'Lethal cyber-attacks are thankfully rare. But a new AI release could change that.' 'Lethal cyber-attacks are thankfully rare. But a new AI release could change that.' Anthropic's new AI tool has implications for us all - whether we can use it or not Claude Mythos's apparent superhuman hacking abilities are alarming experts as the Trump administration remains blinded by hostility I n June 2024, a cyber-attack on a pathology services company caused chaos across London's hospitals. More than 10,000 appointments were cancelled. Blood shortages followed and delays to blood tests led to a patient's death . Lethal cyber-attacks like this are thankfully rare.

One of the most bitterly contested proofs in modern mathematics may be on the verge of being untangled. Two projects, both aiming to use a computer program to cast new light on the controversy, are now up and running - with one having operated in secret for more than two years already. The developments are a positive sign that the row might find a solution, say mathematicians. The saga began in 2012 when Shinichi Mochizuki at Kyoto University, Japan, claimed to have proved a famous idea called the ABC conjecture, posting a 500-page proof online. The conjecture is simple to state, concerning prime numbers involved in solutions to the equation a + b = c and how these numbers relate to each other.

Education is on the verge of becoming fully automated. William Liu is grateful that he finished high school when he did. If the latest AI tools had been around then, he told me, he might have been tempted to use them to do his homework. Liu, now a sophomore at Stanford, finished high school all the way back in 2024. "I have a younger sibling who is just graduating high school," he said.

Gödel's seminal work directly contradicted one of the great minds of mathematics and limited the field forever Kurt Gödel, the man who ruined mathematics, was one of the most important thinkers of the 20th century. He was born in 1906, smack-bang in the middle of the greatest crisis that maths has ever known. Just a few decades later, he would help resolve this turmoil, but in doing so doom mathematicians to a smaller world than the one that came before. Mathematics, as an intellectual framework, is incredibly powerful. The entire point is taking one set of logical ideas and using them to build another, making maths the closest thing we have to a cognitive perpetual-motion machine - there is always a new mathematical idea lurking across the horizon, and we just need to assemble the steps to get there.

Time-series analysis is often affected by missing data, a common problem across several fields, including healthcare and environmental monitoring. Multiple Imputation by Chained Equations (MICE) has been prominent for imputing missing values through "fully conditional specification". We extend MICE using the Bayesian framework (tBayes-MICE), utilising Bayesian inference to impute missing values via Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling to account for uncertainty in MICE model parameters and imputed values. We also include temporally informed initialisation and time-lagged features in the model to respect the sequential nature of time-series data. We evaluate the tBayes-MICE method using two real-world datasets (AirQuality and PhysioNet), and using both the Random Walk Metropolis (RWM) and the Metropolis-Adjusted Langevin Algorithm (MALA) samplers. Our results demonstrate that tBayes-MICE reduces imputation errors relative to the baseline methods over all variables and accounts for uncertainty in the imputation process, thereby providing a more accurate measure of imputation error. We also found that MALA mixed better than RWM across most variables, achieving comparable accuracy while providing more consistent posterior exploration. Overall, these findings suggest that the tBayes-MICE framework represents a practical and efficient approach to time-series imputation, balancing increased accuracy with meaningful quantification of uncertainty in various environmental and clinical settings.

While both classical and neural network classifiers can achieve high accuracy, they fall short on offering uncertainty bounds on their predictions, making them unfit for safety-critical applications. Existing kernel-based classifiers that provide such bounds scale with $\mathcal O (n^{\sim3})$ in time, making them computationally intractable for large datasets. To address this, we propose a novel, computationally efficient classification algorithm based on the Nadaraya-Watson estimator, for whose estimates we derive frequentist uncertainty intervals. We evaluate our classifier on synthetically generated data and on electrocardiographic heartbeat signals from the MIT-BIH Arrhythmia database. We show that the method achieves competitive accuracy $>$\SI{96}{\percent} at $\mathcal O(n)$ and $\mathcal O(\log n)$ operations, while providing actionable uncertainty bounds. These bounds can, e.g., aid in flagging low-confidence predictions, making them suitable for real-time settings with resource constraints, such as diagnostic monitoring or implantable devices.

