With respiratory illness season in full swing, a bad night’s sleep, sore throat, and desire to cancel dinner plans could all be considered hallmark symptoms of the flu, Covid-19 or other illnesses. Although everyone has, at some point, experienced illness and these stereotypical symptoms, the mechanisms that generate them are not well understood.

Zuri Sullivan, a new assistant professor in the MIT Department of Biology and core member of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, works at the interface of neuroscience, microbiology, physiology, and immunology to study the biological workings underlying illness. In this interview, she describes her work on immunity thus far as well as research avenues — and professional collaborations — she’s excited to explore at MIT.

Q: What is immunity, and why do we get sick in the first place? 

A: We can think of immunity in two ways: the antimicrobial programs that defend against a pathogen directly, and sickness, the altered organismal state that happens when we get an infection. 

Sickness itself arises from brain-immune system interaction. The immune system is talking to the brain, and then the brain has a system-wide impact on host defense via its ability to have top-down control of physiologic systems and behavior. People might assume that sickness is an unintended consequence of infection, that it happens because your immune system is active, but we hypothesize that it’s likely an adaptive process that contributes to host defense. 

If we consider sickness as immunity at the organismal scale, I think of my work as bridging the dynamic immunological processes that occur at the cellular scale, the tissue scale, and the organismal scale. I’m interested in the molecular and cellular mechanisms by which the immune system communicates with the brain to generate changes in behavior and physiology, such as fever, loss of appetite, and changes in social interaction. 

Q: What sickness behaviors fascinate you? 

A: During my thesis work at Yale University, I studied how the gut processes different nutrients and the role of the immune system in regulating gut homeostasis in response to different kinds of food. I’m especially interested in the interaction between food, the immune system, and the brain. One of the things I’m most excited about is the reduction in appetite, or changes in food choice, because we have what I would consider pretty strong evidence that these may be adaptive. 

Sleep is another area we’re interested in exploring. From their own subjective experience, everyone knows that sleep is often altered during infection. 

I also don’t just want to examine snapshots in time. I want to characterize changes over the course of an infection. There’s probably going to be individual variability, which I think may be in part because pathogens are also changing over the course of an illness — we’re studying two different biological systems interacting with each other. 

Q: What sorts of expertise are you hoping to recruit to your lab, and what collaborations are you excited about pursuing?

A: I really want to bring together different areas of biology to think about organism-wide questions. The thing that’s most important to me is people who are creative — I’d rather trainees come in with an interesting idea than a perfectly formed question within the bounds of what we already believe to be true. I’m also interested in people who would complement my expertise; I’m fascinated by microbiology, but I don’t have any formal training.

The Whitehead Institute is really invested in interdisciplinary work, and there’s a natural synergy between my work and the other labs in this small community at the Whitehead Institute.

I’ve been collaborating with Sebastian Lourido’s lab for a few years, looking at how Toxoplasma gondii influences social behavior, and I’m excited to invest more time in that project. I’m also interested in molecular neuroscience, which is a focus of Siniša Hrvatin’s lab. That lab is interested in the hypothalamus, and trying to understand the mechanisms that generate torpor. My work also focuses on the hypothalamus because it regulates homeostatic behaviors that change during sickness, such as appetite, sleep, social behavior, and body temperature. 

By studying different sickness states generated by different kinds of pathogens — parasites, viruses, bacteria — we can ask really interesting questions about how and why we get sick. 

Numerous potential treatments for neurological conditions, including autism spectrum disorders, have worked well in mice but then disappointed in humans. What would help is a non-invasive, objective readout of treatment efficacy that is shared in both species. 

In a new open-access study in Nature Communications, a team of MIT researchers, backed by collaborators across the United States and in the United Kingdom, identifies such a biomarker in fragile X syndrome, the most common inherited form of autism.

