Sensitivity Analysis

In recent years, time-series question answering (QA) systems have made significant progress. However, generating a correct answer does not show whether retaining the supplied numerical series improves task performance, nor whether the prediction is sensitive to changes in that input. While some systems provide rationales, answer accuracy also does not show whether their numerical claims are grounded in the supplied series or whether the stated inference is valid. In this work, we focus on evaluating four time-series QA systems: TimeOmni-1, ChatTS, TimeOmni-VL, and Time-MQA. First, for three systems with released evaluation data, we reproduce their reported results and compare the performance of the systems with their backbones. Then, we introduce a benchmark named COMMON-TSQA, which collects public evaluation datasets from existing time-series benchmarks and unifies their sample representation, task definitions, and answer schemas, while evaluating each system through its own interface under common evaluation criteria. The evaluation uses the original condition and six interventions while keeping the question and target fixed. Our analysis shows that aggregate performance alone can obscure how systems use numerical evidence. Similar task-level scores can arise despite substantial changes in individual predictions. Some interventions induce simple fallback behavior rather than preserved task ability. We also evaluate rationales for factual grounding, inference validity, and consistency with the final answer. We find that rationales often contain time-series claims unsupported by the input. Moreover, the rationale audit shows that agreement between a rationale and its final answer can coexist with incorrect numerical descriptions or invalid intermediate inferences.

A constrained optimization problem may involve a parameter in its objective and active constraints, yet the final decision may remain insensitive to small changes in that parameter. This raises a fundamental question: which inputs does a decision making system truly depend on? Building on this question, we introduce DePICT, a procedure for constructing decision preserving interfaces by ranking context directions according to the optimizer's solution sensitivity and aggregating them across an operating regime. We study this problem in a high dimensional setting where primitive context parameterizes a constrained task and the downstream agent observes only a selected subset of context directions. For locally regular constrained programs, we derive a Karush Kuhn Tucker (KKT) based characterization of when a context direction is optimizer relevant. Our analysis shows that appearing in the active optimization problem does not necessarily imply that a variable affects the final decision. Some context directions can alter the KKT conditions while leaving the optimal solution unchanged because their effect is absorbed by the dual variables. DePICT is designed to remove exactly these directions. In a controlled diagnosis, it recovers the decision relevant interface exactly and reduces linear predictor regret to 0.009, compared with 0.475 for the strongest competing baseline.

Chunked KV-cache compression reduces the memory and attention costs of long-context inference by compressing windows of consecutive tokens into fewer cache entries at a fixed stride. Such compression also introduces a new positional coordinate: a token's phase, or its position relative to compression-window boundaries. We uncover a systematic asymmetry in models using such compression: the same information can be easy to retrieve at one phase and difficult at another. We call this periodic variation in retrieval performance phase sensitivity. In large open-weight models with such compression, long-context retrieval accuracy can differ by up to 40 percentage points across phases, revealing periodic weak spots that average benchmark scores can conceal. To investigate this behavior, we pretrain a family of transformers from scratch across multiple KV-compression designs, reproducing phase sensitivity across the variants. Mechanistic analysis using causal interventions in these models reveals phase specialization: different attention components contribute asymmetrically to retrieving information at different source phases. We further analyze idealized retrieval models, showing how gradient flow dynamics may favor sharp phase specialization. Evaluating models with chunked KV-cache compression thus requires measuring across compression phases: high average accuracy can coexist with systematic positional failures.

A radiology report can already answer a clinical question, so it is hard to tell whether a vision-language model also uses the image. ModaLens, a paired image-swap audit, measures how report availability changes image sensitivity: MedGemma-27B on 3,199 paired MIMIC-CXR cases from 293 patients, all 14 questions per case (13 finding-specific and one composite), each image replaced by one from another study, usually of the same patient, with question and report fixed. Under an explicit answer instruction, the model's generated answer changes on 4.26 percent of trials with the report and 20.94 percent without it, a paired increase of 16.7 points (patient-clustered 95 percent CI 15.6 to 17.7), so report availability reduces image-swap sensitivity under this protocol; the original prompt with a lowercase first-token readout gives 4.70 percent against 17.07 percent, and substitutions also move continuous answer scores where the binary prediction does not change. The labels are derived from reports, which limits conclusions about visual correctness; the direction replicates in two further model lineages. Code, the exact prompts and a run record for every number are at https://github.com/criticaldata/MODALENS.

