relation distributions. To facilitate learning, TODAY also annotates human explanations. We show that existing models, including GPT-3.5, drop to random guessing on TODAY, suggesting that they heavily rely on spurious information rather than proper reasoning for temporal predictions. On the other hand, we show that TODAY’s supervision style and explanation annotations can be used in joint learning, encouraging models to use more appropriate signals during training and thus outperform across several benchmarks. TODAY can also be used to train models to solicit incidental supervision from noisy sources such as GPT-3.5, thus moving us more toward the goal of generic temporal reasoning systems.

We introduce a novel technique for automatically summarizing lecture videos using large language models such as GPT-3 and we present a user study investigating the effects on the studying experience when automatic summaries are added to lecture videos. We test students under different conditions and find that the students who are shown a summary next to a lecture video perform better on quizzes designed to test the course materials than the students who have access only to the video or the summary. Our findings suggest that adding automatic summaries to lecture videos enhances the learning experience. Qualitatively, students preferred summaries when studying under time constraints.

We investigate the phenomenon of an LLM’s untruthful response using a large set of 220 handcrafted linguistic features. We focus on GPT-3 models and find that the linguistic profiles of responses are similar across model sizes. That is, how varying-sized LLMs respond to given prompts stays similar on the linguistic properties level. We expand upon this finding by training support vector machines that rely only upon the stylistic components of model responses to classify the truthfulness of statements. Though the dataset size limits our current findings, we present promising evidence that truthfulness detection is possible without evaluating the content itself. We release our code and raw data.