Multivariate Hawkes processes are a widely used class of self-exciting point processes, but maximum likelihood estimation naively scales as $O(N^2)$ in the number of events. The canonical linear exponential Hawkes process admits a faster $O(N)$ recurrence, but prior work evaluates this recurrence sequentially, without exploiting parallelization on modern GPUs. We show that the Hawkes process intensity can be expressed as a product of sparse transition matrices admitting a linear-time associative multiply, enabling computation via a parallel prefix scan. This yields a simple yet massively parallelizable algorithm for maximum likelihood estimation of linear exponential Hawkes processes. Our method reduces the computational complexity to approximately $O(N/P)$ with $P$ parallel processors, and naturally yields a batching scheme to maintain constant memory usage, avoiding GPU memory constraints. Importantly, it computes the exact likelihood without any additional assumptions or approximations, preserving the simplicity and interpretability of the model. We demonstrate orders-of-magnitude speedups on simulated and real datasets, scaling to thousands of nodes and tens of millions of events, substantially beyond scales reported in prior work. We provide an open-source PyTorch library implementing our optimizations.

Contextual learning seeks to learn a decision policy that maps an individual's characteristics to an action through data collection. In operations management, such data may come from various sources, and a central question is when data collection can stop while still guaranteeing that the learned policy is sufficiently accurate. We study this question under two precision criteria: a context-wise criterion and an aggregate policy-value criterion. We develop unified stopping rules for contextual learning with unknown sampling variances in both unstructured and structured linear settings. Our approach is based on generalized likelihood ratio (GLR) statistics for pairwise action comparisons. To calibrate the corresponding sequential boundaries, we derive new time-uniform deviation inequalities that directly control the self-normalized GLR evidence and thus avoid the conservativeness caused by decoupling mean and variance uncertainty. Under the Gaussian sampling model, we establish finite-sample precision guarantees for both criteria. Numerical experiments on synthetic instances and two case studies demonstrate that the proposed stopping rules achieve the target precision with substantially fewer samples than benchmark methods. The proposed framework provides a practical way to determine when enough information has been collected in personalized decision problems. It applies across multiple data-collection environments, including historical datasets, simulation models, and real systems, enabling practitioners to reduce unnecessary sampling while maintaining a desired level of decision quality.

High-dimensional variable selection, particularly in genomics, requires error-controlling procedures that scale to millions of predictors. The Terminating-Random Experiments (T-Rex) selector achieves false discovery rate (FDR) control by aggregating results of early terminated random experiments, each combining original predictors with i.i.d. synthetic null variables (dummies). At biobank scales, however, explicit dummy augmentation requires terabytes of memory. We demonstrate that this bottleneck is not fundamental. Formalizing the information flow of forward selection through a filtration, we show that compatible selectors interact with unselected dummies solely through projections onto an adaptively evolving low-dimensional subspace. For rotationally invariant dummy distributions, we derive an adaptive stick-breaking construction sampling these projections from their exact conditional distribution given the selection history, thereby eliminating dummy matrix materialization. We prove a pathwise universality theorem: under mild delocalization conditions, selection paths driven by generic standardized i.i.d. dummies converge to the same Gaussian limit. We instantiate the theory through Virtual Dummy LARS (VD-LARS), reducing memory and runtime by several orders of magnitude while preserving the exact selection law and FDR guarantees of the T-Rex selector. Experiments on realistic genome-wide association study data confirm that VD-T-Rex controls FDR and achieves power at scales where all competing methods either fail or time out.

Supervised machine learning assumes that labeled data provide accurate measurements of the concepts models are meant to learn. Yet in practice, human labeling introduces systematic variation arising from ambiguous items, divergent interpretations, and simple mistakes. Machine learning research commonly treats all disagreement as noise, which obscures these distinctions and limits our understanding of what models actually learn. This paper reframes annotation as a measurement process and introduces a statistical framework for decomposing labeling outcomes into interpretable sources of variation: instance difficulty, annotator bias, situational noise, and relational alignment. The framework extends classical measurement-error models to accommodate both shared and individualized notions of truth, reflecting traditional and human label variation interpretations of error, and provides a diagnostic for assessing which regime better characterizes a given task. Applying the proposed model to a multi-annotator natural language inference dataset, we find empirical evidence for all four theorized components and demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach. We conclude with implications for data-centric machine learning and outline how this approach can guide the development of a more systematic science of labeling.