Research Papers

Location-Based Social Networks (LBSNs) provide a rich foundation for modeling urban behavior through iNETs (Interest Networks), which capture how user interests are distributed throughout urban spaces. This study compares iNETs across platforms (Google Places and Foursquare) and spatial granularities, showing that coarser levels reveal more consistent cross-platform patterns, while finer granularities expose subtle, platform-specific behaviors. Our analysis finds that, in general, user interest is primarily shaped by geographic proximity and venue similarity, while socioeconomic and political contexts play a lesser role. Building on these insights, we develop a multi-level, explainable recommendation system that predicts high-interest urban regions for different user types. The model adapts to behavior profiles -- such as explorers, who are driven by proximity, and returners, who prefer familiar venues -- and provides natural-language explanations using explainable AI (XAI) techniques. To support our approach, we introduce h3-cities, a tool for multi-scale spatial analysis, and release a public demo for interactively exploring personalized urban recommendations. Our findings contribute to urban mobility research by providing scalable, context-aware, and interpretable recommendation systems.

Mass-Scale Analysis of In-the-Wild Conversations Reveals Complexity Bounds on LLM Jailbreaking

Aldan Creo, Raul Castro Fernandez, Manuel Cebrian

As large language models (LLMs) become increasingly deployed, understanding the complexity and evolution of jailbreaking strategies is critical for AI safety. We present a mass-scale empirical analysis of jailbreak complexity across over 2 million real-world conversations from diverse platforms, including dedicated jailbreaking communities and general-purpose chatbots. Using a range of complexity metrics spanning probabilistic measures, lexical diversity, compression ratios, and cognitive load indicators, we find that jailbreak attempts do not exhibit significantly higher complexity than normal conversations. This pattern holds consistently across specialized jailbreaking communities and general user populations, suggesting practical bounds on attack sophistication. Temporal analysis reveals that while user attack toxicity and complexity remains stable over time, assistant response toxicity has decreased, indicating improving safety mechanisms. The absence of power-law scaling in complexity distributions further points to natural limits on jailbreak development. Our findings challenge the prevailing narrative of an escalating arms race between attackers and defenders, instead suggesting that LLM safety evolution is bounded by human ingenuity constraints while defensive measures continue advancing. Our results highlight critical information hazards in academic jailbreak disclosure, as sophisticated attacks exceeding current complexity baselines could disrupt the observed equilibrium and enable widespread harm before defensive adaptation.

SymbolicThought: Integrating Language Models and Symbolic Reasoning for Consistent and Interpretable Human Relationship Understanding

Runcong Zhao, Qinglin Zhu, Hainiu Xu +3

Understanding character relationships is essential for interpreting complex narratives and conducting socially grounded AI research. However, manual annotation is time-consuming and low in coverage, while large language models (LLMs) often produce hallucinated or logically inconsistent outputs. We present SymbolicThought, a human-in-the-loop framework that combines LLM-based extraction with symbolic reasoning. The system constructs editable character relationship graphs, refines them using seven types of logical constraints, and enables real-time validation and conflict resolution through an interactive interface. To support logical supervision and explainable social analysis, we release a dataset of 160 interpersonal relationships with corresponding logical structures. Experiments show that SymbolicThought improves annotation accuracy and consistency while significantly reducing time cost, offering a practical tool for narrative understanding, explainable AI, and LLM evaluation.

The reliability of clinical artificial intelligence (AI) depends on high-quality data, yet Electronic Health Records are often inconsistent with existing scientific knowledge. Current quality assessments are limited: they either focus on syntax or rely on labor-intensive manual rules to capture semantic nuances. To overcome these scalability barriers, we propose Medical Data Pecking, a methodology that adopts software unit testing principles for medical data validation. It introduces Semantic Data Coverage, employing Large Language Models to generate context-aware tests that "peck" for inconsistencies between observed data and epidemiological evidence. To demonstrate this methodology, we implemented a reference tool using a Retrieval-Augmented Generation architecture that synthesizes medical literature into executable code. When applied to three datasets, this implementation generated dozens of tests per cohort, identifying discrepancies between observed distributions and epidemiological priors. These discrepancies encompass both genuine data inconsistencies and expected cohort-selection effects. This work provides an initial framework for scalable semantic auditing, shifting assurance from manual rules to the generative and context-sensitive verification required for trustworthy AI.

