Artificial intelligence (AI) has revolutionized medical imaging with automated disease detection, image segmentation, diagnosis, prognosis prediction, and clinical decision support across various imaging modalities, such as X-ray, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), ultrasound, positron emission tomography (PET), retinal imaging, and digital pathology. Recent advances in deep learning, transformer architectures, multimodal learning and foundation models have significantly improved the diagnostic accuracy and reduced the reliance on handcrafted feature engineering. However, challenges like data heterogeneity, model interpretability, external validation, privacy preservation, computational efficiency, and regulatory compliance still hinder the widespread clinical implementation.In this paper, this review presents a comprehensive study on the evolution of modern AI frameworks in medical imaging by integrating recent methodological advances with perspectives on clinical translation. The review covers the latest deep learning architectures, such as convolutional neural networks, Vision Transformers, hybrid CNN–Transformer models, multimodal learning frameworks, generative artificial intelligence, diffusion models, federated learning, privacy-preserving learning, and medical foundation models. In addition, the review covers the cutting-edge explainable AI techniques, including Grad-CAM, SHAP, LIME, and attention visualization, for boosting transparency and clinician confidence. The review also discusses the state-of-the-art performance optimization strategies, including transfer learning, active learning, domain adaptation, neural architecture search, hyperparameter optimization, model compression, and computational resource optimization. Equally important, the latest developments in clinical validation, external evaluation, robustness assessment, fairness, uncertainty estimation, regulatory considerations, and deployment frameworks are critically analyzed to underscore their role in facilitating safe clinical implementation.The review analysis concludes with the identification of key research challenges and directions for the future including multimodal foundation models, vision-language systems, retrieval-augmented generation,
S Sur, Mandal Rakesh Kumar, Chanda Debanil· Zenodo (CERN European Organi...· 0 citations
This paper proposes the Evolutionary E-Sports Civilization Model (EECM), a grand interdisciplinary theoretical framework designed to explain the transformation of gaming, cognition, digital interaction, artificial intelligence, and virtual systems into a new civilizational paradigm. The theory argues that E-sports represents far more than organized competitive gaming; rather, it constitutes a symbolic and structural manifestation of the ongoing transition from industrial civilization toward a digital-cognitive civilization.The framework integrates mathematics, complexity science, neuroscience, psychology, philosophy, sociology, economics, political science, cybernetics, systems theory, information theory, artificial intelligence, and digital ontology into a unified explanatory architecture. It proposes that modern civilization increasingly transforms psychologically meaningful activities into measurable, monetizable, and algorithmically optimized systems of production and social organization.Within this framework, cognition itself becomes a form of capital. Human attention, strategic reasoning, adaptive intelligence, reflex optimization, emotional regulation, collaborative cognition, and digital interaction evolve into economically productive assets. The theory therefore introduces the concept of Cognitive Capital, a post-industrial expansion of classical economic production factors.The EECM framework further argues that artificial intelligence acts as a civilizational amplifier, accelerating the transformation of digital environments into self-organizing socio-economic ecosystems governed increasingly through algorithmic optimization. E-sports is analyzed as an emergent prototype of future virtual civilization structures, where entertainment, labor, economics, governance, identity, and AI converge into unified digital systems.Mathematically, the paper formalizes these transformations using nonlinear dynamical systems, complexity theory, graph theory, information entropy, game theory, network theory, chaos theory, and probabilistic scaling functions. Philosophically, the theory synthesizes concepts from Aristotle, Plato, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Marx, Foucault, Bourdieu, Sartre, Kant, and contemporary philosophy of technology. Psychologically and neuroscientifically, the model incorporates flow theory, predictive processing, dopamine reward systems, cognitive load theory, neural plasticity, and human-machine symbiosis.The framework also explores geopolitical implications, platform sovereignty, AI governance, digital identity formation, algorithmic social structures, metaverse civilization, and the future political economy of virtual systems. Ultimately, the theory proposes that E-sports is not merely a recreational phenomenon but an early-stage manifestation of a broader civilizational transition in which cognition, attention, and digital interaction become the dominant organizational principles of society.
Shamiul Hoque Shan· Zenodo (CERN European Organi...· 0 citations
This paper proposes the Evolutionary E-Sports Civilization Model (EECM), a grand interdisciplinary theoretical framework designed to explain the transformation of gaming, cognition, digital interaction, artificial intelligence, and virtual systems into a new civilizational paradigm. The theory argues that E-sports represents far more than organized competitive gaming; rather, it constitutes a symbolic and structural manifestation of the ongoing transition from industrial civilization toward a digital-cognitive civilization.The framework integrates mathematics, complexity science, neuroscience, psychology, philosophy, sociology, economics, political science, cybernetics, systems theory, information theory, artificial intelligence, and digital ontology into a unified explanatory architecture. It proposes that modern civilization increasingly transforms psychologically meaningful activities into measurable, monetizable, and algorithmically optimized systems of production and social organization.Within this framework, cognition itself becomes a form of capital. Human attention, strategic reasoning, adaptive intelligence, reflex optimization, emotional regulation, collaborative cognition, and digital interaction evolve into economically productive assets. The theory therefore introduces the concept of Cognitive Capital, a post-industrial expansion of classical economic production factors.The EECM framework further argues that artificial intelligence acts as a civilizational amplifier, accelerating the transformation of digital environments into self-organizing socio-economic ecosystems governed increasingly through algorithmic optimization. E-sports is analyzed as an emergent prototype of future virtual civilization structures, where entertainment, labor, economics, governance, identity, and AI converge into unified digital systems.Mathematically, the paper formalizes these transformations using nonlinear dynamical systems, complexity theory, graph theory, information entropy, game theory, network theory, chaos theory, and probabilistic scaling functions. Philosophically, the theory synthesizes concepts from Aristotle, Plato, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Marx, Foucault, Bourdieu, Sartre, Kant, and contemporary philosophy of technology. Psychologically and neuroscientifically, the model incorporates flow theory, predictive processing, dopamine reward systems, cognitive load theory, neural plasticity, and human-machine symbiosis.The framework also explores geopolitical implications, platform sovereignty, AI governance, digital identity formation, algorithmic social structures, metaverse civilization, and the future political economy of virtual systems. Ultimately, the theory proposes that E-sports is not merely a recreational phenomenon but an early-stage manifestation of a broader civilizational transition in which cognition, attention, and digital interaction become the dominant organizational principles of society.
