搜索结果：doubt

This paper develops a new approach to computational argumentation that is informed by philosophical and linguistic views. Namely, it takes into account two ideas that have received little attention in the literature on computational argumentation: First, an agent may rationally reject an argument based on mere doubt, thus not all arguments they could defend must be accepted; and, second, that it is sometimes more natural to think in terms of which individual sentences or claims an agent accepts in a debate, rather than which arguments. In order to incorporate these two ideas into a computational approach, we first define the notion of structured bipolar argumentation frameworks (SBAFs), where arguments consist of sentences and we have both an attack and a support relation between them. Then, we provide semantics for SBAFs with two features: (1) Unlike with completeness-based semantics, our semantics do not force agents to accept all defended arguments. (2) In addition to argument extensions, which give acceptable sets of arguments, we also provide semantics for language extensions that specify acceptable sets of sentences. These semantics represent reasonable positions an agent mig

Studies show that interactions with an AI system fosters trust in human users towards AI. An often overlooked element of such interaction dynamics is the (sense of) urgency when the human user is prompted by an AI agent, e.g., for advice or guidance. In this paper, we show that although the presence of urgency in human-AI interactions does not affect the trust in AI, it may be detrimental to the human user's self-confidence and self-efficacy. In the long run, the loss of confidence may lead to performance loss, suboptimal decisions, human errors, and ultimately, unsustainable AI systems. Our evidence comes from an experiment with 30 human participants. Our results indicate that users may feel more confident in their work when they are eased into the human-AI setup rather than exposed to it without preparation. We elaborate on the implications of this finding for software engineers and decision-makers.

Reasoning Large Language Models (RLLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance on complex tasks, largely due to the adoption of Long Chain-of-Thought (Long CoT) reasoning. However, they often exhibit overthinking -- performing unnecessary reasoning steps even after arriving at the correct answer. Prior work has largely focused on qualitative analyses of overthinking through sample-based observations of long CoTs. In contrast, we present a quantitative analysis of overthinking from the perspective of self-doubt, characterized by excessive token usage devoted to re-verifying already-correct answer. We find that self-doubt significantly contributes to overthinking. In response, we introduce a simple and effective prompting method to reduce the model's over-reliance on input questions, thereby avoiding self-doubt. Specifically, we first prompt the model to question the validity of the input question, and then respond concisely based on the outcome of that evaluation. Experiments on three mathematical reasoning tasks and four datasets with missing premises demonstrate that our method substantially reduces answer length and yields significant improvements across nearly all datasets upo

Ensuring reliable and rule-compliant behavior of autonomous agents in uncertain environments remains a fundamental challenge in modern robotics. Our work shows how neuro-symbolic systems, which integrate probabilistic, symbolic white-box reasoning models with deep learning methods, offer a powerful solution to this challenge. This enables the simultaneous consideration of explicit rules and neural models trained on noisy data, combining the strength of structured reasoning with flexible representations. To this end, we introduce the Constitutional Controller (CoCo), a novel framework designed to enhance the safety and reliability of agents by reasoning over deep probabilistic logic programs representing constraints such as those found in shared traffic spaces. Furthermore, we propose the concept of self-doubt, implemented as a probability density conditioned on doubt features such as travel velocity, employed sensors, or health factors. In a real-world aerial mobility study, we demonstrate CoCo's advantages for intelligent autonomous systems to learn appropriate doubts and navigate complex and uncertain environments safely and compliantly.

Objective: To detect and classify features of stigmatizing and biased language in intensive care electronic health records (EHRs) using natural language processing techniques. Materials and Methods: We first created a lexicon and regular expression lists from literature-driven stem words for linguistic features of stigmatizing patient labels, doubt markers, and scare quotes within EHRs. The lexicon was further extended using Word2Vec and GPT 3.5, and refined through human evaluation. These lexicons were used to search for matches across 18 million sentences from the de-identified Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-III (MIMIC-III) dataset. For each linguistic bias feature, 1000 sentence matches were sampled, labeled by expert clinical and public health annotators, and used to supervised learning classifiers. Results: Lexicon development from expanded literature stem-word lists resulted in a doubt marker lexicon containing 58 expressions, and a stigmatizing labels lexicon containing 127 expressions. Classifiers for doubt markers and stigmatizing labels had the highest performance, with macro F1-scores of .84 and .79, positive-label recall and precision values ranging from .7