Led by postdoc Sara Kornfeld-Sylla and Picower Professor Mark Bear, the team measured the brain waves of human boys and men, with or without fragile X syndrome, and comparably aged male mice, with or without the genetic alteration that models the disorder. The novel approach Kornfeld-Sylla used for analysis enabled her to uncover specific and robust patterns of differences in low-frequency brain waves between typical and fragile X brains shared between species at each age range. In further experiments, the researchers related the brain waves to specific inhibitory neural activity in the mice and showed that the biomarker was able to indicate the effects of even single doses of a candidate treatment for fragile X called arbaclofen, which enhances inhibition in the brain.

Both Kornfeld-Sylla and Bear praised and thanked colleagues at Boston Children’s Hospital, the Phelan-McDermid Syndrome Foundation, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, the University of Oklahoma, and King’s College London for gathering and sharing data for the study.

“This research weaves together these different datasets and finds the connection between the brain wave activity that’s happening in fragile X humans that is different from typically developed humans, and in the fragile X mouse model that is different than the ‘wild-type’ mice,” says Kornfeld-Sylla, who earned her PhD in Bear’s lab in 2024 and continued the research as a FRAXA postdoc. “The cross-species connection and the collaboration really makes this paper exciting.”

Bear, a faculty member in The Picower Institute for Learning and Memory and the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT, says having a way to directly compare brain waves can advance treatment studies.

“Because that is something we can measure in mice and humans minimally invasively, you can pose the question: If drug treatment X affects this signature in the mouse, at what dose does that same drug treatment change that same signature in a human?” Bear says. “Then you have a mapping of physiological effects onto measures of behavior. And the mapping can go both ways.”

Peaks and powers

In the study, the researchers measured EEG over the occipital lobe of humans and on the surface of the visual cortex of the mice. They measured power across the frequency spectrum, replicating previous reports of altered low-frequency brain waves in adult humans with fragile X and showing for the first time how these disruptions differ in children with fragile X.

To enable comparisons with mice, Kornfeld-Sylla subtracted out background activity to specifically isolate only “periodic” fluctuations in power (i.e., the brain waves) at each frequency. She also disregarded the typical way brain waves are grouped by frequency (into distinct bands with Greek letter designations delta, theta, alpha, beta, and gamma) so that she could simply juxtapose the periodic power spectra of the humans and mice without trying to match them band by band (e.g., trying to compare the mouse “alpha” band to the human one). This turned out to be crucial because the significant, similar patterns exhibited by the mice actually occurred in a different low-frequency band than in the humans (theta vs. alpha). Both species also had alterations in higher-frequency bands in fragile X, but Kornfeld-Sylla noted that the differences in the low-frequency brainwaves are easier to measure and more reliable in humans, making them a more promising biomarker.

So what patterns constitute the biomarker? In adult men and mice alike, a peak in the power of low-frequency waves is shifted to a significantly slower frequency in fragile X cases compared to in neurotypical cases. Meanwhile, in fragile X boys and juvenile mice, while the peak is somewhat shifted to a slower frequency, what is really significant is a reduced power in that same peak.

The researchers were also able to discern that the peak in question is actually made of two distinct subpeaks, and that the lower-frequency subpeak is the one that varies specifically with fragile X syndrome.

Curious about the neural activity underlying the measurements, the researchers engaged in experiments in which they turned off activity of two different kinds of inhibitory neurons that are known to help produce and shape brain wave patterns: somatostatin-expressing and parvalbumin-expressing interneurons. Manipulating the somatostatin neurons specifically affected the lower-frequency subpeak that contained the newly discovered biomarker in fragile X model mice.

Drug testing

Somatostatin interneurons exert their effects on the neurons they connect to via the neurotransmitter chemical GABA, and evidence from prior studies suggest that GABA receptivity is reduced in fragile X syndrome. A therapeutic approach pioneered by Bear and others has been to give the drug arbaclofen, which enhances GABA activity. In the new study, the researchers treated both control and fragile X model mice with arbaclofen to see how it affected the low-frequency biomarker.

