#01Nov 4, 2026
cs.LG
Navigating Disagreement Among Criteria for Evaluating Explanation Faithfulness
Grant Shanklin, Jiří Němeček, Asia Biega
Faithfulness requires that algorithmic explanations accurately reflect the model's behavior. Yet existing operationalizations of faithfulness can disagree about whether the same explanation is faithful, leaving developers and auditors to choose among conflicting evaluations. In this paper, we investigate disagreement among evaluation criteria and offer a practical path forward for evaluating explanation faithfulness. We first identify how operationalizations of faithfulness differ. We introduce a faithfulness functional that locates their disagreements in what an explanation claims about the model, which comparisons bear on that claim, and how agreement across those comparisons should be aggregated, and we reconstruct existing evaluation criteria within it. We argue these reconstructions support understanding faithfulness as a common though incompletely specified relation between the model and explanation, so the differences reflect choices left open by the general requirement. Justifying an operationalization then comes down to justifying these choices, which, on our view, draws on explanatory, institutional, and normative considerations. We support this argument with a case study of adverse action notices, reconstructing the evaluation implicit in an industry-proposed procedure and identifying which of its choices the setting justifies and which remain open. Our work gives auditors and practitioners a way to navigate disagreeing evaluations of faithfulness. It also explains why the literature should expect multiple operationalizations, while showing how concrete settings can narrow the choice among them. More broadly, our analysis shows how a shared requirement of faithfulness can support contextually justified evaluations despite disagreement among existing metrics.
#02Nov 4, 2026
cs.RO
ConDR: Conservative Reachability through Neural Hamilton-Jacobi Subsolutions
Kendra Givens, Taylor T. Johnson, Bryan C. Ward and 1 more
Hamilton-Jacobi (HJ) Reachability identifies the unsafe states of a dynamical system from which it can be forced into failure under worst-case disturbance. However, classical grid-based solvers scale exponentially with state dimension. DeepReach improves scalability by replacing the grid with a neural value function trained on the HJ-Isaacs (HJI) variational inequality (VI), but penalizes both sides of the residual equally. This allows the learned value to lie above the true one and unsafe states to be misclassified as safe. We propose Conservative DeepReach (ConDR) which aims to learn a subsolution of the HJI VI such that the learned unsafe set contains the true one. ConDR enforces the obstacle branch and terminal condition by construction, pushes the HJI residual to a safety margin $ε$ below zero with a one-sided loss, and prevents the degenerate solution of classifying everything as unsafe. We prove that the exact solution of the margin-shifted VI that ConDR trains toward is a subsolution of the original VI so its unsafe set contains the true one and its value lies within $ετ$ of the true value function. We compare against DeepReach and MADR in the established systems of Air3D, Air6D, a 9D multi-vehicle system, and a 13D quadrotor. ConDR reports the lowest rate of unsafe state misclassified and the lowest closed-loop collision rates with at most a small increase in intervention. On Air3D and Air6D, ConDR tolerates model mismatch that scales with $ε$. At matched false-negative rates, ConDR's unsafe sets are smaller than the baselines showing the safety is not obtained by trivial over-approximation.
#03Nov 4, 2026
stat.ML
Alignment Myopia in Generative AI
Remi Denton, Aida Davani, Cynthia L Bennett and 3 more
Current generative AI alignment relies on a myopic paradigm that prioritizes immediate conversational satisfaction. By relying on short-horizon feedback, this approach ignores the profound, longitudinal externalities of persistent human-AI interaction, which can lead to adverse outcomes such as cognitive atrophy, social erosion, and diminished human agency. To address this, we propose a paradigm shift toward long-horizon alignment that accounts for how AI reshapes human experience over time. To this end, we map the tensions between near-term utility and long-term costs of AI use across four facets of human well-being to reveal outcomes that current reward models fail to capture. Ultimately, we advocate for moving beyond simple preference optimization toward alignment strategies that actively foster long-term human well-being by navigating these complex temporal scales.
#04Nov 4, 2026
cs.AR
Enabling AWS Cloud FPGA Development Using High-Level Vitis HLS
David Rostcheck
We present a toolchain for development of ML models on AWS EC2 F2 cloud FPGA infrastructure from high-level language, implementing a complete Vitis HLS to HDK bridge to AFI workflow that has been absent from the academic literature despite eight years of AWS FPGA availability. We introduce a four-level methodology (FP32 PyTorch, bit-accurate quantized Python, HLS C-simulation, physical FPGA) to aid in localizing errors, including FPGA-specific circuit errors. Together these tools allow coding agents to effectively implement FPGA designs from user directions, testing and debugging as needed. We document the deployment workflow, timing closure strategies, and practical HLS engineering decisions that proved crucial. We validate using TinyBERT fine-tuned for address Named Entity Recognition, implementing the embedding layer and the first of four encoder layers on the FPGA hardware. Our implementation streams weights from host DRAM, yielding poor performance compared to CPU/GPU implementations; we discuss forward paths.
#05Nov 4, 2026
cs.MA
A Framework for Context Enrichment and Selective Robustness in LLM Social Agents
Mattia Greiche, Reihaneh Rabbany, Maximilian Puelma Touzel
Researchers use large language models as agents in social simulations, where agents are prompted with observations and background information intended to shape their actions. Yet LLM agents have been shown to substantially change their behavior under meaning-preserving prompt variations, creating a validation problem for social simulation. One plausible hypothesis is that this brittleness reflects a lack of grounding and can be reduced by enriching the context provided to the agents. Whether richer context improves robustness remains unclear, in part because context richness and robustness are rarely defined in ways that support controlled comparisons. We address the first need with controlled context enrichment, a set of prompt substitution rules that systematically enriches distinct types of context: neutral padding, generic social background, descriptive decision grounding, and normative decision grounding. We address the second by introducing selective robustness as a validation criterion: insensitivity to meaning-preserving prompt variation combined with a directional response to decision-relevant changes in the social world. We demonstrate the framework in a Prisoner's Dilemma-like game, showing how it can be used to identify which forms of context enrichment produce more desirable and robust agent behavior. We find that these forms of enrichment produce distinct behavioral patterns that vary between the two models tested.