For this, we utilize an auxiliary contrastive model with the popular heuristic that biased features are learned preferentially during training.

As Europe's longstanding alliance with the US falters, its push to become a self-sufficient AI superpower has become more urgent. As the relationship between the US and its European allies shows signs of strain, AI labs across the continent are searching for inventive ways to close the gap with American rivals that have so far dominated the field. With rare exceptions, US-based firms outstrip European competitors across the AI production line--from processor design and manufacturing, to datacenter capacity, to model and application development. Likewise, the US has captured a massive proportion of the money pouring into AI, reflected in the performance last year of its homegrown stocks and the growth of its econonmy . The belief in some quarters is that the US-based leaders --Nvidia, Google, Meta, OpenAI, Anthropic, and the like--are already so entrenched as to make it impossible for European nations to break their dependency on American AI, mirroring the pattern in cloud services.

We will highlight where future work can build upon these findings.

In many classification datasets, the task labels are spuriously correlated with some input attributes. Classifiers trained on such datasets often rely on these attributes for prediction, especially when the spurious correlation is high, and thus fail togeneralize whenever there is a shift in the attributes' correlation at deployment. If we assume that the spurious attributes are known a priori, several methods have been proposed to learn a classifier that is invariant to the specified attributes. However, in real-world data, information about spurious attributes is typically unavailable. Therefore, we propose a method that automatically identifies spurious attributes by estimating their causal effect on the label and then uses a regularization objective to mitigate the classifier's reliance on them.

Transformer models have become increasingly popular in financial applications, yet their potential risk making and biases remain under-explored. The purpose of this work is to audit the reliance of the model on volatile data for decision-making, and quantify how the frequency of price movements affects the model's prediction confidence. We employ a transformer model for prediction, and introduce a metric based on Partial Information Decomposition (PID) to measure the influence of each asset on the model's decision making. Our analysis reveals two key observations: first, the model disregards data volatility entirely, and second, it is biased toward data with lower-frequency price movements.

Explanations are often promoted as tools for transparency, but they can also foster confirmation bias; users may assume reasoning is correct whenever outputs appear acceptable. We study this double-edged role of Chain-of-Thought (CoT) explanations in multimodal moral scenarios by systematically perturbing reasoning chains and manipulating delivery tones. Specifically, we analyze reasoning errors in vision language models (VLMs) and how they impact user trust and the ability to detect errors. Our findings reveal two key effects: (1) users often equate trust with outcome agreement, sustaining reliance even when reasoning is flawed, and (2) the confident tone suppresses error detection while maintaining reliance, showing that delivery styles can override correctness. These results highlight how CoT explanations can simultaneously clarify and mislead, underscoring the need for NLP systems to provide explanations that encourage scrutiny and critical thinking rather than blind trust. All code will be released publicly.

REtrieval-Augmented LLM-based Machine Translation (REAL-MT) shows promise for knowledge-intensive tasks like idiomatic translation, but its reliability under noisy retrieval, a common challenge in real-world deployment, remains poorly understood. To address this gap, we propose a noise synthesis framework and new metrics to systematically evaluate REAL-MT's reliability across high-, medium-, and low-resource language pairs. Using both open-and closed-sourced models, including standard LLMs and large reasoning models (LRMs), we find that models heavily rely on retrieved context, and this dependence is significantly more detrimental in low-resource language pairs, producing nonsensical translations. Although LRMs possess enhanced reasoning capabilities, they show no improvement in error correction and are even more susceptible to noise, tending to rationalize incorrect contexts. Attention analysis reveals a shift from the source idiom to noisy content, while confidence increases despite declining accuracy, indicating poor self-monitoring. To mitigate these issues, we investigate training-free and fine-tuning strategies, which improve robustness at the cost of performance in clean contexts, revealing a fundamental trade-off. Our findings highlight the limitations of current approaches, underscoring the need for self-verifying integration mechanisms.

Results averaged over ResNet18 and ResNet50.

Large language models (LLMs) often achieve impressive predictive accuracy, yet correctness alone does not imply genuine understanding. True LLM understanding, analogous to human expertise, requires making consistent, well-founded decisions across multiple instances and diverse domains, relying on relevant and domain-grounded decision factors. We introduce Structured Tabular Decision Simulations (STaDS), a suite of expert-like decision settings that evaluate LLMs as if they were professionals undertaking structured decision ``exams''. In this context, understanding is defined as the ability to identify and rely on the correct decision factors, features that determine outcomes within a domain. STaDS jointly assesses understanding through: (i) question and instruction comprehension, (ii) knowledge-based prediction, and (iii) reliance on relevant decision factors. By analyzing 9 frontier LLMs across 15 diverse decision settings, we find that (a) most models struggle to achieve consistently strong accuracy across diverse domains; (b) models can be accurate yet globally unfaithful, and there are frequent mismatches between stated rationales and factors driving predictions. Our findings highlight the need for global-level understanding evaluation protocols and advocate for novel frameworks that go beyond accuracy to enhance LLMs' understanding ability.