Arshia Soltani Moakhar

Out-of-distribution (OOD) detection has recently gained substantial attention due to the importance of identifying out-of-domain samples in reliability and safety. Although OOD detection methods have advanced by a great deal, they are still susceptible to adversarial examples, which is a violation of their purpose. To mitigate this issue, several defenses have recently been proposed. Nevertheless, these efforts remained ineffective, as their evaluations are based on either small perturbation sizes, or weak attacks. In this work, we re-examine these defenses against an end-to-end PGD attack on in/out data with larger perturbation sizes, e.g. up to commonly used for the CIFAR-10 dataset. Surprisingly, almost all of these defenses perform worse than a random detection under the adversarial setting. Next, we aim to provide a robust OOD detection method. In an ideal defense, the training should expose the model to almost \it all possible adversarial perturbations, which can be achieved through adversarial training. That is, such training perturbations should based on both in- and out-of-distribution samples. Therefore, unlike OOD detection in the standard setting, access to OOD, as well as in-distribution, samples sounds necessary in the adversarial training setup. These tips lead us to adopt generative OOD detection methods, such as OpenGAN, as a baseline. We subsequently propose the Adversarially Trained Discriminator (ATD), which utilizes a pre-trained robust model to extract robust features, and a generator model to create OOD samples. We noted that, for the sake of training stability, in the adversarial training of the discriminator, one should attack real in-distribution as well as real outliers, but not generated outliers. Using ATD with CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 as the in-distribution data, we could significantly outperform all previous methods in the robust AUROC while maintaining high standard AUROC and classification accuracy.

Interpretability, broadly defined as mechanisms for understanding why and how machine learning models reach their decisions, is one of the key open goals at the intersection of deep learning theory and practice. Towards this goal, multiple tools have been proposed to aid a human examiner in reasoning about a network’s behavior in general or on a set of instances. However, the outputs of these tools-such as input saliency maps or neuron visualizations-are frequently difficult for a human to interpret, or even misleading, due, in particular, to the fact that neurons can be multifaceted, i.e., a single neuron can be associated with multiple distinct feature combinations. In this paper, we present a new general approach to address this problem, called SPADE, which, given a trained model and a target sample, uses sample-targeted pruning to provide a "trace" of the network’s execution on the sample, reducing the network to the connections that are most relevant to the specific prediction. We demonstrate that preprocessing with SPADE significantly increases both the accuracy of image saliency maps across several interpretability methods and the usefulness of neuron visualizations, aiding humans in reasoning about network behavior. Our findings show that sample-specific pruning of connections can disentangle multifaceted neurons, leading to consistently improved interpretability.

The performance differential of large language models (LLM) between languages hinders their effective deployment in many regions, inhibiting the potential economic and societal value of generative AI tools in many communities. However, the development of functional LLMs in many languages (\ie, multilingual LLMs) is bottlenecked by the lack of high-quality evaluation resources in languages other than English. Moreover, current practices in multilingual benchmark construction often translate English resources, ignoring the regional and cultural knowledge of the environments in which multilingual systems would be used. In this work, we construct an evaluation suite of 197,243 QA pairs from local exam sources to measure the capabilities of multilingual LLMs in a variety of regional contexts. Our novel resource, INCLUDE, is a comprehensive knowledge- and reasoning-centric benchmark across 44 written languages that evaluates multilingual LLMs for performance in the actual language environments where they would be deployed.

Machine learning has demonstrated remarkable capabilities across various tasks, yet it confronts significant challenges such as limited interpretability, reliance on extensive data, and difficulties in incorporating human intuition. In contrast, traditional software development avoids these pitfalls, offering full interpretability, less data dependency, and easy integration of intuitive decision-making. To have the strengths of both approaches, we introduce the BasedOn library. This tool focuses on code written by programmers while providing very simple interfaces to let programmers use machine learning. The BasedOn library, leveraging policy gradient methods, offers "learnable" if statements.

The evaluation of vision-language models (VLMs) has mainly relied on English-language benchmarks, leaving significant gaps in both multilingual and multicultural coverage. While multilingual benchmarks have expanded, both in size and languages, many rely on translations of English datasets, failing to capture cultural nuances. In this work, we propose Kaleidoscope, as the most comprehensive exam benchmark to date for the multilingual evaluation of vision-language models. Kaleidoscope is a large-scale, in-language multimodal benchmark designed to evaluate VLMs across diverse languages and visual inputs. Kaleidoscope covers 18 languages and 14 different subjects, amounting to a total of 20,911 multiple-choice questions. Built through an open science collaboration with a diverse group of researchers worldwide, Kaleidoscope ensures linguistic and cultural authenticity. We evaluate top-performing multilingual vision-language models and find that they perform poorly on low-resource languages and in complex multimodal scenarios. Our results highlight the need for progress on culturally inclusive multimodal evaluation frameworks.