For the (1+1) evolutionary algorithm with standard bit mutation, we study the sensitivity of the expected hitting time $H_p=\mathbb{E}_x T$ to the mutation rate. We first point out an easily overlooked formalization pitfall: the improvement event is not monotone in the mutation mask, so the unsigned (total-influence) form of the Margulis-Russo formula does not apply; the correct object is the signed endpoint difference. Second, we give an exact three-dimensional separation: two fitness functions share the entire one-step success-rate curve, yet their expected hitting times are two different exact rational numbers; hence one-step success-rate quantities do not determine the expected hitting time. Building on the runtime derivative $H'_p=(I-Q_p)^{-1}Q'_p H_p$, we construct computable double-residual sign certificates, prove a per-initial-state sign theorem on OneMax (for every non-optimal initial state, $\partial_c H<0$ on $0<c<1$, where $p=c/n$; at $c=1$ only the distance-one state is stationary), and extend the framework to non-lumpable positive linear families: an explicit non-lumpability witness, a block-interval double-residual certificate that covers all states without enumerating them, a uniform sign bound $\partial_c\mathbb{E}T\le -9n/16$ over the whole interval $c\in[1/4,1/2]$ for an explicit family at all even scales $n\ge 8$, and a heterogeneous instance certificate $H'_x\le -1/6$ on 57 of 63 states across $c=1$. All finite verifications use exact rational arithmetic. A bounded systematic literature search did not uncover this exact combination, although the underlying tools are well established; we therefore make no novelty claim beyond the stated combination.

Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) are commonly represented through multiple interconnected models. During development, CPS consistency requires that shared model elements remain compatible across these models. Uncertainty, for example, due to sensor noise or model abstraction, changes the admissible values of model elements and can introduce inconsistencies, i.e., situations in which models can no longer be jointly satisfied. While existing approaches can determine consistency for a given uncertainty configuration, they provide limited support for systematically exploring, analyzing, and explaining inconsistency across large uncertainty spaces. We address this challenge by reformulating inconsistency as an intervention response modeling problem. Using Saltelli sampling and multi-fidelity Monte Carlo estimation, we generate intervention-response datasets and train a surrogate model that directly predicts inconsistency from the propagated uncertainty geometry. Experiments on 48 scenarios and 10 CPS domains show that the surrogate matches Monte Carlo estimates while reducing evaluation time from milliseconds to microseconds, enabling orders-of-magnitude more response-surface evaluations within fixed computational budgets. Building on the learned response surfaces, we perform sensitivity analysis to identify dominant uncertainty drivers and introduce a gradient-based consistency recourse method to determine minimal uncertainty interventions that restore consistency. The results show that inconsistency under uncertainty can be effectively learned, analyzed, and repaired through response-surface modeling, providing a scalable foundation for uncertainty-aware consistency management in CPS development.

To solve the fractional knapsack problem, Dantzig's greedy rule orders items according to their value-to-cost ratio. This ordering introduces priority issues. An arbitrarily small perturbation to the input can change the allocation if the budget is exhausted between two items with very similar ratios. To mitigate that problem, we introduce a two-stage rule. We group items sharing attributes within a radius $δ$. We then evaluate these groups in descending order of ratio and divide their group's budget share without further ranking. Consider a group featuring an aggregate capacity $U_G$, unit costs contained in $[w^-,w^+]$, and a representative value $\widehat{v}$. The group's loss relative to the exact optimum is bounded by $\widehat{v}\, U_G\frac{w^+-w^-}{w^++w^-}+\varepsilon_v U_G$, where $\varepsilon_v$ limits the group's internal value variation. Moreover, this harmonic factor remains tight for any group size. The overall loss becomes restricted to the single budget-binding group whenever the grouping remains order-compatible; thus, groups containing at most $K$ items suffer a per-item loss of $\mathcal{O}(\frac{K}{n})$. Should group ratio intervals exhibit an overlap of at most $ω$, an additive term $ωC$ degrades this bound. Within the separation margin between adjacent groups, the grouped allocation remains Lipschitz continuous with respect to cost data, exhibiting a modulus of $\frac{K}{w_{\min}}$. Computing this allocation takes $\mathcal{O}(n+m\log m+|Γ|\log|Γ|)$ time given $m$ groups and a boundary group $Γ$. Alternatively, the time complexity drops to $\mathcal{O}(n+m\log m)$ if a linear-time selection method identifies the boundary group's allocation.

