Towards a Cascaded LLM Framework for Cost-effective Human-AI Decision-Making

Effective human-AI decision-making balances three key factors: the \textit{correctness} of predictions, the \textit{cost} of knowledge and reasoning complexity, and the confidence about whether to \textit{abstain} automated answers or involve human experts. In this work, we present a cascaded LLM decision framework that adaptively delegates tasks across multiple tiers of expertise -- a base model for initial candidate answers, a more capable and knowledgeable (but costlier) large model, and a human expert for when the model cascade abstains. Our method proceeds in two stages. First, a deferral policy determines whether to accept the base model's answer or regenerate it with the large model based on the confidence score. Second, an abstention policy decides whether the cascade model response is sufficiently certain or requires human intervention. Moreover, we incorporate an online learning mechanism in the framework that can leverage human feedback to improve decision quality over time. We demonstrate this approach to general question-answering (ARC-Easy and ARC-Challenge) and medical question-answering (MedQA and MedMCQA). Our results show that our cascaded strategy outperforms in most cases single-model baselines in accuracy while reducing cost and providing a principled way to handle abstentions.

Continuously Updating Digital Twins using Large Language Models

Digital twins are models of real-world systems that can simulate their dynamics in response to potential actions. In complex settings, the state and action variables, and available data and knowledge relevant to a system can constantly change, requiring digital twins to continuously update with these changes to remain relevant. Current approaches struggle in this regard, as they require fixed, well-defined modelling environments, and they cannot adapt to novel variables without re-designs, or incorporate new information without re-training. To address this, we frame digital twinning as an in-context learning problem using large language models, enabling seamless updates to the twin at inference time. We develop CALM-DT, a Context-Adaptive Language Model-based Digital Twin that can accurately simulate across diverse state-action spaces using in-context learning alone by utilising fine-tuned encoders for sample retrieval. We empirically demonstrate CALM-DT's competitive performance with existing digital twin approaches, and its unique ability to adapt to changes in its modelling environment without parameter updates.

Revolutionizing Clinical Trials: A Manifesto for AI-Driven Transformation

This manifesto represents a collaborative vision forged by leaders in pharmaceuticals, consulting firms, clinical research, and AI. It outlines a roadmap for two AI technologies - causal inference and digital twins - to transform clinical trials, delivering faster, safer, and more personalized outcomes for patients. By focusing on actionable integration within existing regulatory frameworks, we propose a way forward to revolutionize clinical research and redefine the gold standard for clinical trials using AI.

Improving LLM Agent Planning with In-Context Learning via Atomic Fact Augmentation and Lookahead Search

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly capable but often require significant guidance or extensive interaction history to perform effectively in complex, interactive environments. Existing methods may struggle with adapting to new information or efficiently utilizing past experiences for multi-step reasoning without fine-tuning. We introduce a novel LLM agent framework that enhances planning capabilities through in-context learning, facilitated by atomic fact augmentation and a recursive lookahead search. Our agent learns to extract task-critical ``atomic facts'' from its interaction trajectories. These facts dynamically augment the prompts provided to LLM-based components responsible for action proposal, latent world model simulation, and state-value estimation. Planning is performed via a depth-limited lookahead search, where the LLM simulates potential trajectories and evaluates their outcomes, guided by the accumulated facts and interaction history. This approach allows the agent to improve its understanding and decision-making online, leveraging its experience to refine its behavior without weight updates. We provide a theoretical motivation linking performance to the quality of fact-based abstraction and LLM simulation accuracy. Empirically, our agent demonstrates improved performance and adaptability on challenging interactive tasks, achieving more optimal behavior as it accumulates experience, showcased in tasks such as TextFrozenLake and ALFWorld.

G-Sim: Generative Simulations with Large Language Models and Gradient-Free Calibration

Constructing robust simulators is essential for asking "what if?" questions and guiding policy in critical domains like healthcare and logistics. However, existing methods often struggle, either failing to generalize beyond historical data or, when using Large Language Models (LLMs), suffering from inaccuracies and poor empirical alignment. We introduce G-Sim, a hybrid framework that automates simulator construction by synergizing LLM-driven structural design with rigorous empirical calibration. G-Sim employs an LLM in an iterative loop to propose and refine a simulator's core components and causal relationships, guided by domain knowledge. This structure is then grounded in reality by estimating its parameters using flexible calibration techniques. Specifically, G-Sim can leverage methods that are both likelihood-free and gradient-free with respect to the simulator, such as gradient-free optimization for direct parameter estimation or simulation-based inference for obtaining a posterior distribution over parameters. This allows it to handle non-differentiable and stochastic simulators. By integrating domain priors with empirical evidence, G-Sim produces reliable, causally-informed simulators, mitigating data-inefficiency and enabling robust system-level interventions for complex decision-making.