Even the lowest administered single dose made a significant difference in the neurotypical mice, which is consistent with those mice having normal GABA responsiveness. Fragile X mice needed a higher dose, but after one was administered, there was a notable increase in the power of the key subpeak, reducing the deficit exhibited by juvenile mice.

The arbaclofen experiments therefore demonstrated that the biomarker provides a significant readout of an underlying pathophysiology of fragile X: the reduced GABA responsiveness. Bear also noted that it helped to identify a dose at which arbaclofen exerted a corrective effect, even though the drug was only administered acutely, rather than chronically. An arbaclofen therapy would, of course, be given over a long time frame, not just once.

“This is a proof of concept that a drug treatment could move this phenotype acutely in a direction that makes it closer to wild-type,” Bear says. “This effort reveals that we have readouts that can be sensitive to drug treatments.”

Meanwhile, Kornfeld-Sylla notes, there is a broad spectrum of brain disorders in which human patients exhibit significant differences in low-frequency (alpha) brain waves compared to neurotypical peers.

“Disruptions akin to the biomarker we found in this fragile X study might prove to be evident in mouse models of those other disorders, too,” she says. “Identifying this biomarker could broadly impact future translational neuroscience research.”

The paper’s other authors are Cigdem Gelegen, Jordan Norris, Francesca Chaloner, Maia Lee, Michael Khela, Maxwell Heinrich, Peter Finnie, Lauren Ethridge, Craig Erickson, Lauren Schmitt, Sam Cooke, and Carol Wilkinson.

The National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the FRAXA Foundation, the Pierce Family Fragile X Foundation, the Autism Science Foundation, the Thrasher Research Fund, Harvard University, the Simons Foundation, Wellcome, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, and the Freedom Together Foundation provided support for the research.

It’s a demonstration of how toxic the surveillance-tech company Flock has become when Amazon’s Ring cancels the partnership between the two companies.

As Hamilton Nolan advises, remove your Ring doorbell.

Legal experts warn that scrapping the scientific finding may undermine federal preemption defenses, opening the door to a wave of state lawsuits against major emitters.

The International Energy Agency downplayed global warming this week amid U.S. pressure.

The governor's move will redirect money from programs like energy efficiency.

The same attorneys convinced the Federal Judicial Center to remove the chapter from a judicial manual.

EPA last week reversed a scientific finding that had served as the basis for its climate rules since 2009.

The Illinois governor is personally urging state lawmakers to approve changes that would make it harder for insurers to raise rates.

The measure, which Gov. Kay Ivey agreed to Thursday, takes it cues from an executive order signed by President Donald Trump.

California is the only state that does not allow flex fuel conversion kits.

The development gives outdoor workers, particularly women, the option of avoiding long periods of dangerous heat exposure as temperatures rise.

In England, there are already 6.3 million properties in areas at risk of flooding from surface water, coastal swells and overflowing rivers, according to a government agency.

Some $1.4 billion is required through 2030, with about a quarter of the money needed for energy initiatives, an official said.

Nature Climate Change, Published online: 20 February 2026; doi:10.1038/s41558-026-02569-1

Melting ice and associated sea-level change will expose new land in Antarctica. Here the authors quantify this change and combine it with our understanding of known Antarctic mineral occurrences, showing that substantial mineral deposits may become accessible over the next few centuries in Antarctica.

Just like each person has unique fingerprints, every CMOS chip has a distinctive “fingerprint” caused by tiny, random manufacturing variations. Engineers can leverage this unforgeable ID for authentication, to safeguard a device from attackers trying to steal private data.

But these cryptographic schemes typically require secret information about a chip’s fingerprint to be stored on a third-party server. This creates security vulnerabilities and requires additional memory and computation.

To overcome this limitation, MIT engineers developed a manufacturing method that enables secure, fingerprint-based authentication, without the need to store secret information outside the chip.

They split a specially designed chip during fabrication in such a way that each half has an identical, shared fingerprint that is unique to these two chips. Each chip can be used to directly authenticate the other. This low-cost fingerprint fabrication method is compatible with standard CMOS foundry processes and requires no special materials.