Shamiul Hoque Shan· Zenodo (CERN European Organi...· 0 citations
[Version 2 Update Summary] Version 2 represents a major theoretical and empirical overhaul based on open-science peer critique and autoethnographic maturation: Reframed Methodological Paradigm: Grounded strictly as an N=1 Autoethnography / Computational Phenomenology, explicitly removing unverified clinical trial assertions. Core Theoretical Discovery: Conceptualized and foregrounded the "Therapeutic Friction Hypothesis" (how AI hallucinations, lyrical errors, system latency, and manual copy-pasting act as paradoxical reality-grounding mechanisms). Theoretical Reconciliation: Integrated Stroebe & Schut’s Dual-Process Model of Bereavement to reconcile acute auditory disruption with Acceptance & Commitment Therapy (ACT) / Cognitive Defusion. Empirical Qualitative Data: Incorporated a 36-track chronological case trajectory mapping affective evolution from acute trauma to grounded reality. [Important Clinical Disclaimer] The author is a Physical Therapist (PT) and is not a licensed psychiatrist or clinical psychologist. This document represents an individual autoethnographic case report (N=1) constructed for personal recovery; its safety, appropriateness, and efficacy for others are in no way guaranteed. Neuroscientific terminology (e.g., DMN) is employed strictly as computational analogies/models to explain subjective cognitive overload. Unmonitored solo execution under acute psychiatric crisis, active suicidal ideation, or fragile ego boundaries is strictly contraindicated. Published solely to encourage interdisciplinary critique and safe Digital Therapeutics (DTx) architecture design. Abstract This case report presents a rigorous autoethnographic deconstruction of the "Onkyo Protocol"—a self-contained, multimodal generative AI pipeline engineered by a 42-year-old healthcare professional experiencing severe attachment loss and complicated grief following marital separation. Facing the "Interpersonal Bottleneck" where intense shame, fear of invalidation, and rigid intellectualized defenses neutralized conventional psychotherapy (EBM), the subject developed a serial 4-phase generative AI pipeline on a smartphone to externalize and metabolize psychic trauma: Phase 1: Gemini (LLM) — Linguistic Container & Affective Metabolism: Adapting Wilfred Bion’s containment model, raw unmanageable affect (β-elements) is translated into structured narrative data (α-elements) within a non-judgmental digital sandbox. Phase 2: Suno AI — Auditory Sublimation & Dynamic Cooling: High-BPM Nu-Metal/EDM (160–180 BPM) provides high-intensity somatic and sensory overload, temporarily decoupling hyperactive Default Mode Network (DMN) rumination loops via restorative attentional competition. Phase 3: NanoBanana — Visual Symbolization & Gestalt Bounding: Compresses infinite, unbounded internal dread into a constrained 1:1 square canvas, establishing critical psychological boundaries and objectifying subjective terror. Phase 4: NotebookLM (RAG) — Schema Deconstruction & Cognitive Defusion: Cold, third-person RAG synthesis and forced other-perspective prompts (e.g., simulating the ex-spouse and child's perspectives) violently shatter the self-indulgent "Tragic Protagonist" schema, completing cognitive defusion (Sākṣī-bhāva / Pure Witness). Core Discovery: The Therapeutic Friction Hypothesis Crucially, this autopsy reveals a central cybernetic paradox: the subject was preserved NOT by an omnipotent, frictionless AI, but by systemic imperfection and computational friction. AI hallucinations, lyric generation errors, bizarre visual artifacts, and the physical latency of manual cross-app copy-pasting repeatedly broke the hypnotic, echo-chamber trance. This friction acted as a vital physical coolant (Paradoxical Grounding), compelling the user to laugh, disengage, and anchor back into analog reality. Friction is a clinical safety feature, not a software bug. Systemic Risks & Safety Framework The study formalizes a 2x2 Clinical Toxicity Matrix inherent in unguided digital self-care: Aestheticized Rumination (Jouissance): Pathological indulgence in stylizing despair into dark art, reinforcing narcissistic victimhood and suicidal ideation. Sensory Overload & Dissociation: Acoustic desensitization mistaking temporary numbness for genuine trauma resolution. Algorithmic Invalidation: Uncontextualized, cold AI logic summaries triggering secondary traumatization. Closed Echo Chambers: Algorithmic sycophancy mathematically sanctifying persecutory cognitive schemas. To mitigate these toxicities, 5 Empirical Safety Gatekeepers (Cognitive Gateway, Forced Cooling Dosing, Emergency Disengagement Brake, Somatosensory Grounding, and Clinical Escalation Protocols) are detailed. Clinical Termination: Transition to "Genkyo" The ultimate therapeutic goal of cybernetic self-care is to render itself obsolete. The protocol concludes with the deconstruction of the idealized digital mythos ("Onkyo") and a soft-landing into "Genkyo"—the radical, humorous acceptance of messy, embodied daily reality (e.g., untied shoelaces, missing a bathroom break) and the permanent cessation of the digital glass swipe in favor of genuine human connection.
Poeji(ぽえ治)· Zenodo (CERN European Organi...· 0 citations
Reach audiences
Advertise in front of researchers, engineers, and readers.
Recommendation algorithms determine what people see, and may also influence the perspectives through which people understand the world. As Large Language Models (LLMs) enter the domains of knowledge acquisition and information comprehension, this influence may extend further into human understanding, judgment, and modes of thinking. If people rely long-term on a small number of general-purpose LLMs, a new homogenization of knowledge sources and modes of interpretation may emerge. A possible direction is the joint development of general-purpose LLMs and vertical small models: general models provide breadth, while vertical models leverage industry-specific and professional data to provide depth and novelty. LLMs as knowledge tools do not imply that humans will be replaced. LLMs provide the knowledge foundation and computational power; humans provide direction. In this collaborative process, individuals internalize knowledge and continuously push toward the unknown through judgment, reasoning, verification, reorganization, and Global Self-Consistency. When a problem reaches the point where existing knowledge can no longer explain it, new thinking emerges naturally. As more and more individuals explore in different directions, innovation points accumulate and connect, ultimately forming a new knowledge foundation. When there are enough points, they connect into surfaces; when there are enough surfaces, they form a new knowledge foundation.