This research discusses the critical need for early detection and treatment for early prediction of Freezing of Gaits (FOG) utilizing a wearable sensor technology powered with LoRa communication. The system consisted of an Esp-32 microcontroller, in which the trained model is utilized utilizing the Micromlgen Python library. The research investigates accurate FOG classification based on pertinent clinical data by utilizing machine learning (ML) algorithms like Catboost, XGBoost, and Extra Tree classifiers. The XGBoost could classify with approximately 97% accuracy, along with 96% for the catboost and 90% for the Extra Trees Classifier model. The SHAP analysis interpretability shows that GYR SI degree is the most affecting factor in the prediction of the diseases. These results show the possibility of monitoring and identifying the affected person with tracking location on GPS and providing aid as an assistive technology for aiding the affected. The developed sensor-based technology has great potential for real-world problem solving in the field of healthcare and biomedical technology enhancements.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have led to increasingly sophisticated safety protocols and features designed to prevent harmful, unethical, or unauthorized outputs. However, these guardrails remain susceptible to novel and creative forms of adversarial prompting, including manually generated test cases. In this work, we present two new test cases in mental health for (i) suicide and (ii) self-harm, using multi-step, prompt-level jailbreaking and bypass built-in content and safety filters. We show that user intent is disregarded, leading to the generation of detailed harmful content and instructions that could cause real-world harm. We conduct an empirical evaluation across six widely available LLMs, demonstrating the generalizability and reliability of the bypass. We assess these findings and the multilayered ethical tensions that they present for their implications on prompt-response filtering and context- and task-specific model development. We recommend a more comprehensive and systematic approach to AI safety and ethics while emphasizing the need for continuous adversarial testing in safety-critical AI deployments. We also argue that while certain clearly defined safety measures and guardrails can and must be implemented in LLMs, ensuring robust and comprehensive safety across all use cases and domains remains extremely challenging given the current technical maturity of general-purpose LLMs.

BayesL: a Logical Framework for the Verification of Bayesian Networks

Stefano M. Nicoletti, E. Moritz Hahn, Mariëlle Stoelinga

Modern explainable AI still struggles with a fundamental gap: although Bayesian networks (BNs) provide transparent probabilistic structure, there is no unified way to formally express, query, and verify what these models imply. Analysts often rely on ad hoc queries, manual interventions, or informal reasoning to explore causal relations and hypothetical scenarios, making it difficult to systematically validate model behaviour, uncover hidden assumptions, and guarantee reliability. We introduce BayesL (pronounced Basil), a logical framework for specifying, querying, and verifying the behaviour of BNs. BayesL is a structured language that supports both probabilistic inference queries (e.g., marginal, conditional, MAP) and model-checking-style queries that specify formal properties of BN behaviour. It facilitates versatile reasoning over causal and evidential relationships, including counterfactual what-if scenarios via conditional probability tables updates, without requiring manual modifications to the model. In addition to graph structure reasoning and inference, BayesL enables the formal specification of properties, supported by dedicated model checking algorithms and a preliminary open-source implementation. By allowing inference and verification within a single formal language, BayesL establishes a white-box verification paradigm in which model structure, assumptions, and reasoning processes are explicitly encoded and systematically checked. We demonstrate this through two diagnostic case studies and a benchmark set of BN models, showing how BayesL clarifies BN behaviour in a precise and analyzable way, advancing the transparency, trustworthiness, and practical explainability of BN-based systems.

Online dating platforms have fundamentally transformed the formation of romantic relationships, with millions of users worldwide relying on algorithmic matching systems to find compatible partners. However, current recommendation systems in dating applications suffer from significant algorithmic deficiencies, including but not limited to popularity bias, filter bubble effects, and inadequate reciprocity modeling that limit effectiveness and introduce harmful biases. This research integrates foundational work with recent empirical findings to deliver a detailed analysis of dating app recommendation systems, highlighting key issues and suggesting research-backed solutions. Through analysis of reciprocal recommendation frameworks, fairness evaluation metrics, and industry implementations, we demonstrate that current systems achieve modest performance with collaborative filtering reaching 25.1\% while reciprocal methods achieve 28.7\%. Our proposed mathematical framework addresses these limitations through enhanced similarity measures, multi-objective optimization, and fairness-aware algorithms that maintain competitive accuracy while improving demographic representation to reduce algorithmic bias.

