Reading and evaluating product reviews is central to how most people decide what to buy and consume online. However, the recent emergence of Large Language Models and Generative Artificial Intelligence now means writing fraudulent or fake reviews is potentially easier than ever. Through three studies we demonstrate that (1) humans are no longer able to distinguish between real and fake product reviews generated by machines, averaging only 50.8% accuracy overall - essentially the same that would be expected by chance alone; (2) that LLMs are likewise unable to distinguish between fake and real reviews and perform equivalently bad or even worse than humans; and (3) that humans and LLMs pursue different strategies for evaluating authenticity which lead to equivalently bad accuracy, but different precision, recall and F1 scores - indicating they perform worse at different aspects of judgment. The results reveal that review systems everywhere are now susceptible to mechanised fraud if they do not depend on trustworthy purchase verification to guarantee the authenticity of reviewers. Furthermore, the results provide insight into the consumer psychology of how humans judge authenticity, demonstrating there is an inherent 'scepticism bias' towards positive reviews and a special vulnerability to misjudge the authenticity of fake negative reviews. Additionally, results provide a first insight into the 'machine psychology' of judging fake reviews, revealing that the strategies LLMs take to evaluate authenticity radically differ from humans, in ways that are equally wrong in terms of accuracy, but different in their misjudgments.

Recent advancements in Long Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning models have improved performance on complex tasks, but they suffer from overthinking, which generates redundant reasoning steps, especially for simple questions. This paper revisits the reasoning patterns of Long and Short CoT models, observing that the Short CoT patterns offer concise reasoning efficiently, while the Long CoT patterns excel in challenging scenarios where the Short CoT patterns struggle. To enable models to leverage both patterns, we propose Question-Free Fine-Tuning (QFFT), a fine-tuning approach that removes the input question during training and learns exclusively from Long CoT responses. This approach enables the model to adaptively employ both reasoning patterns: it prioritizes the Short CoT patterns and activates the Long CoT patterns only when necessary. Experiments on various mathematical datasets demonstrate that QFFT reduces average response length by more than 50\%, while achieving performance comparable to Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT). Additionally, QFFT exhibits superior performance compared to SFT in noisy, out-of-domain, and low-resource scenarios.

Due to advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT, the boundary between human-written text and AI-generated text has become blurred. Nevertheless, recent work has demonstrated that it is possible to reliably detect GPT-generated text. In this paper, we adopt a novel strategy to adversarially transform GPT-generated text using sequence-to-sequence (Seq2Seq) models, with the goal of making the text more human-like. We experiment with the Seq2Seq models T5-small and BART which serve to modify GPT-generated sentences to include linguistic, structural, and semantic components that may be more typical of human-authored text. Experiments show that classification models trained to distinguish GPT-generated text are significantly less accurate when tested on text that has been modified by these Seq2Seq models. However, after retraining classification models on data generated by our Seq2Seq technique, the models are able to distinguish the transformed GPT-generated text from human-generated text with high accuracy. This work adds to the accumulating knowledge of text transformation as a tool for both attack -- in the sense of defeating classification models -- and defense -- in the sense of improved classifiers -- thereby advancing our understanding of AI-generated text.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as a powerful approach for driving offensive penetration-testing tooling. Due to the opaque nature of LLMs, empirical methods are typically used to analyze their efficacy. The quality of this analysis is highly dependent on the chosen testbed, captured metrics and analysis methods employed. This paper analyzes the methodology and benchmarking practices used for evaluating Large Language Model (LLM)-driven attacks, focusing on offensive uses of LLMs in cybersecurity. We review 19 research papers detailing 18 prototypes and their respective testbeds. We detail our findings and provide actionable recommendations for future research, emphasizing the importance of extending existing testbeds, creating baselines, and including comprehensive metrics and qualitative analysis. We also note the distinction between security research and practice, suggesting that CTF-based challenges may not fully represent real-world penetration testing scenarios.

This paper investigates the influence of cognitive biases on Large Language Models (LLMs) outputs. Cognitive biases, such as confirmation and availability biases, can distort user inputs through prompts, potentially leading to unfaithful and misleading outputs from LLMs. Using a systematic framework, our study introduces various cognitive biases into prompts and assesses their impact on LLM accuracy across multiple benchmark datasets, including general and financial Q&A scenarios. The results demonstrate that even subtle biases can significantly alter LLM answer choices, highlighting a critical need for bias-aware prompt design and mitigation strategy. Additionally, our attention weight analysis highlights how these biases can alter the internal decision-making processes of LLMs, affecting the attention distribution in ways that are associated with output inaccuracies. This research has implications for Al developers and users in enhancing the robustness and reliability of Al applications in diverse domains.