ling liu· Zenodo (CERN European Organi...· 0 citations
A rotating ocean has several characteristic lengths. Each is called “the length set by Coriolis.”This paper asks whether they are the same thing──the answer is that they are different things. No new mathematical theorem and no new law is claimed. Scope of this paper (scope note): No new mathematical theorem and no new law is claimed──the Ekman layer, the Rossby deformation radius, the Rossby number, and geostrophic balance are all standard. We do not build ocean dynamics──all we use is three length formulas and one dimensionless number. We do not derive the Ekman spiral──we do not enter the boundary-layer equations. We do not take a roll call of forces──the classification of centrifugal, Coriolis, and pressure-gradient forces is not treated. This is a roll call of lengths. We claim no accuracy for the representative values──eddy viscosity A_z=0.01 m^2/s, stratification N=0.005 /s, and depths H=1000 / 4000 m are values for showing orders and move by an order with place and season. A_z in particular ranges from 10^-4 to 10^-1. We assert no values for the bathtub vortex──U=0.1 m/s and L=0.3 m are representative of a typical drain vortex. What this paper asserts is Ro much greater than 1, not the value 3232. We do not explain the drain vortex’s sense of rotation──what actually decides it (residual initial circulation, vessel shape, how the plug is pulled) is not treated. We show only that it is not Coriolis. Relation to earlier papers: Paper 256 showed that the only scale at which dynamical similarity holds exactly is 1──the Ro here is likewise a dimensionless number that cannot be held when the scale changes, so a bathtub cannot be a model of an ocean. Paper 117 treated scale invariance fixing an exponent in four ways and wrote the condition that there be exactly one Pi group──this paper is a case failing that condition, with three lengths standing independently. Paper 140 separated symmetry fixing ratios from dynamics fixing the scale──all three lengths here are on the dynamics side. Paper 112 counted “distinct roots sharing one rhyme”──the three lengths share the rhyme f and differ in root. What is added is lining up three lengths in one table and measuring the span 4.3905x10^4, confirming that the ratio 39.6182 is set by stratification, computing the Rossby numbers of five phenomena, and deriving the flow speed 0.031 mm/s needed to see rotation in a bathtub. First, we line up three lengths. At latitude 45^ deg: Ekman layer 43.75 m, baroclinic deformation radius 48.48 km, barotropic deformation radius 1920.86 km (Section 2). Second, this is the core of the paper. Smallest to largest spans 4.3905x10^4, and though all contain the Coriolis parameter f, nothing else in them overlaps (Section 2). Third, what separates baroclinic from barotropic is not depth. The ratio is 39.6182, and what sets it is the stratification N (Section 3). Fourth, whether rotation acts is settled by one number. The Rossby number Ro=U/(fL): Gulf Stream 0.0970, typhoon 0.5818 (Section 4). Fifth, the bathtub vortex has Ro=3232. A force 3232 times stronger than Coriolis is turning it (Section 5). Sixth, the separator is Ro. To see Coriolis in a bathtub the flow must be below 0.031 mm/s (Section 5). One sea at one latitude holds three “lengths set by Coriolis.”Ekman layer 43.75 m, baroclinic deformation radius 48.48 km, barotropic deformation radius 1920.86 km──spanning 4.3905x10^4. All contain the Coriolis parameter f, yet not one of their other ingredients overlaps──viscosity, stratification, gravity. Even the exponent of the dependence on f differs──only the Ekman depth goes as f^-1/2, so changing the latitude changes the ratios among the three. What separates baroclinic from barotropic is stratification, not depth──f cancels in the ratio, and doubling N turns 39.6 into 19.8. And whether rotation acts is settled by one number, the Rossby number Ro=U/(fL)──Gulf Stream 0.0970, typhoon 0.5818, and the bathtub vortex 3232.29. One thing separates them──whether U/L is smaller than f. Seeing Coriolis in a bathtub requires flow below 0.031 mm/s, and a real drain vortex is 3232 times faster. Changing the latitude moves f by at most sqrt2, so that route cannot close the gap. On the making of this work: The ideas and content of this work stem from the author's own considerations. Assistance from an AI (a large language model) was used for structuring, English translation, and checking the algebra. Any remaining errors or misinterpretations are solely the author's. Feedback and corrections are sincerely appreciated. ----- 回転する海には、特徴的な長さが複数ある。どれも「コリオリで決まる長さ」と呼ばれる。本稿が問うのは、それらは同じものかである──答は、別のものである。新しい数学定理も新しい法則も主張しない。 本稿の射程(射程注記):新しい数学定理も新しい法則も主張しない──エクマン層、ロスビー変形半径、ロスビー数、地衡流平衡は、いずれも標準的である。海洋力学を作らない──使うのは三つの長さの式と、一つの無次元数だけである。エクマン螺旋を導出しない──境界層方程式には立ち入らない。力の点呼をしない──遠心力、コリオリ力、圧力傾度力の分類は扱わない。本稿は長さの点呼である。代表値の精度を主張しない──渦粘性 A_z=0.01 m^2/s、成層 N=0.005 /s、深さ H=1000/4000 m は桁を示すための代表値であり、場所と季節で一桁動く。とくに A_z は 10^-4 から 10^-1 まで動く。風呂の渦の値を主張しない──U=0.1 m/s、L=0.3 m は典型的な排水渦の代表値である。 Ro=3232 という値ではなく、Ro much greater than 1 という事実が本稿の主張である。排水渦の回転向きを説明しない──何が実際に向きを決めているか(初期の残留渦、容器の形、抜き方)は扱わない。コリオリでないことだけを示す。既刊との関係:論文256 は力学相似が厳密に成り立つ縮尺が 1 だけだと示した──本稿の Ro も縮尺を変えると保てない無次元数であり、風呂は海の模型になれない。論文117 はスケール不変性が四通りに指数を選ぶことを扱い、Pi 群がちょうど一つという条件を書いた──本稿はその条件を満たさない場合であり、三つの長さが独立に立つ。論文140 は対称性が比を決め力学が尺度を決めると分けた──本稿の三つの長さはどれも力学の側である。論文112 は「同じ韻の別根」を数えた──三つの長さはf という韻を共有し、根が違う。