Assumptions

In both cognitive science and computer science, goals are conceptualized as cognitive states that flexibly combine with world knowledge to organize and specify purposeful behavior. In this way, goals are compositional representations whose content relates to rational behavior. We here draw attention to goals as representations and their content because it highlights a parallel with other areas in cognitive science - in particular, the syntax-semantics interface in linguistics and logic - while also foregrounding foundational questions about the expressivity, design, and efficiency of different goal representations. For example, goals are typically taken as fixed and imposing constraints on desirable behaviors, but we can also identify constraints on goal representations themselves, such as whether a particular goal language is sufficiently expressive to capture behaviors of interest, or whether different goal representations capture the same behavior. Here, we synthesize work that aims to characterize the properties of different goal representations and suggest these are points of a broader design space. We close by discussing how distinguishing the form and meaning of goals can elucidate the implicit assumptions we make about goals, inform the study of interactions between higher-level cognition and motivation, and isolate axes of variation for different conceptions of goals.

False-presupposition QA (FPQA) tests LLMs on their ability to identify false presuppositions in questions and abstain or correct them rather than reinforcing false assumptions. The common approach reduces the task to prompting LLMs to extract presuppositions and fact checking each presupposition. While the performance on dedicated benchmarks keeps improving, evaluation largely focuses on questions with false presuppositions (FPQs) while ignoring the performance on ``normal'' questions (TPQs). Since many benchmarks over-represent FPQs compared to their natural occurrence, the result is that performance on these benchmarks doesn't reflect real-world QA performance. Through extensive experiments across various model families, sizes, and benchmarks, we show that methods that perform better on FPQs tend to perform worse on TPQs. Our analysis reveals this is the result of weak fact checking modules that reject also true presuppositions. We hope our findings will help guide future work toward FPQA methods that generalize well to realistic settings.

Language models often complete an underspecified reference to a city with unstated assumptions about urban size, form, infrastructure, environment, and function. We measure those assumptions without naming places. Ten open-weight checkpoints rate anonymized profiles derived from real morphological urban centres across 40 audited indicators and seven domains. The design combines constrained probability-based ratings, prespecified reliability screens, lineage-aware aggregation, multiple population weightings, an independent replication sample, and whole-profile validation. The clearest shared tendency favours urban profiles with larger developed area, faster recent growth, greater mapped infrastructure and non-residential capacity, and less sparse form. Most eligible directions recur in the replication data, and direct ratings of complete profiles show moderate agreement with the indicator-wise construction. Geographic differences shrink after accounting for city scale and development, while reliably measured paired tasks indicate that typicality and desirability are often closely aligned. The framework makes an otherwise vague notion of what models regard as an ordinary city empirically traceable. The resulting evidence delineates a shared yet model-dependent portrait of the city through the lens of language models.

Medical imaging has served as primary proving ground for clinical artificial intelligence (AI), yet a decade of intense research has not translated into proportionate bedside impact. We argue that this gap is not primarily a product of insufficient algorithmic performance, inadequate regulation, or limited explainability. Rather, it reflects a structural misalignment, between how AI systems are designed and evaluated, and how clinical decisions are made. This Perspective identifies six interconnected dimensions of this misalignment: the dominance of pixel-only models in a multimodal clinical world; the erosion of physician trust through opaque and inflexible systems; the unfulfilled promise of foundation models in data-sparse medical domains; the persistent bottleneck of non-shareable, under-curated datasets; the gap between validated algorithms and deployable clinical platforms; and the failure of prediction-centric AI to generate actionable clinical guidance. For each dimension, we reframe the problem and propose a path forward, culminating in a vision of agentic, physician-aligned AI that extends, rather than replaces, clinical judgment.

What types of decision problems can a causally masked, finite-precision transformer solve for inputs of arbitrary length? Existing answers often rely on idealized arithmetic, but under finite precision, rounding and evaluation order can change what information attention retains and therefore what the model can compute. We develop an algebraic formalization that derives expressivity directly from the model's implemented dynamics. Its central object is its memory; the finite internal state computed by attention that summarizes the information from the prefix available to all future queries. Each attention head updates its own state independently within a layer, while layers compose hierarchically, providing a uniform route from model assumptions to expressivity bounds. Applying this method to transformers without positional embeddings, we obtain an expressivity hierarchy governed by the attention type under specific numerical semantics. Width-one sliding-window attention supports bounded-suffix memory, while a modified form of soft attention supports irreversible, checklist-like state, and combining the two mechanisms provides an interplay of both. Ordinary left-to-right floating-point soft attention can realize more expressive memory operations than any of the above. Algebraically, the four cases correspond to definite, R-trivial, locally R-trivial, and aperiodic semigroups. Under an explicit free-wiring assumption, all four bounds are tight.

