In settings where ML models are used to inform the allocation of resources, agents affected by the allocation decisions might have an incentive to strategically change their features to secure better outcomes. While prior work has studied strategic responses broadly, disentangling misreporting from genuine modification remains a fundamental challenge. In this paper, we propose a causally-motivated approach to identify and quantify how much an agent misreports on average by distinguishing deceptive changes in their features from genuine modification. Our key insight is that, unlike genuine modification, misreported features do not causally affect downstream variables (i.e., causal descendants). We exploit this asymmetry by comparing the causal effect of misreported features on their causal descendants as derived from manipulated datasets against those from unmanipulated datasets. We formally prove identifiability of the misreporting rate and characterize the variance of our estimator. We empirically validate our theoretical results using a semi-synthetic and real Medicare dataset with misreported data, demonstrating that our approach can be employed to identify misreporting in real-world scenarios.

Large Language Models are widely used for content moderation but often misclassify benign comments as toxic, leading to over-sensitivity. While previous research attributes this issue primarily to the presence of offensive terms, we reveal a potential cause beyond token level: LLMs exhibit systematic topic biases in their implicit associations. Inspired by cognitive psychology's implicit association tests, we introduce Topic Association Analysis, a semantic-level approach to quantify how LLMs associate certain topics with toxicity. By prompting LLMs to generate free-form scenario imagination for misclassified benign comments and analyzing their topic amplification levels, we find that more advanced models (e.g., GPT-4 Turbo) demonstrate stronger topic stereotype despite lower overall false positive rates. These biases suggest that LLMs do not merely react to explicit, offensive language but rely on learned topic associations, shaping their moderation decisions. Our findings highlight the need for refinement beyond keyword-based filtering, providing insights into the underlying mechanisms driving LLM over-sensitivity.

In connected and autonomous vehicles, machine learning for safety message classification has become critical for detecting malicious or anomalous behavior. However, conventional approaches that rely on centralized data collection or purely local training face limitations due to the large scale, high mobility, and heterogeneous data distributions inherent in inter-vehicle networks. To overcome these challenges, this paper explores Distributed Federated Learning (DFL), whereby vehicles collaboratively train deep learning models by exchanging model updates among one-hop neighbors and propagating models over multiple hops. Using the Vehicular Reference Misbehavior (VeReMi) Extension Dataset, we show that DFL can significantly improve classification accuracy across all vehicles compared to learning strictly with local data. Notably, vehicles with low individual accuracy see substantial accuracy gains through DFL, illustrating the benefit of knowledge sharing across the network. We further show that local training data size and time-varying network connectivity correlate strongly with the model's overall accuracy. We investigate DFL's resilience and vulnerabilities under attacks in multiple domains, namely wireless jamming and training data poisoning attacks. Our results reveal important insights into the vulnerabilities of DFL when confronted with multi-domain attacks, underlining the need for more robust strategies to secure DFL in vehicular networks.

Integrating structured information has long improved the quality of abstractive summarization, particularly in retaining salient content. In this work, we focus on a specific form of structure: argument roles, which are crucial for summarizing documents in high-stakes domains such as law. We investigate whether instruction-tuned large language models (LLMs) adequately preserve this information. To this end, we introduce Argument Representation Coverage (ARC), a framework for measuring how well LLM-generated summaries capture salient arguments. Using ARC, we analyze summaries produced by three open-weight LLMs in two domains where argument roles are central: long legal opinions and scientific articles. Our results show that while LLMs cover salient argument roles to some extent, critical information is often omitted in generated summaries, particularly when arguments are sparsely distributed throughout the input. Further, we use ARC to uncover behavioral patterns -- specifically, how the positional bias of LLM context windows and role-specific preferences impact the coverage of key arguments in generated summaries, emphasizing the need for more argument-aware summarization strategies.