Tokyo 152 - 8552, Japan E - mail: kan.hatakeyama [ [ at ] ] weblab.t.u - tokyo.ac.jp Abstract This review explores the potential of foundation models to advanc e laboratory automation in the materials and chemical sciences. It emphasizes the dual roles of these models: cognitive functions for experimental planning and data analysis, and physical functions for hardware operations. While traditional laboratory automation has relied heavily on specialized, rigid systems, foundation models offer adaptability through their general - purpose intelligence and multimodal capabilities. Recent advancements have demonstrated the fea sibility of using large language models (LLMs) and multimodal robotic systems to handle complex and dynamic laboratory tasks. However, significant challenges remain, including precision manipulation of hardware, integration of multimodal data, and ensuring operational safety. Th is paper outlines a roadmap highlighting future directions, advocating for close interdisciplinary collaboration, benchmark establishment, and strategic human - AI integration to realize fully autonomous experimental laboratories. Keywords Laboratory Automation; Foundation Models; Robotics; Artificial Intelligence; Materials Science 1. Expectations for Foundation Models in Materials Laboratory Automation Laboratory automation, a technology aimed at automating experimental research, is expected to pave the way for a new research paradigm in materials science [1, 2, 3] . By rapidly and comprehensively executing numerous experiments, laboratory automation accelerates research, enhances reproducibility through precisely controlled robotic processes, and enables swift and distributed knowledge sharing among researchers worldwide [1] . This technology is anticipated to contribute significantly to the development of crucial devices and compounds, including catalyst s for energy and chemical conversions, environmentally friendly plastics, solar cells, secondary batteries, fuel cells, thermoelectric conversion modules, nuclear fusion reactors, quantum computers, and energy - efficient computing systems [1, 4, 5] . The success of next - generation laboratory automation depends not only o n experimental hardware but also o n the utilization of artificial intelligence (AI), especially foundation models. Foundation models represent a new AI paradigm encompassing large language models like GPT - 4 [6], multimodal models, and agent - related technologies. These foundation models and generative AI have begun to influenc e chemistry and materials science [7], giving rise to diverse applications including molecular and materials design [8, 9, 10], reaction pathway exploration [11], catalyst design [12], and even autonomous planning of chemical experiments [13] . Additionally, foundation models are being expanded to hardware control mechanisms, enabling natural language - driven robotic operations [14, 15] .

We explore the role of ontologies in enhancing hybrid modeling and simulation through improved semantic rigor, model reusability, and interoperability across systems, disciplines, and tools. By distinguishing between methodological and referential ontologies, we demonstrate how these complementary approaches address interoperability challenges along three axes: Human-Human, Human-Machine, and Machine-Machine. Techniques such as competency questions, ontology design patterns, and layered strategies are highlighted for promoting shared understanding and formal precision. Integrating ontologies with Semantic Web Technologies, we showcase their dual role as descriptive domain representations and prescriptive guides for simulation construction. Four application cases - sea-level rise analysis, Industry 4.0 modeling, artificial societies for policy support, and cyber threat evaluation - illustrate the practical benefits of ontology-driven hybrid simulation workflows. We conclude by discussing challenges and opportunities in ontology-based hybrid M&S, including tool integration, semantic alignment, and support for explainable AI.

This paper explores the use of large language models (LLMs) as research tools in the history, philosophy, and sociology of science (HPSS). LLMs are remarkably effective at processing unstructured text and inferring meaning from context, offering new affordances that challenge long-standing divides between computational and interpretive methods. This raises both opportunities and challenges for HPSS, which emphasizes interpretive methodologies and understands meaning as context-dependent, ambiguous, and historically situated. We argue that HPSS is uniquely positioned not only to benefit from LLMs' capabilities but also to interrogate their epistemic assumptions and infrastructural implications. To this end, we first offer a concise primer on LLM architectures and training paradigms tailored to non-technical readers. We frame LLMs not as neutral tools but as epistemic infrastructures that encode assumptions about meaning, context, and similarity, conditioned by their training data, architecture, and patterns of use. We then examine how computational techniques enhanced by LLMs, such as structuring data, detecting patterns, and modeling dynamic processes, can be applied to support interpretive research in HPSS. Our analysis compares full-context and generative models, outlines strategies for domain and task adaptation (e.g., continued pretraining, fine-tuning, and retrieval-augmented generation), and evaluates their respective strengths and limitations for interpretive inquiry in HPSS. We conclude with four lessons for integrating LLMs into HPSS: (1) model selection involves interpretive trade-offs; (2) LLM literacy is foundational; (3) HPSS must define its own benchmarks and corpora; and (4) LLMs should enhance, not replace, interpretive methods.

A beginning is made at mapping four neural theories of consciousness onto the Common Model of Cognition. This highlights how the four jointly depend on recurrent local modules plus a cognitive cycle operating on a global working memory with complex states, and reveals how an existing integrative view of consciousness from a neural perspective aligns with the Com-mon Model.

Quantum communication is poised to become a foundational element of next-generation networking, offering transformative capabilities in security, entanglement-based connectivity, and computational offloading. However, the classical OSI model-designed for deterministic and error-tolerant systems-cannot support quantum-specific phenomena such as coherence fragility, probabilistic entanglement, and the no-cloning theorem. This paper provides a comprehensive survey and proposes an architectural redesign of the OSI model for quantum networks in the context of 7G. We introduce a Quantum-Converged OSI stack by extending the classical model with Layer 0 (Quantum Substrate) and Layer 8 (Cognitive Intent), supporting entanglement, teleportation, and semantic orchestration via LLMs and QML. Each layer is redefined to incorporate quantum mechanisms such as enhanced MAC protocols, fidelity-aware routing, and twin-based applications. This survey consolidates over 150 research works from IEEE, ACM, MDPI, arXiv, and Web of Science (2018-2025), classifying them by OSI layer, enabling technologies such as QKD, QEC, PQC, and RIS, and use cases such as satellite QKD, UAV swarms, and quantum IoT. A taxonomy of cross-layer enablers-such as hybrid quantum-classical control, metadata-driven orchestration, and blockchain-integrated quantum trust-is provided, along with simulation tools including NetSquid, QuNetSim, and QuISP. We present several domain-specific applications, including quantum healthcare telemetry, entangled vehicular networks, and satellite mesh overlays. An evaluation framework is proposed based on entropy throughput, coherence latency, and entanglement fidelity. Key future directions include programmable quantum stacks, digital twins, and AI-defined QNet agents, laying the groundwork for a scalable, intelligent, and quantum-compliant OSI framework for 7G and beyond.