LensKit-Auto

Recommender systems have a wide area of application, e.g. in fields like video streaming, social media, or digital marketplaces. But, for a recommender-system, finding the right algorithm with the right hyperparameters is a reoccurring challenge. There is no one-fits-all solution, since the performance of one algorithm can vary immensely on different data sets. Due to the challenges of finding the right algorithm and the broad use of recommender-systems, it is of interest to create an Automated Recommender System (AutoRecSys) that takes on the task of finding the right algorithm-hyperparameter-combination for a given data set. In this work, we present the enhancement of LensKit-Auto, a framework introduced by Vente et al., that solves exactly this task of finding a fitting algorithm-hyperparameter-combination. LensKit-Auto's biggest strength lies in its ease of use, where it operates as a black-box, into which the user can feed their data set and receive the information of which algorithm and hyperparameters work best on this data set. In this work, we bring LensKit-Auto up to date, so that it works with the new version of its underlying framework, LensKit. We also implement further functionalities, such as the Tree Parzen Estimator as an additional optimization method, the ability to reuse the found algorithm, updated documentation, and the ability to visualize the optimization process. We also adapt an existing meta-learning framework to generate a suitable meta-dataset for LensKit-Auto, which could enable the integration of meta-learning into LensKit-Auto in the future. The presented changes bring LensKit-Auto up to date and enhance its usability, so that even non-experts in the field can find the right algorithm for their use case.

Evaluation of Medical Vision Language Models HuluMed and MedGemma, and general purpose chatbots Gemma 3, ChatGPT Plus, and Claude Pro on real previously unseen wound images

Chronic wound assessment remains a clinically challenging task that requires accurate interpretation of wound morphology, tissue composition, vascular characteristics, and infection risk. Recent advances in Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have introduced the possibility of automated multimodal wound analysis through image understanding combined with clinical reasoning. This study evaluates the performance of several general-purpose and medically specialized open-source and proprietary VLMs for clinical wound assessment using an expanded, curated dataset of 20 clinically diverse wounds spanning vascular, surgical, ischemic, venous, lymphedema, and amputation-related etiologies. Six VLMs were evaluated using a structured twelve-question clinical framework covering wound classification, infection risk, vascular intervention recommendations, debridement urgency, wound therapy selection, and advanced management planning. Across 20 wound cases and 240 clinician-graded wound-analysis decisions, ChatGPT achieved the highest overall performance with 174/240 correct responses (72.50%), followed by Claude with 149/240 (62.08%). Among the open-source and medically specialized models, HuluMed achieved the strongest performance with 96/240 correct responses (40.00%), followed by Gemma 3 (81/240, 33.75%), MedGemma 4B (62/240, 25.83%), and MedGemma 27B (42/240, 17.50%). The findings suggest that frontier general-purpose multimodal systems currently demonstrate substantially stronger wound-analysis performance than medically specialized alternatives, highlighting the continued importance of broad multimodal reasoning capabilities alongside domain-specific medical knowledge. Although current VLMs demonstrate promising potential for clinical decision support, substantial limitations remain in advanced wound-management reasoning, procedural planning, and autonomous clinical reliability.

The Illusion of Improvement: Reject Inference Strategies in Credit Scoring

Reject inference methods are widely used to mitigate survival bias in credit scoring, yet their effectiveness remains poorly understood. We systematically evaluate several such methods and uncover a structural failure mode: in a natural retraining cycle, models whose accuracy improves while recall collapses create an illusion of improvement that leads practitioners to believe the system is getting better when, in fact, its rejection quality -- the ability to correctly screen out defaulters -- is deteriorating. We then propose a controlled exploration strategy that breaks the feedback loop without statistical assumptions: the lender deliberately approves a fraction of rejected applicants and observes their true outcomes. We show that accuracy and rejection quality give opposite recommendations on whether to explore: accuracy favors no exploration, while rejection quality improves with it, confirming that standard evaluation metrics are misleading under selection bias. Even minimal exploration rates (2--5\%) prove sufficient in our experiments to diagnose the severity of the feedback loop at near-zero cost. Our findings are consistent across two machine learning methods and three real-world datasets, and suggest that standard evaluation protocols are inadequate for assessing models trained under survival bias.

