Multi-modal learning has emerged as a key technique for improving performance across domains such as autonomous driving, robotics, and reasoning. However, in certain scenarios, particularly in resource-constrained environments, some modalities available during training may be absent during inference. While existing frameworks effectively utilize multiple data sources during training and enable inference with reduced modalities, they are primarily designed for single-agent settings. This poses a critical limitation in dynamic environments such as connected autonomous vehicles (CAV), where incomplete data coverage can lead to decisionmaking blind spots. Conversely, some works explore multi-agent collaboration but without addressing missing modality at test time. To overcome these limitations, we propose Collaborative Auxiliary Modality Learning (CAML), a novel multi-modal multi-agent framework that enables agents to collaborate and share multi-modal data during training, while allowing inference with reduced modalities during testing. Experimental results in collaborative decision-making for CAV in accident-prone scenarios demonstrate that CAML achieves up to a 58.1%improvement in accident detection.

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.

T The struggle raditional study to of modeling capture social the emer approaches, div gence ersity has and such long comple as rule-based been xity a of central Agent-Based human focus beha in vior Models social, particularly (ABMs), science.

Simpson's paradox poses a challenge in probabilistic inference and decisionmaking. Our study revisits the paradox by re-estimating its frequency with an unbiased data generation process and reaffirms that it is not an artifact of deficient data collection. Thus, it can lead to incorrect recommendations in fields as diverse as statistics, psychology, and artificial intelligence. We show that the paradox can be resolved by assuming a minimal -- though not necessarily observed -- common cause (or screening) variable for the involved random variables. In our approach, conditioning on this minimal common cause establishes the correct association between events, which coincides with the conditioning (i.e., fine-grained) option of the original Simpson paradox. This resolution applies to both discrete cases of binary variables and continuous settings modeled by Gaussian variables. For a non-minimal common cause, the resolution of the paradox is possible, but detailed knowledge of the common cause is required. Our findings extend traditional understandings of the paradox and offer practical guidance for resolving apparent contradictions in probabilistic inference, ultimately enhancing decision-making processes. This point is illustrated by several examples.

Optimal decision-making under partial observability requires agents to balance reducing uncertainty (exploration) against pursuing immediate objectives (exploitation). In this paper, we introduce a novel policy optimization framework for continuous partially observable Markov decision processes (POMDPs) that explicitly addresses this challenge. Our method casts policy learning as probabilistic inference in a non-Markovian Feynman-Kac model that inherently captures the value of information gathering by anticipating future observations, without requiring suboptimal approximations or handcrafted heuristics. To optimize policies under this model, we develop a nested sequential Monte Carlo (SMC) algorithm that efficiently estimates a history-dependent policy gradient under samples from the optimal trajectory distribution induced by the POMDP. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our algorithm across standard continuous POMDP benchmarks, where existing methods struggle to act under uncertainty.

Artificial intelligence (AI) now permeates critical infrastructures and decisionmaking systems where failures produce social, economic, and democratic harm. This position paper challenges the entrenched belief that regulation and innovation are opposites. As evidenced by analogies from aviation, pharmaceuticals, and welfare systems and recent cases of synthetic misinformation, bias and unaccountable decision-making, the absence of well-designed regulation has already created immeasurable damage. Regulation, when thoughtful and adaptive, is not a brake on innovation--it is its foundation. The present position paper examines the EU AIAct as a model of risk-based, responsibility-driven regulation that addresses the Collingridge Dilemma: acting early enough to prevent harm, yet flexibly enough to sustain innovation. Its adaptive mechanisms--regulatory sandboxes, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) support, real-world testing, fundamental rights impact assessment (FRIA)--demonstrate how regulation can accelerate responsibly, rather than delay, technological progress. The position paper summarises how governance tools transform perceived burdens into tangible advantages: legal certainty, consumer trust, and ethical competitiveness.

In pattern classification, efficient uncertainty reasoning plays a critical role, particularly in real-time applications involving noisy data, ambiguous class boundaries, or overlapping categories. Leveraging the advanced computational power of quantum computing, an Adaptive Quantum Circuit for Dempster's Rule of Combination (AQC-DRC) is proposed to address efficient classification under uncertain environments. The AQC-DRC is developed within the framework of quantum evidence theory (QET) and facilitates decision-making based on quantum basic probability and plausibility levels, which is a generalized Bayesian inference method. The AQC-DRC provides a deterministic computation of DRC, ensuring that quantum fusion outcomes in uncertain pattern classification are exactly aligned with those of the classical method, while simultaneously achieving exponential reductions in the computational complexity of evidence combination and significantly improving fusion efficiency. It is founded that the quantum basic probability amplitude function in QET, as a generalized quantum probability amplitude, can be naturally utilized to express the quantum amplitude encoding. In addition, the quantum basic probability in QET, as a generalized quantum probability, naturally forms a quantum basic probability distribution and can be used to represent quantum measurement outcomes for quantum basic probability level decision-making. Furthermore, the quantum plausibility function in QET also can be naturally used to express the quantum measurement outcomes for quantum plausibility level decision-making. These findings enrich the physical understanding of quantum amplitude encoding and quantum measurement outcomes, offering broad application prospects for representing and processing uncertain knowledge in pattern classification.

Language is the dress of thought.

Decision-making across various fields, such as medicine, heavily relies on conditional average treatment effects (CATEs). Practitioners commonly make decisions by checking whether the estimated CATE is positive, even though the decision-making performance of modern CATE estimators is poorly understood from a theoretical perspective. In this paper, we study optimal decision-making based on two-stage CATE estimators (e.g., DR-learner), which are considered state-of-the-art and widely used in practice. We prove that, while such estimators may be optimal for estimating CATE, they can be suboptimal when used for decision-making. Intuitively, this occurs because such estimators prioritize CATE accuracy in regions far away from the decision boundary, which is ultimately irrelevant to decision-making. As a remedy, we propose a novel two-stage learning objective that retargets the CATE to balance CATE estimation error and decision performance. We then propose a neural method that optimizes an adaptively-smoothed approximation of our learning objective. Finally, we confirm the effectiveness of our method both empirically and theoretically. In sum, our work is the first to show how state-of-the-art CATE estimators can be adapted for optimal decision-making.

Quantifying uncertainty in deep regression models is important both for understanding the confidence of the model and for safe decision-making in high-risk domains. Existing approaches that yield prediction intervals overlook distributional information, neglecting the effect of multimodal or asymmetric distributions on decision-making.