Quantum hypothesis testing (QHT) has been traditionally studied from the information-theoretic perspective, wherein one is interested in the optimal decay rate of error probabilities as a function of the number of samples of an unknown state. In this paper, we study the sample complexity of QHT, wherein the goal is to determine the minimum number of samples needed to reach a desired error probability. By making use of the wealth of knowledge that already exists in the literature on QHT, we characterize the sample complexity of binary QHT in the symmetric and asymmetric settings, and we provide bounds on the sample complexity of multiple QHT. In more detail, we prove that the sample complexity of symmetric binary QHT depends logarithmically on the inverse error probability and inversely on the negative logarithm of the fidelity. As a counterpart of the quantum Stein's lemma, we also find that the sample complexity of asymmetric binary QHT depends logarithmically on the inverse type II error probability and inversely on the quantum relative entropy, provided that the type II error probability is sufficiently small. We then provide lower and upper bounds on the sample complexity of multiple QHT, with it remaining an intriguing open question to improve these bounds. The final part of our paper outlines and reviews how sample complexity of QHT is relevant to a broad swathe of research areas and can enhance understanding of many fundamental concepts, including quantum algorithms for simulation and search, quantum learning and classification, and foundations of quantum mechanics. As such, we view our paper as an invitation to researchers coming from different communities to study and contribute to the problem of sample complexity of QHT, and we outline a number of open directions for future research.

Large Language Models have recently gained significant attention in scientific discovery for their extensive knowledge and advanced reasoning capabilities. However, they encounter challenges in effectively simulating observational feedback and grounding it with language to propel advancements in physical scientific discovery. Conversely, human scientists undertake scientific discovery by formulating hypotheses, conducting experiments, and revising theories through observational analysis. Inspired by this, we propose to enhance the knowledge-driven, abstract reasoning abilities of LLMs with the computational strength of simulations. We introduce Scientific Generative Agent (SGA), a bilevel optimization framework: LLMs act as knowledgeable and versatile thinkers, proposing scientific hypotheses and reason about discrete components, such as physics equations or molecule structures; meanwhile, simulations function as experimental platforms, providing observational feedback and optimizing via differentiability for continuous parts, such as physical parameters. We conduct extensive experiments to demonstrate our framework's efficacy in constitutive law discovery and molecular design, unveiling novel solutions that differ from conventional human expectations yet remain coherent upon analysis.

Combining different forms of prompts with pre-trained large language models has yielded remarkable results on reasoning tasks (e.g. Chain-of-Thought prompting). However, along with testing on more complex reasoning, these methods also expose problems such as invalid reasoning and fictional reasoning paths. In this paper, we develop \textit{Hypothesis Testing Prompting}, which adds conclusion assumptions, backward reasoning, and fact verification during intermediate reasoning steps. \textit{Hypothesis Testing prompting} involves multiple assumptions and reverses validation of conclusions leading to its unique correct answer. Experiments on two challenging deductive reasoning datasets ProofWriter and RuleTaker show that hypothesis testing prompting not only significantly improves the effect, but also generates a more reasonable and standardized reasoning process.

Interpretability is the study of explaining models in understandable terms to humans. At present, interpretability is divided into two paradigms: the intrinsic paradigm, which believes that only models designed to be explained can be explained, and the post-hoc paradigm, which believes that black-box models can be explained. At the core of this debate is how each paradigm ensures its explanations are faithful, i.e., true to the model's behavior. This is important, as false but convincing explanations lead to unsupported confidence in artificial intelligence (AI), which can be dangerous. This paper's position is that we should think about new paradigms while staying vigilant regarding faithfulness. First, by examining the history of paradigms in science, we see that paradigms are constantly evolving. Then, by examining the current paradigms, we can understand their underlying beliefs, the value they bring, and their limitations. Finally, this paper presents 3 emerging paradigms for interpretability. The first paradigm designs models such that faithfulness can be easily measured. Another optimizes models such that explanations become faithful. The last paradigm proposes to develop models that produce both a prediction and an explanation.

Technological advancements have substantially increased computational power and data availability, enabling the application of powerful machine-learning (ML) techniques across various fields. However, our ability to leverage ML methods for scientific discovery, {\it i.e.} to obtain fundamental and formalized knowledge about natural processes, is still in its infancy. In this review, we explore how the scientific community can increasingly leverage ML techniques to achieve scientific discoveries. We observe that the applicability and opportunity of ML depends strongly on the nature of the problem domain, and whether we have full ({\it e.g.}, turbulence), partial ({\it e.g.}, computational biochemistry), or no ({\it e.g.}, neuroscience) {\it a-priori} knowledge about the governing equations and physical properties of the system. Although challenges remain, principled use of ML is opening up new avenues for fundamental scientific discoveries. Throughout these diverse fields, there is a theme that ML is enabling researchers to embrace complexity in observational data that was previously intractable to classic analysis and numerical investigations.

