We study learning in a dynamically evolving environment modeled as a Markov game between a learner and a strategic opponent that can adapt to the learner's strategies. While most existing works in Markov games focus on external regret as the learning objective, external regret becomes inadequate when the adversaries are adaptive. In this work, we focus on \emph{policy regret} -- a counterfactual notion that aims to compete with the return that would have been attained if the learner had followed the best fixed sequence of policy, in hindsight. We show that if the opponent has unbounded memory or if it is non-stationary, then sample-efficient learning is not possible. For memory-bounded and stationary, we show that learning is still statistically hard if the set of feasible strategies for the learner is exponentially large. To guarantee learnability, we introduce a new notion of \emph{consistent} adaptive adversaries, wherein, the adversary responds similarly to similar strategies of the learner. We provide algorithms that achieve $\sqrt{T}$ policy regret against memory-bounded, stationary, and consistent adversaries.

A neural operator is a neural network that is intended to approximate an operator between function spaces [1-3]. An example of an output function for a neural operator is a solution to a differential equation. Examples of input functions for a neural operator are the initial conditions or the boundary conditions for the differential equation. The study of neural operators is called operator learning. Various choices of hyperparameters and training strategies are made when training a neural network. Limiting such choices to known robust choices can significantly improve the speed of hyperparameters searches. This paper studies the effect of some of these choices in operator learning, that is, it tries to find some best practices in operator learning. This is not a comparison between different architectures. In order, this paper studies the choice of activation function, the use of dropout, the use of stochastic weight averaging and the use of a learning rate finder.

Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) present significant risks and opportunities, requiring improved governance to mitigate societal harms and promote equitable benefits. Current incentive structures and regulatory delays may hinder responsible AI development and deployment, particularly in light of the transformative potential of large language models (LLMs). To address these challenges, we propose developing the following three contributions: (1) a large multimodal text and economic-timeseries foundation model that integrates economic and natural language policy data for enhanced forecasting and decision-making, (2) algorithmic mechanisms for eliciting diverse and representative perspectives, enabling the creation of data-driven public policy recommendations, and (3) an AI-driven web platform for supporting transparent, inclusive, and data-driven policymaking.

Large Language Models are known to capture real-world knowledge, allowing them to excel in many downstream tasks. Despite recent advances, these models are still prone to what are commonly known as hallucinations, causing them to emit unwanted and factually incorrect text. In this work, we propose a novel calibration method that can be used to combat hallucinations. We add a special [IDK] ("I don't know") token to the model's vocabulary and introduce an objective function that shifts probability mass to the [IDK] token for incorrect predictions. This approach allows the model to express uncertainty in its output explicitly. We evaluate our proposed method across multiple model architectures and factual downstream tasks. We find that models trained with our method are able to express uncertainty in places where they would previously make mistakes while suffering only a small loss of encoded knowledge. We further perform extensive ablation studies of multiple variations of our approach and provide a detailed analysis of the precision-recall tradeoff of our method.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as a transformative AI paradigm, profoundly influencing daily life through their exceptional language understanding and contextual generation capabilities. Despite their remarkable performance, LLMs face a critical challenge: the propensity to produce unreliable outputs due to the inherent limitations of their learning-based nature. Formal methods (FMs), on the other hand, are a well-established computation paradigm that provides mathematically rigorous techniques for modeling, specifying, and verifying the correctness of systems. FMs have been extensively applied in mission-critical software engineering, embedded systems, and cybersecurity. However, the primary challenge impeding the deployment of FMs in real-world settings lies in their steep learning curves, the absence of user-friendly interfaces, and issues with efficiency and adaptability. This position paper outlines a roadmap for advancing the next generation of trustworthy AI systems by leveraging the mutual enhancement of LLMs and FMs. First, we illustrate how FMs, including reasoning and certification techniques, can help LLMs generate more reliable and formally certified outputs. Subsequently, we highlight how the advanced learning capabilities and adaptability of LLMs can significantly enhance the usability, efficiency, and scalability of existing FM tools. Finally, we show that unifying these two computation paradigms -- integrating the flexibility and intelligence of LLMs with the rigorous reasoning abilities of FMs -- has transformative potential for the development of trustworthy AI software systems. We acknowledge that this integration has the potential to enhance both the trustworthiness and efficiency of software engineering practices while fostering the development of intelligent FM tools capable of addressing complex yet real-world challenges.