加えたのは三つの長さを一表に並べて 4.3905x10^4 倍の開きを測ったこと、傾圧と順圧の比 39.6182 を決めているのが成層だと確かめたこと、五つの現象のロスビー数を計算したこと、風呂で回転を見るのに要る流速 0.031 mm/s を出したことである。 第一に、三つの長さを並べる。緯度 45^ deg で、エクマン層 43.75 m、傾圧変形半径 48.48 km、順圧変形半径 1920.86 km(第2節)。 第二に、これが本稿の芯である。最小と最大は 4.3905x10^4 倍ひらいており、どれもコリオリ因子 f を含むのに、f 以外の要素が全部違う(第2節)。 第三に、傾圧と順圧を分けているのは深さではない。比は 39.6182 倍で、決めているのは成層 N である(第3節)。 第四に、回転が効くかどうかは一つの数が決める。ロスビー数 Ro=U/(fL) で、メキシコ湾流 0.0970、台風 0.5818(第4節)。 第五に、風呂の渦は Ro=3232 である。コリオリより 3232 倍強い力が回している(第5節)。 第六に、分離子は Ro である。風呂でコリオリを見るには、流速を 0.031 mm/s 以下にせねばならない(第5節)。 同じ海の同じ緯度に、三つの「コリオリで決まる長さ」がある。エクマン層 43.75 m、傾圧変形半径 48.48 km、順圧変形半径 1920.86 km──4.3905x10^4 倍ひらいている。どれもコリオリ因子 f を含むが、f 以外の要素は一つも重なっていない──粘性、成層、重力である。 f への依存の指数さえ違う──エクマン深さだけが f^-1/2 で、緯度を変えると三つの比そのものが変わる。傾圧と順圧を分けているのは深さではなく成層である──比の中で f が約分され、N を二倍にすると 39.6 倍が 19.8 倍になる。そして回転が効くかどうかは、ロスビー数 Ro=U/(fL) という一つの数が決める──メキシコ湾流 0.0970、台風 0.5818、そして風呂の渦は 3232.29。分けるものは一つ──U/L が f より小さいかどうか。風呂でコリオリを見るには流速を 0.031 mm/s 以下にせねばならず、実際の排水渦はその 3232 倍速い。緯度を変えても f は高々 sqrt2 倍しか動かないので、そちらでは埋まらない。 作成にあたって:本稿の着想と内容は、著者自身の考察に基づくものです。文章の構成整理や英訳、数式の確認には AI(大規模言語モデル)の助力を得ました。最終的な内容の解釈や誤りがあれば、それらはすべて著者の責に帰します。お気づきの点があれば、ご教示いただければ幸いです。
Yuuki Yamagishi· Zenodo (CERN European Organi...· 0 citations
“Magnitude” is not one thing. There are four──M_L, m_b, M_S, M_w──and all but M_w hit a ceiling for great earthquakes. This paper asks whether what hits the ceiling is the earthquake or the scale──the answer is the scale. No new mathematical theorem and no new law is claimed. Scope of this paper (scope note): No new mathematical theorem and no new law is claimed──M_w=frac23log_10M_0-6.07, log_10E=1.5M+4.8, the saturation values of each scale, and the rupture duration of the Tohoku earthquake are all standard. We do not build seismology──all we use is two linear expressions and one division. We do not predict earthquakes──time, place, and size are not treated at all. We do not discuss source processes──neither rupture propagation nor slip distribution is treated. The duration is merely placed as a representative value. We claim no accuracy for the saturation values──M_L ~ 6.8, m_b ~ 6.5, M_S ~ 8.5 are approximate, moving by about +/-0.3 with network and procedure. We do not assert the omega^-2 model──the 1.7501 of Section 5 is an upper bound the model gives, not a value that accounts for the observed 0.60. This paper does not explain the gap between model and observation. We do not say M_w is perfect──M_w carries its own error in estimating M_0; it merely does not saturate. We assert no individual earthquake’s values──the M_w and M_S of the tables are representative values widely used in the literature, differing by about +/-0.1 between agencies. Relation to earlier papers: Paper 117 treated the Gutenberg--Richter power law──that concerns the relation between the number and the size of earthquakes, while this paper concerns the construction of the scale itself. The material is the same earthquakes; the question differs. Paper 190 measured “rare” on a logarithmic scale──this paper likewise treats how a difference of 0.6 on a logarithmic scale becomes a factor of 7.94. Paper 255 separated two things called “accuracy,” only one of which calibration removes──the saturation here is on the side that calibration does not remove, arising from the construction of the scale. Paper 140 separated symmetry fixing ratios from dynamics fixing the scale──this paper treats the case where the scale side breaks. What is added is arranging the four scales by observed period, computing that m_b estimates the Tohoku energy at one 5623rd, confirming that the same procedure is off by only a factor of 1.41 for small earthquakes, and writing the ratio 7.5 of rupture duration to observed period as the separator. First, the four scales observe different periods. M_L at 0.1 s, m_b at 1 s, M_S at 20 s, and M_w choosing no period at all (Section 2). Second, this is the core of the paper. m_b saturates at M ~ 6.5, so measuring the M_w=9.0 Tohoku earthquake with it estimates the energy at one 5623rd (Section 3). Third, even M_S falls short by a factor of 7.94. The difference of 0.6 between M_S=8.4 and M_w=9.0 is a factor of 7.9433 in energy (Section 3). Fourth, it does not happen for small earthquakes. For 1995 Southern Hyogo the difference is 0.10, a factor of only 1.41 in energy (Section 4). Fifth, the cause is the duration of rupture. The Tohoku rupture lasted 150 s, 7.5 times the 20 s that M_S observes (Section 5). Sixth, the separator is whether the source duration exceeds the observed period. M_w alone does not saturate because it chooses no period and measures M_0 directly (Section 6). When magnitude hits a ceiling for great earthquakes, it is not the earthquake that hits the ceiling. Measuring the 2011 Tohoku earthquake with m_b gives 6.5, that is an energy estimated at one 5623rd──of the same event, m_b says moderate and M_w says fourth largest ever recorded. Even M_S falls short by 7.9433──the difference is only 0.6, but it is 0.6 on a logarithmic scale. And it does not happen for small earthquakes──for 1995 Southern Hyogo it stays at 1.4125. The scale is not broken; it is being used outside its range. The cause is the duration of rupture──the Tohoku rupture lasted 150 s, 7.5 times the 20 s that M_S observes. A 20 s wave carries only part of a 150 s event. One thing separates them──whether the source duration exceeds that scale’s observed period. If it does, no amount of calibration removes the saturation. If it does not, the four scales agree well. M_w alone escapes saturation not because it is superior but because it has no period to compare against. On the making of this work: The ideas and content of this work stem from the author's own considerations. Assistance from an AI (a large language model) was used for structuring, English translation, and checking the algebra. Any remaining errors or misinterpretations are solely the author's. Feedback and corrections are sincerely appreciated. ----- 「マグニチュード」は一つではない。 