The total loss of the model is a combination of both regularization terms and a reconstructionloss. Herexr refers to reference image,xa to adversarial image and xr, xa to their corresponding reconstructions. The maximum input noise perturbation levelλ is limited to1,3 and 5. However, it should be also noted that with PGD-based training, the computational time is two times more expensive than our original method. These attacks are more successful when the adversarial reconstructions are less similar in appearance to the clean reconstructions.

This paper reflects on the literature that rejects the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) in qualitative data analysis. It illustrates through empirical evidence as well as critical reflections why the current critical debate is focusing on the wrong problems . The paper proposes that the focus of researching the use of the LLMs for qualitative analysis is not the method per se, but rather the empirical investigation of an artificial system performing an analysis . The paper bui lds on the seminal work of Alan Turing and reads the current debate using key ideas from Turing's "Computing Machinery and Intelligence". Th is paper therefore reframes the debate on qualitative analysis with LLMs and states that ra ther than asking whether machines can perform qualitative analysis in principle, we should ask whether with LLMs we can produce analyses that are sufficiently comparable to human analysts. In the final part the contrary views to performing qualitative analysis with LLMs are analysed using the same writing and rhetorical style that Turing used in his seminal work, to discuss the contrary views to the main question.

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly promoted and used in qualitative research, it also raises profound methodological issues. This position paper critically interrogates the role of generative AI (genAI) in the context of qualitative coding methodologies. Despite widespread hype and claims of efficiency, we propose that genAI is not methodologically valid within qualitative inquiries, and its use risks undermining the robustness and trustworthiness of qualitative research. The lack of meaningful documentation, commercial opacity, and the inherent tendencies of genAI systems to produce incorrect outputs all contribute to weakening methodological rigor. Overall, the balance between risk and benefits does not support the use of genAI in qualitative research, and our position paper cautions researchers to put sound methodology before technological novelty.

First provide a summary of the paper, and then address the following criteria: Quality, clarity, originality and significance. This paper introduces the problem of activity shaping, which is a generalization of influence maximization, and allows more elaborate goal functions. The authors use multivariate Hawkes processes as the model, and via a connection to branching processes, they manage to derive a linear connection between the exogenous activity (i.e. the part that can be easily manipulated via incentives) and the overall network activity. This connection can be used in a convex optimization problem, to derive the necessary incentives to reach a global activity pattern in the network. The paper is clearly written, it contains original research, and it is potentially a very significant contribution in the field of influence maximization.

As Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) become integral to daily digital life, understanding their safety architectures is a critical problem for AI Alignment. This paper presents a systematic analysis of OpenAI's GPT-4o mini, a globally deployed model, on the difficult task of multimodal hate speech detection. Using the Hateful Memes Challenge dataset, we conduct a multi-phase investigation on 500 samples to probe the model's reasoning and failure modes. Our central finding is the experimental identification of a "Unimodal Bottleneck," an architectural flaw where the model's advanced multimodal reasoning is systematically preempted by context-blind safety filters. A quantitative validation of 144 content policy refusals reveals that these overrides are triggered in equal measure by unimodal visual 50% and textual 50% content. We further demonstrate that this safety system is brittle, blocking not only high-risk imagery but also benign, common meme formats, leading to predictable false positives. These findings expose a fundamental tension between capability and safety in state-of-the-art LMMs, highlighting the need for more integrated, context-aware alignment strategies to ensure AI systems can be deployed both safely and effectively.

In recent years, VLMs have captured the imagination of the Artificial Intelligence(AI) community, demonstrating an impressive ability to interpret, reason about, and generate content that covers both text and image handling. From answering questions about visual scenes to engaging in multi-modal dialogue, models such as Flamingo [1], PaLI [25], and BLIP-2 [14] are redefining the frontier of vision intelligence. Y et, as these models are widening their application capabilities, a fundamental question emerges: can they truly reason, or are they sophisticated pattern matchers? To explore this question, we turn to the domain of physics--a field that serves as a universal benchmark for logical thoughts of a human being. Physics problems are an ideal testbed for VLMs, as they are multi-modal, combining textual descriptions, mathematical equations, and often clarifying diagrams. A model that can successfully solve these problems must not only understand language and images but also grasp the underlying relationships and principles that govern the physical realm. The challenge, uptil now, has been the lack of accessible tools for this kind of evaluation. Existing benchmarks for scientific reasoning, such as ARC [7] and ScienceQA [17], are often limited to basic text-only question sets, while those that incorporate visual elements, like MathVista [18], frequently depend on complex physics simulators that are computationally expensive for many researchers to deploy, thereby restricting reproducibility.

This study investigates how large language models, in particular LLaMA 3.2-3B, construct narratives about Black and white women in short stories generated in Portuguese. From 2100 texts, we applied computational methods to group semantically similar stories, allowing a selection for qualitative analysis. Three main discursive representations emerge: social overcoming, ancestral mythification and subjective self-realization. The analysis uncovers how grammatically coherent, seemingly neutral texts materialize a crystallized, colo-nially structured framing of the female body, reinforcing historical inequalities. The study proposes an integrated approach, that combines machine learning techniques with qualitative, manual discourse analysis.

As Artificial Intelligence becomes increasingly central to corporate strategies, concerns over its risks are growing too. In response, regulators are pushing for greater transparency in how companies identify, report and mitigate AI-related risks. In the US, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) repeatedly warned companies to provide their investors with more accurate disclosures of AI-related risks; recent enforcement and litigation against companies' misleading AI claims reinforce these warnings. In the EU, new laws - like the AI Act and Digital Services Act - introduced additional rules on AI risk reporting and mitigation. Given these developments, it is essential to examine if and how companies report AI-related risks to the public. This study presents the first large-scale systematic analysis of AI risk disclosures in SEC 10-K filings, which require public companies to report material risks to their company. We analyse over 30,000 filings from more than 7,000 companies over the past five years, combining quantitative and qualitative analysis. Our findings reveal a sharp increase in the companies that mention AI risk, up from 4% in 2020 to over 43% in the most recent 2024 filings. While legal and competitive AI risks are the most frequently mentioned, we also find growing attention to societal AI risks, such as cyberattacks, fraud, and technical limitations of AI systems. However, many disclosures remain generic or lack details on mitigation strategies, echoing concerns raised recently by the SEC about the quality of AI-related risk reporting. To support future research, we publicly release a web-based tool for easily extracting and analysing keyword-based disclosures across SEC filings.

Qualitative analysis of open-ended survey responses is a commonly-used research method in the social sciences, but traditional coding approaches are often time-consuming and prone to inconsistency. Existing solutions from Natural Language Processing such as supervised classifiers, topic modeling techniques, and generative large language models have limited applicability in qualitative analysis, since they demand extensive labeled data, disrupt established qualitative workflows, and/or yield variable results. In this paper, we introduce a text embedding-based classification framework that requires only a handful of examples per category and fits well with standard qualitative workflows. When benchmarked against human analysis of a conceptual physics survey consisting of 2899 open-ended responses, our framework achieves a Cohen's Kappa ranging from 0.74 to 0.83 as compared to expert human coders in an exhaustive coding scheme. We further show how performance of this framework improves with fine-tuning of the text embedding model, and how the method can be used to audit previously-analyzed datasets. These findings demonstrate that text embedding-assisted coding can flexibly scale to thousands of responses without sacrificing interpretability, opening avenues for deductive qualitative analysis at scale.