Assine o Pro, sem anúncios
Faça upgrade para uma leitura sem interrupções e acesso prioritário a novas fontes.
Ver preçosLinkdaze's smart digital calendar stands out for not putting its features behind a paywall, including an AI meal planner tool.
Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly require selective removal of harmful or sensitive knowledge, called unlearning, yet existing methods and benchmarks fail to evaluate this capability completely. Current approaches rely on disjoint forget and retain sets composed of independent facts, and measure success using simple and direct factual recall. This framing fails to capture a key requirement of unlearning, namely the ability to eliminate harmful behaviors while preserving benign and beneficial knowledge. We argue that effective unlearning must operate at the level of concepts, ensuring complete removal of unsafe applications while maintaining their correct and useful usage, thereby achieving conceptually meaningful and complete unlearning. To better evaluate unlearning techniques from such a practical viewpoint, we introduce the notion of dual-use concepts: concepts that can be used in both harmful and benign contexts. Building on these concepts, we construct a benchmark called ConceptGuard where forget and retain sets are explicitly complementary in concept usage. Our benchmark uniquely enables unlearning to be explored and gauged at the level of concepts, instead of sparse facts, and evaluation is intent-sensitive with the goal of maximizing contextual separation to promote safer behavior. We demonstrate that current unlearning techniques perform poorly under this setting, showing weak contextual separation alongside poor performance in ROUGE and concept-level metrics. Our results reveal strong forgetting-utility trade-offs, limited gains in contextual sensitivity, and poor consistency in concept-level control across methods, and provide ideas for unlearning approaches that better align with real-world safety requirements. Our dataset is publicly available.
Accounting for information flow on the path space of trajectories of a nonnegative martingale yields exact variational identities for it, even at arbitrary random times. This recovers the widely used classical concentration inequalities, from Ville to PAC-Bayes, and measures what each one discards. The tail a bound controls is itself a relative entropy, resolved by the chain rule into per-step conditional divergences. The discarded slack has an exact form in each of three geometries: a Gibbs tilt for the Azuma-Hoeffding and PAC-Bayes bounds, the crossing itself for Ville's and for pooled tests, and a dominating certificate for the L^p maximal bound. That certificate's optional-stopping deficit resolves per step into Bregman divergences of the running maximum. On a path-time space, the same identity gains one factor that prices anticipation: an arbitrary random time carries an e-process ``peeking penalty.'' The partition function can be read as a coalescent--a prefix-sharing probability of independent copies--and geometric mixtures of test martingales gain a pooling benefit for multi-model safe testing.
Personalized interpretation of medical reports has emerged as an increasingly important need among patients. Addressing this need requires both evidence-grounded medical factuality and context-dependent patient communication, yet existing medical vision-language tasks do not adequately capture these dual requirements. To bridge this gap, we introduce Patient-oriented Medical Report Interpretation (PMRI), a novel open-ended multimodal generation task that requires models to explain medical reports in accurate and accessible language based on a user's query and dialogue history. These two objectives differ fundamentally in their verifiability, yet remain tightly coupled, making them difficult to optimize jointly under conventional supervised fine-tuning and holistic reinforcement learning paradigms. To address this challenge, we propose G-CARL, a grounded, checklist-aligned reinforcement learning framework that combines multi-source retrieval for atomic claim verification with context-aware, instance-specific weighted checklists for response coverage, providing structured supervision for factuality, user-demand satisfaction, and expression quality without constraining response diversity. We further construct MMedReport, a real-world PMRI benchmark, along with a clinician-designed three-dimensional evaluation protocol. Extensive experiments demonstrate that G-CARL consistently outperforms existing post-training baselines in overall quality, claim-level precision, and checklist recall. Pairwise preference evaluation by clinicians further confirms that G-CARL produces interpretations that are more accurate and better aligned with patient needs.
Deep neural networks are often overconfident, assigning high confidence even to incorrect predictions. Consequently, users lack a reliable signal for deciding when a prediction can be trusted. Post-hoc confidence estimation addresses this by training a lightweight auxiliary head over a frozen classifier. Existing targets, however, suffer from inherent ambiguity: they assign overlapping confidence values to correct and incorrect predictions, while errors near the decision boundary receive confidence scores indistinguishable from correct predictions. In this work, we propose TCP_α, a novel confidence target that resolves these limitations by introducing a margin-controlled penalty for misclassified samples. We prove that TCP_α guarantees complete separation between the target values of correct and incorrect predictions, with a separation margin that is independent of the number of classes and increases monotonically with the penalty parameter. Since accurate classifiers naturally produce very few errors, learning these targets results in a severely imbalanced regression problem. We therefore present a systematic study of training strategies for learning under this imbalance and identify an effective training configuration through extensive ablation studies. We evaluate the proposed approach on rāga identification, investigate its robustness under domain shift, and further validate it on frame-wise ornamentation detection without modifying the selected configuration. Across all settings, TCP_α consistently outperforms existing confidence targets for failure prediction. Rejecting only the least-confident 8\% of predictions improves the base model's macro-F1 from 0.89 to 0.98, while fine-tuning the confidence head with only 5\% labeled samples from a new corpus effectively restores performance under domain shift.