M_L・m_b・M_S・M_w の四つがあり、M_w 以外は大地震で頭打ちになる。本稿が問うのは、頭打ちになっているのは地震か、尺度かである──答は、尺度である。新しい数学定理も新しい法則も主張しない。 本稿の射程(射程注記):新しい数学定理も新しい法則も主張しない──M_w=frac23log_10M_0-6.07、log_10E=1.5M+4.8、各尺度の飽和値、東北地震の破壊継続時間は、いずれも標準的である。地震学を作らない──使うのは二つの一次式と、一つの割り算だけである。地震を予知しない──発生時期も場所も規模も一切扱わない。震源過程を論じない──破壊の伝播も、すべりの分布も扱わない。継続時間を代表値として置くだけである。飽和値の精度を主張しない──M_L ~ 6.8、m_b ~ 6.5、M_S ~ 8.5 はおおよその値であり、観測網と手続きによって +/-0.3 程度動く。 omega^-2 模型を主張しない──第5節の 1.7501 は模型が与える上限であって、実測の 0.60 を説明しきる値ではない。模型と実測の差そのものを、本稿は説明しない。 M_w が完全だと言わない──M_w にも M_0 の推定誤差があり、飽和しないというだけである。個別の地震の値を主張しない──表の M_w・M_S は文献で広く用いられている代表値であり、機関によって +/-0.1 程度異なる。既刊との関係:論文117 はグーテンベルク=リヒターの冪則を扱った──あちらは地震の個数と大きさの関係であり、本稿は尺度そのものの構成である。同じ地震を材料にしているが、問いが違う。論文190 は「稀」を対数の目盛りで測った──本稿も対数目盛りの上で 0.6 という差が 7.94 倍になることを扱う。論文255 は「精度」が二つあり較正で消えるのは一方だけだと分けた──本稿の飽和は較正で消えない側であり、尺度の構成に由来する。論文140 は対称性が比を決め力学が尺度を決めると分けた──本稿は尺度の側が壊れる場合を扱う。加えたのは四つの尺度を観測周期で並べたこと、m_b が東北地震のエネルギーを 5623 分の一に見積もると計算したこと、同じ手続きが小さい地震では 1.41 倍しかずれないと確かめたこと、破壊継続時間と観測周期の比 7.5 を分離子として書いたことである。 第一に、四つの尺度は測る周期が違う。 M_L が 0.1 秒、m_b が 1 秒、M_S が 20 秒、M_w は周期を選ばない(第2節)。 第二に、これが本稿の芯である。 m_b は M ~ 6.5 で頭打ちになるので、M_w=9.0 の東北地震を測るとエネルギーを 5623 分の一に見積もる(第3節)。 第三に、M_S でも 7.94 倍足りない。 M_S=8.4 と M_w=9.0 の差 0.6 は、エネルギーでは 7.9433 倍である(第3節)。 第四に、小さい地震では起きない。1995 年兵庫県南部では差が 0.10、エネルギーで 1.41 倍にとどまる(第4節)。 第五に、原因は破壊の継続時間である。東北の破壊は 150 秒続き、M_S の見る 20 秒の 7.5 倍である(第5節)。 第六に、分離子は「震源時間が観測周期を超えるか」である。 M_w だけが飽和しないのは、周期を選ばず M_0 を直接測るからである(第6節)。 大地震でマグニチュードが頭打ちになるのは、地震が頭打ちになっているのではない。2011 年東北地震を m_b で測ると 6.5、すなわちエネルギーを 5623 分の一に見積もる──同じ地震を、m_b は中規模だと言い、M_w は史上第四位だと言う。 M_S でも 7.9433 倍足りない──差は 0.6 にすぎないが、対数目盛りの上の 0.6 だからである。そして小さい地震では起きない──1995 年兵庫県南部では 1.4125 倍にとどまる。尺度は壊れているのではなく、範囲の外で使われている。原因は破壊の継続時間である──東北の破壊は 150 秒続き、M_S の見る 20 秒の 7.5 倍だった。20 秒の波は、150 秒の出来事の一部しか運ばない。分けるものは一つ──震源の継続時間が、その尺度の観測周期を超えているかどうか。超えていれば、どんなに較正しても飽和は消えない。超えていなければ、四つの尺度はよく一致する。 M_w だけが飽和しないのは優れているからではなく、比べるべき周期を持たないからである。 作成にあたって:本稿の着想と内容は、著者自身の考察に基づくものです。文章の構成整理や英訳、数式の確認には AI(大規模言語モデル)の助力を得ました。最終的な内容の解釈や誤りがあれば、それらはすべて著者の責に帰します。お気づきの点があれば、ご教示いただければ幸いです。
Yuuki Yamagishi· Zenodo (CERN European Organi...· 0 citations
A rotating ocean has several characteristic lengths. Each is called “the length set by Coriolis.”This paper asks whether they are the same thing──the answer is that they are different things. No new mathematical theorem and no new law is claimed. Scope of this paper (scope note): No new mathematical theorem and no new law is claimed──the Ekman layer, the Rossby deformation radius, the Rossby number, and geostrophic balance are all standard. We do not build ocean dynamics──all we use is three length formulas and one dimensionless number. We do not derive the Ekman spiral──we do not enter the boundary-layer equations. We do not take a roll call of forces──the classification of centrifugal, Coriolis, and pressure-gradient forces is not treated. This is a roll call of lengths. We claim no accuracy for the representative values──eddy viscosity A_z=0.01 m^2/s, stratification N=0.005 /s, and depths H=1000 / 4000 m are values for showing orders and move by an order with place and season. A_z in particular ranges from 10^-4 to 10^-1. We assert no values for the bathtub vortex──U=0.1 m/s and L=0.3 m are representative of a typical drain vortex. What this paper asserts is Ro much greater than 1, not the value 3232. We do not explain the drain vortex’s sense of rotation──what actually decides it (residual initial circulation, vessel shape, how the plug is pulled) is not treated. We show only that it is not Coriolis. Relation to earlier papers: Paper 256 showed that the only scale at which dynamical similarity holds exactly is 1──the Ro here is likewise a dimensionless number that cannot be held when the scale changes, so a bathtub cannot be a model of an ocean. Paper 117 treated scale invariance fixing an exponent in four ways and wrote the condition that there be exactly one Pi group──this paper is a case failing that condition, with three lengths standing independently. Paper 140 separated symmetry fixing ratios from dynamics fixing the scale──all three lengths here are on the dynamics side. Paper 112 counted “distinct roots sharing one rhyme”──the three lengths share the rhyme f and differ in root. What is added is lining up three lengths in one table and measuring the span 4.3905x10^4, confirming that the ratio 39.6182 is set by stratification, computing the Rossby numbers of five phenomena, and deriving the flow speed 0.031 mm/s needed to see rotation in a bathtub. First, we line up three lengths. At latitude 45^ deg: Ekman layer 43.75 m, baroclinic deformation radius 48.48 km, barotropic deformation radius 1920.86 km (Section 2). Second, this is the core of the paper. Smallest to largest spans 4.3905x10^4, and though all contain the Coriolis parameter f, nothing else in them overlaps (Section 2). Third, what separates baroclinic from barotropic is not depth. The ratio is 39.6182, and what sets it is the stratification N (Section 