Algorithmic decision making is increasingly prevalent, but often vulnerable to strategic manipulation by agents seeking a favorable outcome. Prior research has shown that classifier abstention (allowing a classifier to decline making a decision due to insufficient confidence) can significantly increase classifier accuracy. This paper studies abstention within a strategic classification context, exploring how its introduction impacts strategic agents' responses and how principals should optimally leverage it. We model this interaction as a Stackelberg game where a principal, acting as the classifier, first announces its decision policy, and then strategic agents, acting as followers, manipulate their features to receive a desired outcome. Here, we focus on binary classifiers where agents manipulate observable features rather than their true features, and show that optimal abstention ensures that the principal's utility (or loss) is no worse than in a non-abstention setting, even in the presence of strategic agents. We also show that beyond improving accuracy, abstention can also serve as a deterrent to manipulation, making it costlier for agents, especially those less qualified, to

Recently, e-learning platforms have grown as a place where students can post doubts (as a snap taken with smart phones) and get them resolved in minutes. However, the significant increase in the number of student-posted doubts with high variance in quality on these platforms not only presents challenges for teachers' navigation to address them but also increases the resolution time per doubt. Both are not acceptable, as high doubt resolution time hinders the students learning progress. This necessitates ways to automatically identify if there exists a similar doubt in repository and then serve it to the teacher as the plausible solution to validate and communicate with the student. Supervised learning techniques (like Siamese architecture) require labels to identify the matches, which is not feasible as labels are scarce and expensive. In this work, we, thus, developed a label-agnostic doubt matching paradigm based on the representations learnt via self-supervised technique. Building on prior theoretical insights of BYOL (bootstrap your own latent space), we propose custom BYOL which combines domain-specific augmentation with contrastive objective over a varied set of appropriately

Online sexism increasingly appears in subtle, context-dependent forms that evade traditional detection methods. Its interpretation often depends on overlapping linguistic, psychological, legal, and cultural dimensions, which produce mixed and sometimes contradictory signals in annotated datasets. These inconsistencies, combined with label scarcity and class imbalance, result in unstable decision boundaries and cause fine-tuned models to overlook subtler, underrepresented forms of harm. To address these challenges, we propose a two-stage framework that unifies (i) targeted training procedures to better regularize supervision to scarce and noisy data with (ii) selective, reasoning-based inference to handle ambiguous or borderline cases. First, we stabilize the training combining class-balanced focal loss, class-aware batching, and post-hoc threshold calibration, strategies for the firs time adapted for this domain to mitigate label imbalance and noisy supervision. Second, we bridge the gap between efficiency and reasoning with a a dynamic routing mechanism that distinguishes between unambiguous instances and complex cases requiring a deliberative process. This reasoning process resul

Large language models (LLMs) have convincing performance in a variety of downstream tasks. However, these systems are prone to generating undesirable outputs such as harmful and biased text. In order to remedy such generations, the development of guardrail (or detector) models has gained traction. Motivated by findings from developing a detector for social bias, we adopt the notion of a use-mention distinction - which we identified as the primary source of under-performance in the preliminary versions of our social bias detector. Armed with this information, we describe a fully extensible and reproducible synthetic data generation pipeline which leverages taxonomy-driven instructions to create targeted and labeled data. Using this pipeline, we generate over 300K unique contrastive samples and provide extensive experiments to systematically evaluate performance on a suite of open source datasets. We show that our method achieves competitive performance with a fraction of the cost in compute and offers insight into iteratively developing efficient and capable guardrail models. Warning: This paper contains examples of text which are toxic, biased, and potentially harmful.

AI safety practitioners invest considerable resources in AI system evaluations, but these investments may be wasted if evaluations fail to realize their impact. This paper questions the core value proposition of evaluations: that they significantly improve our understanding of AI risks and, consequently, our ability to mitigate those risks. Evaluations may fail to improve understanding in six ways, such as risks manifesting beyond the AI system or insignificant returns from evaluations compared to real-world observations. Improved understanding may also not lead to better risk mitigation in four ways, including challenges in upholding and enforcing commitments. Evaluations could even be harmful, for example, by triggering the weaponization of dual-use capabilities or invoking high opportunity costs for AI safety. This paper concludes with considerations for improving evaluation practices and 12 recommendations for AI labs, external evaluators, regulators, and academic researchers to encourage a more strategic and impactful approach to AI risk assessment and mitigation.

In an unfamiliar setting, a model-based reinforcement learning agent can be limited by the accuracy of its world model. In this work, we present a novel, training-free approach to improving the performance of such agents separately from planning and learning. We do so by applying iterative inference at decision-time, to fine-tune the inferred agent states based on the coherence of future state representations. Our approach achieves a consistent improvement in both reconstruction accuracy and task performance when applied to visual 3D navigation tasks. We go on to show that considering more future states further improves the performance of the agent in partially-observable environments, but not in a fully-observable one. Finally, we demonstrate that agents with less training pre-evaluation benefit most from our approach.

