Search: “audit”

3 stories in the last 3d

Searchkeyword smart Sortlatest hot importance relevance

DomainAll Cyber AIWindow24h 3d 7d 30d AllIn the wild Important only Show duplicates

CategoryAll Industry 18 AI safety & security 12 Tools 12 Vulnerability 9 Research 8 AI industry 7 Policy & legal 5 AI tools & infra 4 Exploit / PoC 3 AI research 3 Phishing & fraud 2 Advisory 1 Malware 1 Threat actor 1

SeverityAll critical 1 high 10 medium 9 low 2 info 67

OPEN-1B: A Fully Auditable Training Run

Open-1B releases a 1B-parameter model with bitwise-reproducible training, letting independent auditors verify every step of the run on commodity hardware.

The paper introduces a 'fully auditable' tier of model transparency: every training operation is reproducible with bitwise certainty on heterogeneous commodity hardware by imposing definite ordering on GPU kernel reductions, data batch ordering, and collective communication. Because replaying a full run on one machine is infeasible, a collective verification scheme lets many independent auditors certify individual steps covering the whole run. The authors release Open-1B with its full pretraining dataset, every intermediate checkpoint, the training codebase, and an audit harness. This rules out undisclosed data, injected biases, or backdoors that proof-of-learning or proof-of-training-data techniques cannot exclude.

arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CLSep 15, 16:23 UTC · 1d agoAI research

Coding Agents Have Converged: Why the SWE-bench Leaderboard Can No Longer Order Its Top Entries, and What to Measure Instead

Audit of 254 SWE-bench submissions finds top coding-agent entries statistically inseparable, so small leaderboard gaps no longer establish rank.

The paper audits 254 SWE-bench submissions across four splits without running models. On Verified, the top two entries each resolve 396 of 500 instances, and exact paired McNemar tests separate none of the 29 adjacent top-thirty pairs at alpha=0.05. Within-model scaffold score ranges reach 29.8 percentage points, versus an 8.8-point spread among the top thirty. The authors release a five-step audit protocol and recommend reporting comparison-set-specific resolution and model-scaffold provenance.

arXiv cs.AI / cs.LG / cs.CLSep 15, 16:29 UTC · 1d agoAI research

When LLM judges agree, should we believe them?

Amazon ICML paper uses Ising models to correct correlated LLM-judge votes, beating accuracy-weighted panels by 9-14%.

Amazon Science describes an ICML paper, "Dependence-aware label aggregation for LLM-as-a-judge via Ising models," addressing how correlated judge outputs inflate majority-vote confidence. The unsupervised method models pairwise dependence between judges, learning both reliability and similarity without human reference labels. Tested on relevance, toxicity, and summarization tasks with 10 judge models at temperature zero, it outperformed accuracy-weighted voting by 9% to 14%.

Hacker News · AISep 14, 16:29 UTC · 2d agoAI research HN 41↑ · 23 comments