Multi-Modal Learning (MML) integrates information from diverse modalities to improve predictive accuracy. However, existing methods mainly aggregate gradients with fixed weights and treat all dimensions equally, overlooking the intrinsic gradient uncertainty of each modality. This may lead to (i) excessive updates in sensitive dimensions, degrading performance, and (ii) insufficient updates in less sensitive dimensions, hindering learning. To address this issue, we propose BOGC-MML, a Bayesian-Oriented Gradient Calibration method for MML to explicitly model the gradient uncertainty and guide the model optimization towards the optimal direction. Specifically, we first model each modality's gradient as a random variable and derive its probability distribution, capturing the full uncertainty in the gradient space. Then, we propose an effective method that converts the precision (inverse variance) of each gradient distribution into a scalar evidence. This evidence quantifies the confidence of each modality in every gradient dimension. Using these evidences, we explicitly quantify per-dimension uncertainties and fuse them via a reduced Dempster-Shafer rule. The resulting uncertainty-weighted aggregation produces a calibrated update direction that balances sensitivity and conservatism across dimensions. Extensive experiments on multiple benchmark datasets demonstrate the effectiveness and advantages of the proposed method.

Background Sepsis is a life - threatening condition affecting over 48.9 million people globally and causing 11 million deaths annually. Despite medical advancements, predicting sepsis remains a challenge due to non - specific symptoms and complex pathophysiology. The SXI++ LNM model is a machine learning - based scoring system that refines sepsis prediction by leveraging multiple algorithms and deep neural networks. The COMPOSER model, a de ep learning framework utilizing conformal prediction, aims to improve robustness in clinical applications. This study compares the predictive performance of SXI++ LNM and COMPOSER for sepsis prediction. Methods A dataset containing 1,552,210 rows with 43 columns was cleaned and refined to 964,355 rows and 14 key features for sepsis prediction. Data were sourced from ICU patients across three separate hospital systems, including two publicly available datasets fro m Kaggle and the Early Prediction of Sepsis from Clinical Data: The PhysioNet/Computing in Cardiology Challenge 2019.

Mental disorders including depression, anxiety, and other neurological disorders pose a significant global challenge, particularly among individuals exhibiting social avoidance tendencies. This study proposes a hybrid approach by leveraging smartphone sensor data measuring daily physical activities and analyzing their social media (Twitter) interactions for evaluating an individual's depression level. Using CNN-based deep learning models and Naive Bayes classification, we identify human physical activities accurately and also classify the user sentiments. A total of 33 participants were recruited for data acquisition, and nine relevant features were extracted from the physical activities and analyzed with their weekly depression scores, evaluated using the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) questionnaire. Of the nine features, six are derived from physical activities, achieving an activity recognition accuracy of 95%, while three features stem from sentiment analysis of Twitter activities, yielding a sentiment analysis accuracy of 95.6%. Notably, several physical activity features exhibited significant correlations with the severity of depression symptoms. For classifying the depression severity, a support vector machine (SVM)-based algorithm is employed that demonstrated a very high accuracy of 94%, outperforming alternative models, e.g., the multilayer perceptron (MLP) and k-nearest neighbor. It is a simple approach yet highly effective in the long run for monitoring depression without breaching personal privacy.

Deploying machine learning models in safety-critical domains poses a key challenge: ensuring reliable model performance on downstream user data without access to ground truth labels for direct validation. We propose the suitability filter, a novel framework designed to detect performance deterioration by utilizing suitability signals -- model output features that are sensitive to covariate shifts and indicative of potential prediction errors. The suitability filter evaluates whether classifier accuracy on unlabeled user data shows significant degradation compared to the accuracy measured on the labeled test dataset. Specifically, it ensures that this degradation does not exceed a pre-specified margin, which represents the maximum acceptable drop in accuracy. To achieve reliable performance evaluation, we aggregate suitability signals for both test and user data and compare these empirical distributions using statistical hypothesis testing, thus providing insights into decision uncertainty. Our modular method adapts to various models and domains. Empirical evaluations across different classification tasks demonstrate that the suitability filter reliably detects performance deviations due to covariate shift. This enables proactive mitigation of potential failures in high-stakes applications.

Whisper fails to correctly transcribe dementia speech because persons with dementia (PwDs) often exhibit irregular speech patterns and disfluencies such as pauses, repetitions, and fragmented sentences. It was trained on standard speech and may have had little or no exposure to dementia-affected speech. However, correct transcription is vital for dementia speech for cost-effective diagnosis and the development of assistive technology. In this work, we fine-tune Whisper with the open-source dementia speech dataset (DementiaBank) and our in-house dataset to improve its word error rate (WER). The fine-tuning also includes filler words to ascertain the filler inclusion rate (FIR) and F1 score. The fine-tuned models significantly outperformed the off-the-shelf models. The medium-sized model achieved a WER of 0.24, outperforming previous work. Similarly, there was a notable generalisability to unseen data and speech patterns.