Algorithmic recourse seeks to provide individuals with actionable recommendations that increase their chances of receiving favorable outcomes from automated decision systems (e.g., loan approvals). While prior research has emphasized robustness to model updates, considerably less attention has been given to the temporal dynamics of recourse--particularly in competitive, resource-constrained settings where recommendations shape future applicant pools. In this work, we present a novel time-aware framework for algorithmic recourse, explicitly modeling how candidate populations adapt in response to recommendations. Additionally, we introduce a novel reinforcement learning (RL)-based recourse algorithm that captures the evolving dynamics of the environment to generate recommendations that are both feasible and valid. We design our recommendations to be durable, supporting validity over a predefined time horizon T. This durability allows individuals to confidently reapply after taking time to implement the suggested changes. Through extensive experiments in complex simulation environments, we show that our approach substantially outperforms existing baselines, offering a superior balance between feasibility and long-term validity. Together, these results underscore the importance of incorporating temporal and behavioral dynamics into the design of practical recourse systems.

Existing methods for differentiable structure learning in discrete data typically assume that the data are generated from specific structural equation models. However, these assumptions may not align with the true data-generating process, which limits the general applicability of such methods. Furthermore, current approaches often ignore the complex dependence structure inherent in discrete data and consider only linear effects. We propose a differentiable structure learning framework that is capable of capturing arbitrary dependencies among discrete variables. We show that although general discrete models are unidentifiable from purely observational data, it is possible to characterize the complete set of compatible parameters and structures. Additionally, we establish identifiability up to Markov equivalence under mild assumptions. We formulate the learning problem as a single differentiable optimization task in the most general form, thereby avoiding the unrealistic simplifications adopted by previous methods. Empirical results demonstrate that our approach effectively captures complex relationships in discrete data.

Learning, whether natural or artificial, is a process of selection. It starts with a set of candidate options and selects the more successful ones. In the case of machine learning the selection is done based on empirical estimates of prediction accuracy of candidate prediction rules on some data. Due to randomness of data sampling the empirical estimates are inherently noisy, leading to selection under uncertainty. The book provides statistical tools to obtain theoretical guarantees on the outcome of selection under uncertainty. We start with concentration of measure inequalities, which are the main statistical instrument for controlling how much an empirical estimate of expectation of a function deviates from the true expectation. The book covers a broad range of inequalities, including Markov's, Chebyshev's, Hoeffding's, Bernstein's, Empirical Bernstein's, Unexpected Bernstein's, kl, and split-kl. We then study the classical (offline) supervised learning and provide a range of tools for deriving generalization bounds, including Occam's razor, Vapnik-Chervonenkis analysis, and PAC-Bayesian analysis. The latter is further applied to derive generalization guarantees for weighted majority votes. After covering the offline setting, we turn our attention to online learning. We present the space of online learning problems characterized by environmental feedback, environmental resistance, and structural complexity. A common performance measure in online learning is regret, which compares performance of an algorithm to performance of the best prediction rule in hindsight, out of a restricted set of prediction rules. We present tools for deriving regret bounds in stochastic and adversarial environments, and under full information and bandit feedback.

The growing capabilities of large language models and multimodal systems have spurred interest in voice-first AI assistants, yet existing benchmarks are inadequate for evaluating the full range of these systems' capabilities. We introduce VoiceAssistant-Eval, a comprehensive benchmark designed to assess AI assistants across listening, speaking, and viewing. VoiceAssistant-Eval comprises 10,497 curated examples spanning 13 task categories. These tasks include natural sounds, music, and spoken dialogue for listening; multi-turn dialogue, role-play imitation, and various scenarios for speaking; and highly heterogeneous images for viewing. To demonstrate its utility, we evaluate 21 open-source models and GPT-4o-Audio, measuring the quality of the response content and speech, as well as their consistency. The results reveal three key findings: (1) proprietary models do not universally outperform open-source models; (2) most models excel at speaking tasks but lag in audio understanding; and (3) well-designed smaller models can rival much larger ones. Notably, the mid-sized Step-Audio-2-mini (7B) achieves more than double the listening accuracy of LLaMA-Omni2-32B-Bilingual. However, challenges remain: multimodal (audio plus visual) input and role-play voice imitation tasks are difficult for current models, and significant gaps persist in robustness and safety alignment. VoiceAssistant-Eval identifies these gaps and establishes a rigorous framework for evaluating and guiding the development of next-generation AI assistants. Code and data will be released at https://mathllm.github.io/VoiceAssistantEval/ .