Large language models (LLMs) generate code from natural-language prompts, yet real-world prompts rarely provide complete specifications. When prompts leave input formats, error handling, or design decisions unspecified, LLMs fill these gaps with implicit assumptions that shape the generated code's behavior and correctness. Because these assumptions remain hidden, generated code may satisfy tests while violating developer intent. We present AssumptionMiner, a framework that makes implicit assumptions a first-class artifact of LLM-based code generation. In addition to code, AssumptionMiner produces an explicit assumption layer, a structured representation of inferred constraints and design decisions that developers can inspect, confirm, or revise. An AST-based dependency graph enables targeted regeneration of only the code affected by a revised assumption. We also introduce a benchmark of 180 ambiguous programming tasks with 676 annotated assumptions, including a human-verified subset for evaluating code localization. We evaluate assumption extraction, code localization, and assumption-guided regeneration. Across open-source LLMs, a confidence-weighted ensemble achieves an F1 score of 0.816 for assumption extraction, improving on the strongest offline baseline by 3.6x. On the human-verified localization benchmark, AST-guided localization identifies more precise code regions than keyword-based and whole-file baselines. During assumption revision, targeted regeneration modifies less code than non-targeted alternatives while exposing challenges in handling cascading edits. These results demonstrate that making assumptions explicit improves the transparency and controllability of LLM-based code generation.

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical programs written in Python. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python programs into verification-oriented WhyML representations suitable for formal verification, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable users to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correctness of Python programs for hypothesis testing and for meta-analyses.

Large Language Models (LLMs) inference is typically deployed under a static resource assumption, where models execute a fixed computational graph regardless of the runtime environment. However, real-world cloud infrastructure is inherently dynamic, characterized by fluctuating availability (e.g., spot instance preemption) and tiered Quality-of-Service requirements. In such volatile settings, static models are inflexible: they either crash under resource constraints or waste compute on redundant operations. To bridge this gap, we propose Learning to Allocate (L2A), an end-to-end framework for resource-adaptive inference. Unlike prior methods that condition only on input difficulty, we formulate inference as a constrained allocation problem conditioned on both the input and the runtime resource budget itself. We introduce lightweight, budget-conditioned and input-aware gating networks integrated into the LLM. These gates are trained via a unified objective that jointly optimizes task performance, logical consistency, and resource costs along three axes matching how real-world dynamics manifest: layer skipping for memory and depth pressure, head pruning for throughput contention, and reasoning-token reduction for latency tightening. This lets the model learn a budget-aware policy beyond input difficulty alone: it adaptively configures its computational footprint with respect to real-time resource dynamics, maximizing reasoning depth when resources permit while enforcing strict frugality when budgets tighten. A single L2A model traces the entire compute-accuracy Pareto frontier on Llama-3-8B and Qwen-3-4B: at up to 34% realized layer sparsity, it stays within 0.6% of the dense baseline on GSM8K, with the same gap holding zero-shot on out-of-distribution tasks, while every static or heuristic baseline requires a separately tuned model and still drops by 5-10% at comparable inference time.

Progress in AI has largely been driven by methods that assume less. As compute and data increase, approaches with weaker inductive biases generally outperform those with stronger assumptions. This is particularly characteristic of the field of Visual Representation Learning, where approaches have gone from being dominated by Supervised Learning, to Weakly Supervised Learning, to the now widespread success of Self-Supervised Learning without human labels. Yet, even modern Self-Supervised Learning approaches still depend on strong inductive biases such as augmentations, masking, or cropping. If this trend holds, even these remaining biases should become bottlenecks at scale -- and our experiments confirm this: the optimal strength of inductive biases decreases as data grows. This motivates the search for approaches that rely on fewer assumptions. To this end, we introduce Temporal Difference in Vision (TDV), a new paradigm for self-supervised learning from video that avoids existing inductive biases, relying instead on a causal assumption that the past causes the future. TDV functions by jointly training an image encoder and a motion encoder so that the current frame's representation plus the encoded motion equals the next frame's representation. Despite not leveraging any strong inductive biases, TDV matches state-of-the-art recipes on dense spatial tasks, laying the foundation for representation learning without strong assumptions.

