That is, we propose to formulate continual learning as a sequence modeling problem, allowing advanced sequence models to be utilized for continual learning.

Unlike AC, DAC can dynamically adjust the algorithm's configuration during

Could Ukraine hold a presidential election right now? Will Europe use frozen Russian assets to fund war? How can Ukraine rebuild China ties? 'Ukraine is running out of men, money and time' How the US left Ukraine exposed to Russia's winter war Nighttime shelling by Ukrainian forces inflicted "serious damage" on the Russian city of Belgorod, the region's Governor Vyacheslav Gladkov said. "The enemy has shelled the civilian city of Belgorod. Everyone knows we have no military targets. There has been serious damage. I have been out to look around," Gladkov said on the Telegram messaging app.

One reason for this is the intractability of analyzing NNs, ODEs and hybrid systems.

Survival analysis encompasses a broad range of methods for analyzing time-to-event data, with one key objective being the comparison of survival curves across groups. Traditional approaches for identifying clusters of survival curves often rely on computationally intensive bootstrap techniques to approximate the null hypothesis distribution. While effective, these methods impose significant computational burdens. In this work, we propose a novel approach that leverages the k-means and log-rank test to efficiently identify and cluster survival curves. Our method eliminates the need for computationally expensive resampling, significantly reducing processing time while maintaining statistical reliability. By systematically evaluating survival curves and determining optimal clusters, the proposed method ensures a practical and scalable alternative for large-scale survival data analysis. Through simulation studies, we demonstrate that our approach achieves results comparable to existing bootstrap-based clustering methods while dramatically improving computational efficiency. These findings suggest that the log-rank-based clustering procedure offers a viable and time-efficient solution for researchers working with multiple survival curves in medical and epidemiological studies.

Hate speech spreads widely online, harming individuals and communities, making automatic detection essential for large-scale moderation, yet detecting it remains difficult. Part of the challenge lies in subjectivity: what one person flags as hate speech, another may see as benign. Traditional annotation agreement metrics, such as Cohen's $κ$, oversimplify this disagreement, treating it as an error rather than meaningful diversity. Meanwhile, Large Language Models (LLMs) promise scalable annotation, but prior studies demonstrate that they cannot fully replace human judgement, especially in subjective tasks. In this work, we reexamine LLM reliability using a subjectivity-aware framework, cross-Rater Reliability (xRR), revealing that even under fairer lens, LLMs still diverge from humans. Yet this limitation opens an opportunity: we find that LLM-generated annotations can reliably reflect performance trends across classification models, correlating with human evaluations. We test this by examining whether LLM-generated annotations preserve the relative ordering of model performance derived from human evaluation (i.e. whether models ranked as more reliable by human annotators preserve the same order when evaluated with LLM-generated labels). Our results show that, although LLMs differ from humans at the instance level, they reproduce similar ranking and classification patterns, suggesting their potential as proxy evaluators. While not a substitute for human annotators, they might serve as a scalable proxy for evaluation in subjective NLP tasks.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) has emerged as a pillar of Trustworthy AI and aims to bring transparency in complex models that are opaque by nature. Despite the benefits of incorporating explanations in models, an urgent need is found in addressing the privacy concerns of providing this additional information to end users. In this article, we conduct a scoping review of existing literature to elicit details on the conflict between privacy and explainability. Using the standard methodology for scoping review, we extracted 57 articles from 1,943 studies published from January 2019 to December 2024. The review addresses 3 research questions to present readers with more understanding of the topic: (1) what are the privacy risks of releasing explanations in AI systems? (2) what current methods have researchers employed to achieve privacy preservation in XAI systems? (3) what constitutes a privacy preserving explanation? Based on the knowledge synthesized from the selected studies, we categorize the privacy risks and preservation methods in XAI and propose the characteristics of privacy preserving explanations to aid researchers and practitioners in understanding the requirements of XAI that is privacy compliant. Lastly, we identify the challenges in balancing privacy with other system desiderata and provide recommendations for achieving privacy preserving XAI. We expect that this review will shed light on the complex relationship of privacy and explainability, both being the fundamental principles of Trustworthy AI.

Verified explanations are a theoretically-principled way to explain the decisions taken by neural networks, which are otherwise black-box in nature. However, these techniques face significant scalability challenges, as they require multiple calls to neural network verifiers, each of them with an exponential worst-case complexity. We present FaVeX, a novel algorithm to compute verified explanations. FaVeX accelerates the computation by dynamically combining batch and sequential processing of input features, and by reusing information from previous queries, both when proving invariances with respect to certain input features, and when searching for feature assignments altering the prediction. Furthermore, we present a novel and hierarchical definition of verified explanations, termed verifier-optimal robust explanations, that explicitly factors the incompleteness of network verifiers within the explanation. Our comprehensive experimental evaluation demonstrates the superior scalability of both FaVeX, and of verifier-optimal robust explanations, which together can produce meaningful formal explanation on networks with hundreds of thousands of non-linear activations.