Quantitative characterizations and estimations of uncertainty are of fundamental importance in optimization and decision-making processes. Herein, we propose intuitive scores, which we call certainty and doubt, that can be used in both a Bayesian and frequentist framework to assess and compare the quality and uncertainty of predictions in (multi-)classification decision machine learning problems.

We conducted ethnographic research with 31 misinformation creators and consumers in Brazil and the US before, during, and after a major election to understand the consumption and production of election and medical misinformation. This study contributes to research on misinformation ecosystems by focusing on poorly understood small players, or "micro-influencers", who create misinformation in peer-to-peer networks. We detail four key tactics that micro-influencers use. First, they typically disseminate "gray area" content rather than expert-falsified claims, using subtle aesthetic and rhetorical tactics to evade moderation. Second, they post in small, closed groups where members feel safe and predisposed to trust content. Third, they explicitly target misinformation consumers' emotional and social needs. Finally, they post a high volume of short, repetitive content to plant seeds of doubt and build trust in influencers as unofficial experts. We discuss the implications these micro-influencers have for misinformation interventions and platforms' efforts to moderate misinformation.

Do larger and more performant models resolve NLP's longstanding robustness issues? We investigate this question using over 20 models of different sizes spanning different architectural choices and pretraining objectives. We conduct evaluations using (a) out-of-domain and challenge test sets, (b) behavioral testing with CheckLists, (c) contrast sets, and (d) adversarial inputs. Our analysis reveals that not all out-of-domain tests provide insight into robustness. Evaluating with CheckLists and contrast sets shows significant gaps in model performance; merely scaling models does not make them adequately robust. Finally, we point out that current approaches for adversarial evaluations of models are themselves problematic: they can be easily thwarted, and in their current forms, do not represent a sufficiently deep probe of model robustness. We conclude that not only is the question of robustness in NLP as yet unresolved, but even some of the approaches to measure robustness need to be reassessed.

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a prevalent, progressive, and ultimately fatal neurodegenerative disorder that is defined pathologically by the accumulation of amyloid plaques and tau neurofibrillary tangles in the brain. There remains an unmet need for therapies that can halt or slow the course of AD. To address this need, the FDA has provided a mechanism, under its Accelerated Approval pathway, for potential therapeutics to be approved based in part on their ability to reduce brain amyloid. Through this pathway, two monoclonal anti-amyloid antibodies, aducanumab and lecanemab, have been approved for clinical use. More recently, another amyloid-lowering antibody, donanemab, generated a statistically significant outcome in a phase 3 clinical trial and will shortly come under FDA review. While these monoclonal antibodies are not yet routinely used in clinical practice, the series of recent positive clinical trials has fostered enthusiasm amongst some AD experts. Here, we discuss three key limitations regarding recent anti-amyloid clinical trials: (1) there is little to no evidence that amyloid reduction correlates with clinical outcome, (2) the reported efficacy of anti-amyloid therapie

In many models in economics or business a dominantly self-interested homo economicus is assumed. Unfortunately (or fortunately), humans are in general not homines economici as e.g. the ultimatum game shows. This leads to the fact that all these models are at least doubtful. Moreover, economists started to set a quantitative value for the feeling of social justice, altruism, or envy and the like to execute utilitarian calculation. Besides being ethically doubtful, it delivers an explanation in hindsight with little predicting power. We use examples from game theory to show its arbitrariness. It is even possible that a stable Nash equilibrium can be calculated while it does not exist at all, due to the wide differences in human values. Finally, we show that assigned numbers for envy or altruism and the like do not build a field (in a mathematical sense). As there is no homomorphism to real numbers or a subset of it, any calculation is generally invalid or arbitrary. There is no (easy) way to fix the problem. One has to go back to ethical concepts like the categorical imperative or use at most semi quantitative approaches like considering knaves and knights. Mathematically one can onl

While Bayesian model selection is a useful tool to discriminate between competing cosmological models, it only gives a relative rather than an absolute measure of how good a model is. Bayesian doubt introduces an unknown benchmark model against which the known models are compared, thereby obtaining an absolute measure of model performance in a Bayesian framework. We apply this new methodology to the problem of the dark energy equation of state, comparing an absolute upper bound on the Bayesian evidence for a presently unknown dark energy model against a collection of known models including a flat LambdaCDM scenario. We find a strong absolute upper bound to the Bayes factor B between the unknown model and LambdaCDM, giving B < 3. The posterior probability for doubt is found to be less than 6% (with a 1% prior doubt) while the probability for LambdaCDM rises from an initial 25% to just over 50% in light of the data. We conclude that LambdaCDM remains a sufficient phenomenological description of currently available observations and that there is little statistical room for model improvement.