We study causal discovery from observational data when some variables are hidden and the data-generating process follows a location-scale noise model (LSNM). Existing methods that handle hidden confounders typically assume additive noise, but in practice, causes often modulate not just the mean but also the variance of their effects. We prove that acyclic directed mixed graphs (ADMGs) satisfying a bow-free condition are identifiable under LSNM with hidden variables, establishing the first identifiability result for causally insufficient models beyond noise additivity. We further provide sufficient conditions for identifying causal direction even when the bow-free assumption is violated. Our two-stage algorithm, LSNM-UV, is sound and complete, and experiments demonstrate improved performance over additive baselines on heteroscedastic data.

As large language models (LLMs) become default tools for online information verification, an implicit assumption follows them: that scale and general capability are sufficient for nuanced classification of misinformation discourse. We test this assumption directly on 900 Reddit comments spanning three PolitiFact-verified misinformation claims (environment, health, immigration), labelled as belief (propagates the claim), fact-check (corrects it), or other. We compare nine models across three paradigms -- BART-MNLI, three Llama variants, three commercial frontier LLMs (Claude Haiku 4.5, Gemini Flash Lite 2.5, Claude Sonnet 4.6), and fine-tuned DistilBERT and RoBERTa -- under universal and topic-specific label schemas. The assumption does not hold. Fine-tuned RoBERTa reaches 0.62 macro-$F_1$ against a best zero-shot result of 0.50 (Claude Haiku 4.5), at a fraction of the per-query cost; the supervised advantage is concentrated on the belief class, the implicit, affective category every zero-shot model under-detects. Scaling does not help: Llama-3-8B matches Llama-3-70B, and Claude Sonnet 4.6 underperforms the smaller Haiku under generic labels, collapsing belief detection to 0.17 and refusing outright on a subset of comments flagged as sensitive. This is a safety-alignment artefact, not a capacity limit. Label schema and topic jointly shape zero-shot performance, with the same model varying by more than 0.13 macro-$F_1$ across topics under matched labels. In a verification context, where missing belief is the costlier error, task-specific fine-tuning remains the more reliable choice despite the proliferation of large generative models.

Copyleft, as implemented in licenses such as the GNU General Public License, was a legal hack that used copyright to guarantee user freedom by tying the availability of source code to every act of distribution. Its normative force rested on an implicit technical premise: that source code and object code stand in a well-defined, humanly auditable, and reproducible relationship. Large language models and, prospectively, Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) systems systematically violate this premise. The artifacts jointly required to reconstruct a model -- code, data, weights, hyperparameters, toolchain, and hardware configuration -- are each subject to independent legal, technical, and economic constraints that no current open-source framework fully resolves. Sufficiently capable AI systems can also rewrite licensed source into functionally equivalent derivatives stripped of their original obligations, a form of laundering against which copyleft has no effective defense. This paper argues that a functional analogue of copyleft for AGI must be grounded not in share-alike clauses over code, but in reproducible builds: a practice guaranteeing bit-exact reconstructability from declared inputs. We review the logic of copyleft, critically examine Maffulli's Second Liberation thesis according to which AI fulfills Stallman's dream, and show that the argument collapses unless AGI systems are themselves reproducible. Drawing on the Open Source AI Definition (OSAID), the Model Openness Framework (MOF), OpenMDW, and deterministic-inference research, we define seven requirements for AGI-oriented reproducible builds. We further argue that the Model Context Protocol (MCP) and analogous AI-to-AI coupling mechanisms constitute a new dynamic linking layer for which copyleft-style licensing is ill-suited, and that Masnick's "protocols, not platforms" framework offers a more promising governance template.

Benchmarks are necessary for healthcare evaluation, but are not sufficient for predicting deployment performance. Our position is that the evaluation--deployment gap arises not because of poorly designed benchmarks, but from implicit assumptions about how users interact with models that cannot be surfaced from benchmarks alone. To make this precise, we propose a classification of assumptions into two categories: task, which can be tested from conversation data alone, and outcome, which requires outcome data and behavioral studies for testing. Critically, outcome assumptions depend on human behavior, something that even well-designed benchmarks cannot directly observe. To demonstrate the operationality of this framework, we retrospectively analyze a healthcare RCT as a case study and find that the gap naturally separates into task and outcome gaps of roughly equal size. To address this, we make two contributions: first, we propose BenchmarkCards, an artifact that documents assumptions, and second, we propose staged evaluation, a procedure that systematically tests assumptions and evaluates performance.