We evaluate language models on their ability to explore interactive environments under a limited interaction budget. We introduce three parametric tasks with controllable exploration difficulty, spanning continuous and discrete environments. Across state-of-the-art models, we find systematic under-exploration and suboptimal solutions, with performance often significantly worse than simple explore–exploit heuristic baselines and scaling weakly as the budget increases. Finally, we study two lightweight interventions: splitting a fixed budget into parallel executions, which surprisingly improves performance despite a no-gain theoretical result for our tasks, and periodically summarizing the interaction history, which preserves key discoveries and further improves exploration.

This paper advances the theoretical understanding of active learning label complexity for decision trees as binary classifiers. We make two main contributions. First, we provide the first analysis of the disagreement coefficient for decision trees—a key parameter governing active learning label complexity. Our analysis holds under two natural assumptions required for achieving polylogarithmic label complexity: (i) each root-to-leaf path queries distinct feature dimensions, and (ii) the input data has a regular, grid-like structure. We show these assumptions are essential, as relaxing them leads to polynomial label complexity. Second, we present the first general active learning algorithm for binary classification that achieves a multiplicative error guarantee, producing a (1+ε)-approximate classifier. By combining these results, we design an active learning algorithm for decision trees that uses only a polylogarithmic number of label queries in the dataset size, under the stated assumptions. Finally, we establish a label complexity lower bound, showing our algorithm’s dependence on the error tolerance εis close to optimal.

Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly used to interact with and execute tasks in dynamic environments. However, a critical yet overlooked limitation of these agents is that they, by default, assume a stationary context, failing to account for the real-world time elapsed between messages. We refer to this as "temporal blindness". This limitation hinders decisions about when to invoke tools, leading agents to either over-rely on stale context and skip needed tool calls, or under-rely on it and redundantly repeat tool calls. To study this challenge, we constructed TicToc, a diverse dataset of multi-turn user-agent message trajectories across 76 scenarios, spanning dynamic environments with high, medium, and low time sensitivity. We collected human preferences between "calling a tool" and "directly answering" on each sample, and evaluated how well LLM tool-calling decisions align with human preferences under varying amounts of elapsed time. Our analysis reveals that existing models display poor alignment with human temporal perception, with no model achieving a normalized alignment rate better than 65% when given time stamp information. We also show that naive, prompt-based alignment techniques have limited effectiveness for most models, but specific post-training alignment can be a viable way to align multi-turn LLM tool use with human temporal perception. Our data and findings provide a first step toward understanding and mitigating temporal blindness, offering insights to foster the development of more time-aware and human-aligned agents.

Decision tree learning has long been a central topic in theoretical computer science, driven by its practical importance. A fundamental and widely used method for decision tree construction is the top-down greedy heuristic, which recursively splits on the most influential variable. Despite its empirical success, theoretical analysis of this heuristic has been limited. A recent breakthrough by Blanc et al. (ITCS, 2020) provided the first rigorous theoretical guarantees for the greedy approach, but only under the uniform distribution. We extend this analysis to the more general and practically relevant setting of arbitrary product distributions. Our main result shows that for any function f computable by an optimal decision tree of size s, maximum depth D_\textopt, and average depth \Delta_\textopt, the greedy heuristic constructs an ε-approximating tree whose size grows at most with \exp\bigl(\Delta_\textopt D_\textopt \log(e/ε)\bigr). In the special case where the optimal tree is a full binary tree, this bound improves upon the bound of Blanc et al. and holds under a strictly broader class of distributions. Moreover, we present an algorithm based on the top-down greedy heuristic that is entirely parameter-free—it requires no prior knowledge of the optimal tree’s size or depth—offering a practical advantage over Blanc et al.’s method.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional capabilities in mathematical reasoning, they frequently produce subtle errors that evade human detection. Formal mathematical languages like Lean 4 offer mechanical proof checking, strongly motivating the need for autoformalization: the automatic translation of natural language mathematics into verifiable code. Recent trends indicate that general-purpose LLMs, heavily optimized for standard programming, now outperform smaller models explicitly fine-tuned for Lean. Leveraging this shift, we introduce an agentic autoformalization framework powered by general coding LLMs. At the core of our system is an orchestrator that manages a multi-agent pipeline tailored for research-level mathematics. Because cutting-edge research frequently relies on concepts outside the scope of existing libraries like Mathlib, our system dynamically extends necessary type definitions and validates them via a novel Auxiliary Lemma technique before formalizing the primary theorems. We applied our approach to PutnamBench, producing machine-checked Lean proofs for a random sample of 32 problems. Furthermore, we evaluate our system on five papers from the ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC) spanning combinatorics, communication complexity, mechanism design, and learning theory, successfully formalizing their main theorems and validating the generated formalizations with human experts; for all five we also formalize the proofs alongside the statements, and notably two of them are proved with no axioms beyond Lean’s kernel.