论文检索

Position · Methodology

Simone Drago, Marco Mussi, Alberto Maria Metelli

Mainstream research in theoretical RL is currently focused on designing online learning algorithms with regret bounds that match the corresponding regret lower bound up to multiplicative constants (and, sometimes, logarithmic terms). In this position paper, we constructively question this trend, arguing that algorithms should be designed to at least minimize the amount of unnecessary exploration, and we highlight the significant role constants play in algorithms' actual performances. This trend also exacerbates the misalignment between theoretical researchers and practitioners. As an emblematic example, we consider the case of regret minimization in finite-horizon tabular MDPs. Starting from the well-known UCBVI algorithm, we improve the bonus terms and the corresponding regret analysis. Additionally, we compare our version of UCBVI with both its original version and the state-of-the-art MVP algorithm. Our empirical validation successfully demonstrates how improving the multiplicative constants has significant positive effects on the actual empirical performances of the algorithm under analysis. This raises the question of whether ignoring constants when assessing whether algorithms match is the proper approach.

Position · Methodology

Matej Pičulin, Bernarda Petek, Irena Ograjenšek, Erik Štrumbelj

In this position paper, we argue that user studies are key to understanding the value of explainable AI methods, because the end goal of explainable AI is to satisfy societal desiderata. We also argue that the current state of user studies is detrimental to the advancement of the field. We support this argument with a review of general and explainable AI-specific challenges, as well as an analysis of 607 explainable AI papers featuring user studies. We demonstrate how most user studies lack reproducibility, discussion of limitations, comparison with a baseline, or placebo explanations and are of low fidelity to real-world users and application context. This, combined with an overreliance on functional evaluation, results in a lack of understanding of the value explainable AI methods, which hinders the progress of the field. To address this issue, we call for higher methodological standards for user studies, greater appreciation of high-quality user studies in the AI community, and reduced reliance on functional evaluation.

Position · Methodology

Matthew Riemer, Zahra Ashktorab, Djallel Bouneffouf, Payel Das, Miao Liu, Justin Weisz, Murray Campbell

Our paper argues that the majority of theory of mind benchmarks are broken because of their inability to directly test how large language models (LLMs) adapt to new partners. This problem stems from the fact that theory of mind benchmarks for LLMs are overwhelmingly inspired by the methods used to test theory of mind in humans and fall victim to a fallacy of attributing human-like qualities to AI agents. We expect that humans will engage in a consistent reasoning process across various questions about a situation, but this is known to not be the case for current LLMs. Most theory of mind benchmarks only measure what we call *literal theory of mind*: the ability to predict the behavior of others. However, this type of metric is only informative when agents exhibit self-consistent reasoning. Thus, we introduce the concept of *functional theory of mind*: the ability to adapt to agents in-context following a rational response to their behavior. We find that many open source LLMs are capable of displaying strong literal theory of mind capabilities, but seem to struggle with functional theory of mind -- even with exceedingly simple partner policies. Simply put, strong literal theory of mind performance does not necessarily imply strong functional theory of mind performance or vice versa. Achieving functional theory of mind, particularly over long interaction horizons with a partner, is a significant challenge deserving a prominent role in any meaningful LLM theory of mind evaluation.

Position · Methodology

Ossi Räisä, Boris van Breugel, Mihaela van der Schaar

Any method's development and practical application is limited by our ability to measure its reliability. The popularity of generative modeling emphasizes the importance of good synthetic data metrics. Unfortunately, previous works have found many failure cases in current metrics, for example lack of outlier robustness and unclear lower and upper bounds. We propose a list of desiderata for synthetic data metrics, and a suite of sanity checks: carefully chosen simple experiments that aim to detect specific and known generative modeling failure modes. Based on these desiderata and the results of our checks, we arrive at our position: all current generative fidelity and diversity metrics are flawed. This significantly hinders practical use of synthetic data. Our aim is to convince the research community to spend more effort in developing metrics, instead of models. Additionally, through analyzing how current metrics fail, we provide practitioners with guidelines on how these metrics should (not) be used.

