These target videos may vary widely in complexity of scenes, activities, camera trajectory, etc.

Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (Lasso), a popular method for high-dimensional regression, is now used widely for estimating high-dimensional time series models such as the vector autoregression (VAR). Selecting its tuning parameter efficiently and accurately remains a challenge, despite the abundance of available methods for doing so. We propose $\mathsf{autotune}$, a strategy for Lasso to automatically tune itself by optimizing a penalized Gaussian log-likelihood alternately over regression coefficients and noise standard deviation. Using extensive simulation experiments on regression and VAR models, we show that $\mathsf{autotune}$ is faster, and provides better generalization and model selection than established alternatives in low signal-to-noise regimes. In the process, $\mathsf{autotune}$ provides a new estimator of noise standard deviation that can be used for high-dimensional inference, and a new visual diagnostic procedure for checking the sparsity assumption on regression coefficients. Finally, we demonstrate the utility of $\mathsf{autotune}$ on a real-world financial data set. An R package based on C++ is also made publicly available on Github.

Topology identification and inference of processes evolving over graphs arise in timely applications involving brain, transportation, financial, power, as well as social and information networks. This chapter provides an overview of graph topology identification and statistical inference methods for multidimensional relational data. Approaches for undirected links connecting graph nodes are outlined, going all the way from correlation metrics to covariance selection, and revealing ties with smooth signal priors. To account for directional (possibly causal) relations among nodal variables and address the limitations of linear time-invariant models in handling dynamic as well as nonlinear dependencies, a principled framework is surveyed to capture these complexities through judiciously selected kernels from a prescribed dictionary. Generalizations are also described via structural equations and vector autoregressions that can exploit attributes such as low rank, sparsity, acyclicity, and smoothness to model dynamic processes over possibly time-evolving topologies. It is argued that this approach supports both batch and online learning algorithms with convergence rate guarantees, is amenable to tensor (that is, multi-way array) formulations as well as decompositions that are well-suited for multidimensional network data, and can seamlessly leverage high-order statistical information.

Relevance judgments are central to the evaluation of Information Retrieval (IR) systems, but obtaining them from human annotators is costly and time-consuming. Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently been proposed as automated assessors, showing promising alignment with human annotations. Most prior studies have treated documents as fixed units, feeding their full content directly to LLM assessors. We investigate how text summarization affects the reliability of LLM-based judgments and their downstream impact on IR evaluation. Using state-of-the-art LLMs across multiple TREC collections, we compare judgments made from full documents with those based on LLM-generated summaries of different lengths. We examine their agreement with human labels, their effect on retrieval effectiveness evaluation, and their influence on IR systems' ranking stability. Our findings show that summary-based judgments achieve comparable stability in systems' ranking to full-document judgments, while introducing systematic shifts in label distributions and biases that vary by model and dataset. These results highlight summarization as both an opportunity for more efficient large-scale IR evaluation and a methodological choice with important implications for the reliability of automatic judgments.

AI policy guidance is predominantly written as prose, which practitioners must first convert into executable rules before frameworks can evaluate or enforce them. This manual step is slow, error-prone, difficult to scale, and often delays the use of safeguards in real-world deployments. To address this gap, we present Policy-to-Tests (P2T), a framework that converts natural-language policy documents into normalized, machine-readable rules. The framework comprises a pipeline and a compact domain-specific language (DSL) that encodes hazards, scope, conditions, exceptions, and required evidence, yielding a canonical representation of extracted rules. To test the framework beyond a single policy, we apply it across general frameworks, sector guidance, and enterprise standards, extracting obligation-bearing clauses and converting them into executable rules. These AI-generated rules closely match strong human baselines on span-level and rule-level metrics, with robust inter-annotator agreement on the gold set. To evaluate downstream behavioral and safety impact, we add HIPAA-derived safeguards to a generative agent and compare it with an otherwise identical agent without guardrails. An LLM-based judge, aligned with gold-standard criteria, measures violation rates and robustness to obfuscated and compositional prompts. Detailed results are provided in the appendix. We release the codebase, DSL, prompts, and rule sets as open-source resources to enable reproducible evaluation.