Traditional fixed test sets fall short in evaluating open-ended capabilities of foundation models. To address this, we propose ONEBench(OpeN-Ended Benchmarking), a new testing paradigm that consolidates individual evaluation datasets into a unified, ever-expanding sample pool. ONEBench allows users to generate custom, open-ended evaluation benchmarks from this pool, corresponding to specific capabilities of interest. By aggregating samples across test sets, ONEBench enables the assessment of diverse capabilities beyond those covered by the original test sets, while mitigating overfitting and dataset bias. Most importantly, it frames model evaluation as a collective process of selecting and aggregating sample-level tests. The shift from task-specific benchmarks to ONEBench introduces two challenges: (1)heterogeneity and (2)incompleteness. Heterogeneity refers to the aggregation over diverse metrics, while incompleteness describes comparing models evaluated on different data subsets. To address these challenges, we explore algorithms to aggregate sparse measurements into reliable model scores. Our aggregation algorithm ensures identifiability(asymptotically recovering ground-truth scores) and rapid convergence, enabling accurate model ranking with less data. On homogenous datasets, we show our aggregation algorithm provides rankings that highly correlate with those produced by average scores. We also demonstrate robustness to ~95% of measurements missing, reducing evaluation cost by up to 20x with little-to-no change in model rankings. We introduce ONEBench-LLM for language models and ONEBench-LMM for vision-language models, unifying evaluations across these domains. Overall, we present a technique for open-ended evaluation, which can aggregate over incomplete, heterogeneous sample-level measurements to continually grow a benchmark alongside the rapidly developing foundation models.

The ability of language models to learn a task from a few examples in context has generated substantial interest. Here, we provide a perspective that situates this type of supervised few-shot learning within a much broader spectrum of meta-learned in-context learning. Indeed, we suggest that any distribution of sequences in which context non-trivially decreases loss on subsequent predictions can be interpreted as eliciting a kind of in-context learning. We suggest that this perspective helps to unify the broad set of in-context abilities that language models exhibit $\unicode{x2014}$ such as adapting to tasks from instructions or role play, or extrapolating time series. This perspective also sheds light on potential roots of in-context learning in lower-level processing of linguistic dependencies (e.g. coreference or parallel structures). Finally, taking this perspective highlights the importance of generalization, which we suggest can be studied along several dimensions: not only the ability to learn something novel, but also flexibility in learning from different presentations, and in applying what is learned. We discuss broader connections to past literature in meta-learning and goal-conditioned agents, and other perspectives on learning and adaptation. We close by suggesting that research on in-context learning should consider this broader spectrum of in-context capabilities and types of generalization.

Although Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promising performance in healthcare-related applications, their deployment in the medical domain poses unique challenges of ethical, regulatory, and technical nature. In this study, we employ a systematic participatory approach to investigate the needs and expectations regarding clinical applications of LLMs at Lausanne University Hospital, an academic medical center in Switzerland. Having identified potential LLM use-cases in collaboration with thirty stakeholders, including clinical staff across 11 departments as well nursing and patient representatives, we assess the current feasibility of these use-cases taking into account the regulatory frameworks, data protection regulation, bias, hallucinations, and deployment constraints. This study provides a framework for a participatory approach to identifying institutional needs with respect to introducing advanced technologies into healthcare practice, and a realistic analysis of the technology readiness level of LLMs for medical applications, highlighting the issues that would need to be overcome LLMs in healthcare to be ethical, and regulatory compliant.

Social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram have facilitated the spread of misinformation, necessitating automated detection systems. This systematic review evaluates 36 studies that apply machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) models to detect fake news, spam, and fake accounts on social media. Using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST), the review identified key biases across the ML lifecycle: selection bias due to non-representative sampling, inadequate handling of class imbalance, insufficient linguistic preprocessing (e.g., negations), and inconsistent hyperparameter tuning. Although models such as Support Vector Machines (SVM), Random Forests, and Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks showed strong potential, over-reliance on accuracy as an evaluation metric in imbalanced data settings was a common flaw. The review highlights the need for improved data preprocessing (e.g., resampling techniques), consistent hyperparameter tuning, and the use of appropriate metrics like precision, recall, F1 score, and AUROC. Addressing these limitations can lead to more reliable and generalizable ML/DL models for detecting deceptive content, ultimately contributing to the reduction of misinformation on social media.

Stakeholders -- from model developers to policymakers -- seek to minimize the dual-use risks of large language models (LLMs). An open challenge to this goal is whether technical safeguards can impede the misuse of LLMs, even when models are customizable via fine-tuning or when model weights are fully open. In response, several recent studies have proposed methods to produce durable LLM safeguards for open-weight LLMs that can withstand adversarial modifications of the model's weights via fine-tuning. This holds the promise of raising adversaries' costs even under strong threat models where adversaries can directly fine-tune model weights. However, in this paper, we urge for more careful characterization of the limits of these approaches. Through several case studies, we demonstrate that even evaluating these defenses is exceedingly difficult and can easily mislead audiences into thinking that safeguards are more durable than they really are. We draw lessons from the evaluation pitfalls that we identify and suggest future research carefully cabin claims to more constrained, well-defined, and rigorously examined threat models, which can provide more useful and candid assessments to stakeholders.