Hallucinations on the Board: Tool-Augmented Evaluation of LLM Chess Commentary

Superhuman game engines in domains like chess have made expert-level evaluations easily accessible, yet they communicate what is true without the natural-language explanations that make such expertise educationally useful to experts and non-experts alike. Large language models could, in principle, bridge this gap, but they frequently hallucinate due to limited domain-specific knowledge, and standard reference-based or LLM-as-a-judge frameworks cannot reliably detect these errors. In this work, we present ACT-Eval, an evaluation framework that decomposes chess commentary into atomic claims and routes them to engine-supported tools and expert-annotated gold references to assess factual correctness, conceptual coverage, and move-quality judgment. We release a benchmark of 325 position--move pairs spanning pedagogical, tournament, and critical positions, including 125 positions with expert-verified gold atoms and a five-class error taxonomy. Evaluating leading proprietary and open-weight models, we find that factual hallucinations remain pervasive in chess commentary: GPT-5.4 without tools produces incorrect sub-claims 22.0% of the time, while smaller open-weight models exceed 40%. Although tool augmentation substantially improves factual correctness and move-quality assessment, coverage of expert strategic and tactical ideas remains limited across all models. Human calibration shows that ACT-Eval's factual judgments fall within the observed range of inter-human agreement, while its coverage scores correlate strongly with human assessments of strategic completeness.

OVIG: Optimistic Verification of AI Training Integrity via Gradient Signals

The rapid growth of AI has increased the demand for domain-specific post-training, while the cost and specialization of accelerator infrastructure push many model owners to outsource this process. Outsourced training lowers operational barriers, but creates a training-integrity gap: the owner receives a checkpoint, logs, and aggregate metrics without direct evidence that the declared training trajectory was faithfully executed. An untrusted provider may have incentives to deviate from that trajectory, either to save computation or to introduce targeted security risks. Auditing such deviations is difficult because floating-point execution on heterogeneous accelerators introduces benign numerical drift, making it hard to distinguish honest replay differences from integrity violations. Existing verification methods either observe training at too coarse a granularity or impose costs and deployment constraints that are impractical at scale. We present OVIG, an optimistic verification framework that audits outsourced post-training using an empirical boundary on gradient differences calibrated from honest heterogeneous replays. OVIG checks opened intervals against this boundary and combines optimistic sampling with a stride parameter $s$, which partitions training into stride-aligned intervals and retains only interval-endpoint evidence. Across shortcut training attacks and targeted manipulation attacks, OVIG maintains $0\%$ ASR on language, vision, and diffusion workloads. On Qwen3, increasing the stride from $s=1$ to $s=2000$ reduces off-chain storage and evidence transmission by $1996\times$ while preserving $0\%$ ASR; at this setting, OVIG incurs only $1.143\times$ total system overhead relative to training without verification. These results show that OVIG provides a practical integrity layer for outsourced AI post-training under heterogeneous execution.

Context-Aware RL for Agentic and Multimodal LLMs

Large language models (LLMs) often fail when answering requires identifying a small but decisive piece of evidence within a long or complex context, such as a single line in a tool trace or a subtle detail in an image. We propose ContextRL, a context-aware reinforcement learning (RL) method that improves long-horizon reasoning and multimodal performance through an \emph{indirect} auxiliary objective. Instead of supervising only the final answer, ContextRL presents the model with a query, an answer, and two highly similar contexts, and rewards it for selecting the context that supports the query--answer pair, thereby encouraging fine-grained grounding. We construct contrastive context data in two domains: for coding agents, trajectories serve as contexts, yielding 1k pairs built via condition filtering; for multimodal reasoning, images serve as contexts, yielding 7K pairs built via generative editing and similarity search. ContextRL achieves average gains of +2.2% over standard GRPO on 5 long-horizon benchmarks, and +1.8% across 12 diverse visual question answering benchmarks. To disentangle the effect of the proposed objective from that of additional data, we compare against data-augmentation baselines that repurpose the same contrastive contexts as standard query--context--answer examples. These baselines provide little to no improvement, showing that the gains arise from the proposed context-selection objective rather than from the contrastive data alone.