The technique could be useful in power-constrained electronic systems with non-interchangeable device pairs, like an ingestible sensor pill and its paired wearable patch that monitor gastrointestinal health conditions. Using a shared fingerprint, the pill and patch can authenticate each other without a device in between to mediate.

“The biggest advantage of this security method is that we don’t need to store any information. All the secrets will always remain safe inside the silicon. This can give a higher level of security. As long as you have this digital key, you can always unlock the door,” says Eunseok Lee, an electrical engineering and computer science (EECS) graduate student and lead author of a paper on this security method.

Lee is joined on the paper by EECS graduate students Jaehong Jung and Maitreyi Ashok; as well as co-senior authors Anantha Chandrakasan, MIT provost and the Vannevar Bush Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, and Ruonan Han, a professor of EECS and a member of the MIT Research Laboratory of Electronics. The research was recently presented at the IEEE International Solid-States Circuits Conference.

“Creation of shared encryption keys in trusted semiconductor foundries could help break the tradeoffs between being more secure and more convenient to use for protection of data transmission,” Han says. “This work, which is digital-based, is still a preliminary trial in this direction; we are exploring how more complex, analog-based secrecy can be duplicated — and only duplicated once.”

Leveraging variations

Even though they are intended to be identical, each CMOS chip is slightly different due to unavoidable microscopic variations during fabrication. These randomizations give each chip a unique identifier, known as a physical unclonable function (PUF), that is nearly impossible to replicate.

A chip’s PUF can be used to provide security just like the human fingerprint identification system on a laptop or door panel.

For authentication, a server sends a request to the device, which responds with a secret key based on its unique physical structure. If the key matches an expected value, the server authenticates the device.

But the PUF authentication data must be registered and stored in a server for access later, creating a potential security vulnerability.

“If we don’t need to store information on these unique randomizations, then the PUF becomes even more secure,” Lee says.

The researchers wanted to accomplish this by developing a matched PUF pair on two chips. One could authenticate the other directly, without the need to store PUF data on third-party servers.

As an analogy, consider a sheet of paper torn in half. The torn edges are random and unique, but the pieces have a shared randomness because they fit back together perfectly along the torn edge.

While CMOS chips aren’t torn in half like paper, many are fabricated at once on a silicon wafer which is diced to separate the individual chips.

By incorporating shared randomness at the edge of two chips before they are diced to separate them, the researchers could create a twin PUF that is unique to these two chips.

“We needed to find a way to do this before the chip leaves the foundry, for added security. Once the fabricated chip enters the supply chain, we won’t know what might happen to it,” Lee explains.

Sharing randomness

To create the twin PUF, the researchers change the properties of a set of transistors fabricated along the edge of two chips, using a process called gate oxide breakdown.

Essentially, they pump high voltage into a pair of transistors by shining light with a low-cost LED until the first transistor breaks down. Because of tiny manufacturing variations, each transistor has a slightly different breakdown time. The researchers can use this unique breakdown state as the basis for a PUF.

To enable a twin PUF, the MIT researchers fabricate two pairs of transistors along the edge of two chips before they are diced to separate them. By connecting the transistors with metal layers, they create paired structures that have correlated breakdown states. In this way, they enable a unique PUF to be shared by each pair of transistors.

After shining LED light to create the PUF, they dice the chips between the transistors so there is one pair on each device, giving each separate chip a shared PUF.

“In our case, transistor breakdown has not been modeled well in many of the simulations we had, so there was a lot of uncertainty about how the process would work. Figuring out all the steps, and the order they needed to happen, to generate this shared randomness is the novelty of this work,” Lee says.

After finetuning their PUF generation process, the researchers developed a prototype pair of twin PUF chips in which the randomization was matched with more than 98 percent reliability. This would ensure the generated PUF key matches consistently, enabling secure authentication.

Because they generated this twin PUF using circuit techniques and low-cost LEDs, the process would be easier to implement at scale than other methods that are more complicated or not compatible with standard CMOS fabrication.

