ChatGPT Ads is expanding to 31 European markets. Learn how advertisers can reach people as they explore, compare options, and make decisions.

OpenAI launches an initiative to strengthen democratic oversight of AI in national security, supporting government institutions with tools, training, and expertise.

arXiv:2608.14550v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: AI efficiency has recently taken the spotlight in both academy and industry due to massive model scales, high energy demands, and environmental costs. While reporting Floating Point Operations (FLOPs) is a traditional approach for assessing computational costs, the relationship between FLOPs and execution time is not straightforward, as layers with the same number of FLOPs may not have the same execution time because some operations are more easily parallelized than others. This paper sets out to replicate the original experiments from a study that proposed the $alpha-FLOPs$ estimation formula to verify whether the results remain applicable on newer, more powerful hardware.
During the replication process, we identify limitations in the replication materials provided by the original study, including a lack of specific dependency details and transparency regarding regression data. Our results validate the thesis that raw FLOPs alone are not an appropriate metric for execution time, as spatial dimensions remain more easily parallelized than kernel dimensions. However, fine-grained measurements reveal that the relationship is much less straightforward than previously shown, with newer hardware exhibiting instabilities and discontinuities in execution time, including jumps and oscillations, that the $alpha-FLOPs$ formula generally underestimates. Ultimately, this work validates the empirical findings from the original study but shows negative results when applying the $alpha-FLOPs$ estimation. We also highlight the critical need for complete and accurate replication packages for research on hardware-dependent efficiency assessment and provide a complete replication package for our implementation to facilitate further study.

arXiv:2608.14552v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly evaluated and used in medicine, but clinical usefulness depends on answer accuracy and whether confidence tracks evidence quality and uncertainty. We developed a controlled, psychophysics-inspired clinical benchmark to test diagnostic choice and confidence behavior in a medical LLM. The benchmark focused on probable Alzheimer-type neurocognitive disorder (AT-NCD) versus depression-related cognitive impairment (DRCI). We generated 45 synthetic vignettes varying evidence strength, conflicting evidence, and missing information. Each vignette was presented under three prompt variants, yielding 135 trials. In a pilot run with gpt-4.1-nano, all trials produced valid structured outputs. Across forced-choice trials, diagnostic accuracy was 93.5%, mean confidence was 78.4%, and AUROC2 was 0.876. Confidence increased with evidence distance from the diagnostic boundary, decreased when information was missing, and remained higher on correct than incorrect trials after adjustment for evidence strength and prompt format. These findings indicate partial metacognitive sensitivity rather than globally uninformative confidence. However, errors clustered in moderate, conflicting AT-NCD cases, where the model shifted toward DRCI and retained more confidence than empirical accuracy justified. Model comparison suggested that confidence quality should be measured directly rather than inferred from benchmark accuracy or model capability alone. This study establishes a reproducible framework for evaluating evidence sensitivity, metacognitive sensitivity, and localized calibration failure in medical LLMs.