arXiv subjects

Ravid Shwartz Ziv

Publications and source records attributed to Ravid Shwartz Ziv.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

You Had One Job: Per-Task Quantization Using LLMs' Hidden Representations

Many LLM applications require only narrow capabilities, yet standard post-training quantization (PTQ) methods allocate precision without considering the target task. This can waste bits on layers that are less relevant to the task signal while over-compressing layers that are critical for downstream behavior. We propose Task-Aware Quantization (TAQ), a training-free, weight-only mixed-precision PTQ framework that uses a small set of unlabeled task calibration prompts to allocate higher precision to task-relevant transformer layers under a fixed bit budget. TAQ estimates layer importance from hidden representations and output sensitivity, and we instantiate it with three scoring rules: TAQ-IS, based on activation information and stability; TAQ-KL, based on output-distribution sensitivity under a quantization-noise proxy; and TAQ-O, a label-informed oracle diagnostic for analyzing layer sensitivity. Across several benchmarks, TAQ outperforms task-agnostic baselines such in most settings, with especially strong gains in the accuracy--memory ratio. We further validate that these gains translate to real deployment behavior through hardware throughput and latency measurements, and analyze calibration robustness and residual-stream error propagation. Overall, TAQ turns mixed-precision PTQ from a model-centric compression step into a task-conditioned precision-allocation problem. A reference implementation is available at \href{https://anonymous.4open.science/r/TAQ-9217/README.md}{\includegraphics[height=1em]{imgs/github-mark.png}}.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

The Illusion of AI Expertise Under Uncertainty: Navigating Elusive Ground Truth via a Probabilistic Paradigm

Benchmarking the capabilities of AI systems, including Large Language Models (LLMs) and Vision Models, typically ignores the impact of uncertainty in the underlying ground truth answers from experts. This ambiguity is not just limited to human preferences, but is also consequential even in safety critical domains such as medicine where uncertainty is pervasive. In this paper, we introduce a probabilistic paradigm to theoretically explain how high certainty in ground truth answers is almost always necessary for even an expert to achieve high scores, whereas in datasets with high variation in ground truth answers there may be little difference between a random labeller and an expert. This characteristic also manifests when comparing models, where uncertainty obfuscates differences between poor and high performing models. Therefore, ignoring uncertainty in ground truth evaluation data can result in the misleading conclusion that a non-expert has similar performance to that of an expert. Using the probabilistic paradigm, we thus bring forth the concepts of expected accuracy and expected F1 and compare the estimated score an expert human or system can achieve given ground truth answer variability across 6 datasets and 9 models. The results lead to the recommendation that stratification by the probability of the ground truth answer becomes critical when expert performance is relatively low. Under stratified evaluation, performance comparison becomes more reliable in high certainty bins, mitigating the effect of the key confounding factor -- uncertainty.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

AI Must Embrace Specialization via Superhuman Adaptable Intelligence

Everyone from AI executives and researchers to doomsayers, politicians, and activists is talking about Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). Yet, they often don't seem to agree on its exact definition. One common definition of AGI is an AI that can do everything a human can do, but are humans truly general? In this paper, we address what's wrong with our conception of AGI, and why, even in its most coherent formulation, it is a flawed concept to describe the future of AI. We explore whether the most widely accepted definitions are plausible, useful, and truly general. We argue that AI must embrace specialization, rather than strive for generality, and in its specialization strive for superhuman performance, and introduce Superhuman Adaptable Intelligence (SAI). SAI is defined as intelligence that can learn to exceed humans at anything important that we can do, and that can fill in the skill gaps where humans are incapable. We then lay out how SAI can help hone a discussion around AI that was blurred by an overloaded definition of AGI, and extrapolate the implications of using it as a guide for the future.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

A superpersuasive autonomous policy debating system

The capacity for highly complex, evidence-based, and strategically adaptive persuasion remains a formidable great challenge for artificial intelligence. Previous work, like IBM Project Debater, focused on generating persuasive speeches in simplified and shortened debate formats intended for relatively lay audiences. We introduce DeepDebater, a novel autonomous system capable of participating in and winning a full, unmodified, two-team competitive policy debate. Our system employs a hierarchical architecture of specialized multi-agent workflows, where teams of LLM-powered agents collaborate and critique one another to perform discrete argumentative tasks. Each workflow utilizes iterative retrieval, synthesis, and self-correction using a massive corpus of policy debate evidence (OpenDebateEvidence) and produces complete speech transcripts, cross-examinations, and rebuttals. We introduce a live, interactive end-to-end presentation pipeline that renders debates with AI speech and animation: transcripts are surface-realized and synthesized to audio with OpenAI TTS, and then displayed as talking-head portrait videos with EchoMimic V1. Beyond fully autonomous matches (AI vs AI), DeepDebater supports hybrid human-AI operation: human debaters can intervene at any stage, and humans can optionally serve as opponents against AI in any speech, allowing AI-human and AI-AI rounds. In preliminary evaluations against human-authored cases, DeepDebater produces qualitatively superior argumentative components and consistently wins simulated rounds as adjudicated by an independent autonomous judge. Expert human debate coaches also prefer the arguments, evidence, and cases constructed by DeepDebater. We open source all code, generated speech transcripts, audio and talking head video here: https://github.com/Hellisotherpeople/DeepDebater/tree/main

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Exploring Human-AI Conceptual Alignment through the Prism of Chess

Do AI systems truly understand human concepts or merely mimic surface patterns? We investigate this through chess, where human creativity meets precise strategic concepts. Analyzing a 270M-parameter transformer that achieves grandmaster-level play, we uncover a striking paradox: while early layers encode human concepts like center control and knight outposts with up to 85\% accuracy, deeper layers, despite driving superior performance, drift toward alien representations, dropping to 50-65\% accuracy. To test conceptual robustness beyond memorization, we introduce the first Chess960 dataset: 240 expert-annotated positions across 6 strategic concepts. When opening theory is eliminated through randomized starting positions, concept recognition drops 10-20\% across all methods, revealing the model's reliance on memorized patterns rather than abstract understanding. Our layer-wise analysis exposes a fundamental tension in current architectures: the representations that win games diverge from those that align with human thinking. These findings suggest that as AI systems optimize for performance, they develop increasingly alien intelligence, a critical challenge for creative AI applications requiring genuine human-AI collaboration. Dataset and code are available at: https://github.com/slomasov/ChessConceptsLLM.

cs.LG↗