The rapid integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) in high-stakes decision-making -- such as allocating scarce resources like donor organs -- raises critical questions about their alignment with human moral values. We systematically evaluate the behavior of several prominent LLMs against human preferences in kidney allocation scenarios and show that LLMs: i) exhibit stark deviations from human values in prioritizing various attributes, and ii) in contrast to humans, LLMs rarely express indecision, opting for deterministic decisions even when alternative indecision mechanisms (e.g., coin flipping) are provided. Nonetheless, we show that low-rank supervised fine-tuning with few samples is often effective in improving both decision consistency and calibrating indecision modeling. These findings illustrate the necessity of explicit alignment strategies for LLMs in moral/ethical domains.

The quality of probabilistic forecasts is crucial for decision-making under uncertainty. While proper scoring rules incentivize truthful reporting of precise forecasts, they fall short when forecasters face epistemic uncertainty about their beliefs, limiting their use in safety-critical domains where decision-makers (DMs) prioritize proper uncertainty management. To address this, we propose a framework for scoring imprecise forecasts -- forecasts given as a set of beliefs. Despite existing impossibility results for deterministic scoring rules, we enable truthful elicitation by drawing connection to social choice theory and introducing a two-way communication framework where DMs first share their aggregation rules (e.g., averaging or min-max) used in downstream decisions for resolving forecast ambiguity. This, in turn, helps forecasters resolve indecision during elicitation. We further show that truthful elicitation of imprecise forecasts is achievable using proper scoring rules randomized over the aggregation procedure. Our approach allows DM to elicit and integrate the forecaster's epistemic uncertainty into their decision-making process, thus improving credibility.

In this work, we address the problem of controlling a classifier's accuracy at any user-specified level through selective classification, regardless of the problem's inherent difficulty. Traditional classification frameworks are designed to approximate the Bayes optimal error rate as closely as possible. However, with the growing deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in automated, high-stakes decision-making, it has become critical to ensure reliable control over a classifier's accuracy and to guarantee accurate predictions for all individuals. When the underlying problem is truly difficult, as indicated by the distance between the true distributions for each decision class, achieving control over the error rate of an automated decisionmaking system may be impossible. This is particularly true when the number of potential classes is large or when the distributions of these classes are close enough, significantly increasing the difficulty of the problem. This phenomenon is illustrated in Figure 1, where the task is to classify various observations as High-Risk or Low-Risk, while maintaining an error rate below 5%. In this example, the High-Risk and Low-Risk classes are modeled as mixtures of two normal distributions with means of 2 and 1, respectively, and a shared variance of 1. The Bayes classifier is represented by the dotted line in the leftmost plot of Figure 1. In this scenario, the Bayes optimal error rate is 15.9%, significantly exceeding our target classification error of 5%.

Interpretability of artificial intelligence (AI) methods, particularly deep neural networks, is of great interest due to the widespread use of AI-backed systems, which often have unexplainable behavior. The interpretability of such models is a crucial component of building trusted systems. Many methods exist to approach this problem, but they do not obviously generalize to the quantum setting. Here we explore the interpretability of quantum neural networks using local model-agnostic interpretability measures of quantum and classical neural networks. We introduce the concept of the band of inexplicability, representing the interpretable region in which data samples have no explanation, likely victims of inherently random quantum measurements. We see this as a step toward understanding how to build responsible and accountable quantum AI models.

In the rising market, you are continuously convinced that a crash is imminent and this is the fuel that makes the market grow, having a lot of people on the wrong side. We are watching it in the latest months, whenever the downturn seems inevitable, the market turns up blindly, no way. If I should rely on my own analysis, I would be a net looser. Luckily, the model seems working nicely, even if with some indecisions. In latest days it has flipped from long position to alerts of an imminent turn, but it has never lost the positive attitude, it was just moving on the edge, and you have to consider that the market is in a never seen before territory. This confirms the ability of the Artificial Intelligence models to manage never seen before events, sometimes better and sometimes with a bit of indecision, but always keeping the correct orientation and pointing towards profit, in our case.

AI systems are often used to make or contribute to important decisions in a growing range of applications, including criminal justice, hiring, and medicine. Since these decisions impact human lives, it is important that the AI systems act in ways which align with human values. Techniques for preference modeling and social choice help researchers learn and aggregate peoples' preferences, which are used to guide AI behavior; thus, it is imperative that these learned preferences are accurate. These techniques often assume that people are willing to express strict preferences over alternatives; which is not true in practice. People are often indecisive, and especially so when their decision has moral implications. The philosophy and psychology literature shows that indecision is a measurable and nuanced behavior -- and that there are several different reasons people are indecisive. This complicates the task of both learning and aggregating preferences, since most of the relevant literature makes restrictive assumptions on the meaning of indecision. We begin to close this gap by formalizing several mathematical \emph{indecision} models based on theories from philosophy, psychology, and economics; these models can be used to describe (indecisive) agent decisions, both when they are allowed to express indecision and when they are not. We test these models using data collected from an online survey where participants choose how to (hypothetically) allocate organs to patients waiting for a transplant.

A classifier is called consistent with respect to a given set of classlabeled points if it correctly classifies the set. We consider classifiers defined by unions of local separators and propose algorithms for consistent classifier reduction. The expected complexities of the proposed algorithms are derived along with the expected classifier sizes. In particular, the proposed approach yields a consistent reduction of the nearest neighbor classifier, which performs "firm" classification, assigning each new object to a class, regardless of the data structure. The proposed reduction method suggests a notion of "soft" classification, allowing for indecision with respect to objects which are insufficiently or ambiguously supported by the data. The performances of the proposed classifiers in predicting stock behavior are compared to that achieved by the nearest neighbor method.

A classifier is called consistent with respect to a given set of classlabeled points if it correctly classifies the set. We consider classifiers defined by unions of local separators and propose algorithms for consistent classifier reduction. The expected complexities of the proposed algorithms are derived along with the expected classifier sizes. In particular, the proposed approach yields a consistent reduction of the nearest neighbor classifier, which performs "firm" classification, assigning each new object to a class, regardless of the data structure. The proposed reduction method suggests a notion of "soft" classification, allowing for indecision with respect to objects which are insufficiently or ambiguously supported by the data. The performances of the proposed classifiers in predicting stock behavior are compared to that achieved by the nearest neighbor method.

A classifier is called consistent with respect to a given set of classlabeled pointsif it correctly classifies the set. We consider classifiers defined by unions of local separators and propose algorithms for consistent classifier reduction. The expected complexities of the proposed algorithms are derived along with the expected classifier sizes. In particular, the proposed approach yields a consistent reduction ofthe nearest neighbor classifier, which performs "firm" classification, assigning each new object to a class, regardless of the data structure. The proposed reduction method suggests a notion of "soft" classification, allowing for indecision with respect to objects which are insufficiently or ambiguously supported by the data. The performances of the proposed classifiers in predicting stockbehavior are compared to that achieved by the nearest neighbor method. 1 Introduction Certain classification problems, such as recognizing the digits of a hand written zipcode, requirethe assignment of each object to a class. Others, involving relatively small amounts of data and high risk, call for indecision until more data become available. Examples in such areas as medical diagnosis, stock trading and radar detection are well known. The training data for the classifier in both cases will correspond to firmly labeled members of the competing classes.