The claim that the AI community, or society at large, should'democratize AI' has attracted considerable critical attention and controversy. Two core problems have arisen and remain unsolved: conceptual disagreement persists about what democratizing AI means; normative disagreement persists over whether democratizing AI is ethically and politically desirable. We identify eight common AI democratization traps: democratization-skeptical arguments that seem plausible at first glance, but turn out to be misconceptions. We develop arguments about how to resist each trap. We conclude that, while AI democratization may well have drawbacks, we should be cautious about dismissing AI democratization prematurely and for the wrong reasons. We offer a constructive roadmap for developing alternative conceptual and normative approaches to democratizing AI that successfully avoid the traps.

In multi-objective learning (MOL), several possibly competing prediction tasks must be solved jointly by a single model. Achieving good trade-offs may require a model class G with larger capacity than what is necessary for solving the individual tasks. This, in turn, increases the statistical cost, as reflected in known MOL bounds that depend on the complexity of G. We show that this cost is unavoidable for some losses, even in an idealized semi-supervised setting, where the learner has access to the Bayes-optimal solutions for the individual tasks as well as the marginal distributions over the covariates. On the other hand, for objectives defined with Bregman losses, we prove that the complexity of G may come into play only in terms of unlabeled data. Concretely, we establish sample complexity upper bounds, showing precisely when and how unlabeled data can significantly alleviate the need for labeled data. This is achieved by a simple pseudo-labeling algorithm.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently demonstrated strong capabilities in code-related tasks, but their robustness in code reasoning under perturbations remains underexplored. We introduce CODECRASH, a stress-testing framework with 1,279 questions from CRUXEVAL and LIVECODEBENCH, designed to evaluate reasoning reliability under structural perturbations and misleading natural language (NL) contexts. Through a systematic evaluation of 17 LLMs, we find that models often shortcut reasoning by over-relying on NL cues, leading to an average performance degradation of 23.2% in output prediction tasks. Even with Chain-of-Thought reasoning, models on average still have a 13.8%drop due to distractibility and rationalization, revealing a lack of critical reasoning capability to distinguish the actual code behaviors. While Large Reasoning Models with internal reasoning mechanisms improve robustness by fostering critical thinking, plausible yet incorrect hints can trigger pathological self-reflection, causing 2 3 times token consumption and even catastrophic cognitive dissonance in extreme cases for QwQ-32B. We refer to this phenomenon as Reasoning Collapse. CODECRASH provides a rigorous benchmark for evaluating robustness in code reasoning, guiding future research and development toward more reliable and resilient models.

We revisit the problem of constructing predictive confidence sets for which we wish to obtain some type of conditional validity. We provide new arguments showing how "split conformal" methods achieve near desired coverage levels with high probability, a guarantee conditional on the validation data rather than marginal over it. In addition, we directly consider (approximate) conditional coverage, where, e.g., conditional on a covariate X belonging to some group of interest, we seek a guarantee that a predictive set covers the true outcome Y. We show that the natural method of performing quantile regression on a held-out (validation) dataset yields minimax optimal guarantees of coverage in these cases. Complementing these positive results, we also provide experimental evidence highlighting work that remains to develop computationally efficient valid predictive inference methods.

We present Text2MBL, a text-to-code generation framework that generates executable Building Information Modeling (BIM) code directly from textual descriptions of modular building layout (MBL) design. Unlike conventional layout generation approaches that operate in 2D space, Text2MBL produces fully parametric, semantically rich BIM layouts through on-the-fly code instantiation. To address MBLs' unique challenges due to their hierarchical three-tier structure: modules (physical building blocks), units (self-contained dwellings), and rooms (functional spaces), we developed an object-oriented code architecture and fine-tuned large language models to output structured action sequences in code format. To train and evaluate the framework, we curated a dataset of paired descriptions and ground truth layouts drawn from real-world modular housing projects. Performance was assessed using metrics for executable validity, semantic fidelity, and geometric consistency. By tightly unifying natural language understanding with BIM code generation, Text2MBL establishes a scalable pipeline from high-level conceptual design to automation-ready modular construction workflows.

Algorithmic fairness has become a central topic in machine learning, and mitigating disparities across different subpopulations has emerged as a rapidly growing research area. In this paper, we systematically study the classification of functional data under fairness constraints, ensuring the disparity level of the classifier is controlled below a pre-specified threshold. We propose a unified framework for fairness-aware functional classification, tackling an infinite-dimensional functional space, addressing key challenges from the absence of density ratios and intractability of posterior probabilities, and discussing unique phenomena in functional classification. We further design a post-processing algorithm Fair Functional Linear Discriminant Analysis classifier (Fair-FLDA), which targets at homoscedastic Gaussian processes and achieves fairness via group-wise thresholding. Under weak structural assumptions on eigenspace, theoretical guarantees on fairness and excess risk controls are established. As a byproduct, our results cover the excess risk control of the standard FLDA as a special case, which, to the best of our knowledge, is first time seen. Our theoretical findings are complemented by extensive numerical experiments on synthetic and real datasets, highlighting the practicality of our designed algorithm.

We prove the first generalization bound for large-margin halfspaces that is asymptotically tight in the tradeoff between the margin, the fraction of training points with the given margin, the failure probability and the number of training points.

Moral judgment is integral to large language models' (LLMs) social reasoning. As multi-agent systems gain prominence, it becomes crucial to understand how LLMs function when collaborating compared to operating as individual agents. In human moral judgment, group deliberation leads to a Utilitarian Boost: a tendency to endorse norm violations that inflict harm but maximize benefits for the greatest number of people. We study whether a similar dynamic emerges in multi-agent LLM systems. We test six models on well-established sets of moral dilemmas across two conditions: (1) Solo, where models reason independently, and (2) Group, where they engage in multi-turn discussions in pairs or triads.

We initiate a systematic investigation of distribution testing in the framework of algorithmic replicability. Specifically, given independent samples from a collection of probability distributions, the goal is to characterize the sample complexity of replicably testing natural properties of the underlying distributions. On the algorithmic front, we develop new replicable algorithms for testing closeness and independence of discrete distributions. On the lower bound front, we develop a new methodology for proving sample complexity lower bounds for replicable testing that may be of broader interest. As an application of our technique, we establish near-optimal sample complexity lower bounds for replicable uniformity testing--answering an open question from prior work--and closeness testing.

In this work, we study $\gamma$-discounted infinite-horizon tabular Markov decision processes (MDPs) and introduce a framework called dynamic policy gradient (DynPG).