3). Fourth, whether rotation acts is settled by one number. The Rossby number Ro=U/(fL): Gulf Stream 0.0970, typhoon 0.5818 (Section 4). Fifth, the bathtub vortex has Ro=3232. A force 3232 times stronger than Coriolis is turning it (Section 5). Sixth, the separator is Ro. To see Coriolis in a bathtub the flow must be below 0.031 mm/s (Section 5). One sea at one latitude holds three “lengths set by Coriolis.”Ekman layer 43.75 m, baroclinic deformation radius 48.48 km, barotropic deformation radius 1920.86 km──spanning 4.3905x10^4. All contain the Coriolis parameter f, yet not one of their other ingredients overlaps──viscosity, stratification, gravity. Even the exponent of the dependence on f differs──only the Ekman depth goes as f^-1/2, so changing the latitude changes the ratios among the three. What separates baroclinic from barotropic is stratification, not depth──f cancels in the ratio, and doubling N turns 39.6 into 19.8. And whether rotation acts is settled by one number, the Rossby number Ro=U/(fL)──Gulf Stream 0.0970, typhoon 0.5818, and the bathtub vortex 3232.29. One thing separates them──whether U/L is smaller than f. Seeing Coriolis in a bathtub requires flow below 0.031 mm/s, and a real drain vortex is 3232 times faster. Changing the latitude moves f by at most sqrt2, so that route cannot close the gap. On the making of this work: The ideas and content of this work stem from the author's own considerations. Assistance from an AI (a large language model) was used for structuring, English translation, and checking the algebra. Any remaining errors or misinterpretations are solely the author's. Feedback and corrections are sincerely appreciated. ----- 回転する海には、特徴的な長さが複数ある。どれも「コリオリで決まる長さ」と呼ばれる。本稿が問うのは、それらは同じものかである──答は、別のものである。新しい数学定理も新しい法則も主張しない。 本稿の射程(射程注記):新しい数学定理も新しい法則も主張しない──エクマン層、ロスビー変形半径、ロスビー数、地衡流平衡は、いずれも標準的である。海洋力学を作らない──使うのは三つの長さの式と、一つの無次元数だけである。エクマン螺旋を導出しない──境界層方程式には立ち入らない。力の点呼をしない──遠心力、コリオリ力、圧力傾度力の分類は扱わない。本稿は長さの点呼である。代表値の精度を主張しない──渦粘性 A_z=0.01 m^2/s、成層 N=0.005 /s、深さ H=1000/4000 m は桁を示すための代表値であり、場所と季節で一桁動く。とくに A_z は 10^-4 から 10^-1 まで動く。風呂の渦の値を主張しない──U=0.1 m/s、L=0.3 m は典型的な排水渦の代表値である。 Ro=3232 という値ではなく、Ro much greater than 1 という事実が本稿の主張である。排水渦の回転向きを説明しない──何が実際に向きを決めているか(初期の残留渦、容器の形、抜き方)は扱わない。コリオリでないことだけを示す。既刊との関係:論文256 は力学相似が厳密に成り立つ縮尺が 1 だけだと示した──本稿の Ro も縮尺を変えると保てない無次元数であり、風呂は海の模型になれない。論文117 はスケール不変性が四通りに指数を選ぶことを扱い、Pi 群がちょうど一つという条件を書いた──本稿はその条件を満たさない場合であり、三つの長さが独立に立つ。論文140 は対称性が比を決め力学が尺度を決めると分けた──本稿の三つの長さはどれも力学の側である。論文112 は「同じ韻の別根」を数えた──三つの長さはf という韻を共有し、根が違う。加えたのは三つの長さを一表に並べて 4.3905x10^4 倍の開きを測ったこと、傾圧と順圧の比 39.6182 を決めているのが成層だと確かめたこと、五つの現象のロスビー数を計算したこと、風呂で回転を見るのに要る流速 0.031 mm/s を出したことである。 第一に、三つの長さを並べる。緯度 45^ deg で、エクマン層 43.75 m、傾圧変形半径 48.48 km、順圧変形半径 1920.86 km(第2節)。 第二に、これが本稿の芯である。最小と最大は 4.3905x10^4 倍ひらいており、どれもコリオリ因子 f を含むのに、f 以外の要素が全部違う(第2節)。 第三に、傾圧と順圧を分けているのは深さではない。比は 39.6182 倍で、決めているのは成層 N である(第3節)。 第四に、回転が効くかどうかは一つの数が決める。ロスビー数 Ro=U/(fL) で、メキシコ湾流 0.0970、台風 0.5818(第4節)。 第五に、風呂の渦は Ro=3232 である。コリオリより 3232 倍強い力が回している(第5節)。 第六に、分離子は Ro である。風呂でコリオリを見るには、流速を 0.031 mm/s 以下にせねばならない(第5節)。 同じ海の同じ緯度に、三つの「コリオリで決まる長さ」がある。エクマン層 43.75 m、傾圧変形半径 48.48 km、順圧変形半径 1920.86 km──4.3905x10^4 倍ひらいている。どれもコリオリ因子 f を含むが、f 以外の要素は一つも重なっていない──粘性、成層、重力である。 f への依存の指数さえ違う──エクマン深さだけが f^-1/2 で、緯度を変えると三つの比そのものが変わる。傾圧と順圧を分けているのは深さではなく成層である──比の中で f が約分され、N を二倍にすると 39.6 倍が 19.8 倍になる。そして回転が効くかどうかは、ロスビー数 Ro=U/(fL) という一つの数が決める──メキシコ湾流 0.0970、台風 0.5818、そして風呂の渦は 3232.29。分けるものは一つ──U/L が f より小さいかどうか。風呂でコリオリを見るには流速を 0.031 mm/s 以下にせねばならず、実際の排水渦はその 3232 倍速い。緯度を変えても f は高々 sqrt2 倍しか動かないので、そちらでは埋まらない。 作成にあたって:本稿の着想と内容は、著者自身の考察に基づくものです。文章の構成整理や英訳、数式の確認には AI(大規模言語モデル)の助力を得ました。最終的な内容の解釈や誤りがあれば、それらはすべて著者の責に帰します。お気づきの点があれば、ご教示いただければ幸いです。
Yuuki Yamagishi· Zenodo (CERN European Organi...· 0 citations
This corpus has cited Noether’s theorem in 27 papers. This paper asks whether every conserved quantity comes from a symmetry──the answer is no. No new mathematical theorem and no new law is claimed. Scope of this paper (scope note): No new mathematical theorem and no new law is claimed──adiabatic invariants, action variables, Noether’s theorem, Ehrenfest’s adiabatic hypothesis and the adiabatic invariance of the magnetic moment are all standard. We do not build mechanics──all we use is one pendulum and the area of one ellipse. We do not prove adiabatic invariance──we do not enter the proof that E/omega is invariant. We check it numerically and name the separator. We do not prove Noether’s theorem──it is merely cited. We do not treat KAM theory──the survival of invariants in non-integrable systems is beyond our tools. We do not adjudicate interpretations of quantum mechanics──Section 6 points only at the algebraic agreement E/omega=(n+1/2)hbar, and enters neither the proof of the adiabatic theorem nor the measurement problem. We do not conflate this with thermodynamic adiabaticity──“adiabatic” here means slow, not thermally isolated. That is a different subject from Paper 126’s integrating factor. Relation to earlier papers: The corpus has cited Noether’s theorem in 27 papers, 341 times──this paper places beside it a conserved quantity Noether does not explain. Paper 16 showed that the equals sign has distinct roots──this paper shows that “conserved” has them. The same form, applied to a claim rather than a symbol. Paper 300 showed that whether two things share a root is decidable, and listed five criteria──this paper applies those criteria to an actual case. Paper 95 separated convention from fact──the invariance of