Daily Papers

Evaluations of Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) methods are an integral part of scientific progress of the field. Beyond designing DRL methods for general intelligence, designing task-specific methods is becoming increasingly prominent for real-world applications. In these settings, the standard evaluation practice involves using a few instances of Markov Decision Processes (MDPs) to represent the task. However, many tasks induce a large family of MDPs owing to variations in the underlying environment, particularly in real-world contexts. For example, in traffic signal control, variations may stem from intersection geometries and traffic flow levels. The select MDP instances may thus inadvertently cause overfitting, lacking the statistical power to draw conclusions about the method's true performance across the family. In this article, we augment DRL evaluations to consider parameterized families of MDPs. We show that in comparison to evaluating DRL methods on select MDP instances, evaluating the MDP family often yields a substantially different relative ranking of methods, casting doubt on what methods should be considered state-of-the-art. We validate this phenomenon in standard control benchmarks and the real-world application of traffic signal control. At the same time, we show that accurately evaluating on an MDP family is nontrivial. Overall, this work identifies new challenges for empirical rigor in reinforcement learning, especially as the outcomes of DRL trickle into downstream decision-making.

In this paper, we cast the problem of task underspecification in causal terms, and develop a method for empirical measurement of spurious associations between gender and gender-neutral entities for unmodified large language models, detecting previously unreported spurious correlations. We then describe a lightweight method to exploit the resulting spurious associations for prediction task uncertainty classification, achieving over 90% accuracy on a Winogender Schemas challenge set. Finally, we generalize our approach to address a wider range of prediction tasks and provide open-source demos for each method described here.

Large language models (LLMs) now write code in settings where misreading a single word can break safety or cost money, yet we still expect them to overlook stray typos. To probe where useful robustness ends and harmful insensitivity begins, we compile 50 LeetCode problems and craft three minimal prompt perturbations that should vary in importance: (i) progressive underspecification deleting 10 % of words per step; (ii) lexical flip swapping a pivotal quantifier ("max" to "min"); and (iii) jargon inflation replacing a common noun with an obscure technical synonym. Six frontier models, including three "reasoning-tuned" versions, solve each mutated prompt, and their Python outputs are checked against the original test suites to reveal whether they reused the baseline solution or adapted. Among 11 853 generations we observe a sharp double asymmetry. Models remain correct in 85 % of cases even after 90 % of the prompt is missing, showing over-robustness to underspecification, yet only 54 % react to a single quantifier flip that reverses the task, with reasoning-tuned variants even less sensitive than their bases. Jargon edits lie in between, passing through 56 %. Current LLMs thus blur the line between harmless noise and meaning - changing edits, often treating both as ignorable. Masking salient anchors such as function names can force re - evaluation. We advocate evaluation and training protocols that reward differential sensitivity: stay steady under benign noise but adapt - or refuse - when semantics truly change.