Presupposition projection in conditionals is central to theories of meaning and pragmatics, yet it remains largely unevaluated in large language models. We address this gap through a parallel behavioral study comparing human judgments and LLM predictions on a normed dataset of conditional sentences that controls the relation between the antecedent and the projected presupposition. We collect likelihood ratings from 120 participants and four LLMs under matched contextual conditions. Results show that humans integrate probabilistic and pragmatic cues in their judgment, whereas LLMs show variable alignment with human patterns. Using a linguistically motivated checklist within an LLM-as-a-Judge framework, we further evaluate model reasoning. We observe models that best match human ratings often lack coherent pragmatic reasoning, while models with stronger reasoning produce less human-like judgments. These findings suggest that LLMs' performance on such tasks may result from surface pattern matching rather than pragmatic competence. Our findings highlight the importance of benchmarks grounded in linguistic theory for comparing humans and models.

For decades, the security of digital interaction has rested on an unacknowledged economic constraint. Attackers faced a tradeoff between the fidelity of a deception and the scale at which it could be deployed. Convincing impersonation required sustained human effort and was confined to a narrow set of high-value targets, while mass-market attacks sacrificed plausibility for reach. Detection systems, verification mechanisms, and user awareness training have all been implicitly calibrated to the artifacts of cheap deception that this tradeoff produced. Agentic AI collapses the tradeoff, allowing high-fidelity, individually tailored deception to be produced at mass-market scale. We argue that this shift exhausts a security paradigm rather than merely intensifying the threat landscape. We introduce the Infinite Impostor, an attack model in which an autonomous agent interposes itself between two parties who already trust each other, hijacking an existing relationship rather than building a new one from scratch. Detection-oriented defenses share an assumption that generative progress is eliminating, that synthetic outputs are distinguishable from authentic ones. We propose a suspect-by-default paradigm that shifts security from authenticating actors to evaluating actions, and examine the governance tensions that arise when platforms become the regulatory substrate of digital interaction.

Every AI benchmark operationalizes theoretical assumptions about the capability it claims to assess. When assumptions function as unexamined commitments, benchmarks stabilize the dominant paradigm by narrowing what counts as progress. Over time, narrow evaluation reorganizes capability concepts: architectures and definitions are selected for benchmark legibility until evaluation ceases to track an independent object and instead produces a version of the target defined by its own operational assumptions. The result is a trap: evaluation frameworks treat self-reinforcing assessments as valid, both creating and obscuring structural limits on what the current paradigm can accomplish. We introduce Epistematics, a methodology for deriving evaluation criteria directly from technical capability claims and auditing whether proposed benchmarks can discriminate the claimed capability from proxy behaviors. The contribution is meta-evaluative: an audit procedure, a failure mode taxonomy, and benchmark-design criteria for evaluating capability-evaluation coherence. We demonstrate the procedure through a worked audit of Dupoux et al. (2026), a proposal that revises the dominant paradigm's theoretical assumptions at the architectural level while reproducing them in its evaluation criteria, thereby entrenching the constraint it seeks to overcome in a form the evaluation cannot detect.

The growing adoption of large language models in legal practice brings both significant promise and serious risk. Legal professionals stand to benefit from AI that can reason over contracts, draft documents, and analyze sources at scale, yet the high-stakes nature of legal work demands a level of rigor that current AI systems do not provide. The central problem is not simply that LLMs hallucinate facts and references; it is that they systematically draw inferences that go beyond what the source text actually supports, presenting assumption-laden conclusions as if they were logically grounded. This proposal presents a neuro-symbolic approach to legal AI that combines the expressive power of large language models with the rigor of formal verification, aiming to make AI-assisted legal reasoning both capable and trustworthy, thus reducing the burden of manual verification without sacrificing the accountability that legal practice demands.