When a language model fails on surface-perturbed input (typos, OCR noise, homophones), "which layer is responsible" has three natural operationalizations: where representations diverge most (sensitivity), where restoring clean activations recovers the prediction (causality), and where a small adapter can repair the damage (compensatory capacity) - and we show these three layer maps dissociate. Across a five-model panel we identify two propagation regimes - spike-and-suppress (Phi-3.5, Gemma-2-9B) and late-accumulation (Llama-3, Mistral, Qwen2.5-7B) - and on the two models meeting an 80% identity-patch gate, sensitivity and causality are anti-correlated (rho = -0.72 to -0.88). Within-family scaling on Qwen2.5 (1.5B to 14B) shows the late-accumulation signature strengthening monotonically with scale, corroborated on a second family. We propose cascade disruption as the mechanism behind the dissociation: adapters placed at causally implicated early layers break intact downstream computation, making diagnostic-flagged sites the worst adapter placements. A fixed-harness layer sweep across four models (3.8-8B) confirms the core prediction on chain-of-thought GSM8K - the flagged sites are the most damaging adapter windows on every adjudicable model - and is sign-consistent but strongly attenuated on a multiple-choice control, consistent with damage that compounds with generation length. The sweep yields practical guidance: a training-free LRD pre-screen and a default-deepest placement rule, though absolute gains over no-adapter baselines remain small. Finally, apparent gains from a representation-stability loss reverse under an adequate generation budget - truncated chain-of-thought had been scored as empty - a methodological warning for any intervention evaluated on chain-of-thought tasks.

Given a model that is already trained, which features does it rely on causally versus spuriously? Existing methods require access to the training procedure and cannot answer this post-hoc. We introduce the \textbf{Normalised Sensitivity Ratio~(NSR)}, a post-hoc, model-agnostic diagnostic for this question under a structured-shift regime: environments differ primarily in the mean of spurious features while the causal mechanism and causal marginals remain stable, as in multi-site clinical data or multi-batch genomics. Within this regime, causal features induce constant model sensitivity across environments while spurious features track shift. NSR formalises this as the squared coefficient of variation of per-environment sensitivity. Under a linear structural causal model (SCM) with $K\ge3$ non-degenerate environments, NSR achieves exact identification (Theorem~1). We fully characterise failure: weak shifts ($O(\varepsilon^4)$ collapse), degenerate geometry, and proxy attenuation ($O((1-α)^4)$), giving practitioners quantitative criteria for assessing whether the regime holds. Finite-sample rates are $O_p(n^{-1})$ under the null and $O_p(n^{-1/2})$ under the alternative. Experiments confirm all theoretical predictions on synthetic data (area under the ROC curve [AUROC] $= 1.000$ under conditions satisfying the regime), show consistent rankings across five model families (Kendall $τ\ge0.529$), and recover six of eight causal features on bike-sharing data (Precision@7 $= 0.75$) without modifying any trained model.

We develop an adjoint-sensitivity framework for positional influence in causal residual Transformers and separate unconditional analytic results from conditional boundary-shape conclusions. The principal unconditional theorem is the residual-to-depth-flow estimate for layer controls converging in $L^1$, complemented by a finite-token-to-Volterra attention estimate that explicitly controls the first cells near the causal endpoint. We define a normalized adjoint-energy influence density and derive its exact evolution along full-batch gradient flow. The adjoint admits an exact generator-term decomposition into residual transmission, nonlocal Volterra, and local channels, including all covariance cross terms. Causal masking can amplify early-position sensitivity and residual identity paths can transmit a right-localized terminal bias, but neither mechanism alone forces a U-shaped profile. We therefore state boundary advantages under independently checkable energy, correlation, and local-channel bounds; these conditions are sufficient rather than necessary. Finite-token influence balancing, positional reweighting, and task-aligned observability are presented as diagnostics or regularizers with explicit differentiation requirements, computational costs, and limitations. Controlled simulations illustrate that each intervention controls its designated surrogate, while observability balance or outer-loop reweighting need not monotonically reduce the influence-based Lost-in-the-Middle diagnostic.

