Aviv Nahon | Searcharxiv

arXiv2026

The Human Vulnerabilities & Exploits (HVE) Framework

The cybersecurity community has invested over two decades in building standardized frameworks, the Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) system, the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS), and the Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) to identify, classify, and remediate threats to digital infrastructure. However, an emerging body of research reveals that a vast majority of successful cyberattacks exploit not software flaws, but human behavioral and psychological vulnerabilities. Social engineering, fraud, and scam attacks, which manipulate human cognition, emotion, and trust, do not have an equivalent standardized framework. Meanwhile, behavioral science and psychology research has established robust theoretical foundations, such as dual-process theory, prospect theory, social influence frameworks, and visceral state models, which explain precisely why and how these attacks succeed. This paper introduces the Human Vulnerabilities & Exploits (HVE) Framework, a structured approach for identifying, classifying, and mitigating the behavioral and psychological vulnerabilities exploited in scams, social engineering, and other human-centric fraud and attacks, analogous in concept to how CVE helps classify software vulnerabilities: it provides a shared, machine-readable taxonomy with structured identifiers, multi-dimensional severity scoring via the Human Vulnerability Severity Score (HVSS), and actionable remediation guidance through Human Vulnerability Patches (HVPs). This introduction synthesizes the relevant literature across cybersecurity standardization, behavioral science, and fraud defense to establish the theoretical and practical foundations for the HVE framework, whose architecture and technical specifications are detailed in subsequent sections.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2021

The Alzheimer's Disease Prediction Of Longitudinal Evolution (TADPOLE) Challenge: Results after 1 Year Follow-up

We present the findings of "The Alzheimer's Disease Prediction Of Longitudinal Evolution" (TADPOLE) Challenge, which compared the performance of 92 algorithms from 33 international teams at predicting the future trajectory of 219 individuals at risk of Alzheimer's disease. Challenge participants were required to make a prediction, for each month of a 5-year future time period, of three key outcomes: clinical diagnosis, Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale Cognitive Subdomain (ADAS-Cog13), and total volume of the ventricles. The methods used by challenge participants included multivariate linear regression, machine learning methods such as support vector machines and deep neural networks, as well as disease progression models. No single submission was best at predicting all three outcomes. For clinical diagnosis and ventricle volume prediction, the best algorithms strongly outperform simple baselines in predictive ability. However, for ADAS-Cog13 no single submitted prediction method was significantly better than random guesswork. Two ensemble methods based on taking the mean and median over all predictions, obtained top scores on almost all tasks. Better than average performance at diagnosis prediction was generally associated with the additional inclusion of features from cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI). On the other hand, better performance at ventricle volume prediction was associated with inclusion of summary statistics, such as the slope or maxima/minima of biomarkers. TADPOLE's unique results suggest that current prediction algorithms provide sufficient accuracy to exploit biomarkers related to clinical diagnosis and ventricle volume, for cohort refinement in clinical trials for Alzheimer's disease. However, results call into question the usage of cognitive test scores for patient selection and as a primary endpoint in clinical trials.

q-bio.PE↗