Position · Methodology

Patrik Reizinger, Randall Balestriero, David Klindt, Wieland Brendel

Self-Supervised Learning (SSL) powers many current AI systems. As research interest and investment grow, the SSL design space continues to expand. The Platonic view of SSL, following the Platonic Representation Hypothesis (PRH), suggests that despite different methods and engineering approaches, all representations converge to the same Platonic ideal. However, this phenomenon lacks precise theoretical explanation. By synthesizing evidence from Identifiability Theory (IT), we show that the PRH can emerge in SSL. There is a gap between SSL theory and practice: Current IT cannot explain SSL's empirical success, though it has practically relevant insights. Our work formulates a blueprint for SSL research to bridge this gap: we propose expanding IT into what we term Singular Identifiability Theory (SITh), a broader theoretical framework encompassing the entire SSL pipeline. SITh would allow deeper insights into the implicit data assumptions in SSL and advance the field towards learning more interpretable and generalizable representations. We highlight three critical directions for future research: 1) training dynamics and convergence properties of SSL; 2) the impact of finite samples, batch size, and data diversity; and 3) the role of inductive biases in architecture, augmentations, initialization schemes, and optimizers.

Position · Methodology

Kaiyu Yang, Gabriel Poesia, Jingxuan He, Wenda Li, Kristin Lauter, Swarat Chaudhuri, Dawn Song

AI for Mathematics (AI4Math) is intellectually intriguing and is crucial for AI-driven system design and verification. Extensive efforts on AI4Math have mirrored techniques in NLP, in particular, training large language models on carefully curated math datasets in text form. As a complementary yet less explored avenue, formal mathematical reasoning is grounded in formal systems such as proof assistants, which can verify the correctness of reasoning and provide automatic feedback. This position paper advocates formal mathematical reasoning as an indispensable component in future AI for math, formal verification, and verifiable generation. We summarize existing progress, discuss open challenges, and envision critical milestones to measure future success.

Position · Methodology

Yuhe Guo, Huayi Tang, Jiahong Ma, Hongteng Xu, Zhewei Wei

Spectral graph learning builds upon two foundations: Graph Fourier basis as its theoretical cornerstone,with polynomial approximation to enable practical implementation. While this framework has led to numerous successful designs, we argue that its effectiveness might stem from mechanisms different from its theoretical foundations. In this paper, we identify two fundamental issues that challenge our current understanding: (1) The graph Fourier basis $\mathbf{U}$ (eigenvectors of the normalized graph Laplacian) faces too many questions to truly serve its intended role, particularly in preserving its semantic properties of Fourier analysis; (2) The limitations preventing expressive filters are not merely practical constraints, but fundamental barriers that naturally protect stability and generalization. Importantly, the two issues entangle with each other. The second obscured the first: the natural avoidance of complex filters has prevented us from fully confronting the questions about $\mathbf{U}$'s role as a Fourier basis. This observation leads to our position: the effectiveness of spectral GNNs relies less on Graph Fourier basis than originally conceived, or, in other words, **spectral GNNs might not be so spectral**. The position leads us to at least two potential research interests: to incorporate a more semantically meaningful graph dictionary except for $\mathbf{U}$, and to re-examine the theoretical role of the introduced polynomial techniques.

Position · Methodology

Michael Kirchhof, Gjergji Kasneci, Enkelejda Kasneci

Large-language models (LLMs) and chatbot agents are known to provide wrong outputs at times, and it was recently found that this can never be fully prevented. Hence, uncertainty quantification plays a crucial role, aiming to quantify the level of ambiguity in either one overall number or two numbers for aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty. This position paper argues that this traditional dichotomy of uncertainties is too limited for the open and interactive setup that LLM agents operate in when communicating with a user, and that we need to research avenues that enrich uncertainties in this novel scenario. We review the literature and find that popular definitions of aleatoric and epistemic uncertainties directly contradict each other and lose their meaning in interactive LLM agent settings. Hence, we propose three novel research directions that focus on uncertainties in such human-computer interactions: Underspecification uncertainties, for when users do not provide all information or define the exact task at the first go, interactive learning, to ask follow-up questions and reduce the uncertainty about the current context, and output uncertainties, to utilize the rich language and speech space to express uncertainties as more than mere numbers. We expect that these new ways of dealing with and communicating uncertainties will lead to LLM agent interactions that are more transparent, trustworthy, and intuitive.