This work presents a game-theoretic framework for interpretable hyperparameter-objective interaction analysis rather than proposing a new optimization algorithm. In the proposed framework, Shapley Effects are employed for global sensitivity analysis, while Pareto front sets are utilized to identify effective hyperparameter configurations and support early-stage model evaluation. The resulting analysis reveals which players (hyperparameters) are most influential with respect to different objectives in a given game (application). Consequently, the proposed framework provides interpretable insights into objective-aware hyperparameter interactions, enabling practitioners to guide subsequent optimization, reduce the search space, and perform early-stage model evaluation. The effectiveness of the proposed framework is demonstrated using three distinct neural network architectures across different problem domains under multi-objective settings.

Quantifying the influence of hybrid aleatory and epistemic uncertainties on high-dimensional system responses remains a major challenge in global sensitivity analysis (GSA). Existing Hilbert--Schmidt Independence Criterion (HSIC)-based approaches are primarily restricted to single-output settings and lack a rigorous decomposition of heterogeneous uncertainty sources and their interactions. To address this limitation, a novel double-space tensor-product RKHS framework is proposed for sensitivity analysis under hybrid uncertainty. By constructing factorized kernels over both the latent input space and the multidimensional output space, a concurrent double Möbius inversion is derived to orthogonally decompose the global dependence measure into pure aleatory effects, pure epistemic effects, and their interaction contributions. The resulting dimension-wise sensitivity indices preserve the uncertainty attribution structure across all output dimensions. To satisfy the independence assumptions required by the decomposition, an auxiliary-variable representation based on the inverse probability integral transform is introduced, enabling the treatment of hierarchical uncertainties and Copula-induced correlations within a unified latent space. A fully vectorized single-loop implementation is further developed to avoid the computational burden of nested Monte Carlo simulation. Statistical significance and estimation uncertainty are quantified through permutation testing and Bootstrap confidence intervals. Numerical studies on a modified multi-output Ishigami function and an aerodynamic pressure-field problem demonstrate the accuracy, scalability, and practical applicability of the proposed framework.

Surrogate models for topology optimization (TO) exhibit highly variable out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization under distribution shifts such as changing loads or boundary conditions, yet the source of this variability remains unclear. We hypothesize that OOD performance is governed by how much information the conditioning signal preserves about the adjoint sensitivity (reduced gradient) that drives classical TO. Modeling the TO pipeline as a causal Markov chain, the Data Processing Inequality establishes that, under this abstraction, the sensitivity field is an information-theoretically optimal conditioning signal for topology prediction. However, computing exact adjoint sensitivities can be expensive or unavailable in practice; we observe that certain physical fields can approximate sensitivities through monotone transformations. To formalize this, we introduce \textbf{pseudo-sensitivities} to characterize which fields enable generalization versus those that are information-poor. We then show that a sensitivity-conditioned Bernoulli flow-matching generator empirically confirms these predictions: conditioning on sensitivities yields state-of-the-art OOD performance, while increasingly distant physical fields degrade toward raw parameter conditioning. Results hold across structural TO benchmarks under load shifts and our new CFD-TO dataset under boundary-condition shifts such as multi-outlet configurations. Code and datasets are available at https://tum-pbs.github.io/topotransformer/ .

Reliable question answering requires identifying not only whether an answer is correct, but also which available knowledge the prediction depends on. In realistic LLM-based QA, this knowledge may come from context, retrieval, decomposition, or intermediate reasoning, forming a noisy and redundant candidate space rather than a clean gold evidence set. We study \emph{knowledge dependency estimation}: estimating the sensitivity of a fixed black-box QA model to different candidate knowledge units. The challenge is to obtain fine-grained dependency scores without exhaustive test-time perturbation while modeling redundancy, substitutability, and complementarity. We propose \textbf{Knot}, a structured rank-aware knowledge dependency estimator. Knot learns from subset-level counterfactual supervision, models subset sensitivity through coverage over latent dependency factors, and derives rank-aware unit scores to identify influential candidates. Across multiple-choice and generative QA benchmarks, Knot outperforms all compared baselines in subset-sensitivity prediction and produces more faithful unit rankings than deployable baselines without extra QA-model calls; when used for practical risk screening, its dependency scores help flag error-prone QA predictions early.