Despite their growing importance for contact-free radio frequency (RF) based healthcare monitoring, different radio technologies such as frequency-modulated continuous wave (FMCW) radar, impulse radio ultra-wideband (IR-UWB), and Wi-Fi sensing are rarely compared under identical deployment conditions, as existing studies typically differ in hardware, datasets, and evaluation methodologies. In addition, the performance of ceiling-mounted radars, despite their practical deployment and cost advantages in healthcare environments, remain underexplored. Therefore, this paper presents a controlled comparison and analysis of ceiling-mounted FMCW, IR-UWB, and Wi-Fi sensing using synchronized recordings from 20 participants across six room layouts. All technologies are evaluated with the same convolutional neural network (CNN) on both a fine-grained 10-class human activity recognition (HAR) task and a coarse 4-class sleep monitoring task. IR-UWB achieves the highest cross-subject activity recognition performance (89.0% macro F1), while FMCW generalizes best to unseen room layouts (83.8% macro F1). For sleep monitoring, all technologies exceed 92% macro F1 in unseen environments. The results reveal a fundamental trade-off between recognition performance and environmental robustness, which can be explained through differences in range resolution, antenna diversity, Doppler resolution, and spatial information retention. These findings provide practical guidelines for the design of healthcare-oriented RF sensing systems.
Travel behavior research increasingly combines digital data collection with predictive modeling, yet these stages are often developed and evaluated separately. This study proposes a three-agent workflow integrating conversational data collection, structured data processing, and behavioral prediction. A chatbot-administered, image-augmented stated-preference survey collected mode choices from student commuters across five predefined weather scenarios, yielding 454 respondent-scenario observations. Weather-related associations were analyzed using a multinomial logit model, while logistic regression and random forest provided machine-learning benchmarks. Nine locally deployed large language models (LLMs), ranging from 2 to 35 billion parameters, were evaluated across four zero-shot prompt-and-context conditions and extended through persona, few-shot, and vision-based configurations. Random forest achieved 69.6% five-class accuracy, while the best text-only zero-shot LLM reached 69.9% without task-specific fitting. Habitual travel information produced the most consistent gains, Expert framing generally outperformed Role-Play, and persona information was most useful when habitual travel information was unavailable. Few-shot prompting improved prediction for several models, with gains stabilizing after a small number of examples. Using the same weather images shown to respondents, the best vision-based configuration reached 71.5% five-class accuracy, indicating that visual context may provide additional predictive information for selected models. Overall, the study shows how conversational surveys, structured data processing, conventional behavioral modeling, machine learning, and multimodal LLM prediction can be coordinated within an auditable multi-agent workflow.
Naturalistic computer-use traces, passively recorded screenshots and mouse or keyboard actions, are a valuable resource for deriving symbolic, auditable, and reusable models of how everyday work is done. Such models matter as computer-use agents enter real work, where agents need to learn how tasks are actually performed, and organizations need to audit and reuse that knowledge. However, inducing such task models is challenging, as activity is observed only as low-level events and real-world work is multi-threaded with interleaved goals. Existing methods assume a given task or a single workflow, and produce step-level summaries rather than structured task models. We introduce Task Model Induction (TMI), which (i) discovers the latent tasks in an unconstrained trace, disentangling concurrent activity, and (ii) for each latent task, induces a task model pairing a hierarchical objective model of recursive goal decomposition with a procedure model of the control flow that organized the execution. Intrinsically, on controlled human and agent trajectories, TMI recovers interleaved tasks with 0.974 agreement against ground-truth groupings and reconstructs 74.9% of the observed execution steps, far more than the strongest workflow induction baseline. Extrinsically, skills derived from TMI's task models improve held-out task accuracy by 30.0% over the strongest baseline.
Recursive self-improvement (RSI) asks whether an AI system can improve the process that produces AI systems, so that the next system inherits the improvement. That process is the training algorithm: a better objective or update rule improves the compute{-}capability exchange rate for every subsequent run, including the one that produces the next agent. Whether RSI is feasible therefore turns on whether an agent can design training algorithms. No benchmark isolates that ability: existing suites are won by collecting data or by tuning hyperparameters, and none tells a change to how a run is executed apart from a change to how the model learns. We present AI4AI{-}Bench, 10 frozen research repositories spanning 10 training algorithm families. In each task, an agent has 4 hours on one B300 to rewrite the training algorithm; its code is then rerun from scratch for up to 12 hours and scored by a fixed evaluator hidden from the agent, against the repository's original algorithm under the same procedure. Because the 10 metrics are incommensurable, every task is mapped onto one scale on which 0 is an uninformative model, 0.1 is the algorithm the repository ships, and 1.0 is the task optimum. Across 29 configurations of 6 systems on all 10 tasks the mean score is 0.166, and the best system reaches 0.250: even the strongest closes under a fifth of the distance between the algorithm that was already there and the optimum. The submissions show where that distance went: most never change how the model learns at all, and the minority that do average 0.226 against 0.126 for the rest. More reasoning effort mostly buys the willingness to go there, taking that minority from 8\% of submissions to 64\% and the mean score from 0.094 to 0.196. We release the task suite, the evaluators and every scored submission, so that the measurement can be repeated as these systems change.