Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) often exhibit "failure modes" in which the PDE residual loss converges while the solution error stays large, a phenomenon traditionally blamed on local optima separated from the true solution by steep loss barriers. We challenge this understanding by demonstrate that the real culprit is insufficient arithmetic precision: with standard FP32, the L-BFGS optimizer prematurely satisfies its convergence test, freezing the network in a spurious failure phase. Simply upgrading to FP64 rescues optimization, enabling vanilla PINNs to solve PDEs without any failure modes. These results reframe PINN failure modes as precision-induced stalls rather than inescapable local minima and expose a three-stage training dynamic--un-converged, failure, success--whose boundaries shift with numerical precision. Our findings emphasize that rigorous arithmetic precision is the key to dependable PDE solving with neural networks.

Despite enthusiasm for Multi-Agent LLMSystems (MAS), their performance gains on popular benchmarks are often minimal. This gap highlights a critical need for a principled understanding of why MAS fail. Addressing this question requires systematic identification and analysis of failure patterns. We introduce MAST-Data, a comprehensive dataset of 1600+ annotated traces collected across 7 popular MAS frameworks. MAST-Data is the first multi-agent system dataset to outline the failure dynamics in MAS for guiding the development of better future systems.

Large language model (LLM) benchmarks inform LLM use decisions (e.g., "is this LLM safe to deploy for my use case and context?"). However, benchmarks may be rendered unreliable by various failure modes that impact benchmark bias, variance, coverage, or people's capacity to understand benchmark evidence. Using the National Institute of Standards and Technology's risk management process as a foundation, this research iteratively analyzed 26 popular benchmarks, identifying 57 potential failure modes and 196 corresponding mitigation strategies. The mitigations reduce failure likelihood and/or severity, providing a frame for evaluating "benchmark risk," which is scored to provide a metaevaluation benchmark: BenchRisk. Higher scores indicate that benchmark users are less likely to reach an incorrect or unsupported conclusion about an LLM. All 26 scored benchmarks present significant risk within one or more of the five scored dimensions (comprehensiveness, intelligibility, consistency, correctness, and longevity), which points to important open research directions for the field of LLM benchmarking. The BenchRisk workflow allows for comparison between benchmarks; as an open-source tool, it also facilitates the identification and sharing of risks and their mitigations.

Physics Informed Neural Networks (PINNs) often exhibit "failure modes" in which the PDE residual loss converges while the solution error stays large, a phenomenon traditionally blamed on local optima separated from the true solution by steep loss barriers. We challenge this understanding by demonstrate that the real culprit is insufficient arithmetic precision: with standard FP32, the L BFGS optimizer prematurely satisfies its convergence test, freezing the network in a spurious failure phase. Simply upgrading to FP64 rescues optimization, enabling vanilla PINNs to solve PDEs without any failure modes. These results reframe PINN failure modes as precision induced stalls rather than inescapable local minima and expose a three stage training dynamic--un converged, failure, success--whose boundaries shift with numerical precision. Our findings emphasize that rigorous arithmetic precision is the key to dependable PDE solving with neural networks. Our code is available at Supplementary Material.

Text-to-image (T2I) models are capable of generating visually impressive images, yet they often fail to accurately capture specific attributes in user prompts, such as the correct number of objects with the specified colors. The diversity of such errors underscores the need for a hierarchical evaluation framework that can compare prompt adherence abilities of different image generation models. Simultaneously, benchmarks of vision language models (VLMs) have not kept pace with the complexity of scenes that VLMs are used to annotate. In this work, we propose a structured methodology for jointly evaluating T2I models and VLMs by testing whether VLMs can identify 27 specific failure modes in the images generated by T2I models conditioned on challenging prompts. Our second contribution is a dataset of prompts and images generated by 5 T2I models (Flux, SD3-Medium, SD3-Large, SD3.5-Medium, SD3.5-Large) and the corresponding annotations from VLMs (Molmo, InternVL3, Pixtral) annotated by an LLM (Llama3) to test whether VLMs correctly identify the failure mode in a generated image. By analyzing failure modes on a curated set of prompts, we reveal systematic errors in attribute fidelity and object representation. Our findings suggest that current metrics are insufficient to capture these nuanced errors, highlighting the importance of targeted benchmarks for advancing generative model reliability and interpretability.

Large language model (LLM) benchmarks inform LLM use decisions (e.g., is this LLM safe to deploy for my use case and context?). However, benchmarks may be rendered unreliable by various failure modes impacting benchmark bias, variance, coverage, or people's capacity to understand benchmark evidence. Using the National Institute of Standards and Technology's risk management process as a foundation, this research iteratively analyzed 26 popular benchmarks, identifying 57 potential failure modes and 196 corresponding mitigation strategies. The mitigations reduce failure likelihood and/or severity, providing a frame for evaluating benchmark risk, which is scored to provide a metaevaluation benchmark: BenchRisk. Higher scores indicate benchmark users are less likely to reach an incorrect or unsupported conclusion about an LLM. All 26 scored benchmarks present significant risk within one or more of the five scored dimensions (comprehensiveness, intelligibility, consistency, correctness, and longevity), which points to important open research directions for the field of LLM benchmarking. The BenchRisk workflow allows for comparison between benchmarks; as an open-source tool, it also facilitates the identification and sharing of risks and their mitigations.

