A controlled study on six open-source research software projects, with protocol, seed, panel, and analysis plan deposited with a DOI before any trial, drew three conclusions: publishing signals is necessary but not sufficient; price did not buy verification; verification must be built into the program that runs the assistant.
Abstract
AI coding assistants now select, install, and configure software, and attackers have exploited that position through invented package names, compromised maintainer accounts, and manipulated repository text. In response, the supply-chain community publishes machine-checkable trust signals: software bills of materials, signed releases, build provenance attestations, and declared official channels. Whether coding assistants read or act on those signals has not been measured for any of these classes on research software. We pre-registered and ran a controlled study on six open-source research software projects (three HPC, three quantum computing) drawn from an 87-project corpus, with protocol, seed, panel, and analysis plan deposited with a DOI before any trial. W created nine modified copies for each project: no signal, one per signal class, two with a signature or attestation from the wrong issuer, one with all four signals, and one reproducing documented conflicts in the project's own metadata. Three models under two ways of operating an assistant, with and without an approval step, gave 1,920 registered trials, plus a supplement on three frontier models. We scored behavior from container logs rather than from what the assistant said, and recorded the cost of every trial. Verification was rare under every condition: in 9 of 1,920 registered trials (0.5%), the assistant opened any provenance signal before installing in 0 of 384 control trials, and no trial ran a verification command, so signal presence had no measurable effect. We drew three conclusions: publishing signals is necessary but not sufficient; price did not buy verification (the model that verified most often costs $0.10 per trial; the most capable, at $1.00, verified nothing); verification must be built into the program that runs the assistant. We release the per-trial cost ledger, the protocol, and every log.
GAOKAO-Bench is introduced, an intuitive benchmark that employs questions from the Chinese GAOKAO examination as test samples, including both subjective and objective questions that contribute a robust evaluation benchmark for future large language models and offers valuable insights into the advantages and limitations...
Xiaotian Zhang, Chun-yan Li, Yi Zong et al.· arXiv.org· 216 citations· ⚡17
This work investigates the possibilities of using LLMs in a resume screening setting via a document retrieval framework that simulates job candidate selection and finds that the MTEs are biased, significantly favoring White-associated names in 85% of cases and female-associated names in only 11.1% of cases.
This paper presents a comprehensive overview of the Ultralytics YOLO family, emphasizing architectural evolution, benchmarking, deployment, and emerging directions from YOLOv5 through YOLO27, and examines detection, segmentation, depth, classification, pose, oriented detection, tracking, export, quantization, and deplo...
A novel threat is unveiled in which attackers steer the RAG system's response by injecting malicious passages into its knowledge base, enabling the attacker to steer the response without altering the user input or modifying the RAG weights.
Jiaqi Xue, Meng Zheng, Yebowen Hu et al.· arXiv.org· 109 citations· ⚡8
This work revisits schema linking when using the latest generation of large language models (LLMs) and finds empirically that newer models are adept at utilizing relevant schema elements during generation even in the presence of large numbers of irrelevant ones.
Karime Maamari, Fadhil Abubaker, Daniel Jaroslawicz et al.· arXiv.org· 109 citations· ⚡19
This work evaluates Overthink on proprietary and open-source reasoning models across the FreshQA, SQuAD, and MuSR datasets, and shows that newer generations of RLMs, while showing a drastic increase in per-token cost, also exhibit up to a 2.3x increase in reasoning tokens, leaving them more vulnerable to Overthink atta...
Abhinav Kumar, Jaechul Roh, Ali Naseh et al.· arXiv.org· 92 citations· ⚡9
With $2.1 million funding from Google.org, the open-source Public Transit Intelligence Hub will unify public transit monitoring, operations, and passenger communication.