Certified Unlearning for Neural Networks

We address the problem of machine unlearning, where the goal is to remove the influence of specific training data from a model upon request, motivated by privacy concerns and regulatory requirements such as the "right to be forgotten." Unfortunately, existing methods rely on restrictive assumptions or lack formal guarantees. To this end, we propose a novel method for certified machine unlearning, leveraging the connection between unlearning and privacy amplification by stochastic post-processing. Our method uses noisy fine-tuning on the retain data, i.e., data that does not need to be removed, to ensure provable unlearning guarantees. This approach requires no assumptions about the underlying loss function, making it broadly applicable across diverse settings. We analyze the theoretical trade-offs in efficiency and accuracy and demonstrate empirically that our method not only achieves formal unlearning guarantees but also performs effectively in practice, outperforming existing baselines. Our code is available at https://github.com/stair-lab/certified-unlearningneural-networks-icml-2025

The Optimization Paradox in Clinical AI Multi-Agent Systems

Multi-agent artificial intelligence systems are increasingly deployed in clinical settings, yet the relationship between component-level optimization and system-wide performance remains poorly understood. We evaluated this relationship using 2,400 real patient cases from the MIMIC-CDM dataset across four abdominal pathologies (appendicitis, pancreatitis, cholecystitis, diverticulitis), decomposing clinical diagnosis into information gathering, interpretation, and differential diagnosis. We evaluated single agent systems (one model performing all tasks) against multi-agent systems (specialized models for each task) using comprehensive metrics spanning diagnostic outcomes, process adherence, and cost efficiency. Our results reveal a paradox: while multi-agent systems generally outperformed single agents, the component-optimized or Best of Breed system with superior components and excellent process metrics (85.5% information accuracy) significantly underperformed in diagnostic accuracy (67.7% vs. 77.4% for a top multi-agent system). This finding underscores that successful integration of AI in healthcare requires not just component level optimization but also attention to information flow and compatibility between agents. Our findings highlight the need for end to end system validation rather than relying on component metrics alone.

Understanding challenges to the interpretation of disaggregated evaluations of algorithmic fairness

Disaggregated evaluation across subgroups is critical for assessing the fairness of machine learning models, but its uncritical use can mislead practitioners. We show that equal performance across subgroups is an unreliable measure of fairness when data are representative of the relevant populations but reflective of real-world disparities. Furthermore, when data are not representative due to selection bias, both disaggregated evaluation and alternative approaches based on conditional independence testing may be invalid without explicit assumptions regarding the bias mechanism. We use causal graphical models to predict metric stability across subgroups under different data generating processes. Our framework suggests complementing disaggregated evaluations with explicit causal assumptions and analysis to control for confounding and distribution shift, including conditional independence testing and weighted performance estimation. These findings have broad implications for how practitioners design and interpret model assessments given the ubiquity of disaggregated evaluation.

MedHELM: Holistic Evaluation of Large Language Models for Medical Tasks

While large language models (LLMs) achieve near-perfect scores on medical licensing exams, these evaluations inadequately reflect the complexity and diversity of real-world clinical practice. We introduce MedHELM, an extensible evaluation framework for assessing LLM performance for medical tasks with three key contributions. First, a clinician-validated taxonomy spanning 5 categories, 22 subcategories, and 121 tasks developed with 29 clinicians. Second, a comprehensive benchmark suite comprising 35 benchmarks (17 existing, 18 newly formulated) providing complete coverage of all categories and subcategories in the taxonomy. Third, a systematic comparison of LLMs with improved evaluation methods (using an LLM-jury) and a cost-performance analysis. Evaluation of 9 frontier LLMs, using the 35 benchmarks, revealed significant performance variation. Advanced reasoning models (DeepSeek R1: 66% win-rate; o3-mini: 64% win-rate) demonstrated superior performance, though Claude 3.5 Sonnet achieved comparable results at 40% lower estimated computational cost. On a normalized accuracy scale (0-1), most models performed strongly in Clinical Note Generation (0.73-0.85) and Patient Communication & Education (0.78-0.83), moderately in Medical Research Assistance (0.65-0.75), and generally lower in Clinical Decision Support (0.56-0.72) and Administration & Workflow (0.53-0.63). Our LLM-jury evaluation method achieved good agreement with clinician ratings (ICC = 0.47), surpassing both average clinician-clinician agreement (ICC = 0.43) and automated baselines including ROUGE-L (0.36) and BERTScore-F1 (0.44). Claude 3.5 Sonnet achieved comparable performance to top models at lower estimated cost. These findings highlight the importance of real-world, task-specific evaluation for medical use of LLMs and provides an open source framework to enable this.

SATBench: Benchmarking LLMs' Logical Reasoning via Automated Puzzle Generation from SAT Formulas

We introduce SATBench, a benchmark for evaluating the logical reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) through logical puzzles derived from Boolean satisfiability (SAT) problems. Unlike prior work that focuses on inference rule-based reasoning, which often involves deducing conclusions from a set of premises, our approach leverages the search-based nature of SAT problems, where the objective is to find a solution that fulfills a specified set of logical constraints. Each instance in SATBench is generated from a SAT formula, then translated into a story context and conditions using LLMs. The generation process is fully automated and allows for adjustable difficulty by varying the number of clauses. All 2100 puzzles are validated through both LLM-assisted and solver-based consistency checks, with human validation on a subset. Experimental results show that even the strongest model, o4-mini, achieves only 65.0% accuracy on hard UNSAT problems, close to the random baseline of 50%. SATBench exposes fundamental limitations in the search-based logical reasoning abilities of current LLMs and provides a scalable testbed for future research in logical reasoning.