As Low Earth Orbit has grown more crowded with space debris, the need for reliable and efficient debris removal solutions becomes more urgent. An active tether-net system with maneuverable units is one of the promising solutions to this problem, whose success is dependent on the robustness of the net maneuver and closing decisions. These in turn are impacted by the uncertainties attributed to i) noisy observation of the target debris state (e.g., sensing errors), and ii) imperfect simulations of the complex net dynamics and net/debris interaction behavior, over which the decision system is trained. This paper focuses on the first of these two uncertainty sources, and presents a pipeline to propagate and quantify the resulting uncertainty in the debris capture performance expressed in terms of Capture Quality Index (CQI). This quantification is uniquely performed for both an active tether-net using a fixed baseline control and one using a trained neuro-control policy to guide the net maneuver during the deployment phase. Two different uncertainty quantification (UQ) techniques, namely Sobol's variance-based sensitivity analysis and perturbation-based method are exploited. A high-fidelity simulator and a lower-fidelity surrogate-based environment are used to demonstrate trade-offs between prediction accuracy versus ease of resolving uncertainties.

The scientific claims drawn from LLM social simulations should be no stronger than the robustness audits that support them. Generative agents bring new expressive power to agent-based modeling, enabling simulations of collective social processes like cooperation, polarization, and norm formation. Yet they also introduce complexity through additional architectural choices, such as agent specification, memory representation, interaction protocols, and environment design. Small perturbations that appear minor to researchers can cascade into macro-level outcomes through repeated interaction, creating a "butterfly effect." Consequently, scientific claims drawn from LLM social simulations may reflect implementation artifacts rather than the social mechanisms being modeled. We support this position with two case studies: a repeated Prisoner's Dilemma and a social media echo chamber simulation. Across multiple models, minor perturbations in persona format and game-instruction framing shift cooperation rates by up to 76 percentage points, while network homophily and hub assignment produce significant and consistent shifts in polarization metrics. We also find that sensitivity is unevenly distributed across both architectural choices and model families: the same perturbation that produces the 76 pp shift in one frontier model only shifts another by 1 pp. Robustness is therefore a property that should be measured per claim and per model, not assumed. To address this validation gap, we introduce TRAILS (Taxonomy for Robustness Audits In LLM Simulations), a robustness-audit taxonomy spanning three levels of simulation design: agent (micro-level), interaction (meso-level), and system (macro-level). We call for robustness to become a first-order validation requirement before LLM social simulations are used to explain mechanisms, evaluate interventions, or inform decisions.

Decision tree ensembles (DTE) are a popular model for a wide range of AI classification tasks, used in multiple safety critical domains, and hence verifying properties on these models has been an active topic of study over the last decade. One such verification question is the problem of sensitivity, which asks, given a DTE, whether a small change in subset of features can lead to misclassification of the input. In this work, our focus is to build a quantitative notion of sensitivity, tailored to DTEs, by discretizing the input space of the model and enumerating the regions which are susceptible to sensitivity. We propose a novel algorithmic technique that can perform this computation efficiently, within a certified error and confidence bound. Our approach is based on encoding the problem as an algebraic decision diagram (ADD), and further splitting it into subproblems that can be solved efficiently and make the computation compositional and scalable. We evaluate the performance of our technique over benchmarks of varying size in terms of number of trees and depth, comparing it against the performance of model counters over the same problem encoding. Experimental results show that our tool XCount achieves significant speedup over other approaches and can scale well with the increasing sizes of the ensembles.

Causal sensitivity analysis aims to provide bounds for causal effect estimates in the presence of unobserved confounding. However, existing methods for causal sensitivity analysis are per-instance procedures, meaning that changes to the dataset, causal query, sensitivity level, or treatment require new computation. Here, we instead present an in-context learning approach. Specifically, we propose an amortized approach to causal sensitivity analysis based on prior-data fitted networks. A key challenge is that the sensitivity bounds are not directly available when sampling training data. To address this, we develop a general prior-data construction that is applicable across the class of generalized treatment sensitivity models. Our construction involves a Lagrangian scalarization of the objective to generate training labels for the bounds through a tradeoff between causal effect min/max-imization and sensitivity model violation, which avoids model-specific analytical derivations. We further show that, under standard convexity and linearity conditions, our objective recovers the full Pareto frontier of solutions. Empirically, we demonstrate our amortized approach across various datasets, causal queries, and sensitivity levels, where our approach achieves a test-time computation that is orders of magnitude faster than per-instance methods. To the best of our knowledge, ours is the first foundation model for in-context learning for causal sensitivity analysis.