Statistical Hypothesis Testing for Auditing Robustness in Language Models

Consider the problem of testing whether the outputs of a large language model (LLM) system change under an arbitrary intervention, such as an input perturbation or changing the model variant. We cannot simply compare two LLM outputs since they might differ due to the stochastic nature of the system, nor can we compare the entire output distribution due to computational intractability. While existing methods for analyzing text-based outputs exist, they focus on fundamentally different problems, such as measuring bias or fairness. To this end, we introduce distribution-based perturbation analysis, a framework that reformulates LLM perturbation analysis as a frequentist hypothesis testing problem. We construct empirical null and alternative output distributions within a low-dimensional semantic similarity space via Monte Carlo sampling, enabling tractable inference without restrictive distributional assumptions. The framework is (i) model-agnostic, (ii) supports the evaluation of arbitrary input perturbations on any black-box LLM, (iii) yields interpretable p-values; (iv) supports multiple perturbations via controlled error rates; and (v) provides scalar effect sizes. We demonstrate the usefulness of the framework across multiple case studies, showing how we can quantify response changes, measure true/false positive rates, and evaluate alignment with reference models. Above all, we see this as a reliable frequentist hypothesis testing framework for LLM auditing.

The AI Imperative: Scaling High-Quality Peer Review in Machine Learning

Peer review, the bedrock of scientific advancement in machine learning (ML), is strained by a crisis of scale. Exponential growth in manuscript submissions to premier ML venues such as NeurIPS, ICML, and ICLR is outpacing the finite capacity of qualified reviewers, leading to concerns about review quality, consistency, and reviewer fatigue. This position paper argues that AI-assisted peer review must become an urgent research and infrastructure priority. We advocate for a comprehensive AI-augmented ecosystem, leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) not as replacements for human judgment, but as sophisticated collaborators for authors, reviewers, and Area Chairs (ACs). We propose specific roles for AI in enhancing factual verification, guiding reviewer performance, assisting authors in quality improvement, and supporting ACs in decision-making. Crucially, we contend that the development of such systems hinges on access to more granular, structured, and ethically-sourced peer review process data. We outline a research agenda, including illustrative experiments, to develop and validate these AI assistants, and discuss significant technical and ethical challenges. We call upon the ML community to proactively build this AI-assisted future, ensuring the continued integrity and scalability of scientific validation, while maintaining high standards of peer review.

Preference Learning for AI Alignment: a Causal Perspective

Reward modelling from preference data is a crucial step in aligning large language models (LLMs) with human values, requiring robust generalisation to novel prompt-response pairs. In this work, we propose to frame this problem in a causal paradigm, providing the rich toolbox of causality to identify the persistent challenges, such as causal misidentification, preference heterogeneity, and confounding due to user-specific factors. Inheriting from the literature of causal inference, we identify key assumptions necessary for reliable generalisation and contrast them with common data collection practices. We illustrate failure modes of naive reward models and demonstrate how causally-inspired approaches can improve model robustness. Finally, we outline desiderata for future research and practices, advocating targeted interventions to address inherent limitations of observational data.

Truly Self-Improving Agents Require Intrinsic Metacognitive Learning

Self-improving agents aim to continuously acquire new capabilities with minimal supervision. However, current approaches face two key limitations: their self-improvement processes are often rigid, fail to generalize across tasks domains, and struggle to scale with increasing agent capabilities. We argue that effective self-improvement requires intrinsic metacognitive learning, defined as an agent's intrinsic ability to actively evaluate, reflect on, and adapt its own learning processes. Drawing inspiration from human metacognition, we introduce a formal framework comprising three components: metacognitive knowledge (self-assessment of capabilities, tasks, and learning strategies), metacognitive planning (deciding what and how to learn), and metacognitive evaluation (reflecting on learning experiences to improve future learning). Analyzing existing self-improving agents, we find they rely predominantly on extrinsic metacognitive mechanisms, which are fixed, human-designed loops that limit scalability and adaptability. Examining each component, we contend that many ingredients for intrinsic metacognition are already present. Finally, we explore how to optimally distribute metacognitive responsibilities between humans and agents, and robustly evaluate and improve intrinsic metacognitive learning, key challenges that must be addressed to enable truly sustained, generalized, and aligned self-improvement.

Position: All Current Generative Fidelity and Diversity Metrics are Flawed

Any method's development and practical application is limited by our ability to measure its reliability. The popularity of generative modeling emphasizes the importance of good synthetic data metrics. Unfortunately, previous works have found many failure cases in current metrics, for example lack of outlier robustness and unclear lower and upper bounds. We propose a list of desiderata for synthetic data metrics, and a suite of sanity checks: carefully chosen simple experiments that aim to detect specific and known generative modeling failure modes. Based on these desiderata and the results of our checks, we arrive at our position: all current generative fidelity and diversity metrics are flawed. This significantly hinders practical use of synthetic data. Our aim is to convince the research community to spend more effort in developing metrics, instead of models. Additionally, through analyzing how current metrics fail, we provide practitioners with guidelines on how these metrics should (not) be used.