High-stakes prediction tasks (e.g., patient diagnosis) are often handled by trained

Over the last century, risk scores have been the most popular form of predictive model used in healthcare and criminal justice. Risk scores are sparse linear models with integer coefficients; often these models can be memorized or placed on an index card. Typically, risk scores have been created either without data or by rounding logistic regression coefficients, but these methods do not reliably produce high-quality risk scores. Recent work used mathematical programming, which is computationally slow. We introduce an approach for efficiently producing a collection of high-quality risk scores learned from data. Specifically, our approach produces a pool of almost-optimal sparse continuous solutions, each with a different support set, using a beam-search algorithm. Each of these continuous solutions is transformed into a separate risk score through a star ray search, where a range of multipliers are considered before rounding the coefficients sequentially to maintain low logistic loss. Our algorithm returns all of these high-quality risk scores for the user to consider. This method completes within minutes and can be valuable in a broad variety of applications.

Current question-answering benchmarks predominantly focus on accuracy in realizable prediction tasks.Conditioned on a question and answer-key, does the most likely token match the ground truth?Such benchmarks necessarily fail to evaluate LLMs' ability to quantify ground-truth outcome uncertainty.In this work, we focus on the use of LLMs as risk scores for unrealizable prediction tasks.We introduce folktexts, a software package to systematically generate risk scores using LLMs, and evaluate them against US Census data products.A flexible API enables the use of different prompting schemes, local or web-hosted models, and diverse census columns that can be used to compose custom prediction tasks.We evaluate 17 recent LLMs across five proposed benchmark tasks.We find that zero-shot risk scores produced by multiple-choice question-answering have high predictive signal but are widely miscalibrated.Base models consistently overestimate outcome uncertainty, while instruction-tuned models underestimate uncertainty and produce over-confident risk scores.In fact, instruction-tuning polarizes answer distribution regardless of true underlying data uncertainty.This reveals a general inability of instruction-tuned models to express data uncertainty using multiple-choice answers.A separate experiment using verbalized chat-style risk queries yields substantially improved calibration across instruction-tuned models.These differences in ability to quantify data uncertainty cannot be revealed in realizable settings, and highlight a blind-spot in the current evaluation ecosystem that folktexts covers.

Where machine-learned predictive risk scores inform high-stakes decisions, such as bail and sentencing in criminal justice, fairness has been a serious concern. Recent work has characterized the disparate impact that such risk scores can have when used for a binary classification task. This may not account, however, for the more diverse downstream uses of risk scores and their non-binary nature. To better account for this, in this paper, we investigate the fairness of predictive risk scores from the point of view of a bipartite ranking task, where one seeks to rank positive examples higher than negative ones. We introduce the xAUC disparity as a metric to assess the disparate impact of risk scores and define it as the difference in the probabilities of ranking a random positive example from one protected group above a negative one from another group and vice versa. We provide a decomposition of bipartite ranking loss into components that involve the discrepancy and components that involve pure predictive ability within each group. We use xAUC analysis to audit predictive risk scores for recidivism prediction, income prediction, and cardiac arrest prediction, where it describes disparities that are not evident from simply comparing within-group predictive performance.

Since Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are increasingly being integrated into everyday tools and intelligent agents, growing concerns have arisen regarding their possible output of unsafe contents, ranging from toxic language and biased imagery to privacy violations and harmful misinformation. Current safety benchmarks remain highly limited in both modality coverage and performance evaluations, often neglecting the extensive landscape of content safety. In this work, we introduce OutSafe-Bench, the first most comprehensive content safety evaluation test suite designed for the multimodal era. OutSafe-Bench includes a large-scale dataset that spans four modalities, featuring over 18,000 bilingual (Chinese and English) text prompts, 4,500 images, 450 audio clips and 450 videos, all systematically annotated across nine critical content risk categories. In addition to the dataset, we introduce a Multidimensional Cross Risk Score (MCRS), a novel metric designed to model and assess overlapping and correlated content risks across different categories. T o ensure fair and robust evaluation, we propose FairScore, an explainable automated multi-reviewer weighted aggregation framework. FairScore selects top-performing models as adaptive juries, thereby mitigating biases from single-model judgments and enhancing overall evaluation reliability. Our evaluation of nine state-of-the-art MLLMs reveals persistent and substantial safety vulnerabilities, underscoring the pressing need for robust safeguards in MLLMs. W arning: This paper may contain some offensive content in data and model outputs.