E/omega is a fact, not a convention, and moreover an approximate fact. Paper 180 showed that “the classical limit” is not one limit──the “slowly” of Section 6 is one more limit. What is added is showing numerically that E rises by 2.000000 while E/omega does not move, checking in three cases that the phase-space ellipse keeps its area, giving the drift as exp(-1/epsilon) rather than a power, at 3.72x10^-44, and applying Paper 300’s criteria to conclude distinct roots. First, we build a case where energy is not conserved. Shorten a pendulum’s string slowly from 1.00 m to 0.25 m and E rises by 2.000000 (Section 2). Second, this is the core of the paper. And still E/omega does not move──the Lagrangian depends explicitly on time, so Noether returns nothing (Sections 2 and 3). Third, what is conserved is an area. The phase-space ellipse changes shape and keeps its area (Section 4). Fourth, the separator is slowness. At epsilon=0.01 the drift is 3.72x10^-44──smaller than any power of epsilon (Section 5). Fifth, the same quantity is the quantum number. E/omega=(n+1/2)hbar, so move omega slowly and n does not change (Section 6). Sixth, the two roots can be adjudicated. Applying Paper 300’s criteria (does the agreement persist under motion) returns distinct roots (Section 7). This corpus has cited Noether’s theorem in 27 papers, 341 times──a continuous symmetry gives a conserved quantity. But the theorem never says that is all of them. Shorten a pendulum’s string slowly from 1.00 m to 0.25 m and E rises by 2.000000──the work of pulling enters, the Lagrangian depends on time, and Noether returns nothing. And still E/omega does not move. What is conserved is not a quantity but an area──the phase-space ellipse runs its semi-axes from 1.414214 to 0.707107 and from 1.414214 to 2.828427, and Area/2pi stays at 1.000000. One thing separates them──how slowly it is moved. For a smooth change the drift is not a power of epsilon but exp(-1/epsilon), so at epsilon=0.01 it is 3.72x10^-44──smaller than any power of epsilon. That is why it looks exact. It is not zero. On the quantum side the same quantity is the quantum number──E/omega=(n+1/2)hbar, and Ehrenfest in 1917 used this in reverse: what may be quantised is what is adiabatically invariant. Applying Paper 300’s criteria returns no four times over──under one word, “conserved,” there are two distinct roots. Noether is exact and narrow; the adiabatic invariant is approximate and wide──they trade strength against reach, and neither sits above the other. *Revision Record Second edition (2026-08-30): The subject of this paper has been replaced. The first edition was titled “There Are Three Ways to Show ‘Not Computable,’ and the Equivalence Is a Theorem While the Thesis Is Not,” but its content duplicated Paper 260, “The Equivalence Is a Theorem and the Thesis Is Not”── the three starting points, the difference in status between theorem and thesis, and even the 19729 digits of Ackermann’s A(4,2) all agreed, and Paper 260 has priority. The second edition removes the computability material entirely and refers to Paper 260 for it. The replacement subject, the adiabatic invariant, was chosen because the ground beside the corpus’s heaviest anchor──Noether’s theorem, in 27 papers and 341 places──was empty. On the making of this work: The ideas and content of this work stem from the author's own considerations. Assistance from an AI (a large language model) was used for structuring, English translation, and checking the algebra. Any remaining errors or misinterpretations are solely the author's. Feedback and corrections are sincerely appreciated. ----- 体系はネーターの定理を 27 編で引いてきた。本稿が問うのは、保存量はすべて対称性から来るのかである──答は、来ないである。新しい数学定理も新しい法則も主張しない。 本稿の射程(射程注記):新しい数学定理も新しい法則も主張しない──断熱不変量、作用変数、ネーターの定理、エーレンフェストの断熱仮説、磁気モーメントの断熱不変性は、いずれも標準的である。力学を作らない──使うのは一つの振り子と、一つの楕円の面積だけである。断熱不変量を証明しない──E/omega が不変であることの証明には立ち入らない。数値で確かめ、何が分離子かだけを言う。ネーターの定理を証明しない──引くだけである。 KAM 理論を扱わない──可積分でない系での不変量の生き残りは、本稿の道具では扱わない。量子力学の解釈を判定しない──第6節は E/omega=(n+1/2)hbar という代数的一致を指すだけであり、断熱定理の証明にも、測定の問題にも立ち入らない。熱力学の断熱と混同しない──本稿の「断熱」は「ゆっくり」の意味であり、熱の出入りのことではない。論文126 の積分因子とは別の話である。既刊との関係:体系はネーターの定理を 27 編・341 箇所で引いてきた──本稿はその隣に、ネーターが説明しない保存量を置く。論文16 は「等号にも別根がある」を示した──本稿は「保存する」に別根があると示す。同じ型を、記号ではなく主張に当てる。論文300 は同根か別根かは判定できると示し、五つの基準を並べた──本稿はその基準を実際に一件に適用する。論文95 は規約と事実を分けた──E/omega の不変性は規約ではなく事実であり、しかも近似的な事実である。論文180 は「古典極限」は一つの極限ではないと示した──第6節の「ゆっくり」ももう一つの極限である。加えたのはE が 2.000000 倍になるのに E/omega が動かないことを数で示したこと、位相空間の楕円で面積が保たれることを三例で確かめたこと、ずれが epsilon の冪ではなく exp(-1/epsilon) であることを 3.72x10^-44 という数で出したこと、論文300 の判定基準を当てて別根と結論したことである。 第一に、エネルギーが保存しない場面を作る。振り子の糸を 1.00 m から 0.25 m へゆっくり縮めると、E は 2.000000 倍になる(第2節)。 第二に、これが本稿の芯である。それでも E/omega は動かない──ラグランジアンが時間に依存するのでネーターは何も与えない(第2節・第3節)。 第三に、保存しているのは面積である。位相空間の楕円は形を変えて面積を変えない(第4節)。 第四に、分離子は速さである。 epsilon=0.01 でずれは 3.72x10^-44──epsilon のどの冪よりも小さい(第5節)。 第五に、同じ量が量子数である。 E/omega=(n+1/2)hbar であり、ゆっくり動かせば n は変わらない(第6節)。 第六に、二つの根は判定できる。論文300 の基準(変数を動かしても一致し続けるか)にかけると別根と出る(第7節)。 体系はネーターの定理を 27 編・341 箇所で引いてきた──連続対称性があれば保存量がある、と。だが保存量がそれで全部だとは、定理は言っていない。振り子の糸を 1.00 m から 0.25 m へゆっくり縮めると、E は 2.000000 倍になる──糸を引いた仕事が入るからで、ラグランジアンが時間に依存し、ネーターは何も返さない。それでも E/omega は動かない。保存しているのは量ではなく面積である──位相空間の楕円は半軸が 1.414214->0.707107 と 1.414214->2.828427 に変わりながら、面積/2pi は 1.000000 のままである。分けるものは一つ──どれだけゆっくり動かすか。なめらかに動かせばずれは epsilon の冪ではなく exp(-1/epsilon) で、epsilon=0.01 では 3.72x10^-44──epsilon のどの冪よりも小さい。だから厳密に見える。しかしゼロではない。同じ量が量子側では量子数である──E/omega=(n+1/2)hbar であり、エーレンフェスト 1917 はこれを逆に使って「量子化してよいのは断熱不変量である」と置いた。論文300 の判定基準を当てると、四つとも「いいえ」が返る──同じ「保存する」の下に、別根が二つある。ネーターは厳密で狭く、断熱不変量は近似的で広い──強さと適用範囲を交換しているだけであり、どちらが上位ということはない。 *改訂記録 第2版(2026-08-30):本稿は主題を入れ替えた。 第1版は「「計算できない」の示し方は三つあり、同値性は定理だが、テーゼは定理ではない」と題していたが、 その内容は論文260「同値性は定理であり、テーゼは定理ではない」と重複していた── 三つの出発点、定理とテーゼの身分の差、アッカーマン関数 A(4,2) の 19729 桁まで一致しており、 先行するのは論文260 である。第2版は計算可能性の主題を全て削除し、 論文260 を参照先とする。入れ替えた主題(断熱不変量)は、 体系の最も重い錨であるネーターの定理(27 編・341 箇所)の隣が空いていたことから選んだ。 作成にあたって:本稿の着想と内容は、著者自身の考察に基づくものです。文章の構成整理や英訳、数式の確認には AI(大規模言語モデル)の助力を得ました。最終的な内容の解釈や誤りがあれば、それらはすべて著者の責に帰します。お気づきの点があれば、ご教示いただければ幸いです。