Crypto x AI, AI x Crypto: A Survey

The intersection of crypto x AI is spawning papers, products, online posts, and companies. All the surrounding buzz, though, obscures what exactly has been done, what the opportunities and challenges are, and what open questions deserve attention. This survey paper asks what AI can do for blockchain-based technologies (broadly construed as "crypto") (crypto x AI), and vice versa (AI x crypto). We systematize existing work, summarize key takeaways, highlight open research questions, and offer a perspective on pervasive industry misconceptions, concluding that AI and crypto are still in the very early stages of meaningful integration.

MINDGAMES: A Live Arena for Evaluating Social and Strategic Reasoning in Multi-Agent LLMs

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as interactive agents, yet their capacity for social and strategic reasoning over extended interaction remains poorly understood. Existing evaluations rely on static vignettes or single-game benchmarks that cannot capture the sustained, multi-faceted reasoning that real-world multi-agent settings demand. We introduce Mindgames, a multi-game arena and evaluation platform for LLM agents that operationalizes complementary reasoning demands relevant to ``theory of mind'': belief attribution under hidden information, opponent modeling through repeated strategic interaction, cooperative inference under knowledge asymmetries, and sustained deception in social deduction. Built on TextArena, Mindgames provides a unified interaction interface, TrueSkill-based rating, and full trajectory logging across four game environments. We instantiate Mindgames through a 2025 competition cycle hosted at a major AI conference, which assessed 944 submitted agents from 76 teams across four games: Colonel Blotto, Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma, Codenames, and Secret Mafia. Our analysis surfaces both agent-level and evaluation-level limitations: brittle rule adherence remains a major bottleneck, top-performing systems repeatedly rely on explicit structural scaffolding, and leaderboard validity differs sharply across environments. In particular, failure-heavy environments can reward robustness to opponent errors as much as strategic ability, with Secret Mafia exhibiting a pronounced error-survival confound in this cycle. We release a dataset of 29,571 multi-agent games with turn-level observations, actions, and rewards, together with MG-Ref, a deterministic offline tournament protocol that scores new agents against a frozen reference pool of top-ranked, low-error Stage~II submissions under the same error-attribution lens used in this analysis.

MEMO: Memory-Augmented Model Context Optimization for Robust Multi-Turn Multi-Agent LLM Games

Multi-turn, multi-agent LLM game evaluations often exhibit substantial run-to-run variance. In long-horizon interactions, small early deviations compound across turns and are amplified by multi-agent coupling. This biases win rate estimates and makes rankings unreliable across repeated tournaments. Prompt choice worsens this further by producing different effective policies. We address both instability and underperformance with MEMO (Memory-augmented MOdel context optimization), a self-play framework that optimizes inference-time context by coupling retention and exploration. Retention maintains a persistent memory bank that stores structured insights from self-play trajectories and injects them as priors during later play. Exploration runs tournament-style prompt evolution with uncertainty-aware selection via TrueSkill, and uses prioritized replay to revisit rare and decisive states. Across five text-based games, MEMO raises mean win rate from 25.1% to 49.5% for GPT-4o-mini and from 20.9% to 44.3% for Qwen-2.5-7B-Instruct, using $2,000$ self-play games per task. Run-to-run variance also drops, giving more stable rankings across prompt variations. These results suggest that multi-agent LLM game performance and robustness have substantial room for improvement through context optimization. MEMO achieves the largest gains in negotiation and imperfect-information games, while RL remains more effective in perfect-information settings.

