As machine learning systems are increasingly used in high-stakes domains, there is a growing emphasis placed on making them interpretable to improve trust in these systems. In response, a range of interpretable machine learning (IML) methods have been developed to generate human-understandable insights into otherwise black box models. With these methods, a fundamental question arises: Are these interpretations reliable? Unlike with prediction accuracy or other evaluation metrics for supervised models, the proximity to the true interpretation is difficult to define. Instead, we ask a closely related question that we argue is a prerequisite for reliability: Are these interpretations stable? We define stability as findings that are consistent or reliable under small random perturbations to the data or algorithms. In this study, we conduct the first systematic, large-scale empirical stability study on popular machine learning global interpretations for both supervised and unsupervised tasks on tabular data. Our findings reveal that popular interpretation methods are frequently unstable, notably less stable than the predictions themselves, and that there is no association between the accuracy of machine learning predictions and the stability of their associated interpretations. Moreover, we show that no single method consistently provides the most stable interpretations across a range of benchmark datasets. Overall, these results suggest that interpretability alone does not warrant trust, and underscores the need for rigorous evaluation of interpretation stability in future work. To support these principles, we have developed and released an open source IML dashboard and Python package to enable researchers to assess the stability and reliability of their own data-driven interpretations and discoveries.

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) underscore the need for more comprehensive evaluation methods to accurately assess their reasoning capabilities. Existing benchmarks are often domain-specific and thus cannot fully capture an LLM's general reasoning potential. To address this limitation, we introduce the Knowledge Orthogonal Reasoning Gymnasium (KORGym), a dynamic evaluation platform inspired by KOR-Bench and Gymnasium. KORGym offers over fifty games in either textual or visual formats and supports interactive, multi-turn assessments with reinforcement learning scenarios. Using KORGym, we conduct extensive experiments on 19 LLMs and 8 VLMs, revealing consistent reasoning patterns within model families and demonstrating the superior performance of closed-source models. Further analysis examines the effects of modality, reasoning strategies, reinforcement learning techniques, and response length on model performance. We expect KORGym to become a valuable resource for advancing LLM reasoning research and developing evaluation methodologies suited to complex, interactive environments.

Effective workplace communication is essential for managerial success, yet many managers lack access to tailored and sustained training. Although AI-assisted communication systems may offer scalable training solutions, little is known about how managers envision the role of AI in helping them improve their communication skills. To investigate this, we designed a conversational role-play system, CommCoach, as a functional probe to understand how managers anticipate using AI to practice their communication skills. Through semi-structured interviews, participants emphasized the value of adaptive, low-risk simulations for practicing difficult workplace conversations. They also highlighted opportunities, including human-AI teaming, transparent and context-aware feedback, and greater control over AI-generated personas. AI-assisted communication training should balance personalization, structured learning objectives, and adaptability to different user styles and contexts. However, achieving this requires carefully navigating tensions between adaptive and consistent AI feedback, realism and potential bias, and the open-ended nature of AI conversations versus structured workplace discourse.

We directly compare the persuasion capabilities of a frontier large language model (LLM; Claude Sonnet 3.5) against incentivized human persuaders in an interactive, real - time conversational quiz setting. In this preregistered, large - scale incentivized expe riment, participants (quiz takers) completed an online quiz where persuaders (either humans or LLMs) attempted to persuade quiz takers toward correct or incorrect answers. We find that LLM persuaders achieved significantly higher compliance with their dire ctional persuasion attempts than incentivized human persuaders, demonstrating superior persuasive capabilities in both truthful (toward correct answers) and deceptive (toward incorrect answers) contexts. We also find that LLM persuaders significantly incre ased quiz takers' accuracy, leading to higher earnings, when steering quiz takers toward correct answers, and significantly decreased their accuracy, leading to lower earnings, when steering them toward incorrect answers. Overall, our findings suggest that AI's persuasion capabilities already exceed those of humans that have real - money bonuses tied to performance. Our findings of increasingly capable AI persuaders thus underscore the urgency of emerging alignment and governance frameworks.