These twin requirements have naturally led to two widely used techniques: client/server \emph{momentum} to accelerate progress, and \emph{sharpness-aware minimization} (SAM) to prefer flat solutions. However, simply combining momentum and SAM leaves two structural issues unresolved in non-IID FL. We identify and formalize two failure modes: \emph{local-global curvature misalignment} (local SAM directions need not reflect the global loss geometry) and \emph{momentum-echo oscillation} (late-stage instability caused by accumulated momentum). To our knowledge, these failure modes have not been jointly articulated and addressed in the FL literature. We propose \textbf{FedWMSAM} to address both failure modes. First, we construct a momentum-guided global perturbation from server-aggregated momentum to align clients' SAM directions with the global descent geometry, enabling a \emph{single-backprop} SAM approximation that preserves efficiency.

Despite strong average-case performance, deep learning models often exhibit systematic errors on specific population groups, known as error slices. Identifying these groups and the root causes of their failures is critical for model debugging and bias mitigation. However, existing error Slice Discovery Methods (SDMs) typically generate explanations disconnected from the model's inference process, thus only approximating the underlying error source and may be inaccurate. We address this limitation by leveraging Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs), whose predictions are directly dependent on human-understandable semantic concepts. Since downstream task failures in CBMs commonly arise from concept mispredictions, concept representations provide a strong candidate for error slice identification, offering fine-grained explanations directly linked to the error source. Building on this insight, we introduce CB-SLICE, a concept-based SDM that groups samples with shared concept prediction failures and identifies the keyword concepts most responsible for each slice's failure mode. Across multiple benchmarks, we show that CB-SLICE outperforms state-of-the-art methods in uncovering well-known biases while providing richer and more faithful explanations of model errors.

Modern Artificial Intelligence achieves remarkable predictive power by optimizing statistical risk functionals over vast corpora. Yet a gap separates this from genuine intelligence: the inability to distinguish correlation from causation. This paper argues that causal inference (identifying mechanisms invariant under intervention) is AI's indispensable statistical conscience. Without causal grounding, AI systems are correlation machines: powerful in familiar domains, brittle under distribution shift, and biased in high-stakes settings. Three contributions develop this argument. First, a Statistical Necessity Theorem for Causal Generalization: any algorithm achieving out-of-distribution generalization must encode causal structure, formalizing the distinction between prediction P(Y|X) and intelligence P(Y|do(X)). Second, a unified framework connects Pearl's do-calculus, the Potential Outcomes framework, Double Machine Learning, and Invariant Risk Minimization as a family of Causal Statistical Estimators, each identifying interventional distributions under different assumptions. Third, three AI failure modes (hallucination in large language models, reward hacking in reinforcement learning from human feedback, and degradation under distribution shift) are manifestations of causal blindness, each admitting a principled statistical remedy. Trustworthy AI is, at its core, a problem of causal statistics. The statistical community is not merely equipped to solve it -- it is the only community with the foundational tools to do so rigorously.

A major bottleneck in characterizing the failure modes of generative AI systems is the cost and time of annotation and evaluation. Consequently, adaptive testing paradigms have gained popularity, where one opportunistically decides which cases and how many to annotate based on past results. While this framework is highly practical, its extreme flexibility makes it difficult to draw statistically rigorous conclusions, as it violates classical assumptions: the number of observations is typically limited (often 10 to 50 cases) and decisions regarding sampling and stopping are made in the midst of data collection rather than based a pre-specified rule. To characterize what statistical inferences can be drawn from highly adaptive audits, we introduce a hypothesis testing framework from two 'dueling' perspectives: (i) the model's null that asserts there is no failure mode with performance below a target threshold versus (ii) the auditor's null that asserts they have a sampling strategy that will uncover a failure mode. Leveraging Safe Anytime-Valid Inference (SAVI), we formalize the auditor as conducting 'testing by betting', which translates into simultaneous e-processes for testing the dueling null hypotheses. Furthermore, if the auditor is sufficiently powerful, we prove that these two hypotheses are asymptotically inverses of each other, in that passage of a stringent audit does in fact certify the AI system as being globally robust. Empirically, we demonstrate that our proposed testing procedures maintain anytime-valid type-I error control, outperform pre-specified testing methods, and can reach statistically rigorous conclusions sometimes with as few as 20 observations.