TabularMath: Evaluating Computational Extrapolation in Tabular Learning via Program-Verified Synthesis

Standard tabular benchmarks mainly focus on the evaluation of a model's capability to interpolate values inside a data manifold, where models good at performing local statistical smoothing are rewarded. However, there exists a very large category of high-value tabular data, including financial modeling and physical simulations, which are generated based upon deterministic computational processes, as opposed to stochastic and noisy relationships. Therefore, we investigate if tabular models can provide an extension from statistical interpolation to computational extrapolation. We propose TabularMath, a diagnostic benchmark of 114 deterministic problems (233,472 rows) generated from verified programs based on GSM8K and AIME. We evaluate 9 tabular architectures and in-context learning (ICL) with GPT-OSS-120B. On standard regression metrics, TabPFN v2.5 performs remarkably well, achieving R^2=0.998 in-distribution and maintaining positive R^2 even under distribution shift, which is unique among the tabular models we tested. When we measure rounded consistency (exact integer match), a different picture emerges: TabPFN v2.5 drops below 10% on out-of-distribution data, while ICL maintains around 40%. This gap between R^2 and exact-match accuracy suggests that tabular models learn smooth function approximations but struggle to recover precise computational outputs under extrapolation. The two paradigms appear complementary: TabPFN scales efficiently with data; ICL achieves exact computation from few examples. We release all code and data to support further investigation.

FrontierCS: Evolving Challenges for Evolving Intelligence

We introduce FrontierCS, a benchmark of 156 open-ended problems across diverse areas of computer science, designed and reviewed by experts, including CS PhDs and top-tier competitive programming participants and problem setters. Unlike existing benchmarks that focus on tasks with known optimal solutions, FrontierCS targets problems where the optimal solution is unknown, but the quality of a solution can be objectively evaluated. Models solve these tasks by implementing executable programs rather than outputting a direct answer. FrontierCS includes algorithmic problems, which are often NP-hard variants of competitive programming problems with objective partial scoring, and research problems with the same property. For each problem we provide an expert reference solution and an automatic evaluator. Combining open-ended design, measurable progress, and expert curation, FrontierCS provides a benchmark at the frontier of computer-science difficulty. Empirically, we find that frontier reasoning models still lag far behind human experts on both the algorithmic and research tracks, that increasing reasoning budgets alone does not close this gap, and that models often over-optimize for generating merely workable code instead of discovering high-quality algorithms and system designs.

Are Robust LLM Fingerprints Adversarially Robust?

Model fingerprinting has emerged as a promising paradigm for claiming model ownership. However, robustness evaluations of these schemes have mostly focused on benign perturbations such as incremental fine-tuning, model merging, and prompting. Lack of systematic investigations into {\em adversarial robustness} against a malicious model host leaves current systems vulnerable. To bridge this gap, we first define a concrete, practical threat model against model fingerprinting. We then take a critical look at existing model fingerprinting schemes to identify their fundamental vulnerabilities. Based on these, we develop adaptive adversarial attacks tailored for each vulnerability, and demonstrate that these can bypass model authentication completely for ten recently proposed fingerprinting schemes while maintaining high utility of the model for the end users. Our work encourages fingerprint designers to adopt adversarial robustness by design. We end with recommendations for future fingerprinting methods.

LiveCodeBench Pro: How Do Olympiad Medalists Judge LLMs in Competitive Programming?

Recent reports claim that large language models (LLMs) now outperform elite humans in competitive programming. Drawing on knowledge from a group of medalists in international algorithmic contests, we revisit this claim, examining how LLMs differ from human experts and where limitations still remain. We introduce LiveCodeBench Pro, a benchmark composed of problems from Codeforces, ICPC, and IOI that are continuously updated to reduce the likelihood of data contamination. A team of Olympiad medalists annotates every problem for algorithmic categories and conducts a line-by-line analysis of failed model-generated submissions. Using this new data and benchmark, we find that frontier models still have significant limitations: without external tools, the best model achieves only 53% pass@1 on medium-difficulty problems and 0% on hard problems, domains where expert humans still excel. We also find that LLMs succeed at implementation-heavy problems but struggle with nuanced algorithmic reasoning and complex case analysis, often generating confidently incorrect justifications. High performance appears largely driven by implementation precision and tool augmentation, not superior reasoning. LiveCodeBench Pro thus highlights the significant gap to human grandmaster levels, while offering fine-grained diagnostics to steer future improvements in code-centric LLM reasoning.