Large language models are increasingly used for information seeking, yet semantically equivalent questions phrased in different ways can receive answers of considerably different quality. System prompts are widely employed to steer response behavior, but they are typically optimized for average-case quality, so some question phrasings may still receive incomplete or low-quality answers. To address this, we formulate a constrained mixed-strategy GroupDRO framework for system-prompt selection. Instead of optimizing the system-prompt text, the framework assigns weights to system prompts in an existing pool to minimize the worst-case information-quality loss across evaluation metrics and groups, while constraining the mean loss to stay close to that of average-based selection. Because pool generation and selection are decoupled, the method applies to any system-prompt pool and can leverage an ensemble of complementary system prompts rather than a single one. Across five LLMs on two bilingual medical and consumer-finance benchmarks, the constrained method reduces the Overall Mean, Worst 25% Mean, and Worst by 13.1%, 13.2%, and 13.7% on average relative to no mitigation while keeping overall quality close to Average selection. Its multi-prompt weights reveal complementarity across metric-group pairs. Code and data are available at https://github.com/Rainxu09/equitable-system-prompt-selection.
Mengyu Xu, Qiaoxin Yang, Zhihan Liu et al.· 0 citations
Language model agents now execute bounded tasks reliably. Whether they can sustain effective decision-making over long horizons, where actions have cumulative consequences and the environment responds to their choices, remains largely unmeasured. FM-Bench (Football Management Benchmark) measures this. An LLM agent runs a football club for 20 in-game years through 26 tools and roughly 340 to 400 decision stops. It drafts a squad on the same budget as every rival, trades players, negotiates contracts, invests in facilities and youth, sets lineups, and answers to a board that can fire it, while a deterministic engine accumulates every year into one final score with no LLM judge or human rater. The solo track plays each of 15 frontier models against a frozen scripted world, and the Arena places the same models plus a scripted anchor in one shared 20-year world; to our knowledge, the first head-to-head evaluation at this scale. We measure six behavioral capabilities behind the score. Across three seeds, all 15 models complete every horizon while the blind scripted baselines die out in most of theirs, and claude-fable-5 tops the solo board on mean score and the Arena, where the title nonetheless rotates among ten models. Neither scale, price, nor vendor predicts the order; the order settles only late in the horizon, and the best first-play human lands only at the bottom of the model board. What separates the models is managerial behavior rather than computation. Higher-scoring models reduce slow-payoff investment near the end, keep cash invested rather than idle, and open renewals well before the deadline, while token spend predicts nothing. No model learns the market's hidden prices from hundreds of rejected bids, and self-managed memory fails in two opposite modes: an archive that only grows or a plan rewritten every season. Code is available at https://github.com/Analogy-AI/fm-bench.
Tianyou Wang, Chongyang Gao, Kezhen Chen et al.· 0 citations