The potential for rapidly-evolving frontier artificial intelligence (AI) models, especially large language models (LLMs), to facilitate bioterrorism or access to biological weapons has generated significant policy, academic, and public concern. Both model developers and policymakers seek to quantify and mitigate any risk, with an important element of such efforts being the development of model benchmarks that can assess the biosecurity risk posed by a particular model. This paper discusses the pilot implementation of the Bacterial Biothreat Benchmark (B3) dataset. It is the third in a series of three papers describing an overall Biothreat Benchmark Generation (BBG) framework, with previous papers detailing the development of the B3 dataset. The pilot involved running the benchmarks through a sample frontier AI model, followed by human evaluation of model responses, and an applied risk analysis of the results along several dimensions. Overall, the pilot demonstrated that the B3 dataset offers a viable, nuanced method for rapidly assessing the biosecurity risk posed by a LLM, identifying the key sources of that risk and providing guidance for priority areas of mitigation priority.

Clinical decision-making in oncology requires predicting dynamic disease evolution, a task current static AI predictors cannot perform. While world models (WMs) offer a paradigm for generative prediction, existing medical applications remain limited. Existing methods often rely on stochastic diffusion models, focusing on visual reconstruction rather than causal, physiological transitions. Furthermore, in medical domain, models like MeWM typically ignore patient-specific temporal and clinical contexts and lack a feedback mechanism to link predictions to treatment decisions. To address these gaps, we introduce CLARITY, a medical world model that forecasts disease evolution directly within a structured latent space. It explicitly integrates time intervals (temporal context) and patient-specific data (clinical context) to model treatment-conditioned progression as a smooth, interpretable trajectory, and thus generate physiologically faithful, individualized treatment plans. Finally, CLARITY introduces a novel prediction-to-decision framework, translating latent rollouts into transparent, actionable recommendations. CLARITY demonstrates state-of-the-art performance in treatment planning. On the MU-Glioma-Post dataset, our approach outperforms recent MeWM by 12\%, and significantly surpasses all other medical-specific large language models.

The electrocardiogram (ECG) is a key diagnostic tool in cardiovascular health. Single-lead ECG recording is integrated into both clinical-grade and consumer wearables. While self-supervised pretraining of foundation models on unlabeled ECGs improves diagnostic performance, existing approaches do not incorporate domain knowledge from clinical metadata. We introduce a novel contrastive learning approach that utilizes an established clinical risk score to adaptively weight negative pairs: clinically-guided contrastive learning. It aligns the similarities of ECG embeddings with clinically meaningful differences between subjects, with an explicit mechanism to handle missing metadata. On 12-lead ECGs from 161K patients in the MIMIC-IV dataset, we pretrain single-lead ECG foundation models at three scales, collectively called CLEF, using only routinely collected metadata without requiring per-sample ECG annotations. We evaluate CLEF on 18 clinical classification and regression tasks across 7 held-out datasets, and benchmark against 5 foundation model baselines and 3 self-supervised algorithms. When pretrained on 12-lead ECG data and tested on lead-I data, CLEF outperforms self-supervised foundation model baselines: the medium-sized CLEF achieves average AUROC improvements of at least 2.6% in classification and average reductions in MAEs of at least 3.2% in regression. Comparing with existing self-supervised learning algorithms, CLEF improves the average AUROC by at least 1.8%. Moreover, when pretrained only on lead-I data for classification tasks, CLEF performs comparably to the state-of-the-art ECGFounder, which was trained in a supervised manner. Overall, CLEF enables more accurate and scalable single-lead ECG analysis, advancing remote health monitoring. Code and pretrained CLEF models are available at: github.com/Nokia-Bell-Labs/ecg-foundation-model.

Clinical and genomic models are both used to predict breast cancer outcomes, but they are often combined using simple linear rules that do not account for how their risk scores relate, especially at the extremes. Using the METABRIC breast cancer cohort, we studied whether directly modeling the joint relationship between clinical and genomic machine learning risk scores could improve risk stratification for 5-year cancer-specific mortality. We created a binary 5-year cancer-death outcome and defined two sets of predictors: a clinical set (demographic, tumor, and treatment variables) and a genomic set (gene-expression $z$-scores). We trained several supervised classifiers, such as Random Forest and XGBoost, and used 5-fold cross-validated predicted probabilities as unbiased risk scores. These scores were converted to pseudo-observations on $(0,1)^2$ to fit Gaussian, Clayton, and Gumbel copulas. Clinical models showed good discrimination (AUC 0.783), while genomic models had moderate performance (AUC 0.681). The joint distribution was best captured by a Gaussian copula (bootstrap $p=0.997$), which suggests a symmetric, moderately strong positive relationship. When we grouped patients based on this relationship, Kaplan-Meier curves showed clear differences: patients who were high-risk in both clinical and genomic scores had much poorer survival than those high-risk in only one set. These results show that copula-based fusion works in real-world cohorts and that considering dependencies between scores can better identify patient subgroups with the worst prognosis.