Data normalisation, a common and often necessary preprocessing step in engineering and scientific applications, can severely distort the discovery of governing equations by magnitudebased sparse regression methods. This issue is particularly acute for the Sparse Identification of Nonlinear Dynamics (SINDy) framework, where the core assumption of sparsity is undermined by the interaction between data scaling and measurement noise. The resulting discovered models can be dense, uninterpretable, and physically incorrect. To address this critical vulnerability, we introduce the Sequential Thresholding of Coefficient of Variation (STCV), a novel, computationally efficient sparse regression algorithm that is inherently robust to data scaling. STCV replaces conventional magnitude-based thresholding with a dimensionless statistical metric, the Coefficient Presence (CP), which assesses the statistical validity and consistency of candidate terms in the model library. This shift from magnitude to statistical significance makes the discovery process invariant to arbitrary data scaling. Through comprehensive benchmarking on canonical dynamical systems and practical engineering problems, including a physical mass-spring-damper experiment, we demonstrate that STCV consistently and significantly outperforms standard Sequential Thresholding Least Squares (STLSQ) and Ensemble-SINDy (E-SINDy) on normalised, noisy datasets. The results show that STCV-based methods can successfully identify the correct, sparse physical laws even when other methods fail. By mitigating the distorting effects of normalisation, STCV makes sparse system identification a more reliable and automated tool for real-world applications, thereby enhancing model interpretability and trustworthiness.

In healthcare, predictive models increasingly inform patient-level decisions, yet little attention is paid to the variability in individual risk estimates and its impact on treatment decisions. For overparameterized models, now standard in machine learning, a substantial source of variability often goes undetected. Even when the data and model architecture are held fixed, randomness introduced by optimization and initialization can lead to materially different risk estimates for the same patient. This problem is largely obscured by standard evaluation practices, which rely on aggregate performance metrics (e.g., log-loss, accuracy) that are agnostic to individual-level stability. As a result, models with indistinguishable aggregate performance can nonetheless exhibit substantial procedural arbitrariness, which can undermine clinical trust. We propose an evaluation framework that quantifies individual-level prediction instability by using two complementary diagnostics: empirical prediction interval width (ePIW), which captures variability in continuous risk estimates, and empirical decision flip rate (eDFR), which measures instability in threshold-based clinical decisions. We apply these diagnostics to simulated data and GUSTO-I clinical dataset. Across observed settings, we find that for flexible machine-learning models, randomness arising solely from optimization and initialization can induce individual-level variability comparable to that produced by resampling the entire training dataset. Neural networks exhibit substantially greater instability in individual risk predictions compared to logistic regression models. Risk estimate instability near clinically relevant decision thresholds can alter treatment recommendations. These findings that stability diagnostics should be incorporated into routine model validation for assessing clinical reliability.

From left: India's prime minister, Narendra Modi, with the chief executives of OpenAI, Sam Altman, and Anthropic, Dario Amodei, at the AI Impact summit in Delhi. From left: India's prime minister, Narendra Modi, with the chief executives of OpenAI, Sam Altman, and Anthropic, Dario Amodei, at the AI Impact summit in Delhi. AI hit: India hungry to harness US tech giants' technology at Delhi summit Narendra Modi's thirst to supercharge economic growth is matched by US desire to inject AI into world's biggest democracy I ndia celebrates 80 years of independence from the UK in August 2027. At about that same moment, "early versions of true super intelligence" could emerge, Sam Altman, the co-founder of OpenAI, said this week. It's a looming coincidence that raised a charged question at the AI Impact summit in Delhi, hosted by India's prime minister, Narendra Modi: can India avoid returning to the status of a vassal state when it imports AI to raise the prospects of its 1.4 billion people? Modi's hunger to harness AI's capability is great.

Many applications today provide users with multiple auto-complete drafts as they type, including GitHub's code completion, Gmail's smart compose, and Apple's messaging auto-suggestions.

Instead of relying on the LLM itself to unlearn, we enforce an unlearned state during inference by employing a prompt classifier to identify and safeguard prompts to forget.

The tech bros might show more humility in Delhi - but will they make AI any safer? Those who shout the loudest about artificial intelligence tend to be in the West, notably the US and Europe. So it's significant that a gathering of powerful leaders is being held in the Global South, a region of the world that runs the risk of being left behind in the AI race. Tech bosses, politicians, scientists, academics and campaigners are meeting at the AI Impact Summit in India this week for top-level discussions about what the world should be doing to try to marshal the AI revolution in the right direction. At last year's AI Action Summit, as it was then known, an ugly power struggle broke out between some Western countries over who should be in charge.

We propose using mechanistic interpretability – techniques for reverse engineering model weights into human-interpretable algorithms – to derive and compactly prove formal guarantees on model performance. We prototype this approach by formally proving accuracy lower bounds for a small transformer trained on Max-of-K, validating proof transferability across 151 random seeds and four values of K. We create 102 different computer-assisted proof strategies and assess their length and tightness of bound on each of our models. Using quantitative metrics, we find that shorter proofs seem to require and provide more mechanistic understanding. Moreover, we find that more faithful mechanistic understanding leads to tighter performance bounds. We confirm these connections by qualitatively examining a subset of our proofs. Finally, we identify compounding structureless errors as a key challenge for using mechanistic interpretability to generate compact proofs on model performance.