The latent codes from generator are also fed to discriminator which makes encoder only extract object features rather than noises. Wealso devise arefiner forgenerating better complete cloud with a segmentation module to separate the object from background. We train our UGAAN with one real scene dataset and evaluate itwith the other two.

There has been a recent surge of interest in designing Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) for semi-supervised learning tasks. Unfortunately this work has assumed that the nodes labeled for use in training were selected uniformly at random (i.e. are an IID sample). However in many real world scenarios gathering labels for graph nodes is both expensive and inherently biased -- so this assumption can not be met. GNNs can suffer poor generalization when this occurs, by overfitting to superfluous regularities present in the training data. In this work we present a method, Shift-Robust GNN (SR-GNN), designed to account for distributional differences between biased training data and the graph's true inference distribution. SR-GNN adapts GNN models for the presence of distributional shifts between the nodes which have had labels provided for training and the rest of the dataset. We illustrate the effectiveness of SR-GNN in a variety of experiments with biased training datasets on common GNN benchmark datasets for semi-supervised learning, where we see that SR-GNN outperforms other GNN baselines by accuracy, eliminating at least (~40%) of the negative effects introduced by biased training data. On the largest dataset we consider, ogb-arxiv, we observe an 2% absolute improvement over the baseline and reduce 30% of the negative effects.

Simulating human reasoning in open-ended tasks has long been a central aspiration in AI and cognitive science. While large language models now approximate human responses at scale, they remain tuned to population-level consensus, often erasing the individuality of reasoning styles and belief trajectories. To advance the vision of more human-like reasoning in machines, we introduce HugAgent (Human-Grounded Agent Benchmark), which rethinks human reasoning simulation along three dimensions: (i) from averaged to individualized reasoning, (ii) from behavioral mimicry to cognitive alignment, and (iii) from vignette-based to open-ended data. The benchmark evaluates whether a model can predict a specific person's behavioral responses and the underlying reasoning dynamics in out-of-distribution scenarios, given partial evidence of their prior views. HugAgent adopts a dual-track design: a human track that automates and scales the think-aloud method to collect ecologically valid human reasoning data, and a synthetic track for further scalability and systematic stress testing. This architecture enables low-cost, extensible expansion to new tasks and populations. Experiments with state-of-the-art language models reveal persistent adaptation gaps, positioning HugAgent as the first extensible benchmark for aligning machine reasoning with the individuality of human thought. The benchmark, along with its complete data collection pipeline and companion chatbot, is open-sourced as HugAgent (https://anonymous.4open.science/r/HugAgent) and TraceYourThinking (https://anonymous.4open.science/r/trace-your-thinking).

Measuring states in reinforcement learning (RL) can be costly in real-world settings and may negatively influence future outcomes. We introduce the Actively Observable Markov Decision Process (AOMDP), where an agent not only selects control actions but also decides whether to measure the latent state. The measurement action reveals the true latent state but may have a negative delayed effect on the environment. We show that this reduced uncertainty may provably improve sample efficiency and increase the value of the optimal policy despite these costs. We formulate an AOMDP as a periodic partially observable MDP and propose an online RL algorithm based on belief states. To approximate the belief states, we further propose a sequential Monte Carlo method to jointly approximate the posterior of unknown static environment parameters and unobserved latent states. We evaluate the proposed algorithm in a digital health application, where the agent decides when to deliver digital interventions and when to assess users' health status through surveys.

In social media, marketers attempt to influence consumers by using directive language, that is, expressions designed to get consumers to take action. While the literature has shown that directive messages in advertising have mixed results for recipients, we know little about the effects of directive brand language on consumers who see brands interacting with other consumers in social media conversations. On the basis of a field study and three online experiments, this study shows that directive language in brand conversation has a detrimental downstream effect on engagement of consumers who observe such exchanges. Specifically, in line with Goffman's facework theory, because a brand that encourages consumers to react could be perceived as face-threatening, consumers who see a brand interacting with others in a directive way may feel vicarious embarrassment and engage less (compared with a conversation without directive language). In addition, we find that when the conversation is nonproduct-centered (vs. product-centered), consumers expect more freedom, as in mundane conversations, even for others; therefore, directive language has a stronger negative effect. However, in this context, the strength of the brand relationship mitigates this effect. Thus, this study contributes to the literature on directive language and brand-consumer interactions by highlighting the importance of context in interactive communication, with direct relevance for social media and brand management.

Modern AI systems are typically developed through multiple stages-pretraining, fine-tuning rounds, and subsequent adaptation or alignment, where each stage builds on the previous ones and updates the model in distinct ways. This raises a critical question of accountability: when a deployed model succeeds or fails, which stage is responsible, and to what extent? We pose the accountability attribution problem for tracing model behavior back to specific stages of the model development process. To address this challenge, we propose a general framework that answers counterfactual questions about stage effects: how would the model's behavior have changed if the updates from a particular stage had not occurred? Within this framework, we introduce estimators that efficiently quantify stage effects without retraining the model, accounting for both the data and key aspects of model optimization dynamics, including learning rate schedules, momentum, and weight decay. We demonstrate that our approach successfully quantifies the accountability of each stage to the model's behavior. Based on the attribution results, our method can identify and remove spurious correlations learned during image classification and text toxicity detection tasks that were developed across multiple stages. Our approach provides a practical tool for model analysis and represents a significant step toward more accountable AI development.

Structural Causal Explanations (SCEs) can be used to automatically generate explanations in natural language to questions about given data that are grounded in a (possibly learned) causal model. Unfortunately they work for small data only. In turn they are not attractive to offer reasons for events, e.g., tracking causal changes over multiple time steps, or a behavioral component that involves feedback loops through actions of an agent. To this end, we generalize SCEs to a (recursive) formulation of explanation trees to capture the temporal interactions between reasons. We show the benefits of this more general SCE algorithm on synthetic time-series data and a 2D grid game, and further compare it to the base SCE and other existing methods for causal explanations.