Flow Matching has recently emerged as a popular class of generative models for simulating a target distribution $μ_1$ from samples drawn from a source distribution $μ_0$. This framework relies on a fixed coupling between $μ_0$ and $μ_1$, and on a deterministic or stochastic bridge to define an interpolating process between the two distributions. The time marginals of this process can then be approximately sampled by estimating the transition rates, or more generally the generator, of its Markovian projection. This framework has recently been extended to the case of discrete source and target distributions, under the name Discrete Flow Matching (DFM). However, theoretical guarantees for such models remain scarce. In this paper, we study two DFM models on $\mathbb{Z}_m^d = \{0,\ldots,m-1\}^d$, sampled through time discretization, and derive non-asymptotic associated bounds for both of them. In contrast to previous work, we establish non-asymptotic bounds in Kullback--Leibler divergence for the early-stopped version of the target distribution. We also derive explicit convergence guarantees in total variation distance with respect to the true target distribution. Importantly, these bounds rely only on an approximation error assumption, relaxing standard score assumptions used in earlier works, while also yielding improved dependence on the vocabulary size $m$ and the dimension $d$.

Mechanistic interpretability papers increasingly use causal vocabulary: circuits, mediators, causal abstraction, monosemanticity. Such claims require explicit identification assumptions. A purposive audit of 10 papers across four methodological strands finds no dedicated identification-assumptions section and a recurring pattern: validation metrics such as faithfulness, completeness, monosemanticity, alignment, or ablation effects are reported as causal support without stating the assumptions that make them identifying. A two-human-coder audit on $n=30$ reproduces the direction of the main finding: dedicated identification sections are absent, and validation-metric substitution is common, though exact Dim B/D counts are coding-rule sensitive. The paper proposes a disclosure norm: state whether the claim is causal, name the identification strategy, enumerate assumptions, stress at least one, and explain how conclusions shift if assumptions fail. Validation is not identification.

Causal inference, especially in observational studies, relies on untestable assumptions about the true data-generating process. Sensitivity analysis helps us determine how robust our conclusions are when we alter these underlying assumptions. Existing frameworks for sensitivity analysis are concerned with worst-case changes in assumptions. In this work, we argue that using such pessimistic criteria can often become uninformative or lead to conclusions contradicting our prior knowledge about the world. To demonstrate this claim, we generalize the recent s-value framework (Gupta & Rothenhäusler, 2023) to estimate the sensitivity of three different common assumptions in causal inference. Empirically, we find that, indeed, worst-case conclusions about sensitivity can rely on unrealistic changes in the data-generating process. To overcome this, we extend the s-value framework with a new sensitivity analysis criterion: Bayesian Sensitivity Value (BSV), which computes the expected sensitivity of an estimate to assumption violations under priors constructed from real-world evidence. We use Monte Carlo approximations to estimate this quantity and illustrate its applicability in an observational study on the effect of diabetes treatments on weight loss.

As generative models achieve unprecedented visual quality, the gold standard for image evaluation remains traditional feature-distribution metrics (e.g., FID). However, these metrics are provably hindered by the closed-vocabulary bottleneck of outdated features and the assumptive bias of rigid parametric formulations. Recent alternatives exploit modern backbones to solve the feature bottleneck, yet continue to suffer from parametric limitations. To close this gap, we introduce APEX (Assumption-free Projection-based Embedding eXamination), a novel evaluation framework leveraging the Sliced Wasserstein Distance as a mathematically grounded, assumption-free similarity measure. APEX inherits effective scalability to high-dimensional spaces, as we prove with theoretical and empirical evidences. Moreover, APEX is embedding-agnostic and uses two open-vocabulary foundation models, CLIP and DINOv2, as feature extractors. Benchmarking APEX against established baselines reveals superior robustness to visual degradations. Additionally, we show that APEX metrics exhibit intra- and cross-dataset stability, ensuring highly stable evaluations on out-of-domain datasets.

Natural Language Processing is rapidly evolving into a primary instrument for Computational Social Science, with researchers increasingly using embeddings to measure latent constructs such as novelty, creativity, and bias. However, this transition faces a fundamental validity challenge: the ''Proxy Presumption,'' or the reliance on geometric properties (e.g., cosine distance) as direct measures of social concepts. We argue that without explicit validation, unsupervised representations remain entangled mixtures of the target construct ($C$) and confounding attributes ($Z$) like topic, style, and authorship. To bridge the gap between semantic embeddings and valid social measures, we introduce the Construct Validity Protocol (CVP). Drawing on causal representation learning and psychometrics, the CVP offers a rigorous pipeline from conceptualization to quantitative verification. We further propose Counterfactual Neutralization, a novel method using LLMs to reduce confounding in embedding space. By providing a standardized Validity Suite -- including tests for discriminant, incremental, and predictive validity -- this work offers the community a toolkit to transform heuristic proxies into robust, scientifically defensible instruments.

