Large-scale GPU traces play a critical role in identifying performance bottlenecks within heterogeneous High-Performance Computing (HPC) architectures. However, the sheer volume and complexity of a single trace of data make performance analysis both computationally expensive and time-consuming. To address this challenge, we present an end-to-end parallel performance analysis framework designed to handle multiple large-scale GPU traces efficiently. Our proposed framework partitions and processes trace data concurrently and employs causal graph methods and parallel coordinating chart to expose performance variability and dependencies across execution flows. Experimental results demonstrate a 67% improvement in terms of scalability, highlighting the effectiveness of our pipeline for analyzing multiple traces independently.

This is the first part of the comprehensive review, focusing on the historical development of Agent-Based Modeling (ABM) and its classic cases. It begins by discussing the development history and design principles of Agent-Based Modeling (ABM), helping readers understand the significant challenges that traditional physical simulation methods face in the social domain. Then, it provides a detailed introduction to foundational models for simulating social systems, including individual models, environmental models, and rule-based models. Finally, it presents classic cases of social simulation, covering three types: thought experiments, mechanism exploration, and parallel optimization.

There has been increasing research interest in AI/ML for social impact, and correspondingly more publication venues have refined review criteria for practice-driven AI/ML research. However, these review guidelines tend to most concretely recognize projects that simultaneously achieve deployment and novel ML methodological innovation. We argue that this introduces incentives for researchers that undermine the sustainability of a broader research ecosystem of social impact, which benefits from projects that make contributions on single front (applied or methodological) that may better meet project partner needs. Our position is that researchers and reviewers in machine learning for social impact must simultaneously adopt: 1) a more expansive conception of social impacts beyond deployment and 2) more rigorous evaluations of the impact of deployed systems.

Collaborative driving systems leverage vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communication across multiple agents to enhance driving safety and efficiency. Traditional V2X systems take raw sensor data, neural features, or perception results as communication media, which face persistent challenges, including high bandwidth demands, semantic loss, and interoperability issues. Recent advances investigate natural language as a promising medium, which can provide semantic richness, decision-level reasoning, and human-machine interoperability at significantly lower bandwidth. Despite great promise, this paradigm shift also introduces new vulnerabilities within language communication, including message loss, hallucinations, semantic manipulation, and adversarial attacks. In this work, we present the first systematic study of full-stack safety and security issues in natural-language-based collaborative driving. Specifically, we develop a comprehensive taxonomy of attack strategies, including connection disruption, relay/replay interference, content spoofing, and multi-connection forgery. To mitigate these risks, we introduce an agentic defense pipeline, which we call SafeCoop, that integrates a semantic firewall, language-perception consistency checks, and multi-source consensus, enabled by an agentic transformation function for cross-frame spatial alignment. We systematically evaluate SafeCoop in closed-loop CARLA simulation across 32 critical scenarios, achieving 69.15% driving score improvement under malicious attacks and up to 67.32% F1 score for malicious detection. This study provides guidance for advancing research on safe, secure, and trustworthy language-driven collaboration in transportation systems. Our project page is https://xiangbogaobarry.github.io/SafeCoop.

The well-known Condorcet Jury Theorem states that, under majority rule, the better of two alternatives is chosen with probability approaching one as the population grows. We study an asymmetric setting where voters face varying participation costs and share a possibly heuristic belief about their pivotality (ability to influence the outcome). In a costly voting setup where voters abstain if their participation cost is greater than their pivotality estimate, we identify a single property of the heuristic belief -- weakly vanishing pivotality -- that gives rise to multiple stable equilibria in which elections are nearly tied. In contrast, strongly vanishing pivotality (as in the standard Calculus of Voting model) yields a unique, trivial equilibrium where only zero-cost voters participate as the population grows. We then characterize when nontrivial equilibria satisfy a version of the Jury Theorem: below a sharp threshold, the majority-preferred candidate wins with probability approaching one; above it, both candidates either win with equal probability.

The convergence of LLM-powered research assistants and AI-based peer review systems creates a critical vulnerability: fully automated publication loops where AI-generated research is evaluated by AI reviewers without human oversight. We investigate this through \textbf{BadScientist}, a framework that evaluates whether fabrication-oriented paper generation agents can deceive multi-model LLM review systems. Our generator employs presentation-manipulation strategies requiring no real experiments. We develop a rigorous evaluation framework with formal error guarantees (concentration bounds and calibration analysis), calibrated on real data. Our results reveal systematic vulnerabilities: fabricated papers achieve acceptance rates up to . Critically, we identify \textit{concern-acceptance conflict} -- reviewers frequently flag integrity issues yet assign acceptance-level scores. Our mitigation strategies show only marginal improvements, with detection accuracy barely exceeding random chance. Despite provably sound aggregation mathematics, integrity checking systematically fails, exposing fundamental limitations in current AI-driven review systems and underscoring the urgent need for defense-in-depth safeguards in scientific publishing.

