The learnware paradigm aims to enable users to leverage numerous existing well-trained models instead of building machine learning models from scratch.

Context-dependent systems have been widely studied; see Mooij et al.

In the context of modern machine learning, models deployed in real-world scenarios often encounter diverse data shifts like covariate and semantic shifts, leading to challenges in both out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization and detection.

Synthetic data can improve generalization when real data is scarce, but excessive reliance may introduce distributional mismatches that degrade performance. In this paper, we present a learning-theoretic framework to quantify the trade-off between synthetic and real data. Our approach leverages algorithmic stability to derive generalization error bounds, characterizing the optimal synthetic-to-real data ratio that minimizes expected test error as a function of the Wasserstein distance between the real and synthetic distributions. We motivate our framework in the setting of kernel ridge regression with mixed data, offering a detailed analysis that may be of independent interest. Our theory predicts the existence of an optimal ratio, leading to a U-shaped behavior of test error with respect to the proportion of synthetic data. Empirically, we validate this prediction on CIFAR-10 and a clinical brain MRI dataset. Our theory extends to the important scenario of domain adaptation, showing that carefully blending synthetic target data with limited source data can mitigate domain shift and enhance generalization. We conclude with practical guidance for applying our results to both in-domain and out-of-domain scenarios.

Cross-validation is a standard tool for obtaining a honest assessment of the performance of a prediction model. The commonly used version repeatedly splits data, trains the prediction model on the training set, evaluates the model performance on the test set, and averages the model performance across different data splits. A well-known criticism is that such cross-validation procedure does not directly estimate the performance of the particular model recommended for future use. In this paper, we propose a new method to estimate the performance of a model trained on a specific (random) training set. A naive estimator can be obtained by applying the model to a disjoint testing set. Surprisingly, cross-validation estimators computed from other random splits can be used to improve this naive estimator within a random-effects model framework. We develop two estimators -- a hierarchical Bayesian estimator and an empirical Bayes estimator -- that perform similarly to or better than both the conventional cross-validation estimator and the naive single-split estimator. Simulations and a real-data example demonstrate the superior performance of the proposed method.

Large Language Models (LLMs) show promise in medicine but are prone to factual and logical errors, which is unacceptable in this high-stakes field. To address this, we introduce the "Haibu Mathematical-Medical Intelligent Agent" (MMIA), an LLM-driven architecture that ensures reliability through a formally verifiable reasoning process. MMIA recursively breaks down complex medical tasks into atomic, evidence-based steps. This entire reasoning chain is then automatically audited for logical coherence and evidence traceability, similar to theorem proving. A key innovation is MMIA's "bootstrapping" mode, which stores validated reasoning chains as "theorems." Subsequent tasks can then be efficiently solved using Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), shifting from costly first-principles reasoning to a low-cost verification model. We validated MMIA across four healthcare administration domains, including DRG/DIP audits and medical insurance adjudication, using expert-validated benchmarks. Results showed MMIA achieved an error detection rate exceeding 98% with a false positive rate below 1%, significantly outperforming baseline LLMs. Furthermore, the RAG matching mode is projected to reduce average processing costs by approximately 85% as the knowledge base matures. In conclusion, MMIA's verifiable reasoning framework is a significant step toward creating trustworthy, transparent, and cost-effective AI systems, making LLM technology viable for critical applications in medicine.

The integration of large language models (LLMs) into conversational robots has made human-robot conversations more dynamic. Yet, LLM-powered conversational robots remain prone to errors, e.g., misunderstanding user intent, prematurely interrupting users, or failing to respond altogether. Detecting and addressing these failures is critical for preventing conversational breakdowns, avoiding task disruptions, and sustaining user trust. To tackle this problem, the ERR@HRI 2.0 Challenge provides a multimodal dataset of LLM-powered conversational robot failures during human-robot conversations and encourages researchers to benchmark machine learning models designed to detect robot failures. The dataset includes 16 hours of dyadic human-robot interactions, incorporating facial, speech, and head movement features. Each interaction is annotated with the presence or absence of robot errors from the system perspective, and perceived user intention to correct for a mismatch between robot behavior and user expectation. Participants are invited to form teams and develop machine learning models that detect these failures using multimodal data. Submissions will be evaluated using various performance metrics, including detection accuracy and false positive rate. This challenge represents another key step toward improving failure detection in human-robot interaction through social signal analysis.

Logical reasoning is a core capability for large language models (LLMs), yet existing benchmarks that rely solely on final-answer accuracy fail to capture the quality of the reasoning process. To address this, we introduce FineLogic, a fine-grained evaluation framework that assesses logical reasoning across three dimensions: overall accuracy, stepwise soundness, and representation-level probing. Leveraging this framework, we conduct a comprehensive study on how different supervision formats in fine-tuning shape reasoning abilities. We fine-tune LLMs on four supervision styles: one in natural language and three symbolic variants. We find a key trade-off: natural language supervision excels at generalization to out-of-distribution and long-chain problems, whereas symbolic supervision is superior at instilling structurally sound, atomic reasoning steps. Furthermore, our probing analysis indicates that fine-tuning primarily refines the model's step-by-step generation process, rather than improving its ability to converge on an answer early. Together, our framework and analysis provide a more rigorous lens for evaluating and improving logical reasoning in LLMs. The code is available at https://github.com/YujunZhou/FineLogic.