RankGraph-2: Lifecycle Co-Design for Billion-Node Graph Learning in Recommendation

Graph-based retrieval at billion-node scale requires jointly solving three tightly coupled problems -- graph construction, representation learning, and real-time serving -- yet existing work addresses each in isolation. We present RankGraph-2, a framework deployed at Meta that co-designs all three lifecycle stages for similarity-based retrieval (U2U2I and U2I2I), where each stage's requirements shape the others. Serving requires a co-learned cluster index to avoid expensive online KNN -- this pushes index co-training into the training objective. Training benefits from the observation that similarity-based retrieval tolerates pre-computed neighborhoods, eliminating online graph infrastructure -- this requires construction to produce self-contained data. Construction must also support hour-level refresh for item coverage. Acting on these cascading requirements, RankGraph-2 reduces hundreds of trillions of edges to hundreds of billions via subsampling with popularity bias correction, pre-computes multi-hop neighborhoods via personalized PageRank, and co-learns a residual-quantization cluster index that reduces serving computational cost by 83%. This lifecycle co-design enables a simple architecture to achieve 3.8 x higher recall than a GAT + Deep Graph Infomax model on a bipartite graph and 2.1 x higher than PyTorch-BigGraph on item retrieval. RankGraph-2 delivers up to +0.96% CTR and +2.75% CVR, and has powered 20+ retrieval launches across major surfaces.

Accountability in Autonomous Drone-Based Firefighting: Insights From a Field Trial

There is a growing research field exploring how autonomous drones can enhance emergency response effectiveness. Integrating these (artificial) agents into existing emergency teams and workflows may significantly impact established accountability relationships. This paper examines how autonomous drones affect accountability attribution within complex socio-technical systems. Drawing on two real-life field trials in firefighting, the study reveals substantial uncertainty around accountability when drones are organizationally deployed. Using Bovens' accountability framework, two challenges are identified: (1) uncertainty about the role of drones within hierarchical structures, leading to confused accountability ascriptions; and (2) new forms of human-drone interactions introducing additional accountability-relevant issues. Based on these insights, the paper proposes actionable recommendations to support the responsible integration of autonomous drones into firefighting operations without undermining accountability. These findings offer practical guidance for policymakers and contribute to further research on accountability in autonomous systems.

Do Generative Recommenders Deepen the Information Cocoon? A Closed-Loop Simulation with LLM-powered User Simulators

Recommender systems alleviate information overload, yet repeated feedback between recommendations and user interactions can reinforce existing preferences and narrow users' exposure, forming information cocoons. While this phenomenon has been widely studied in traditional sequential recommendation, its impact on generative recommendation remains unclear. By replacing atomic item IDs with Semantic ID (SID) sequences, generative recommenders introduce a different recommendation mechanism whose role in information cocoon formation is not yet understood. To investigate whether generative recommenders deepen information cocoons, we propose \textsc{RecLoop}, a closed-loop simulation framework with LLM-driven user agents. We compare two generative recommenders and two traditional sequential baselines on two Amazon datasets across multiple feedback cycles. In addition to standard exposure-level metrics, we introduce \emph{Code-Space Structural Cocoon}, a model-level metric that measures concentration in the generated SID space. Experimental results show that generative recommenders are generally less prone to exposure-level cocoon formation than traditional baselines, preserving broader exposure diversity and slowing cross-user homogenization. However, feedback loops can still induce concentration within the generated SID space. We further find that cocoon severity depends strongly on tokenization strategy and model scale: collaborative-signal tokenization produces stronger cocoon effects than semantic tokenization, whereas larger models maintain greater code-space diversity and better retain access to niche content. These findings suggest that information cocoons in generative recommendation are shaped not only by recommendation behavior, but also by item tokenization and model capacity. Our code is available at https://github.com/Dregen-Yor/RecLoop.