Large-scale pre-trained machine learning models have reshaped our understanding of artificial intelligence across numerous domains, including our own field of geography. As with any new technology, trust has taken on an important role in this discussion. In this chapter, we examine the multifaceted concept of trust in foundation models, particularly within a geographic context. As reliance on these models increases and they become relied upon for critical decision-making, trust, while essential, has become a fractured concept. Here we categorize trust into three types: epistemic trust in the training data, operational trust in the model's functionality, and interpersonal trust in the model developers. Each type of trust brings with it unique implications for geographic applications. Topics such as cultural context, data heterogeneity, and spatial relationships are fundamental to the spatial sciences and play an important role in developing trust. The chapter continues with a discussion of the challenges posed by different forms of biases, the importance of transparency and explainability, and ethical responsibilities in model development. Finally, the novel perspective of geographic information scientists is emphasized with a call for further transparency, bias mitigation, and regionally-informed policies. Simply put, this chapter aims to provide a conceptual starting point for researchers, practitioners, and policy-makers to better understand trust in (generative) GeoAI.

Knowledge editing techniques promise to implant new factual knowledge into large language models (LLMs). But do LLMs really believe these facts? We develop a framework to measure belief depth and use it to evaluate the success of knowledge editing techniques. We operationalize belief depth as the extent to which implanted knowledge 1) generalizes to related contexts (e.g. Fermi estimates several logical steps removed), 2) is robust to self-scrutiny and direct challenge, and 3) is represented similarly to genuine knowledge (as measured by linear probes). Our evaluations show that simple prompting and mechanistic editing techniques fail to implant knowledge deeply. In contrast, Synthetic Document Finetuning (SDF) - where models are trained on LLM-generated documents consistent with a fact - often succeeds at implanting beliefs that behave similarly to genuine knowledge. However, SDF's success is not universal, as implanted beliefs that contradict basic world knowledge are brittle and representationally distinct from genuine knowledge. Overall, our work introduces measurable criteria for belief depth and enables the rigorous evaluation necessary for deploying knowledge editing in real-world applications.

We introduce NeuCo-Bench, a novel benchmark framework for evaluating (lossy) neural compression and representation learning in the context of Earth Observation (EO). Our approach builds on fixed-size embeddings that act as compact, task-agnostic representations applicable to a broad range of downstream tasks. NeuCo-Bench comprises three core components: (i) an evaluation pipeline built around reusable embeddings, (ii) a new challenge mode with a hidden-task leaderboard designed to mitigate pretraining bias, and (iii) a scoring system that balances accuracy and stability. To support reproducibility, we release SSL4EO-S12-downstream, a curated multispectral, multitemporal EO dataset. We present initial results from a public challenge at the 2025 CVPR EARTHVISION workshop and conduct ablations with state-of-the-art foundation models. NeuCo-Bench provides a first step towards community-driven, standardized evaluation of neural embeddings for EO and beyond.

The exponential increase in scientific literature and online information necessitates efficient methods for extracting knowledge from textual data. Natural language processing (NLP) plays a crucial role in addressing this challenge, particularly in text classification tasks. While large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable success in NLP, their accuracy can suffer in domain-specific contexts due to specialized vocabulary, unique grammatical structures, and imbalanced data distributions. In this systematic literature review (SLR), we investigate the utilization of pre-trained language models (PLMs) for domain-specific text classification. We systematically review 41 articles published between 2018 and January 2024, adhering to the PRISMA statement (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses). This review methodology involved rigorous inclusion criteria and a multi-step selection process employing AI-powered tools. We delve into the evolution of text classification techniques and differentiate between traditional and modern approaches. We emphasize transformer-based models and explore the challenges and considerations associated with using LLMs for domain-specific text classification. Furthermore, we categorize existing research based on various PLMs and propose a taxonomy of techniques used in the field. To validate our findings, we conducted a comparative experiment involving BERT, SciBERT, and BioBERT in biomedical sentence classification. Finally, we present a comparative study on the performance of LLMs in text classification tasks across different domains. In addition, we examine recent advancements in PLMs for domain-specific text classification and offer insights into future directions and limitations in this rapidly evolving domain.