Millions of users turn to AI models for their information needs. It is conceivable that a large number of user queries contain assumptions that may be factually inaccurate. Prior work notes that large language models (LLMs) often fail to challenge such erroneous assumptions, and can reinforce users' misinformed opinions. However, given the recent advances, especially in model's reasoning capabilities, we revisit whether large reasoning models (LRMs) can reason about the underlying assumptions and respond to user queries appropriately. We construct queries with varying degrees of presuppositions spanning health, science, and general knowledge, and use it to evaluate several widely-deployed models When compared to non-reasoning models, we find that reasoning models achieve a slightly higher accuracy (2-11%), but they still fail to challenge a large fraction (26-42%) of false presuppositions. Further, reasoning models remain susceptible to how strongly the presupposition is expressed.

Causal Discovery (CD) is a powerful framework for scientific inquiry. Yet, its practical adoption is hindered by a reliance on strong, often unverifiable assumptions and a lack of robust performance assessment. To address these limitations and advance empirical CD evaluation, we present TCD-Arena, a modularized, highly customizable, and extendable testing kit to assess the robustness of time series CD algorithms against stepwise more severe assumption violations. For demonstration, we conduct an extensive empirical study comprising around 30 million individual CD attempts and reveal nuanced robustness profiles for 33 distinct assumption violations. Further, we investigate CD ensembles and find that they have the potential to improve general robustness, which has implications for real-world applications. With this, we strive to ultimately facilitate the development of CD methods that are reliable for a diverse range of synthetic and potentially real-world data conditions.

Concerns with the safety and reliability of applying large-language models (LLMs) in unpredictable real-world applications motivate this study, which examines how task phrasing can lead to presumptions in LLMs, making it difficult for them to adapt when the task deviates from these assumptions. We investigated the impact of these presumptions on the performance of LLMs using the iterated prisoner's dilemma as a case study. Our experiments reveal that LLMs are susceptible to presumptions when making decisions even with reasoning steps. However, when the task phrasing was neutral, the models demonstrated logical reasoning without much presumptions. These findings highlight the importance of proper task phrasing to reduce the risk of presumptions in LLMs.

Understanding and representing complex climate variability is essential for both scientific analysis and predictive modeling. However, identifying meaningful climate regimes from raw variables is challenging, as they exhibit high noise and nonlinear dependencies. In this work, we explore the use of Masked Siamese Networks to discretize climate time series into semantically rich clusters. Focusing on daily minimum and maximum temperature, we show that the resulting representations: (i) yield clusters that reflect meaningful climate states under our modeling assumptions, offering a simplified representation for downstream use; (ii) enable sampling and analysis of specific climate scenarios; and (iii) exhibit statistical associations with El Niño events, underscoring their scientific relevance. Our findings highlight the potential of self-supervised discretization as a tool for climate data analysis and open avenues for incorporating richer climate indicators in future work.

We study the $K$-armed logistic bandit problem, where at each round, the agent observes $K$ feature vectors associated with $K$ actions. Existing approaches that achieve a rate-optimal $\tilde{\mathcal{O}}(\sqrt{dT})$ regret bound rely heavily on context diversity assumptions, such as strict positivity of the minimum eigenvalue of a context covariance matrix. These assumptions, however, impose strong restrictions on the context process, as they rule out the situation where the context vectors are concentrated in a low-dimensional subspace. In this paper, we propose SupSplitLog, which, to the best of our knowledge, is the first algorithm for logistic bandits that achieves $\tilde{\mathcal{O}}(\sqrt{dT})$ regret without any context diversity assumption. The key idea is to split the collected samples into two disjoint subsets when constructing estimators; one is used to compute an initial-point estimator, while the other is used to apply a Newton-type one-step correction procedure. The splitting rule is carefully designed to balance the accuracy requirements of the initial-point estimator and the one-step correction procedure. Moreover, SupSplitLog strictly improves on the existing algorithms in terms of the dependence on dimension $d$ in the regret upper bound. Furthermore, SupSplitLog can be adapted simply to deduce a regret bound that grows with a data-dependent complexity measure, avoiding a direct dependence on $d$, which is favorable when the context vectors are concentrated in a low-dimensional subspace. We also provide experimental results that demonstrate numerically the superiority of our algorithm, validating the theoretical results.