Position · Methodology

Yan Zhuang, Qi Liu, Zachary Pardos, Patrick Kyllonen, Jiyun Zu, Zhenya Huang, Shijin Wang, Enhong Chen

As AI systems continue to evolve, their rigorous evaluation becomes crucial for their development and deployment. Researchers have constructed various large-scale benchmarks to determine their capabilities, typically against a gold-standard test set and report metrics averaged across all items. However, this static evaluation paradigm increasingly shows its limitations, including high evaluation costs, data contamination, and the impact of low-quality or erroneous items on evaluation reliability and efficiency. In this Position, drawing from human psychometrics, we discuss a paradigm shift from static evaluation methods to adaptive testing. This involves estimating the characteristics or value of each test item in the benchmark, and tailoring each model's evaluation instead of relying on a fixed test set. This paradigm provides robust ability estimation, uncovering the latent traits underlying a model’s observed scores. This position paper analyze the current possibilities, prospects, and reasons for adopting psychometrics in AI evaluation. We argue that *psychometrics, a theory originating in the 20th century for human assessment, could be a powerful solution to the challenges in today's AI evaluations*.

Position · Methodology

Seungwook Han, Jyothish Pari, Samuel Gershman, Pulkit Agrawal

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive real-world utility, exemplifying artificial useful intelligence (AUI). However, their ability to reason adaptively and robustly -- the hallmarks of artificial general intelligence (AGI) -- remains fragile. While LLMs seemingly succeed in commonsense reasoning, programming, and mathematics, they struggle to generalize algorithmic understanding across novel contexts. Our experiments with algorithmic tasks in esoteric programming languages reveal that LLM's reasoning overfits to the training data and is limited in its transferability. We hypothesize that the core issue underlying such limited transferability is the coupling of reasoning and knowledge in LLMs. To transition from AUI to AGI, we propose disentangling knowledge and reasoning through three key directions: (1) pretaining to reason using RL from scratch as an alternative to the widely used next-token prediction pretraining, (2) using a curriculum of synthetic tasks to ease the learning of a \textit{reasoning prior} for RL that can then be transferred to natural language tasks, and (3) learning more generalizable reasoning functions using a small context window to reduce exploiting spurious correlations between tokens. Such a reasoning system coupled with a trained retrieval system and a large external memory bank as a knowledge store can overcome several limitations of existing architectures at learning to reason in novel scenarios.

Position · Methodology

Alan Jeffares, Mihaela van der Schaar

Developing a better understanding of surprising or counterintuitive phenomena has constituted a significant portion of deep learning research in recent years. These include double descent, grokking, and the lottery ticket hypothesis -- among many others. Works in this area often develop *ad hoc hypotheses* attempting to explain these observed phenomena on an isolated, case-by-case basis. This position paper asserts that, in many prominent cases, there is little evidence to suggest that these phenomena appear in real-world applications and these efforts may be inefficient in driving progress in the broader field. Consequently, we argue against viewing them as isolated puzzles that require bespoke resolutions or explanations. However, despite this, we suggest that deep learning phenomena *do* still offer research value by providing unique settings in which we can refine our *broad explanatory theories* of more general deep learning principles. This position is reinforced by analyzing the research outcomes of several prominent examples of these phenomena from the recent literature. We revisit the current norms in the research community in approaching these problems and propose practical recommendations for future research, aiming to ensure that progress on deep learning phenomena is well aligned with the ultimate pragmatic goal of progress in the broader field of deep learning.

Position · Methodology

Yedi Zhang, Yufan Cai, Xinyue Zuo, Xiaokun Luan, Kailong Wang, Zhe Hou, Yifan Zhang, Zhiyuan Wei, Meng Sun, Jun Sun 等

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as a transformative AI paradigm, profoundly influencing broad aspects of daily life. Despite their remarkable performance, LLMs exhibit a fundamental limitation: hallucination—the tendency to produce misleading outputs that appear plausible. This inherent unreliability poses significant risks, particularly in high-stakes domains where trustworthiness is essential.On the other hand, Formal Methods (FMs), which share foundations with symbolic AI, provide mathematically rigorous techniques for modeling, specifying, reasoning, and verifying the correctness of systems. These methods have been widely employed in mission-critical domains such as aerospace, defense, and cybersecurity. However, the broader adoption of FMs remains constrained by significant challenges, including steep learning curves, limited scalability, and difficulties in adapting to the dynamic requirements of daily applications.To build trustworthy AI agents, we argue that the integration of LLMs and FMs is necessary to overcome the limitations of both paradigms. LLMs offer adaptability and human-like reasoning but lack formal guarantees of correctness and reliability. FMs provide rigor but need enhanced accessibility and automation to support broader adoption from LLMs.

