Malware analysis involves analyzing suspicious software to detect malicious payloads. Static malware analysis, which does not require software execution, relies increasingly on machine learning techniques to achieve scalability. Although such techniques obtain very high detection accuracy, they can be easily evaded with adversarial examples where a few modifications of the sample can dupe the detector without modifying the behavior of the software. Unlike other domains, such as computer vision, creating an adversarial example of malware without altering its functionality requires specific transformations. We propose a new model architecture for certifiably robust malware detection by design. In addition, we show that every robust detector can be decomposed into a specific structure, which can be applied to learn empirically robust malware detectors, even on fragile features. Our framework ERDALT is based on this structure. We compare and validate these approaches with machine-learning-based malware detection methods, allowing for robust detection with limited reduction of detection performance.

Jet classification in high-energy particle physics is important for understanding fundamental interactions and probing phenomena beyond the Standard Model. Jets originate from the fragmentation and hadronization of quarks and gluons, and pose a challenge for identification due to their complex, multidimensional structure. Traditional classification methods often fall short in capturing these intricacies, necessitating advanced machine learning approaches. In this paper, we employ two neural networks simultaneously as an ensemble to tag various jet types. We convert the jet data to two-dimensional histograms instead of representing them as points in a higher-dimensional space. Specifically, this ensemble approach, hereafter referred to as Ensemble Model, is used to tag jets into classes from the JetNet dataset, corresponding to: Top Quarks, Light Quarks (up or down), and W and Z bosons. For the jet classes mentioned above, we show that the Ensemble Model can be used for both binary and multi-categorical classification. This ensemble approach learns jet features by leveraging the strengths of each constituent network achieving superior performance compared to either individual network.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are a double-edged sword capable of generating harmful misinformation -- inadvertently, or when prompted by "jailbreak" attacks that attempt to produce malicious outputs. LLMs could, with additional research, be used to detect and prevent the spread of misinformation. In this paper, we investigate the efficacy and characteristics of LLM-produced jailbreak attacks that cause other models to produce harmful medical misinformation. We also study how misinformation generated by jailbroken LLMs compares to typical misinformation found on social media, and how effectively it can be detected using standard machine learning approaches. Specifically, we closely examine 109 distinct attacks against three target LLMs and compare the attack prompts to in-the-wild health-related LLM queries. We also examine the resulting jailbreak responses, comparing the generated misinformation to health-related misinformation on Reddit. Our findings add more evidence that LLMs can be effectively used to detect misinformation from both other LLMs and from people, and support a body of work suggesting that with careful design, LLMs can contribute to a healthier overall information ecosystem.

The automatic curation of discussion forums in online courses requires constant updates, making frequent retraining of Large Language Models (LLMs) a resource-intensive process. To circumvent the need for costly fine-tuning, this paper proposes and evaluates the use of Bayesian fusion. The approach combines the multidimensional classification scores of a pre-trained generic LLM with those of a classifier trained on local data. The performance comparison demonstrated that the proposed fusion improves the results compared to each classifier individually, and is competitive with the LLM fine-tuning approach

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in realworld applications, yet concerns about their fairness persist especially in highstakes domains like criminal justice, education, healthcare, and finance. This paper introduces transparent evaluation protocol for benchmarking the fairness of opensource LLMs using smart contracts on the Internet Computer Protocol (ICP) blockchain (Foundation, 2023). Our method ensures verifiable, immutable, and reproducible evaluations by executing onchain HTTP requests to hosted Hugging Face endpoints and storing datasets, prompts, and metrics directly onchain. We benchmark the Llama, DeepSeek, and Mistral models on the PISA dataset for academic performance prediction (OECD, 2018), a dataset suitable for fairness evaluation using statistical parity and equal opportunity metrics (Hardt et al., 2016). We also evaluate structured Context Association Metrics derived from the StereoSet dataset (Nadeem et al., 2020) to measure social bias in contextual associations. We further extend our analysis with a multilingual evaluation across English, Spanish, and Portuguese using the Kaleidoscope benchmark (Salazar et al., 2025), revealing cross-linguistic disparities. All code and results are open source, enabling community audits and longitudinal fairness tracking across model versions.

Knowledge syntheses (literature reviews) are essential to health professions education (HPE), consolidating findings to advance theory and practice. However, they are labor-intensive, especially during data extraction. Artificial Intelligence (AI)-assisted extraction promises efficiency but raises concerns about accuracy, making it critical to distinguish AI 'hallucinations' (fabricated content) from legitimate interpretive differences. We developed an extraction platform using large language models (LLMs) to automate data extraction and compared AI to human responses across 187 publications and 17 extraction questions from a published scoping review. AI-human, human-human, and AI-AI consistencies were measured using interrater reliability (categorical) and thematic similarity ratings (open-ended). Errors were identified by comparing extracted responses to source publications. AI was highly consistent with humans for concrete, explicitly stated questions (e.g., title, aims) and lower for questions requiring subjective interpretation or absent in text (e.g., Kirkpatrick's outcomes, study rationale). Human-human consistency was not higher than AI-human and showed the same question-dependent variability. Discordant AI-human responses (769/3179 = 24.2%) were mostly due to interpretive differences (18.3%); AI inaccuracies were rare (1.51%), while humans were nearly three times more likely to state inaccuracies (4.37%). Findings suggest AI variability depends more on interpretability than hallucination. Repeating AI extraction can identify interpretive complexity or ambiguity, refining processes before human review. AI can be a transparent, trustworthy partner in knowledge synthesis, though caution is needed to preserve critical human insights.

Large language models (LLMs) have revolutionized natural language processing, yet their tendency to hallucinate poses serious challenges for reliable deployment. Despite numerous hallucination detection methods, their evaluations often rely on ROUGE, a metric based on lexical overlap that misaligns with human judgments. Through comprehensive human studies, we demonstrate that while ROUGE exhibits high recall, its extremely low precision leads to misleading performance estimates. In fact, several established detection methods show performance drops of up to 45.9\% when assessed using human-aligned metrics like LLM-as-Judge. Moreover, our analysis reveals that simple heuristics based on response length can rival complex detection techniques, exposing a fundamental flaw in current evaluation practices. We argue that adopting semantically aware and robust evaluation frameworks is essential to accurately gauge the true performance of hallucination detection methods, ultimately ensuring the trustworthiness of LLM outputs.

In settings where human decision-making relies on AI input, both the predictive accuracy of the AI system and the reliability of its confidence estimates influence decision quality. We highlight the role of AI metacognitive sensitivity -- its ability to assign confidence scores that accurately distinguish correct from incorrect predictions -- and introduce a theoretical framework for assessing the joint impact of AI's predictive accuracy and metacognitive sensitivity in hybrid decision-making settings. Our analysis identifies conditions under which an AI with lower predictive accuracy but higher metacognitive sensitivity can enhance the overall accuracy of human decision making. Finally, a behavioral experiment confirms that greater AI metacognitive sensitivity improves human decision performance. Together, these findings underscore the importance of evaluating AI assistance not only by accuracy but also by metacognitive sensitivity, and of optimizing both to achieve superior decision outcomes.