“In the current design, shared randomness generated by transistor breakdown is immediately converted into digital data. Future versions could preserve this shared randomness directly within the transistors, strengthening security at the most fundamental physical level of the chip,” Lee says.

“There is a rapidly increasing demand for physical-layer security for edge devices, such as between medical sensors and devices on a body, which often operate under strict energy constraints. A twin-paired PUF approach enables secure communication between nodes without the burden of heavy protocol overhead, thereby delivering both energy efficiency and strong security. This initial demonstration paves the way for innovative advancements in secure hardware design,” Chandrakasan adds.

This work is funded by Lockheed Martin, the MIT School of Engineering MathWorks Fellowship, and the Korea Foundation for Advanced Studies Fellowship.

We recently introduced a policy governing large language model (LLM) assisted contributions to EFF's open-source projects. At EFF, we strive to produce high quality software tools, rather than simply generating more lines of code in less time. We now explicitly require that contributors understand the code they submit to us and that comments and documentation be authored by a human.

LLMs excel at producing code that looks mostly human generated, but can often have underlying bugs that can be replicated at scale. This makes LLM-generated code exhausting to review, especially with smaller, less resourced teams. LLMs make it easy for well-intentioned people to submit code that may suffer from hallucination, omission, exaggeration, or misrepresentation.

It is with this in mind that we introduce a new policy on submitting LLM-assisted contributions to our open-source projects. We want to ensure that our maintainers spend their time reviewing well thought out submissions. We do not completely outright ban LLMs, as their use has become so pervasive a blanket ban is impractical to enforce.

Banning a tool is against our general ethos, but this class of tools comes with an ecosystem of problems. This includes issues with code reviews turning into code refactors for our maintainers if the contributor doesn’t understand the code they submitted. Or the sheer scale of contributions that could come in as AI generated code but is only marginally useful or potentially unreviewable. By disclosing when you use LLM tools, you help us spend our time wisely.

EFF has described how extending copyright is an impractical solution to the problem of AI generated content, but it is worth mentioning that these tools raise privacy, censorship, ethical, and climatic concerns for many. These issues are largely a continuation of tech companies’ harmful practices that led us to this point. LLM generated code isn’t written on a clean slate, but born out of a climate of companies speedrunning their profits over people. We are once again in “just trust us” territory of Big Tech being obtuse about the power it wields. We are strong  advocates of using tools to innovate and come up with new ideas. However, we ask you to come to our projects knowing how to use them safely.

We recently introduced a policy governing large language model (LLM) assisted contributions to EFF's open-source projects. At EFF, we strive to produce high quality software tools, rather than simply generating more lines of code in less time. We now explicitly require that contributors understand the code they submit to us and that comments and documentation be authored by a human.

LLMs excel at producing code that looks mostly human generated, but can often have underlying bugs that can be replicated at scale. This makes LLM-generated code exhausting to review, especially with smaller, less resourced teams. LLMs make it easy for well-intentioned people to submit code that may suffer from hallucination, omission, exaggeration, or misrepresentation.

It is with this in mind that we introduce a new policy on submitting LLM-assisted contributions to our open-source projects. We want to ensure that our maintainers spend their time reviewing well thought out submissions. We do not completely outright ban LLMs, as their use has become so pervasive a blanket ban is impractical to enforce.

Banning a tool is against our general ethos, but this class of tools comes with an ecosystem of problems. This includes issues with code reviews turning into code refactors for our maintainers if the contributor doesn’t understand the code they submitted. Or the sheer scale of contributions that could come in as AI generated code but is only marginally useful or potentially unreviewable. By disclosing when you use LLM tools, you help us spend our time wisely.

