Vision language models (VLMs) demonstrate strong capabilities in jointly processing visual and textual data. However, they often incur substantial computational overhead due to redundant visual information, particularly in long-form video scenarios. Existing approaches predominantly focus on either vision token pruning, which may overlook spatio-temporal dependencies, or keyframe selection, which identifies informative frames but discards others, thus disrupting contextual continuity. In this work, we propose KVTP (Keyframe-oriented Vision Token Pruning), a novel framework that overcomes the drawbacks of token pruning and keyframe selection. By adaptively assigning pruning rates based on frame relevance to the query, KVTP effectively retains essential contextual information while significantly reducing redundant computation. To thoroughly evaluate the long-form video understanding capacities of VLMs, we curated and reorganized subsets from VideoMME, EgoSchema, and NextQA into a unified benchmark named SparseKV-QA that highlights real-world scenarios with sparse but crucial events. Our experiments with VLMs of various scales show that KVTP can reduce token usage by 80% without compromising spatiotemporal and contextual consistency, significantly cutting computation while maintaining the performance. These results demonstrate our approach's effectiveness in efficient long-video processing, facilitating more scalable VLM deployment.

AI-assisted decision making becomes increasingly prevalent, yet individuals often fail to utilize AI-based decision aids appropriately especially when the AI explanations are absent, potentially as they do not %understand reflect on AI's decision recommendations critically. Large language models (LLMs), with their exceptional conversational and analytical capabilities, present great opportunities to enhance AI-assisted decision making in the absence of AI explanations by providing natural-language-based analysis of AI's decision recommendation, e.g., how each feature of a decision making task might contribute to the AI recommendation. In this paper, via a randomized experiment, we first show that presenting LLM-powered analysis of each task feature, either sequentially or concurrently, does not significantly improve people's AI-assisted decision performance. To enable decision makers to better leverage LLM-powered analysis, we then propose an algorithmic framework to characterize the effects of LLM-powered analysis on human decisions and dynamically decide which analysis to present. Our evaluation with human subjects shows that this approach effectively improves decision makers' appropriate reliance on AI in AI-assisted decision making.

Large language models have demonstrated impressive performance on challenging mathematical reasoning tasks, which has triggered the discussion of whether the performance is achieved by true reasoning capability or memorization. To investigate this question, prior work has constructed mathematical benchmarks when questions undergo simple perturbations -- modifications that still preserve the underlying reasoning patterns of the solutions. However, no work has explored hard perturbations, which fundamentally change the nature of the problem so that the original solution steps do not apply. To bridge the gap, we construct MATH-P-Simple and MATH-P-Hard via simple perturbation and hard perturbation, respectively. Each consists of 279 perturbed math problems derived from level-5 (hardest) problems in the MATH dataset (Hendrycksmath et. al., 2021). We observe significant performance drops on MATH-P-Hard across various models, including o1-mini (-16.49%) and gemini-2.0-flash-thinking (-12.9%). We also raise concerns about a novel form of memorization where models blindly apply learned problem-solving skills without assessing their applicability to modified contexts. This issue is amplified when using original problems for in-context learning. We call for research efforts to address this challenge, which is critical for developing more robust and reliable reasoning models.

This work studies linear bandits under a new notion of gap-adjusted misspecification and is an extension of Liu et al. (2023). When the underlying reward function is not linear, existing linear bandits work usually relies on a uniform misspecification parameter $\epsilon$ that measures the sup-norm error of the best linear approximation. This results in an unavoidable linear regret whenever $\epsilon > 0$. We propose a more natural model of misspecification which only requires the approximation error at each input $x$ to be proportional to the suboptimality gap at $x$. It captures the intuition that, for optimization problems, near-optimal regions should matter more and we can tolerate larger approximation errors in suboptimal regions. Quite surprisingly, we show that the classical LinUCB algorithm -- designed for the realizable case -- is automatically robust against such $\rho$-gap-adjusted misspecification with parameter $\rho$ diminishing at $O(1/(d \sqrt{\log T}))$. It achieves a near-optimal $O(\sqrt{T})$ regret for problems that the best-known regret is almost linear in time horizon $T$. We further advance this frontier by presenting a novel phased elimination-based algorithm whose gap-adjusted misspecification parameter $\rho = O(1/\sqrt{d})$ does not scale with $T$. This algorithm attains optimal $O(\sqrt{T})$ regret and is deployment-efficient, requiring only $\log T$ batches of exploration. It also enjoys an adaptive $O(\log T)$ regret when a constant suboptimality gap exists. Technically, our proof relies on a novel self-bounding argument that bounds the part of the regret due to misspecification by the regret itself, and a new inductive lemma that limits the misspecification error within the suboptimality gap for all valid actions in each batch selected by G-optimal design.

This article reviews the recent advances on the statistical foundation of reinforcement learning (RL) in the offline and low-adaptive settings. We will start by arguing why offline RL is the appropriate model for almost any real-life ML problems, even if they have nothing to do with the recent AI breakthroughs that use RL. Then we will zoom into two fundamental problems of offline RL: offline policy evaluation (OPE) and offline policy learning (OPL). It may be surprising to people that tight bounds for these problems were not known even for tabular and linear cases until recently. We delineate the differences between worst-case minimax bounds and instance-dependent bounds. We also cover key algorithmic ideas and proof techniques behind near-optimal instance-dependent methods in OPE and OPL. Finally, we discuss the limitations of offline RL and review a burgeoning problem of \emph{low-adaptive exploration} which addresses these limitations by providing a sweet middle ground between offline and online RL.