Measurement to Meaning: A Validity-Centered Framework for AI Evaluation

While the capabilities and utility of AI systems have advanced, rigorous norms for evaluating these systems have lagged. Grand claims, such as models achieving general reasoning capabilities, are supported with model performance on narrow benchmarks, like performance on graduate-level exam questions, which provide a limited and potentially misleading assessment. We provide a structured approach for reasoning about the types of evaluative claims that can be made given the available evidence. For instance, our framework helps determine whether performance on a mathematical benchmark is an indication of the ability to solve problems on math tests or instead indicates a broader ability to reason. Our framework is well-suited for the contemporary paradigm in machine learning, where various stakeholders provide measurements and evaluations that downstream users use to validate their claims and decisions. At the same time, our framework also informs the construction of evaluations designed to speak to the validity of the relevant claims. By leveraging psychometrics' breakdown of validity, evaluations can prioritize the most critical facets for a given claim, improving empirical utility and decision-making efficacy. We illustrate our framework through detailed case studies of vision and language model evaluations, highlighting how explicitly considering validity strengthens the connection between evaluation evidence and the claims being made.

The Leaderboard Illusion

Measuring progress is fundamental to the advancement of any scientific field. As benchmarks play an increasingly central role, they also grow more susceptible to distortion. Chatbot Arena has emerged as the go-to leaderboard for ranking the most capable AI systems. Yet, in this work we identify systematic issues that have resulted in a distorted playing field. We find that undisclosed private testing practices benefit a handful of providers who are able to test multiple variants before public release and retract scores if desired. We establish that the ability of these providers to choose the best score leads to biased Arena scores due to selective disclosure of performance results. At an extreme, we identify 27 private LLM variants tested by Meta in the lead-up to the Llama-4 release. We also establish that proprietary closed models are sampled at higher rates (number of battles) and have fewer models removed from the arena than open-weight and open-source alternatives. Both these policies lead to large data access asymmetries over time. Providers like Google and OpenAI have received an estimated 19.2% and 20.4% of all data on the arena, respectively. In contrast, a combined 83 open-weight models have only received an estimated 29.7% of the total data. We show that access to Chatbot Arena data yields substantial benefits; even limited additional data can result in relative performance gains of up to 112% on the arena distribution, based on our conservative estimates. Together, these dynamics result in overfitting to Arena-specific dynamics rather than general model quality. The Arena builds on the substantial efforts of both the organizers and an open community that maintains this valuable evaluation platform. We offer actionable recommendations to reform the Chatbot Arena's evaluation framework and promote fairer, more transparent benchmarking for the field

A Framework for Objective-Driven Dynamical Stochastic Fields

Fields offer a versatile approach for describing complex systems composed of interacting and dynamic components. In particular, some of these dynamical and stochastic systems may exhibit goal-directed behaviors aimed at achieving specific objectives, which we refer to as $\textit{intelligent fields}$. However, due to their inherent complexity, it remains challenging to develop a formal theoretical description of such systems and to effectively translate these descriptions into practical applications. In this paper, we propose three fundamental principles -- complete configuration, locality, and purposefulness -- to establish a theoretical framework for understanding intelligent fields. Moreover, we explore methodologies for designing such fields from the perspective of artificial intelligence applications. This initial investigation aims to lay the groundwork for future theoretical developments and practical advances in understanding and harnessing the potential of such objective-driven dynamical stochastic fields.

One-Minute Video Generation with Test-Time Training

Transformers today still struggle to generate one-minute videos because self-attention layers are inefficient for long context. Alternatives such as Mamba layers struggle with complex multi-scene stories because their hidden states are less expressive. We experiment with Test-Time Training (TTT) layers, whose hidden states themselves can be neural networks, therefore more expressive. Adding TTT layers into a pre-trained Transformer enables it to generate one-minute videos from text storyboards. For proof of concept, we curate a dataset based on Tom and Jerry cartoons. Compared to baselines such as Mamba~2, Gated DeltaNet, and sliding-window attention layers, TTT layers generate much more coherent videos that tell complex stories, leading by 34 Elo points in a human evaluation of 100 videos per method. Although promising, results still contain artifacts, likely due to the limited capability of the pre-trained 5B model. The efficiency of our implementation can also be improved. We have only experimented with one-minute videos due to resource constraints, but the approach can be extended to longer videos and more complex stories. Sample videos, code and annotations are available at: https://test-time-training.github.io/video-dit

Are Domain Generalization Benchmarks with Accuracy on the Line Misspecified?

Spurious correlations are unstable statistical associations that hinder robust decision-making. Conventional wisdom suggests that models relying on such correlations will fail to generalize out-of-distribution (OOD), especially under strong distribution shifts. However, empirical evidence challenges this view as naive in-distribution empirical risk minimizers often achieve the best OOD accuracy across popular OOD generalization benchmarks. In light of these results, we propose a different perspective: many widely used benchmarks for evaluating robustness to spurious correlations are misspecified. Specifically, they fail to include shifts in spurious correlations that meaningfully impact OOD generalization, making them unsuitable for evaluating the benefit of removing such correlations. We establish conditions under which a distribution shift can reliably assess a model's reliance on spurious correlations. Crucially, under these conditions, we should not observe a strong positive correlation between in-distribution and OOD accuracy, often called "accuracy on the line." Yet, most state-of-the-art benchmarks exhibit this pattern, suggesting they do not effectively assess robustness. Our findings expose a key limitation in current benchmarks used to evaluate domain generalization algorithms, that is, models designed to avoid spurious correlations. We highlight the need to rethink how robustness to spurious correlations is assessed, identify well-specified benchmarks the field should prioritize, and enumerate strategies for designing future benchmarks that meaningfully reflect robustness under distribution shift.