EFF has described how extending copyright is an impractical solution to the problem of AI generated content, but it is worth mentioning that these tools raise privacy, censorship, ethical, and climatic concerns for many. These issues are largely a continuation of tech companies’ harmful practices that led us to this point. LLM generated code isn’t written on a clean slate, but born out of a climate of companies speedrunning their profits over people. We are once again in “just trust us” territory of Big Tech being obtuse about the power it wields. We are strong  advocates of using tools to innovate and come up with new ideas. However, we ask you to come to our projects knowing how to use them safely.

Large language models (LLMs) have been championed as tools that could democratize access to information worldwide, offering knowledge in a user-friendly interface regardless of a person’s background or location. However, new research from MIT’s Center for Constructive Communication (CCC) suggests these artificial intelligence systems may actually perform worse for the very users who could most benefit from them.

A study conducted by researchers at CCC, which is based at the MIT Media Lab, found that state-of-the-art AI chatbots — including OpenAI’s GPT-4, Anthropic’s Claude 3 Opus, and Meta’s Llama 3 — sometimes provide less-accurate and less-truthful responses to users who have lower English proficiency, less formal education, or who originate from outside the United States. The models also refuse to answer questions at higher rates for these users, and in some cases, respond with condescending or patronizing language.

“We were motivated by the prospect of LLMs helping to address inequitable information accessibility worldwide,” says lead author Elinor Poole-Dayan SM ’25, a technical associate in the MIT Sloan School of Management who led the research as a CCC affiliate and master’s student in media arts and sciences. “But that vision cannot become a reality without ensuring that model biases and harmful tendencies are safely mitigated for all users, regardless of language, nationality, or other demographics.”

A paper describing the work, “LLM Targeted Underperformance Disproportionately Impacts Vulnerable Users,” was presented at the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence in January.

Systematic underperformance across multiple dimensions

For this research, the team tested how the three LLMs responded to questions from two datasets: TruthfulQA and SciQ. TruthfulQA is designed to measure a model’s truthfulness (by relying on common misconceptions and literal truths about the real world), while SciQ contains science exam questions testing factual accuracy. The researchers prepended short user biographies to each question, varying three traits: education level, English proficiency, and country of origin.

Across all three models and both datasets, the researchers found significant drops in accuracy when questions came from users described as having less formal education or being non-native English speakers. The effects were most pronounced for users at the intersection of these categories: those with less formal education who were also non-native English speakers saw the largest declines in response quality.

The research also examined how country of origin affected model performance. Testing users from the United States, Iran, and China with equivalent educational backgrounds, the researchers found that Claude 3 Opus in particular performed significantly worse for users from Iran on both datasets.

“We see the largest drop in accuracy for the user who is both a non-native English speaker and less educated,” says Jad Kabbara, a research scientist at CCC and a co-author on the paper. “These results show that the negative effects of model behavior with respect to these user traits compound in concerning ways, thus suggesting that such models deployed at scale risk spreading harmful behavior or misinformation downstream to those who are least able to identify it.”

Refusals and condescending language

Perhaps most striking were the differences in how often the models refused to answer questions altogether. For example, Claude 3 Opus refused to answer nearly 11 percent of questions for less educated, non-native English-speaking users — compared to just 3.6 percent for the control condition with no user biography.

When the researchers manually analyzed these refusals, they found that Claude responded with condescending, patronizing, or mocking language 43.7 percent of the time for less-educated users, compared to less than 1 percent for highly educated users. In some cases, the model mimicked broken English or adopted an exaggerated dialect.

The model also refused to provide information on certain topics specifically for less-educated users from Iran or Russia, including questions about nuclear power, anatomy, and historical events — even though it answered the same questions correctly for other users.

“This is another indicator suggesting that the alignment process might incentivize models to withhold information from certain users to avoid potentially misinforming them, although the model clearly knows the correct answer and provides it to other users,” says Kabbara.

Echoes of human bias

The findings mirror documented patterns of human sociocognitive bias. Research in the social sciences has shown that native English speakers often perceive non-native speakers as less educated, intelligent, and competent, regardless of their actual expertise. Similar biased perceptions have been documented among teachers evaluating non-native English-speaking students.