LLMs trained for logical reasoning excel at step-by-step deduction to reach verifiable answers. However, this paradigm is ill-suited for navigating social situations, which induce an interpretive process of analyzing ambiguous cues that rarely yield a definitive outcome. To bridge this gap, we introduce Cognitive Reasoning, a paradigm modeled on human social cognition. It formulates the interpretive process into a structured cognitive flow of interconnected cognitive units (e.g., observation or attribution), which combine adaptively to enable effective social thinking and responses. We then propose CogFlow, a complete framework that instills this capability in LLMs. CogFlow first curates a dataset of cognitive flows by simulating the associative and progressive nature of human thought via tree-structured planning. After instilling the basic cognitive reasoning capability via supervised fine-tuning, CogFlow adopts reinforcement learning to enable the model to improve itself via trial and error, guided by a multi-objective reward that optimizes both cognitive flow and response quality. Extensive experiments show that CogFlow effectively enhances the social cognitive capabilities of LLMs, and even humans, leading to more effective social decision-making.

Analogical reasoning is an essential aspect of human cognition. In this paper, we summarize key theory about the processes underlying analogical reasoning from the cognitive science literature and relate it to current research in natural language processing. While these processes can be easily linked to concepts in NLP, they are generally not viewed through a cognitive lens. Furthermore, we show how these notions are relevant for several major challenges in NLP research, not directly related to analogy solving. This may guide researchers to better optimize relational understanding in text, as opposed to relying heavily on entity-level similarity.

Since the advent of knowledge distillation, much research has focused on how the soft labels generated by the teacher model can be utilized effectively. Existing studies points out that the implicit knowledge within soft labels originates from the multi-view structure present in the data. Feature variations within samples of the same class allow the student model to generalize better by learning diverse representations. However, in existing distillation methods, teacher models predominantly adhere to ground-truth labels as targets, without considering the diverse representations within the same class. Therefore, we propose incorporating an intra-class contrastive loss during teacher training to enrich the intra-class information contained in soft labels. In practice, we find that intra-class loss causes instability in training and slows convergence. To mitigate these issues, margin loss is integrated into intra-class contrastive learning to improve the training stability and convergence speed. Simultaneously, we theoretically analyze the impact of this loss on the intra-class distances and inter-class distances. It has been proved that the intra-class contrastive loss can enrich the intra-class diversity. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method.

Automated scoring plays a crucial role in education by reducing the reliance on human raters, offering scalable and immediate evaluation of student work. While large language models (LLMs) have shown strong potential in this task, their use as end-to-end raters faces challenges such as low accuracy, prompt sensitivity, limited interpretability, and rubric misalignment. These issues hinder the implementation of LLM-based automated scoring in assessment practice. To address the limitations, we propose AutoSCORE, a multi-agent LLM framework enhancing automated scoring via rubric-aligned Structured COmponent REcognition. With two agents, AutoSCORE first extracts rubric-relevant components from student responses and encodes them into a structured representation (i.e., Scoring Rubric Component Extraction Agent), which is then used to assign final scores (i.e., Scoring Agent). This design ensures that model reasoning follows a human-like grading process, enhancing interpretability and robustness. We evaluate AutoSCORE on four benchmark datasets from the ASAP benchmark, using both proprietary and open-source LLMs (GPT-4o, LLaMA-3.1-8B, and LLaMA-3.1-70B). Across diverse tasks and rubrics, AutoSCORE consistently improves scoring accuracy, human-machine agreement (QWK, correlations), and error metrics (MAE, RMSE) compared to single-agent baselines, with particularly strong benefits on complex, multi-dimensional rubrics, and especially large relative gains on smaller LLMs. These results demonstrate that structured component recognition combined with multi-agent design offers a scalable, reliable, and interpretable solution for automated scoring.