Agent-based models (ABMs) are increasingly used in macroeconomics, but their analysis still often relies on ad hoc Monte Carlo campaigns with heterogeneous statistical effort across parameter settings. We show how statistical model checking (SMC), implemented through MultiVeStA, can provide a principled analysis layer for a realistic macroeconomic ABM without rewriting the simulator in a dedicated formalism. Our case study is the heuristic-switching Keynes+Schumpeter(K+S) model, analysed hrough a transient sensitivity campaign over one-parameter sweeps, two macro observables (unemployment and GDP growth), and one auxiliary micro-level probe (market share) on the post-warmup phase of a 600-step horizon. The analysis is driven by reusable temporal queries, observable-specific precision targets, and confidence-based stopping rules that automatically determine the simulation effort required by each configuration. Results show a clear contrast across parameter families: macro-financial and structural sweeps produce the strongest transient effects, whereas several heuristic-rule sweeps remain much weaker under the same precision policy. More broadly, the paper shows that SMC can support reproducible and informative quantitative analysis of substantively rich economic ABMs, while making uncertainty estimates and simulation cost explicit parts of the reported results.

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.

Prompt wrappers often differ only in formatting, yet they can change model scores enough to flip leaderboard conclusions. We study this variance under a token-controlled protocol and introduce two complementary metrics: the Format Sensitivity Index (FSI), the accuracy range induced by wrapper choice, and the Parseability Sensitivity Index (PSI), the corresponding range in answer parseability. Across 140,000 OpenRouter generations spanning 7 QA tasks, 5 wrapper families, and 4 instruct models from 7B to 72B parameters, we find that mean FSI varies by over 30x across models and is largely explained by compliance failures. A fixed-effects regression shows that parseability remains a strong predictor of accuracy even after controlling for task, model, and wrapper. We argue that reporting accuracy without wrapper variance and compliance is statistically fragile, and we give practical recommendations for both benchmarking and structured-output deployments.

Empirical causal claims depend on many analyst decisions, from selecting covariates to choosing estimators. Existing robustness tools summarize how results vary across these choices, but, to the best of our knowledge, do not answer: \textbf{How many analyst decisions must change to reach a specification, which is a set of choices, whose confidence interval (CI) contains zero?} We introduce \emph{Minimum Specification Perturbation (MSP)}, the smallest number of changes. MSP is small under the null, grows with effect strength and captures distance-to-falsification information that dispersion-based summaries cannot report; when making decisions under weak effects, an MSP-based rule yields lower false-positive rates than dispersion-based rules. We show that Fragility Index and MSP measure orthogonal vulnerabilities: fragility to influential observations need not imply fragility to specification choices. On the LaLonde benchmark, MSP = 1 implies that one decision change makes the CI contain zero. We further provide exact permutation calibration under randomization and characterize computation, showing tractable cases under additive structure and NP-hardness in general.

The quality of training data is critical to the performance of machine learning models. In this paper, the Error Sensitivity Profile (ESP) is proposed. It quantifies the sensitivity of model performance to errors in a single feature or in multiple features. By leveraging ESP, data-cleaning efforts can be prioritized based on error types and features most likely to affect model performance. To support the computation of this metric, an integrated suite of tools, called \dirty, is created. We conduct an extensive experimental study on two widely used datasets using 14 classification models, revealing that performance degradation is not always predictable from simple correlations with the target variable.