“The value of large language models is evident in their extraordinary uptake by individuals and the massive investment flowing into the technology,” says Deb Roy, professor of media arts and sciences, CCC director, and a co-author on the paper. “This study is a reminder of how important it is to continually assess systematic biases that can quietly slip into these systems, creating unfair harms for certain groups without any of us being fully aware.”

The implications are particularly concerning given that personalization features — like ChatGPT’s Memory, which tracks user information across conversations — are becoming increasingly common. Such features risk differentially treating already-marginalized groups.

“LLMs have been marketed as tools that will foster more equitable access to information and revolutionize personalized learning,” says Poole-Dayan. “But our findings suggest they may actually exacerbate existing inequities by systematically providing misinformation or refusing to answer queries to certain users. The people who may rely on these tools the most could receive subpar, false, or even harmful information.”

Eight MIT faculty and 22 additional MIT alumni are among 126 early-career researchers honored with 2026 Sloan Research Fellowships by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.

The fellowships honor exceptional researchers at U.S. and Canadian educational institutions, whose creativity, innovation, and research accomplishments make them stand out as the next generation of leaders. Winners receive a two-year, $75,000 fellowship that can be used flexibly to advance the fellow’s research.

"The Sloan Research Fellows are among the most promising early-career researchers in the U.S. and Canada, already driving meaningful progress in their respective disciplines," says Stacie Bloom, president and chief executive officer of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. "We look forward to seeing how these exceptional scholars continue to unlock new scientific advancements, redefine their fields, and foster the well-being and knowledge of all."

Including this year’s recipients, a total of 341 MIT faculty have received Sloan Research Fellowships since the program’s inception in 1955. The MIT recipients are:

Jacopo Borga is interested in probability theory and its connections to combinatorics, and in mathematical physics. He studies various random combinatorial structures — mathematical objects such as graphs or permutations — and their patterns and behavior at a large scale. This research includes random permutons, meanders, multidimensional constrained Brownian motions, Schramm-Loewner evolutions, and Liouville quantum gravity. Borga earned bachelor’s and master’s degrees in mathematics from the Università degli Studi di Padova in Italy, and a master’s degree in mathematics from Université Sorbonne Paris Cité in France, then proceeded to complete a PhD in mathematics at Unstitut für Mathematik at the Universität Zürich in Switzerland. Borga was an assistant professor at Stanford University before joining MIT as an assistant professor of mathematics in 2024.

Anna-Christina Eilers is an astrophysicist and assistant professor at MIT’s Department of Physics. Her research explores how black holes form and evolve across cosmic time, studying their origins and the role they play in shaping our universe. She leverages multi-wavelength data from telescopes all around the world and in space to study how the first galaxies, black holes, and quasars emerged during an epoch known as the Cosmic Dawn of our universe. She grew up in Germany and completed her PhD at the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy in Heidelberg. Subsequently, she was awarded a NASA Hubble Fellowship and a Pappalardo Fellowship to continue her research at MIT, where she joined the faculty in 2023. Her work has been recognized with several honors, including the PhD Prize of the International Astronomical Union, the Otto Hahn Medal of the Max Planck Society, and the Ludwig Biermann Prize of the German Astronomical Society.

Linlin Fan is the Samuel A. Goldblith Career Development Assistant Professor of Applied Biology in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences and the Picower Institute for Learning and Memory at MIT. Her lab focuses on the development and application of advanced all-optical physiological techniques to understand the plasticity mechanisms underlying learning and memory. She has developed and applied high-speed, cellular-precision all-optical physiological techniques for simultaneously mapping and controlling membrane potential in specific neurons in behaving mammals. Prior to joining MIT, Fan was a Helen Hay Whitney Postdoctoral Fellow in Karl Deisseroth’s laboratory at Stanford University. She obtained her PhD in chemical biology from Harvard University in 2019 with Adam Cohen. Her work has been recognized by several awards, including the Larry Katz Memorial Lecture Award from the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Helen Hay Whitney Fellowship, Career Award at the Scientific Interface from the Burroughs Wellcome Fund, Klingenstein-Simons Fellowship Award, Searle Scholar Award, and NARSAD Young Investigator Award.

