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.

This problem is closely related to domain adaptation, and in our case, is motivated by the need to combine clinical and imaging based biomarkers from multiple sites and/or batches - a fairly common impediment in conducting analyses with much larger sample sizes. We address this problem using ideas from hypothesis testing on the transformed measurements, wherein the distortions need to be estimated in tandem with the testing. We derive a simple algorithm and study its convergence and consistency properties in detail, and provide lower-bound strategies based on recent work in continuous optimization. On a dataset of individuals at risk for Alzheimer's disease, our framework is competitive with alternative procedures that are twice as expensive and in some cases operationally infeasible to implement.

Probabilistic graphical models have been widely used to model complex systems and aid scientific discoveries. As a result, there is a large body of literature focused on consistent model selection. However, scientists are often interested in understanding uncertainty associated with the estimated parameters, which current literature has not addressed thoroughly. In this paper, we propose a novel estimator for edge parameters for pairwise graphical models based on Hyvärinen scoring rule. Hyvärinen scoring rule is especially useful in cases where the normalizing constant cannot be obtained efficiently in a closed form.

With the accumulation of data at an unprecedented rate, its potential to fuel scientific discovery is growing exponentially. This position paper urges the Machine Learning (ML) community to exploit the capabilities of large generative models (LGMs) to develop automated systems for end-to-end data-driven discovery -- a paradigm encompassing the search and verification of hypotheses purely from a set of provided datasets, without the need for additional data collection or physical experiments. We first outline several desiderata for an ideal data-driven discovery system. Then, through DATAVOYAGER, a proof-of-concept utilizing GPT-4, we demonstrate how LGMs fulfill several of these desiderata -- a feat previously unattainable -- while also highlighting important limitations in the current system that open up opportunities for novel ML research. We contend that achieving accurate, reliable, and robust end-to-end discovery systems solely through the current capabilities of LGMs is challenging. We instead advocate for fail-proof tool integration, along with active user moderation through feedback mechanisms, to foster data-driven scientific discoveries with efficiency and reproducibility.