Home›Papers
Papers
Papers
Papers that changed AI, with a plain-language explainer for each.
Total 14 · Clear filters
- 2026
Muse Spark Safety & Preparedness Report
arXiv
Meta's safety and preparedness report for Muse Spark, the model behind Meta AI, sets out the catastrophic-risk evaluations behind its launch and argues that, with mitigations applied, residual risk is acceptable.
- 2026
GLM-5: from Vibe Coding to Agentic Engineering
arXiv
Zhipu's GLM-5 report describes a 744-billion-parameter mixture-of-experts model built on sparse attention and asynchronous reinforcement learning, aimed at moving AI-assisted programming from vibe coding toward agentic engineering.
- 2026
Terminal-Bench: Benchmarking Agents on Hard, Realistic Tasks in Command Line Interfaces
arXiv
Terminal-Bench 2.0 is a curated benchmark of 89 hard tasks carried out in computer terminal environments, built to measure how well AI agents handle realistic command-line work; frontier models and agents score below 65% on it.
- 2024
LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code
arXiv
A benchmark for code LLMs that keeps collecting fresh contest problems from LeetCode, AtCoder and CodeForces, so that scores reflect ability rather than memorised test data, and that also tests code repair and execution reasoning.
- 2023
SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?
arXiv
A benchmark of 2,294 real software engineering problems taken from GitHub issues and the pull requests that resolved them, in which a model must edit a codebase to fix an issue; on release the best model solved under 2% of them.
- 2022
Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback
arXiv
Constitutional AI, a 2022 paper from Anthropic, proposes training a harmless AI assistant with AI-generated feedback guided by a written set of principles, instead of human labels of harmful outputs.
- 2022
Holistic Evaluation of Language Models (HELM)
arXiv
A 2022 paper by Percy Liang, Rishi Bommasani, Tony Lee and many co-authors that ran 30 language models through the same 42 scenarios and seven metrics, turning scattered benchmarks into one standardized evaluation.
- 2022
Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback (InstructGPT)
NeurIPS
InstructGPT used human-written demonstrations, human rankings of outputs and reinforcement learning to make GPT-3 follow user instructions better. Labelers preferred its outputs even though it was far smaller than GPT-3.
- 2021
Program Synthesis with Large Language Models (MBPP)
arXiv
A 2021 arXiv paper by Austin, Odena, Nye and eight other authors that introduced MBPP, a benchmark of 974 short Python programming tasks, and measured how language models from 244M to 137B parameters turn natural-language descriptions into working code.
- 2021
Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code (Codex / HumanEval)
arXiv
A 2021 paper from OpenAI introduces Codex, a GPT model fine-tuned on public GitHub code, and HumanEval, an evaluation set that judges generated Python programs by whether they work rather than by how closely they match a reference.
- 2021
On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big?
FAccT '21
A 2021 FAccT paper by Bender, Gebru, McMillan-Major and Shmitchell that asks whether language models can be too large and sets out recommendations on costs, data, research goals and alternative directions.
- 2019
Language Models are Unsupervised Multitask Learners (GPT-2)
OpenAI
OpenAI's 2019 paper on GPT-2, a 1.5-billion-parameter Transformer trained on web text. It showed that a model trained only to predict the next word could perform several tasks when prompted, and its staged release sparked public debate.
- 2017
Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences
NeurIPS
A 2017 paper showing that an AI agent can learn a task from short human comparisons instead of a hand-written reward. The method, reinforcement learning from human feedback, later became central to training chat assistants.
- 2012
Large Scale Distributed Deep Networks
NeurIPS
A 2012 NIPS paper by Jeffrey Dean, Andrew Ng and colleagues that introduced DistBelief, a framework for training deep networks across clusters of thousands of machines, together with the Downpour SGD and Sandblaster optimisation procedures.