Position · Methodology

Yucen Li, Daohan Lu, Polina Kirichenko, Shikai Qiu, Tim G. J. Rudner, C. Bayan Bruss, Andrew Wilson

To detect distribution shifts and improve model safety, many out-of-distribution (OOD) detection methods rely on the predictive uncertainty or features of supervised models trained on in-distribution data. In this position paper, we critically re-examine this popular family of OOD detection procedures, and we argue that these methods are fundamentally answering the wrong questions for OOD detection. There is no simple fix to this misalignment, since a classifier trained only on in-distribution classes cannot be expected to identify OOD points; for instance, a cat-dog classifier may confidently misclassify an airplane if it contains features that distinguish cats from dogs, despite generally appearing nothing alike. We find that uncertainty-based methods incorrectly conflate high uncertainty with being OOD, while feature-based methods incorrectly conflate far feature-space distance with being OOD. We show how these pathologies manifest as irreducible errors in OOD detection and identify common settings where these methods are ineffective. Additionally, interventions to improve OOD detection such as feature-logit hybrid methods, scaling of model and data size, epistemic uncertainty representation, and outlier exposure also fail to address this fundamental misalignment in objectives.

Position · Methodology

Giovanni Luca Marchetti, Vahid Shahverdi, Stefano Mereta, Matthew Trager, Kathlén Kohn

In this position paper, we promote the study of function spaces parameterized by machine learning models through the lens of algebraic geometry. To this end, we focus on algebraic models, such as neural networks with polynomial activations, whose associated function spaces are semi-algebraic varieties. We outline a dictionary between algebro-geometric invariants of these varieties, such as dimension, degree, and singularities, and fundamental aspects of machine learning, such as sample complexity, expressivity, training dynamics, and implicit bias. Along the way, we review the literature and discuss ideas beyond the algebraic domain. This work lays the foundations of a research direction bridging algebraic geometry and deep learning, that we refer to as neuroalgebraic geometry.

Deep Learning · Large Language Models

Yang Yu, Kai Han, Hang Zhou, Yehui Tang, Kaiqi Huang, Yunhe Wang, Dacheng Tao

While large-scale training data is fundamental for developing capable large language models (LLMs), strategically selecting high-quality data has emerged as a critical approach to enhance training efficiency and reduce computational costs. Current data selection methodologies predominantly rely on static, training-agnostic criteria, failing to account for the dynamic model training and data interactions. In this paper, we propose a new Data Weighting Model (DWM) to adjust the weight of selected data within each batch to achieve a dynamic data utilization during LLM training. Specially, to better capture the dynamic data preference of the trained model, a bi-level optimization framework is implemented to update the weighting model. Our experiments demonstrate that DWM enhances the performance of models trained with randomly-selected data, and the learned weighting model can be transferred to enhance other data selection methods and models of different sizes. Moreover, we further analyze how a model’s data preferences evolve throughout training, providing new insights into the data preference of the model during training.

Position · Methodology

Yoonsoo Nam, Seok Hyeong Lee, Clémentine Dominé, Yeachan Park, Charles London, Wonyl Choi, Niclas Göring, Seungjai Lee

In physics, complex systems are often simplified into minimal, solvable models that retain only the core principles. In machine learning, layerwise linear models (e.g., linear neural networks) act as simplified representations of neural network dynamics. These models follow the dynamical feedback principle, which describes how layers mutually govern and amplify each other's evolution. This principle extends beyond the simplified models, successfully explaining a wide range of dynamical phenomena in deep neural networks, including neural collapse, emergence, lazy and rich regimes, and grokking. In this position paper, we call for the use of layerwise linear models retaining the core principles of neural dynamical phenomena to accelerate the science of deep learning.