Model merging is an emerging technique that integrates multiple models fine-tuned on different tasks to create a versatile model that excels in multiple domains. This scheme, in the meantime, may open up backdoor attack opportunities where one single malicious model can jeopardize the integrity of the merged model. Existing works try to demonstrate the risk of such attacks by assuming substantial computational resources, focusing on cases where the attacker can fully fine-tune the pre-trained model. Such an assumption, however, may not be feasible given the increasing size of machine learning models. In practice where resources are limited and the attacker can only employ techniques like Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) to produce the malicious model, it remains unclear whether the attack can still work and pose threats. In this work, we first identify that the attack efficacy is significantly diminished when using LoRA for fine-tuning. Then, we propose LoBAM, a method that yields high attack success rate with minimal training resources. The key idea of LoBAM is to amplify the malicious weights in an intelligent way that effectively enhances the attack efficacy. We demonstrate that our design can lead to improved attack success rate through both theoretical proof and extensive empirical experiments across various model merging scenarios. Moreover, we show that our method has strong stealthiness and is difficult to detect.

Numerical reasoning is pivotal in various artificial intelligence applications, such as natural language processing and recommender systems, where it involves using entities, relations, and attribute values (e.g., weight, length) to infer new factual relations (e.g., the Nile is longer than the Amazon). However, existing approaches encounter two critical challenges in modeling: (1) semantic relevance-the challenge of insufficiently capturing the necessary contextual interactions among entities, relations, and numerical attributes, often resulting in suboptimal inference; and (2) semantic ambiguity-the difficulty in accurately distinguishing ordinal relationships during numerical reasoning, which compromises the generation of high-quality samples and limits the effectiveness of contrastive learning. To address these challenges, we propose the novel Knowledge-Aware Attributes Embedding model (KAAE) for knowledge graph embeddings in numerical reasoning. Specifically, to overcome the challenge of semantic relevance, we introduce a Mixture-of-Experts-Knowledge-Aware (MoEKA) Encoder, designed to integrate the semantics of entities, relations, and numerical attributes into a joint semantic space. To tackle semantic ambiguity, we implement a new ordinal knowledge contrastive learning (OKCL) strategy that generates high-quality ordinal samples from the original data with the aid of ordinal relations, capturing fine-grained semantic nuances essential for accurate numerical reasoning. Experiments on three public benchmark datasets demonstrate the superior performance of KAAE across various attribute value distributions.

Recent advances in AI models have increased the integration of AI-based decision aids into the human decision making process. To fully unlock the potential of AI-assisted decision making, researchers have computationally modeled how humans incorporate AI recommendations into their final decisions, and utilized these models to improve human-AI team performance. Meanwhile, due to the ``black-box'' nature of AI models, providing AI explanations to human decision makers to help them rely on AI recommendations more appropriately has become a common practice. In this paper, we explore whether we can quantitatively model how humans integrate both AI recommendations and explanations into their decision process, and whether this quantitative understanding of human behavior from the learned model can be utilized to manipulate AI explanations, thereby nudging individuals towards making targeted decisions. Our extensive human experiments across various tasks demonstrate that human behavior can be easily influenced by these manipulated explanations towards targeted outcomes, regardless of the intent being adversarial or benign. Furthermore, individuals often fail to detect any anomalies in these explanations, despite their decisions being affected by them.

The safe and effective deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) involves a critical step called alignment, which ensures that the model's responses are in accordance with human preferences. Prevalent alignment techniques, such as DPO, PPO and their variants, align LLMs by changing the pre-trained model weights during a phase called post-training. While predominant, these post-training methods add substantial complexity before LLMs can be deployed. Inference-time alignment methods avoid the complex post-training step and instead bias the generation towards responses that are aligned with human preferences. The best-known inference-time alignment method, called Best-of-N, is as effective as the state-of-the-art post-training procedures. Unfortunately, Best-of-N requires vastly more resources at inference time than standard decoding strategies, which makes it computationally not viable. In this work, we introduce Speculative Rejection, a computationally-viable inference-time alignment algorithm. It generates high-scoring responses according to a given reward model, like Best-of-N does, while being between 16 to 32 times more computationally efficient.

Mobile devices such as smartphones, laptops, and tablets can often connect to multiple access networks (e.g., Wi-Fi, LTE, and 5G) simultaneously. Recent advancements facilitate seamless integration of these connections below the transport layer, enhancing the experience for apps that lack inherent multi-path support. This optimization hinges on dynamically determining the traffic distribution across networks for each device, a process referred to as \textit{multi-access traffic splitting}. This paper introduces \textit{NetworkGym}, a high-fidelity network environment simulator that facilitates generating multiple network traffic flows and multi-access traffic splitting. This simulator facilitates training and evaluating different RL-based solutions for the multi-access traffic splitting problem. Our initial explorations demonstrate that the majority of existing state-of-the-art offline RL algorithms (e.g. CQL) fail to outperform certain hand-crafted heuristic policies on average. This illustrates the urgent need to evaluate offline RL algorithms against a broader range of benchmarks, rather than relying solely on popular ones such as D4RL. We also propose an extension to the TD3+BC algorithm, named Pessimistic TD3 (PTD3), and demonstrate that it outperforms many state-of-the-art offline RL algorithms. PTD3's behavioral constraint mechanism, which relies on value-function pessimism, is theoretically motivated and relatively simple to implement.