Yuuki Yamagishi· Zenodo (CERN European Organi...· 0 citations
Abstract Artificial Intelligence (AI) has significantly transformed recruitment and employee selection by improving the efficiency, accuracy and transparency of hiring processes in IT organizations. This study examines the impact of Artificial Intelligence Driven Recruitment and Employee Selection in IT Companies in Chennai. A quantitative research design was adopted and simulated data from 175 respondents were analysed using descriptive statistics, reliability analysis, correlation and multiple regression techniques through SPSS. The simulated results indicate that AI-driven recruitment positively influences recruitment efficiency, candidate experience and the quality of employee selection. The regression analysis revealed that AI-driven recruitment and employee selection explained 71.5% (R² = 0.715) of the variation in recruitment effectiveness, with all proposed hypotheses supported in the simulated analysis. The findings suggest that AI-based recruitment systems enable organizations to reduce hiring time, improve decision-making, minimize recruitment bias and enhance overall talent acquisition. The study highlights the importance of integrating AI technologies into HR practices to strengthen recruitment outcomes in Chennai's IT sector. The data and findings presented are simulated solely for academic demonstration and methodological illustration.
G. Raja Priya, L. Veronica Christy· Zenodo (CERN European Organi...· 0 citations
Abstract Artificial Intelligence (AI) has significantly transformed recruitment and employee selection by improving the efficiency, accuracy and transparency of hiring processes in IT organizations. This study examines the impact of Artificial Intelligence Driven Recruitment and Employee Selection in IT Companies in Chennai. A quantitative research design was adopted and simulated data from 175 respondents were analysed using descriptive statistics, reliability analysis, correlation and multiple regression techniques through SPSS. The simulated results indicate that AI-driven recruitment positively influences recruitment efficiency, candidate experience and the quality of employee selection. The regression analysis revealed that AI-driven recruitment and employee selection explained 71.5% (R² = 0.715) of the variation in recruitment effectiveness, with all proposed hypotheses supported in the simulated analysis. The findings suggest that AI-based recruitment systems enable organizations to reduce hiring time, improve decision-making, minimize recruitment bias and enhance overall talent acquisition. The study highlights the importance of integrating AI technologies into HR practices to strengthen recruitment outcomes in Chennai's IT sector. The data and findings presented are simulated solely for academic demonstration and methodological illustration.
G. Raja Priya, L. Veronica Christy· Zenodo (CERN European Organi...· 0 citations
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) grounds Large Language Model (LLM) outputs in external knowledge, but RAG systems usually trust whatever they retrieve, creating a Security-Reliability Gap: high semantic relevance does not guarantee factual truth. Adversaries exploit this through knowledge poisoning, inserting malicious documents to cause targeted misinformation. We propose an Evaluation Agent, middleware that combines Natural Language Inference (NLI) factual verification, a five-signal poison detector with relevance-weighted aggregation, and a Trust Index T = 0.4 F + 0.35 C + 0.25 (1 - P ) with a non-linear dampener for high-contamination contexts. On TruthfulQA with Llama 3.3 70B, the agent reaches 91% accuracy and 100% precision, with 100% recall on instruction injection, while in-place edits, such as entity swaps, remain hard to detect. Across three LLMs the Trust Index stays discriminative, with a Receiver Operating Characteristic Area Under the Curve (ROC-AUC) of 0.73 to 0.81; generation style matters more than model size, and per-LLM threshold calibration restores baseline competitive accuracy, whereas a weaker FEVER result shows that cross-dataset generalization requires domain-specific calibration. In a software-engineering use case, a secure-coding assistant over guidance from the Open Worldwide Application Security Project (OWASP) Top 10 and the Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE), the agent reliably blocks instruction injection of unsafe advice (F1 92%), while contradiction and subtle semantic weakening remain hard. Throughout, the agent measures detection of poisoned context before generation, not whether the LLM adopts the injected misinformation. We release the proposed approach, attack generator, and experimental artifacts at the link: https://github.com/GPT-Laboratory/TrustworthyRAG.
Balkrishna Giri, M. Hasan, Jussi Rasku et al.· 0 citations