Position · Methodology

Abeer Badawi, Md Tahmid Rahman Laskar, Jimmy Huang, Shaina Raza, Elham Dolatabadi

This position paper argues for a fundamental shift in how Large Language Models (LLMs) are integrated into the mental health care domain. We advocate for their role as co-creators rather than mere assistive tools. While LLMs have the potential to enhance accessibility, personalization, and crisis intervention, their adoption remains limited due to concerns about bias, evaluation, over-reliance, dehumanization, and regulatory uncertainties. To address these challenges, we propose two structured pathways: SAFE-i (Supportive, Adaptive, Fair, and Ethical Implementation) Guidelines for ethical and responsible deployment, and HAAS-e (Human-AI Alignment and Safety Evaluation) Framework for multidimensional, human-centered assessment. SAFE-i provides a blueprint for data governance, adaptive model engineering, and real-world integration, ensuring LLMs align with clinical and ethical standards. HAAS-e introduces evaluation metrics that go beyond technical accuracy to measure trustworthiness, empathy, cultural sensitivity, and actionability. We call for the adoption of these structured approaches to establish a responsible and scalable model for LLM-driven mental health support, ensuring that AI complements—rather than replaces—human expertise.

Position · Methodology

Oliver Eberle, Thomas McGee, Hamza Giaffar, Taylor Webb, Ida Momennejad

What algorithms do LLMs actually learn and use to solve problems? Studies addressing this question are sparse, as research priorities are focused on improving performance through scale, leaving a theoretical and empirical gap in understanding emergent algorithms. This position paper proposes AlgEval: a framework for systematic research into the algorithms that LLMs learn and use. AlgEval aims to uncover algorithmic primitives, reflected in latent representations, attention, and inference-time compute, and their algorithmic composition to solve task-specific problems. We highlight potential methodological paths and a case study toward this goal, focusing on emergent search algorithms. Our case study illustrates both the formation of top-down hypotheses about candidate algorithms, and bottom-up tests of these hypotheses via circuit-level analysis of attention patterns and hidden states. The rigorous, systematic evaluation of how LLMs actually solve tasks provides an alternative to resource-intensive scaling, reorienting the field toward a principled understanding of underlying computations. Such algorithmic explanations offer a pathway to human-understandable interpretability, enabling comprehension of the model's internal reasoning performance measures. This can in turn lead to more sample-efficient methods for training and improving performance, as well as novel architectures for end-to-end and multi-agent systems.

Position · Methodology

Jacy Anthis, Ryan Liu, Sean Richardson, Austin Kozlowski, Bernard Koch, Erik Brynjolfsson, James Evans, Michael Bernstein

Accurate and verifiable large language model (LLM) simulations of human research subjects promise an accessible data source for understanding human behavior and training new AI systems. However, results to date have been limited, and few social scientists have adopted this method. In this position paper, we argue that the promise of LLM social simulations can be achieved by addressing five tractable challenges. We ground our argument in a review of empirical comparisons between LLMs and human research subjects, commentaries on the topic, and related work. We identify promising directions, including context-rich prompting and fine-tuning with social science datasets. We believe that LLM social simulations can already be used for pilot and exploratory studies, and more widespread use may soon be possible with rapidly advancing LLM capabilities. Researchers should prioritize developing conceptual models and iterative evaluations to make the best use of new AI systems.

Position · Methodology

Yunke Wang, Yanxi Li, Chang Xu

AI Scaling has traditionally been synonymous with Scaling Up, which builds larger and more powerful models. However, the growing demand for efficiency, adaptability, and collaboration across diverse applications necessitates a broader perspective. This position paper presents a holistic framework for AI scaling, encompassing Scaling Up, Scaling Down, and Scaling Out. It argues that while Scaling Up of models faces inherent bottlenecks, the future trajectory of AI scaling lies in Scaling Down and Scaling Out. These paradigms address critical technical and societal challenges, such as reducing carbon footprint, ensuring equitable access, and enhancing cross-domain collaboration. We explore transformative applications in healthcare, smart manufacturing, and content creation, demonstrating how AI Scaling can enable breakthroughs in efficiency, personalization, and global connectivity. Additionally, we highlight key challenges, including balancing model complexity with interpretability, managing resource constraints, and fostering ethical development. By synthesizing these approaches, we propose a unified roadmap that redefines the future of AI research and application, paving the way for advancements toward Artificial General Intelligence (AGI).