The goal of machine learning is to find models that minimize prediction error on data that has not yet been seen. Its operational paradigm assumes access to a dataset $S$ and articulates a scheme for evaluating how well a given model performs on an arbitrary sample. The sample can be $S$ (in which case we speak of in-sample'' performance) or some entirely new $S'$ (in which case we speak of out-of-sample'' performance). Traditional analysis of generalization assumes that both in- and out-of-sample data are i.i.d.\ draws from an infinite population. However, these probabilistic assumptions cannot be verified even in principle. This paper presents an alternative view of generalization through the lens of sensitivity analysis of solutions of optimization problems to perturbations in the problem data. Under this framework, generalization bounds are obtained by purely deterministic means and take the form of variational principles that relate in-sample and out-of-sample evaluations through an error term that quantifies how close out-of-sample data are to in-sample data. Statistical assumptions can then be used \textit{ex post} to characterize the situations when this error term is small (either on average or with high probability).

In uncertainty quantification, evaluating sensitivity measures under specific conditions (i.e., conditional Sobol' indices) is essential for systems with parameterized responses, such as spatial fields or varying operating conditions. Traditional approaches often rely on point-wise modeling, which is computationally expensive and may lack consistency across the parameter space. This paper demonstrates that for a pre-trained global Polynomial Chaos Expansion (PCE) model, the analytical conditional Sobol' indices are inherently embedded within its basis functions. By leveraging the tensor-product property of PCE bases, we reformulate the global expansion into a set of analytical coefficient fields that depend on the conditioning variables. Based on the preservation of orthogonality under conditional probability measures, we derive closed-form expressions for conditional variances and Sobol' indices. This framework bypasses the need for repetitive modeling or additional sampling, transforming conditional sensitivity analysis into a purely algebraic post-processing step. Numerical benchmarks indicate that the proposed method ensures physical coherence and offers superior numerical robustness and computational efficiency compared to conventional point-wise approaches.

Gaussian process surrogates dominate constrained multi-objective optimization because they are effective in data-scarce regimes, but their cubic scaling in training samples limits their ability to capture shared structure between objectives and constraints as problems grow in dimensionality. We show that deterministic neural network surrogates, equipped with feature tokenization and adaptive output normalization, match or exceed Gaussian process accuracy, while scaling to high-dimensional output spaces and training on all data including infeasible samples. Jointly training a single Feature Tokenizer Transformer to predict objectives, constraint satisfaction, and parameter sensitivities yields a unified gradient that simultaneously improves objective values, steers toward feasibility, and identifies the most influential parameters: a coherent search signal that disjoint per-output models cannot provide. We validate this on biophysical neural optimization problems of increasing complexity. In the hardest regime, with wide, uninformed parameter bounds where random sampling finds zero feasible solutions, descending the surrogate's learned constraint gradient steers the search into the feasible region and recovers near-optimal solutions where standard surrogate optimization and constrained Bayesian optimization find none.

Algorithmic audits are essential tools for examining systems for properties required by regulators or desired by operators. Current audits of large language models (LLMs) primarily rely on black-box evaluations that assess model behavior only through input-output testing. These methods are limited to tests constructed in the input space, often generated by heuristics. In addition, many socially relevant model properties (e.g., gender bias) are abstract and difficult to measure through text-based inputs alone. To address these limitations, we propose a white-box sensitivity auditing framework for LLMs that leverages activation steering to conduct more rigorous assessments through model internals. Our auditing method conducts internal sensitivity tests by manipulating key concepts relevant to the model's intended function for the task. We demonstrate its application to bias audits in four simulated high-stakes LLM decision tasks. Our method consistently indicates substantial dependence on protected attributes in model predictions, even in settings where standard black-box evaluations suggest little or no bias. Our code is openly available at https://github.com/hannahxchen/llm-steering-audit

Complex events originate from other primitive events combined according to defined patterns and rules. Instead of using specialists' manual work to compose the model rules, we use machine learning (ML) to self-define these patterns and regulations based on incoming input data to produce the desired complex event. Complex events processing (CEP) uncertainty is critical for embedded and safety-critical systems. This paper exemplifies how we can measure uncertainty for the perception and prediction of events, encompassing embedded systems that can also be critical to safety. Then, we propose an approach (ML_CP) incorporating ML and sensitivity analysis that verifies how the output varies according to each input parameter. Furthermore, our model also measures the uncertainty associated with the predicted complex event. Therefore, we use conformal prediction to build prediction intervals, as the model itself has uncertainties, and the data has noise. Also, we tested our approach with classification (binary and multi-level) and regression problems test cases. Finally, we present and discuss our results, which are very promising within our field of research and work.