Recent advances in large language models have demonstrated that Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) with Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning data distilled from large reasoning models (e.g., DeepSeek R1) can effectively transfer reasoning capabilities to non-reasoning models. However, models fine-tuned with this approach inherit the "overthinking" problem from teacher models, producing verbose and redundant reasoning chains during inference. To address this challenge, we propose Long-Short Chain-of-Thought Mixture Supervised Fine-Tuning (LS-Mixture SFT), which combines long CoT reasoning dataset with their short counterparts obtained through structure-preserved rewriting. Our experiments demonstrate that models trained using the LS-Mixture SFT method, compared to those trained with direct SFT, achieved an average accuracy improvement of 2.3% across various benchmarks while substantially reducing model response length by approximately 47.61%. This work offers an approach to endow non-reasoning models with reasoning capabilities through supervised fine-tuning while avoiding the inherent overthinking problems inherited from teacher models, thereby enabling efficient reasoning in the fine-tuned models.

The application of reinforcement learning (RL) to enhance the reasoning capabilities of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) constitutes a rapidly advancing research area. While MLLMs extend Large Language Models (LLMs) to handle diverse modalities such as vision, audio, and video, enabling robust reasoning across multimodal inputs remains challenging. This paper provides a systematic review of recent advances in RL-based reasoning for MLLMs, covering key algorithmic designs, reward mechanism innovations, and practical applications. We highlight two main RL paradigms, value-model-free and value-model-based methods, and analyze how RL enhances reasoning abilities by optimizing reasoning trajectories and aligning multimodal information. Additionally, we provide an extensive overview of benchmark datasets, evaluation protocols, and current limitations, and propose future research directions to address challenges such as sparse rewards, inefficient cross-modal reasoning, and real-world deployment constraints. Our goal is to provide a comprehensive and structured guide to RL-based multimodal reasoning.

Language models prompted with a user description or persona are being used to predict the user's preferences and opinions. However, existing approaches to building personas mostly rely on a user's demographic attributes and/or prior judgments, but not on any underlying reasoning behind a user's judgments. We introduce PB&J (Psychology of Behavior and Judgments), a framework that improves LM personas by incorporating potential rationales for why the user could have made a certain judgment. Our rationales are generated by a language model to explicitly reason about a user's behavior on the basis of their experiences, personality traits, or beliefs. Our method employs psychological scaffolds: structured frameworks such as the Big 5 Personality Traits or Primal World Beliefs to help ground the generated rationales in existing theories. Experiments on public opinion and movie preference prediction tasks demonstrate that language model personas augmented with PB&J rationales consistently outperform personas conditioned only on user demographics and / or judgments, including those that use a model's default chain-of-thought, which is not grounded in psychological theories. Additionally, our PB&J personas perform competitively with those using human-written rationales, suggesting the potential of synthetic rationales guided by existing theories.

Innovators transform the world by understanding where services are successfully meeting customers' needs and then using this knowledge to identify failsafe opportunities for innovation. Pre-trained models have changed the AI innovation landscape, making it faster and easier to create new AI products and services. Understanding where pre-trained models are successful is critical for supporting AI innovation. Unfortunately, the hype cycle surrounding pre-trained models makes it hard to know where AI can really be successful. To address this, we investigated pre-trained model applications developed by HCI researchers as a proxy for commercially successful applications. The research applications demonstrate technical capabilities, address real user needs, and avoid ethical challenges. Using an artifact analysis approach, we categorized capabilities, opportunity domains, data types, and emerging interaction design patterns, uncovering some of the opportunity space for innovation with pre-trained models.

Deep learning-based models have demonstrated remarkable success in solving ill-posed inverse problems; however, many fail to strictly adhere to the physical constraints imposed by the measurement process. In this work, we introduce a projection-based correction method to enhance the inference of deep inverse networks by ensuring consistency with the forward model. Specifically, given an initial estimate from a learned reconstruction network, we apply a projection step that constrains the solution to lie within the valid solution space of the inverse problem. We theoretically demonstrate that if the recovery model is a "well-trained deep inverse network", the solution can be decomposed into range-space and null-space components, where the projection-based correction reduces to an identity transformation. Extensive simulations and experiments validate the proposed method, demonstrating improved reconstruction accuracy across diverse inverse problems and deep network architectures.

Large language models that use retrieval augmented generation have the potential to unlock valuable knowledge for researchers, policymakers, and the public by making long and technical climate-related documents more accessible. While this approach can help alleviate factual hallucinations by relying on retrieved passages as additional context, its effectiveness depends on whether the model's output remains faithful to these passages. To address this, we explore the automatic assessment of faithfulness of different models in this setting. We then focus on ClimateGPT, a large language model specialised in climate science, to examine which factors in its instruction fine-tuning impact the model's faithfulness. By excluding unfaithful subsets of the model's training data, we develop ClimateGPT Faithful+, which achieves an improvement in faithfulness from 30% to 57% in supported atomic claims according to our automatic metric.