Two goals - improving replicability and accountability of Machine Learning research respectively, have accrued much attention from the AI ethics and the Machine Learning community. Despite sharing the measures of improving transparency, the two goals are discussed in different registers - replicability registers with scientific reasoning whereas accountability registers with ethical reasoning. Given the existing challenge of the Responsibility Gap - holding Machine Learning scientists accountable for Machine Learning harms due to them being far from sites of application, this paper posits that reconceptualizing replicability can help bridge the gap. Through a shift from model performance replicability to claim replicability, Machine Learning scientists can be held accountable for producing non-replicable claims that are prone to eliciting harm due to misuse and misinterpretation. In this paper, I make the following contributions. First, I define and distinguish two forms of replicability for ML research that can aid constructive conversations around replicability. Second, I formulate an argument for claim-replicability's advantage over model performance replicability in justifying assigning accountability to Machine Learning scientists for producing non-replicable claims and show how it enacts a sense of responsibility that is actionable. In addition, I characterize the implementation of claim replicability as more of a social project than a technical one by discussing its competing epistemological principles, practical implications on Circulating Reference, Interpretative Labor, and research communication.

Fox News correspondent Jonathan Serrie has the latest on the ultrasound and antibodies treatment developed by West Virginia University researchers on'America Reports.' With more people dying from Alzheimer's disease than ever before, experts are emphasizing the importance of early diagnosis and intervention. The number of fatalities due to the disease increased by 141% between 2000 and 2021, according to the 2024 Alzheimer's Disease Facts and Figures report. Also, the number of Americans living with the disease is on the rise as well -- up to 6.9 million and counting. "As older adults -- mostly baby boomers born between 1946 and 1964 -- are the fastest-growing segment of the population, and this same demographic is at the highest risk for Alzheimer's disease and related dementias, it is not entirely surprising that the number of cases continues to grow," Dr. James Galvin, chief of cognitive neurology and director of the Comprehensive Center for Brain Health at The University of Miami Health System, told Fox News Digital.

The sample complexity of simple binary hypothesis testing is the smallest number of i.i.d. samples required to distinguish between two distributions $p$ and $q$ in either: (i) the prior-free setting, with type-I error at most $\alpha$ and type-II error at most $\beta$; or (ii) the Bayesian setting, with Bayes error at most $\delta$ and prior distribution $(\alpha, 1-\alpha)$. This problem has only been studied when $\alpha = \beta$ (prior-free) or $\alpha = 1/2$ (Bayesian), and the sample complexity is known to be characterized by the Hellinger divergence between $p$ and $q$, up to multiplicative constants. In this paper, we derive a formula that characterizes the sample complexity (up to multiplicative constants that are independent of $p$, $q$, and all error parameters) for: (i) all $0 \le \alpha, \beta \le 1/8$ in the prior-free setting; and (ii) all $\delta \le \alpha/4$ in the Bayesian setting. In particular, the formula admits equivalent expressions in terms of certain divergences from the Jensen--Shannon and Hellinger families. The main technical result concerns an $f$-divergence inequality between members of the Jensen--Shannon and Hellinger families, which is proved by a combination of information-theoretic tools and case-by-case analyses. We explore applications of our results to robust and distributed (locally-private and communication-constrained) hypothesis testing.

We present a new framework to address the non-convex robust hypothesis testing problem, wherein the goal is to seek the optimal detector that minimizes the maximum of worst-case type-I and type-II risk functions. The distributional uncertainty sets are constructed to center around the empirical distribution derived from samples based on Sinkhorn discrepancy. Given that the objective involves non-convex, non-smooth probabilistic functions that are often intractable to optimize, existing methods resort to approximations rather than exact solutions. To tackle the challenge, we introduce an exact mixed-integer exponential conic reformulation of the problem, which can be solved into a global optimum with a moderate amount of input data. Subsequently, we propose a convex approximation, demonstrating its superiority over current state-of-the-art methodologies in literature. Furthermore, we establish connections between robust hypothesis testing and regularized formulations of non-robust risk functions, offering insightful interpretations. Our numerical study highlights the satisfactory testing performance and computational efficiency of the proposed framework.

Hypothesis testing is a statistical method used to draw conclusions about populations from sample data, typically represented in tables. With the prevalence of graph representations in real-life applications, hypothesis testing in graphs is gaining importance. In this work, we formalize node, edge, and path hypotheses in attributed graphs. We develop a sampling-based hypothesis testing framework, which can accommodate existing hypothesis-agnostic graph sampling methods. To achieve accurate and efficient sampling, we then propose a Path-Hypothesis-Aware SamplEr, PHASE, an m- dimensional random walk that accounts for the paths specified in a hypothesis. We further optimize its time efficiency and propose PHASEopt. Experiments on real datasets demonstrate the ability of our framework to leverage common graph sampling methods for hypothesis testing, and the superiority of hypothesis-aware sampling in terms of accuracy and time efficiency.