A well-known limitation of AI systems is presumptuousness: the tendency of AI systems to provide confident answers when information may be lacking. This challenge is particularly acute in legal applications, where a core task for attorneys, judges, and administrators is to determine whether evidence is sufficient to reach a conclusion. We study this problem in the important setting of unemployment insurance adjudication, which has seen rapid integration of AI systems and where the question of additional fact-finding poses the most significant bottleneck for a system that affects millions of applicants annually. First, through a collaboration with the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, we secure rare access to official training materials and guidance to design a novel benchmark that systematically varies in information completeness. Second, we evaluate four leading AI platforms and show that standard RAG-based approaches achieve an average of only 15% accuracy when information is insufficient. Third, advanced prompting methods improve accuracy on inconclusive cases but over-correct, withholding decisions even on clear cases. Fourth, we introduce a structured framework requiring explicit identification of missing information before any determination (SPEC, Structured Prompting for Evidence Checklists). SPEC achieves 89% overall accuracy, while appropriately deferring when evidence is insufficient -- demonstrating that presumptuousness in legal AI is systematic but addressable, and that doing so is a necessary step towards systems that reliably support, rather than supplant, human judgment wherever decisions must await sufficient evidence.

As Large Language Model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed in open-ended domains like software engineering, they frequently encounter underspecified instructions that lack crucial context. While human developers naturally resolve underspecification by asking clarifying questions, current agents are largely optimized for autonomous execution. In this work, we systematically evaluate the clarification-seeking abilities of LLM agents on an underspecified variant of SWE-bench Verified. We propose an uncertainty-aware multi-agent scaffold that decouples underspecification detection from code execution. Across both proprietary and open-weight frontier LLMs, our scaffold achieves a 69.40% task resolve rate, significantly outperforming a standard single-agent setup and closing the performance gap with agents operating on fully specified instructions. Furthermore, we find that the multi-agent system exhibits well-calibrated information-seeking behavior, conserving queries on simple tasks while proactively seeking information on more complex issues. These findings indicate that current models can be turned into proactive collaborators, where agents independently recognize when to ask questions to elicit missing information in real-world, underspecified tasks.

Knowledge representation formalisms are aimed to represent general conceptual information and are typically used in the construction of the knowledge base of reasoning agent. A knowledge base can be thought of as representing the beliefs of such an agent. Like a child, a strong-AI (AGI) robot would have to learn through input and experiences, constantly progressing and advancing its abilities over time. Both with statistical AI generated by neural networks we need also the concept of \textsl{causality} of events traduced into directionality of logic entailments and deductions in order to give to robots the emulation of human intelligence. Moreover, by using the axioms we can guarantee the \textsl{controlled security} about robot's actions based on logic inferences. For AGI robots we consider the 4-valued Belnap's bilattice of truth-values with knowledge ordering as well, where the value "unknown" is the bottom value, the sentences with this value are indeed unknown facts, that is, the missed knowledge in the AGI robots. Thus, these unknown facts are not part of the robot's knowledge database, and by learn through input and experiences, the robot's knowledge would be naturally expanded over time. Consequently, this phenomena can be represented by the Closed Knowledge Assumption and Logic Inference provided by this paper. Moreover, the truth-value "inconsistent", which is the top value in the knowledge ordering of Belnap's bilattice, is necessary for strong-AI robots to be able to support such inconsistent information and paradoxes, like Liar paradox, during deduction processes.

We revisit a classical assumption for analyzing stochastic gradient algorithms where the squared norm of the stochastic subgradient (or the variance for smooth problems) is allowed to grow as fast as the squared norm of the optimization variable. We contextualize this assumption in view of its inception in the 1960s, its seemingly independent appearance in the recent literature, its relationship to weakest-known variance assumptions for analyzing stochastic gradient algorithms, and its relevance in deterministic problems for non-Lipschitz nonsmooth convex optimization. We build on and extend a connection recently made between this assumption and the Halpern iteration. For convex nonsmooth, and potentially stochastic, optimization, we analyze horizon-free, anytime algorithms with last-iterate rates. For problems beyond simple constrained optimization, such as convex problems with functional constraints or regularized convex-concave min-max problems, we obtain rates for optimality measures that do not require boundedness of the feasible set.