Understanding LLMs in Title-Abstract Screening: From Disagreements to Recommendations

Several studies have examined the use of large language models (LLMs) for title-abstract screening in systematic reviews (SRs), reporting mixed accuracy. However, questions of reliability remain largely unaddressed. In this study, we go beyond quantitative LLM-human agreement metrics and qualitatively investigate how and why LLMs fail. We also propose actionable recommendations. We analyzed disagreements between LLMs and researchers across six software engineering SRs and over 1,000 primary study papers. For each SR, papers were screened independently by human experts and LLMs in zero-shot mode, resulting in Kappa values ranging from 0.52 to 0.77. Qualitative analysis suggests that human-LLM disagreement results from recurring, identifiable causes, such as boundary ambiguity in key terms, keyword overemphasization, and incorrect topic inference. Based on these findings, we propose recommendations such as validating semantic understanding before deployment, running multiple LLMs, and focusing validation efforts on borderline cases. Future studies are needed to validate the impact of our recommendations, and community efforts are needed to develop normative guidelines on LLM usage in SRs.

Treatment Response Optimized Clinical Decision Support AI System via Digital Twin Simulation

Clinical decision support AI systems (CDSASs) must adapt to evolving patient conditions in real-time while adhering to strict safety constraints. We present an online adaptive framework that integrates Treatment Effect (TE) estimation to quantify clinical benefits, a patient Digital Twin (DT) to simulate treatment trajectories, and Reinforcement Learning (RL) for sequential decision-making. The AI system is initially trained on historical medical records and operates in a continuous learning loop. To ensure safety, a rule-based module monitors vital signs and blocks contraindicated treatments. Cases with strong internal model disagreement are flagged for clinician review, simulated in our experiments via a pre-trained outcome model. We validate our framework using both a synthetic clinical simulator and a real-world ovarian cancer dataset from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). In both simulated and clinical settings, our method demonstrated superior effectiveness and stability in recommending treatments compared to standard computational baselines. Furthermore, the AI system maintains low latency and requires expert consultation for only a minority of cases in our experimental validation, demonstrating its potential as a safe, clinician-supervised tool for personalized medicine that continuously improves through practical use.

Incumbent Advantage: Brand Bias and Cognitive Manipulation Dynamics in LLM Recommendation Systems

Large language models (LLMs) are becoming a major way for consumers to find products, but we do not yet understand how brands compete in this new channel. We study brand dynamics in LLM recommendations using skincare products -- a category where consumers cannot easily judge quality before buying and must rely on brand reputation -- across three commercial LLMs (GPT-4o-mini, Claude Sonnet, Gemini 3 Flash), with a robustness check on search goods. In three experiments, we find: (1) a Conditional Monopoly where well-known brands get recommended 100% of the time (IAI = 10.0) when all products have the same specifications, but this dominance disappears with less than a +0.1-star rating advantage for a competitor; (2) authority-style marketing language, including fabricated clinical-evidence claims, breaks this monopoly at a Bias Surplus Value equal to +0.17 rating points, with each model responding differently; and (3) a social dilemma in multi-brand GEO competition: when all brands adopt the same optimization strategy, individual payoff falls from +0.802 to +0.007 in our payoff proxy, and non-participating brands receive zero recommendations in our tests. Our results suggest that generative engine optimization (GEO) should be studied not only as a security risk, but also as an emerging marketing practice that shapes market competition.

Evaluating Prompting-Based Defenses Against Domain-Camouflaged Injection Attacks

Domain-camouflaged injection attacks embed malicious instructions in retrieved content using domain-appropriate vocabulary, evading standard detectors that rely on syntactic injection markers. When detection fails, practitioners need to know which defense architectures reduce attack success. We evaluate five prompting-based defenses (spotlighting, paraphrasing, prompt sandwiching, and two combinations) against domain-camouflaged injection across three model families (Claude Haiku, Llama 3.1 8B, Gemini 2.0 Flash) and three deployment domains (financial, legal, general) using 3,510 trials. Paraphrasing retrieved content before agent processing is the most consistently effective defense in this benchmark, reducing camouflage attack success rate by 55-84\% depending on model, and achieves lower attack success rates than our Llama Guard 4 configuration on every model tested. Defense effectiveness is strongly model-dependent: spotlighting halves attack success on Claude Haiku but provides no benefit on Llama 3.1 8B. Financial domain deployments face the highest residual risk at 26-33\% baseline attack success rate, with no prompting-based defense fully eliminating the threat on weaker models. These results provide the first systematic evaluation of prompting-based defenses specifically against camouflage-class injection attacks and establish benchmark-based recommendations for practitioners. All tasks use synthetically constructed professional documents; whether these benchmark rankings generalize to real enterprise documents remains an open question.