We demonstrate the practical merits and limitations of existing theoretical tests and their bootstrapped variants.

While much research in artificial intelligence (AI) has focused on scaling capabilities, the accelerating pace of development makes countervailing work on producing harmless, "aligned" systems increasingly urgent. Yet research on alignment has diverged along two largely parallel tracks: safety--centered on scaled intelligence, deceptive or scheming behaviors, and existential risk--and ethics--focused on present harms, the reproduction of social bias, and flaws in production pipelines. Although both communities warn of insufficient investment in alignment, they disagree on what alignment means or ought to mean. As a result, their efforts have evolved in relative isolation, shaped by distinct methodologies, institutional homes, and disciplinary genealogies. We present a large-scale, quantitative study showing the structural split between AI safety and AI ethics. Using a bibliometric and co-authorship network analysis of 6,442 papers from twelve major ML and NLP conferences (2020-2025), we find that over 80% of collaborations occur within either the safety or ethics communities, and cross-field connectivity is highly concentrated: roughly 5% of papers account for more than 85% of bridging links. Removing a small number of these brokers sharply increases segregation, indicating that cross-disciplinary exchange depends on a handful of actors rather than broad, distributed collaboration. These results show that the safety-ethics divide is not only conceptual but institutional, with implications for research agendas, policy, and venues. We argue that integrating technical safety work with normative ethics--via shared benchmarks, cross-institutional venues, and mixed-method methodologies--is essential for building AI systems that are both robust and just.

In this paper, we consider the problem of two-sample testing of large graphs.

Financial bubbles often arrive without much warning, but create long-lasting economic effects. For example, during the dot-com bubble, innovative technologies created market disruptions through excitement for a promised bright future. Such technologies originated from research where scientists had developed them for years prior to their entry into the markets. That raises a question on the possibility of analyzing scientific publishing data (e.g. citation networks) leading up to a bubble for signals that may forecast the rise and fall of similar future bubbles. To that end, we utilized temporal SNAs to detect possible relationships between the publication citation networks of scientists and financial market data during two modern eras of rapidly shifting technology: 1) dot-com era from 1994 to 2001 and 2) AI era from 2017 to 2024. Results showed that the patterns from the dot-com era (which did end in a bubble) did not definitively predict the rise and fall of an AI bubble. While yearly citation networks reflected possible changes in publishing behavior of scientists between the two eras, there was a subset of AI era scientists whose publication influence patterns mirrored those during the dot-com era. Upon further analysis using multiple analysis techniques (LSTM, KNN, AR X/GARCH), the data seems to suggest two possibilities for the AI era: unprecedented form of financial bubble unseen or that no bubble exists. In conclusion, our findings imply that the patterns present in the dot-com era do not effectively translate in such a manner to apply them to the AI market.

An intertextual link between Frances Burney's Cecilia and Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice established by semantically similar trigrams Intertextuality, the allusive relationship between literary texts, is a fundamental concept in literary studies. It is the idea that texts are not isolated entities, but are interconnected through a network of references, allusions, and influences. Intertextuality is a key aspect of both literary creativity and interpretation, and it has been a popular research topic since it was put forward by the French semiotician Julia Kristeva in the 1960s ( Kristeva, 2024, 1968). Traditionally, the analysis of intertextuality has been a qualitative and interpretative endeavour, relying on close reading and critical judgement, and focusing only on a small number of texts.

We propose a two-step method PLNet to estimate the precision matrix.

Multi-omics data offer unprecedented insights into complex biological systems, yet their high dimensionality, sparsity, and intricate interactions pose significant analytical challenges. Network-based approaches have advanced multi-omics research by effectively capturing biologically relevant relationships among molecular entities. While these methods are powerful for representing molecular interactions, there remains a need for tools specifically designed to effectively utilize these network representations across diverse downstream analyses. To fulfill this need, we introduce BioNeuralNet, a flexible and modular Python framework tailored for end-to-end network-based multi-omics data analysis. BioNeuralNet leverages Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) to learn biologically meaningful low-dimensional representations from multi-omics networks, converting these complex molecular networks into versatile embeddings. BioNeuralNet supports all major stages of multi-omics network analysis, including several network construction techniques, generation of low-dimensional representations, and a broad range of downstream analytical tasks. Its extensive utilities, including diverse GNN architectures, and compatibility with established Python packages (e.g., scikit-learn, PyTorch, NetworkX), enhance usability and facilitate quick adoption. BioNeuralNet is an open-source, user-friendly, and extensively documented framework designed to support flexible and reproducible multi-omics network analysis in precision medicine.