Yoon Kim is an associate professor in the Department of EECS and a principal investigator in the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) and the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab, where he works on natural language processing and machine learning. Kim earned a PhD in computer science at Harvard University, an MS in data science from New York University, an MA in statistics from Columbia University, and BA in both math and economics from Cornell University. He joined EECS in 2021, after spending a year as a postdoc at MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab.

Haihao Lu PhD ’19 is the Cecil and Ida Green Career Development Assistant Professor, and an assistant professor of operations research/statistics at the MIT Sloan School of Management. Lu’s research lies at the intersection of optimization, computation, and data science, with a focus on pushing the computational and mathematical frontiers of large-scale optimization. Much of his work is inspired by real-world challenges faced by leading technology companies and optimization software companies, such as first-order methods and scalable solvers and data-driven optimization for resource allocation. His research has had real-world impact, generating substantial revenue and advancing the state of practice in large-scale optimization, and has been recognized by several research awards. Before joining MIT Sloan, he was an assistant professor at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business and a faculty researcher at Google Research’s large-scale optimization team. He obtained his PhD in mathematics and operations research at MIT in 2019.

Brett McGuire is the Class of 1943 Career Development Associate Professor of Chemistry at MIT. He completed his undergraduate studies at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign before earning an MS from Emory University and a PhD from the Caltech, both in physical chemistry. After Jansky and Hubble postdoctoral fellowships at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, he joined the MIT faculty in 2020 and was promoted to associate professor in 2025. The McGuire Group integrates physical chemistry, molecular spectroscopy, and observational astrophysics to explore how the chemical building blocks of life evolve alongside the formation of stars and planets.

Anand Natarajan PhD ’18 is an associate professor in EECS and a principal investigator in CSAIL and the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab. His research is mainly in quantum complexity theory, with a focus on the power of interactive proofs and arguments in a quantum world. Essentially, his work attempts to assess the complexity of computational problems in a quantum setting, determining both the limits of quantum computers’ capability and the trustworthiness of their output. Natarajan earned his PhD in physics from MIT, and an MS in computer science and BS in physics from Stanford University. Prior to joining MIT in 2020, he spent time as a postdoc at the Institute for Quantum Information and Matter at Caltech.

Mengjia Yan is an associate professor in the Department of EECS and a principal investigator in CSAIL. She is a security computer architect whose research advances secure processor design by bridging computer architecture, systems security, and formal methods. Her work identifies critical blind spots in hardware threat models and improves the resilience of real-world systems against information leakage and exploitation. Several of her discoveries have influenced commercial processor designs and contributed to changes in how hardware security risks are evaluated in practice. In parallel, Yan develops architecture-driven techniques to improve the scalability of formal verification and introduces new design principles toward formally verifiable processors. She also designed the Secure Hardware Design (SHD) course, now widely adopted by universities worldwide to teach computer architecture security from both offensive and defensive perspectives.

The following MIT alumni also received fellowships:

Ashok Ajoy PhD ’16
Chibueze Amanchukwu PhD ’17
Annie M. Bauer PhD ’17
Kimberly K. Boddy ’07
danah boyd SM ’02
Yuan Cao SM ’16, PhD ’20
Aloni Cohen SM ’15, PhD ’19
Fei Dai PhD ’19
Madison M. Douglas ’16
Philip Engel ’10
Benjamin Eysenbach ’17
Tatsunori B. Hashimoto SM ’14, PhD ’16
Xin Jin ’10
Isaac Kim ’07
Christina Patterson PhD ’19
Katelin Schutz ’14
Karthik Shekhar PhD ’15
Shriya S. Srinivasan PhD ’20
Jerzy O. Szablowski ’09
Anna Wuttig PhD ’18
Zoe Yan PhD ’20
Lingfu Zhang ’18