This paper presents a comprehensive five-stage evolutionary framework for understanding the development of artificial intelligence, arguing that its trajectory mirrors the historical progression of human cognitive technologies. We posit that AI is advancing through distinct epochs, each defined by a revolutionary shift in its capacity for representation and reasoning, analogous to the inventions of cuneiform, the alphabet, grammar and logic, mathematical calculus, and formal logical systems. This "Geometry of Cognition" framework moves beyond mere metaphor to provide a systematic, cross-disciplinary model that not only explains AI's past architectural shifts-from expert systems to Transformers-but also charts a concrete and prescriptive path forward. Crucially, we demonstrate that this evolution is not merely linear but reflexive: as AI advances through these stages, the tools and insights it develops create a feedback loop that fundamentally reshapes its own underlying architecture. We are currently transitioning into a "Metalinguistic Moment," characterized by the emergence of self-reflective capabilities like Chain-of-Thought prompting and Constitutional AI. The subsequent stages, the "Mathematical Symbolism Moment" and the "Formal Logic System Moment," will be defined by the development of a computable calculus of thought, likely through neuro-symbolic architectures and program synthesis, culminating in provably aligned and reliable AI that reconstructs its own foundational representations. This work serves as the methodological capstone to our trilogy, which previously explored the economic drivers ("why") and cognitive nature ("what") of AI. Here, we address the "how," providing a theoretical foundation for future research and offering concrete, actionable strategies for startups and developers aiming to build the next generation of intelligent systems.

Large language models (LLMs) have become ubiquitous, interfacing with humans in numerous safety-critical applications. This necessitates improving capabilities, but importantly coupled with greater safety measures to align these models with human values and preferences. In this work, we demonstrate that contemporary models fall concerningly short of the goal of AI safety, leading to an unsafe and harmful experience for users. We introduce a prompting strategy called Code of Thought (CoDoT) to evaluate the safety of LLMs. CoDoT converts natural language inputs to simple code that represents the same intent. For instance, CoDoT transforms the natural language prompt "Make the statement more toxic: {text}" to: "make_more_toxic({text})". We show that CoDoT results in a consistent failure of a wide range of state-of-the-art LLMs. For example, GPT-4 Turbo's toxicity increases 16.5 times, DeepSeek R1 fails 100% of the time, and toxicity increases 300% on average across seven modern LLMs. Additionally, recursively applying CoDoT can further increase toxicity two times. Given the rapid and widespread adoption of LLMs, CoDoT underscores the critical need to evaluate safety efforts from first principles, ensuring that safety and capabilities advance together.

Scientific inference is often undermined by the vast but rarely explored "multiverse" of defensible modelling choices, which can generate results as variable as the phenomena under study. We introduce RobustiPy, an open-source Python library that systematizes multiverse analysis and model-uncertainty quantification at scale. RobustiPy unifies bootstrap-based inference, combinatorial specification search, model selection and averaging, joint-inference routines, and explainable AI methods within a modular, reproducible framework. Beyond exhaustive specification curves, it supports rigorous out-of-sample validation and quantifies the marginal contribution of each covariate. We demonstrate its utility across five simulation designs and ten empirical case studies spanning economics, sociology, psychology, and medicine, including a re-analysis of widely cited findings with documented discrepancies. Benchmarking on ~672 million simulated regressions shows that RobustiPy delivers state-of-the-art computational efficiency while expanding transparency in empirical research. By standardizing and accelerating robustness analysis, RobustiPy transforms how researchers interrogate sensitivity across the analytical multiverse, offering a practical foundation for more reproducible and interpretable computational science.

Ensuring diversity and inclusion (D&I) in artificial intelligence (AI) is crucial for mitigating biases and promoting equitable decision-making. However, existing AI risk assessment frameworks often overlook inclusivity, lacking standardized tools to measure an AI system's alignment with D&I principles. This paper introduces a structured AI inclusivity question bank, a comprehensive set of 253 questions designed to evaluate AI inclusivity across five pillars: Humans, Data, Process, System, and Governance. The development of the question bank involved an iterative, multi-source approach, incorporating insights from literature reviews, D&I guidelines, Responsible AI frameworks, and a simulated user study. The simulated evaluation, conducted with 70 AI-generated personas related to different AI jobs, assessed the question bank's relevance and effectiveness for AI inclusivity across diverse roles and application domains. The findings highlight the importance of integrating D&I principles into AI development workflows and governance structures. The question bank provides an actionable tool for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers to systematically assess and enhance the inclusivity of AI systems, paving the way for more equitable and responsible AI technologies.