The growing influence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems on decision-making in critical domains has exposed their potential to cause significant harms, often rooted in biases embedded across the AI lifecycle. While existing frameworks and taxonomies document bias or harms in isolation, they rarely establish systematic links between specific bias types and the harms they cause, particularly within real-world sociotechnical contexts. Technical fixes proposed to address AI biases are ill-equipped to address them and are typically applied after a system has been developed or deployed, offering limited preventive value. We propose ECHO, a novel framework for proactive AI harm anticipation through the systematic mapping of AI bias types to harm outcomes across diverse stakeholder and domain contexts. ECHO follows a modular workflow encompassing stakeholder identification, vignette-based presentation of biased AI systems, and dual (human-LLM) harm annotation, integrated within ethical matrices for structured interpretation. This human-centered approach enables early-stage detection of bias-to-harm pathways, guiding AI design and governance decisions from the outset. We validate ECHO in two high-stakes domains (disease diagnosis and hiring), revealing domain-specific, bias-to-harm patterns and demonstrating ECHO's potential to support anticipatory governance of AI systems

Standardized surveys scale efficiently but sacrifice depth, while conversational interviews improve response quality at the cost of scalability and consistency. This study bridges the gap between these methods by introdu cing a framework for AI - assisted conversational interviewing. To evaluate this framework, we conducted a web survey experiment where 1,800 p articipants were randomly assigned to AI ' chatbots ' which use large language models (LLMs) to dynamically probe respondents for elaboration and interactively code open - ended responses to fixed questions developed by human researchers . We assessed the AI chatbot's performance in terms of coding accuracy, response quality, and respondent experience. Our findings reveal that AI chatbots perform moderately well in live coding even without survey - specific fine - tuning, despite slightly inflated false positive err ors due to respondent acquiescence bias. Open - ended responses were more detailed and informative, but this came at a slight cost to respondent experience. Our findings highlight the feasibility of using AI methods such as chatbots enhanced by LLMs to enhance open - ended data collection in web surveys. 2

Assessing risk of bias (RoB) in randomized controlled trials is essential for trustworthy evidence synthesis, but the process is resource-intensive and prone to variability across reviewers. Large language models (LLMs) offer a route to automation, but existing methods rely on manually engineered prompts that are difficult to reproduce, generalize, or evaluate. This study introduces a programmable RoB assessment pipeline that replaces ad-hoc prompt design with structured, code-based optimization using DSPy and its GEPA module. GEPA refines LLM reasoning through Pareto-guided search and produces inspectable execution traces, enabling transparent replication of every step in the optimization process. We evaluated the method on 100 RCTs from published meta-analyses across seven RoB domains. GEPA-generated prompts were applied to both open-weight models (Mistral Small 3.1 with GPT-oss-20b) and commercial models (GPT-5 Nano and GPT-5 Mini). In domains with clearer methodological reporting, such as Random Sequence Generation, GEPA-generated prompts performed best, with similar results for Allocation Concealment and Blinding of Participants, while the commercial model performed slightly better overall. We also compared GEPA with three manually designed prompts using Claude 3.5 Sonnet. GEPA achieved the highest overall accuracy and improved performance by 30%-40% in Random Sequence Generation and Selective Reporting, and showed generally comparable, competitively aligned performance in the other domains relative to manual prompts. These findings suggest that GEPA can produce consistent and reproducible prompts for RoB assessment, supporting the structured and principled use of LLMs in evidence synthesis.

As libraries explore large language models (LLMs) for use in virtual reference services, a key question arises: Can LLMs serve all users equitably, regardless of demographics or social status? While they offer great potential for scalable support, LLMs may also reproduce societal biases embedded in their training data, risking the integrity of libraries' commitment to equitable service. To address this concern, we evaluate whether LLMs differentiate responses across user identities by prompting six state-of-the-art LLMs to assist patrons differing in sex, race/ethnicity, and institutional role. We find no evidence of differentiation by race or ethnicity, and only minor evidence of stereotypical bias against women in one model. LLMs demonstrate nuanced accommodation of institutional roles through the use of linguistic choices related to formality, politeness, and domain-specific vocabularies, reflecting professional norms rather than discriminatory treatment. These findings suggest that current LLMs show a promising degree of readiness to support equitable and contextually appropriate communication in academic library reference services.

Benchmarks are pivotal in driving AI progress, and invalid benchmark questions frequently undermine their reliability. Manually identifying and correcting errors among thousands of benchmark questions is not only infeasible but also a critical bottleneck for reliable evaluation. In this work, we introduce a framework for systematic benchmark revision that leverages statistical analysis of response patterns to flag potentially invalid questions for further expert review. Our approach builds on a core assumption commonly used in AI evaluations that the mean score sufficiently summarizes model performance. This implies a unidimensional latent construct underlying the measurement experiment, yielding expected ranges for various statistics for each item. When empirically estimated values for these statistics fall outside the expected range for an item, the item is more likely to be problematic. Across nine widely used benchmarks, our method guides expert review to identify problematic questions with up to 84\% precision. In addition, we introduce an LLM-judge first pass to review questions, further reducing human effort. Together, these components provide an efficient and scalable framework for systematic benchmark revision.