AI Governance and Safety

Coordinating large population of flexible grid-edge devices can alleviate the need for time-consuming and capital-intensive network upgrades, and AI-based control methods such as multi-agent reinforcement learning or imitation learning are promising in their real-time decision scalability. However, system operators still need an independent and rigorous way to decide whether a given AI system is safe enough for deployment. This paper develops a finite-sample probabilistic safety certification framework for black-box AI decision models in closed-loop grid operation. The central idea is to reduce the complete input--AI--grid evaluator workflow to a binary unsafe outcome under an operator-defined safety specification, and then use exact binomial inference to certify the corresponding unsafe operation probability. Given a set of held-out calibration scenarios, the framework returns the tightest one-sided upper certificate and an accept/reject deployment criterion that controls the probability of false safety certification. Because the certification is for the calibration distribution that may deviate from the future operation, we further combine the nominal certificate with physically interpretable sample-space adversarial attacks, a concept widely used in AI to investigate the fragility of AI models. Case studies on grid-edge flexibility coordination with 1{,}000-agent AI models (independent parameters) verify the finite-sample safety guarantee and the value of integrating adversarial attacks into a rolling-window training-certification-deployment flow.

AI tools for digital product design now offer prompt-to-design capabilities, allowing designers and their non-designer colleagues to create prototypes through conversational workflows with large language models (LLMs). While these tools promise time savings, experimental evidence in product design remains limited compared with evidence from software engineering. We conducted a randomized controlled trial with 50 product designers and 50 product managers to evaluate prospective time savings from leveraging Figma Make in design work. Participants attempted three standardized design tasks with or without access to Figma Make. Among participants who completed the study tasks, access to Figma Make was associated with approximately 20% shorter completion times, with larger gains among product managers. Our findings suggest that prompt-to-design tools may enable product managers to further contribute to design work, while the benefits for professional designers may be task dependent.

Conversational AI systems can pose safety risks to their users such as hallucination, sycophancy, overconfidence, and anthropomorphism, but these risks are difficult for users to detect during everyday use. We introduce Safety Nudges, a browser-based tool that provides lightweight, in situ flags when concerning behavior is detected in chatbot conversations. We evaluated Safety Nudges in a two-week field study with 45 frequent chatbot users, collecting interaction logs, surveys, and feedback on individual nudges. Participants found the tool useful, clear, and minimally disruptive, with nearly all users reporting an increased awareness of potential AI harms, though we found that this improved awareness alone did not necessarily lead to discernible behavioral changes. Our results suggest that user facing safety nudges can complement model-level safeguards by helping people critically evaluate AI responses in context, while highlighting the importance of relevance, calibration, and user control in nudge design for conversational AI safety.

Deep learning systems now mediate military decisions to use force, yet their internal logic resists inspection, their evaluation practices are gameable, and their deployment fractures accountability across dispersed stakeholders. The ethical challenge posed by these systems is fundamentally epistemic: not just whether autonomous weapons should be permitted to kill, but whether the conditions for responsible human judgment can survive when critical functions are delegated to opaque algorithms. We show that this epistemic condition produces a concrete accountability gap: responsibility diffuses across designers, operators, and policymakers while International Humanitarian Law presupposes capacities for judgment that current AI systems lack. To address this gap, we propose a governance framework that proceduralizes ethical constraints through named accountability roles, adversarial auditing with undisclosed benchmarks, tiered deployment thresholds, and a proposed NATO evaluation standard. Counterfactual analysis of eight documented cases (1988-2025) shows that each governance mechanism addresses a documented class of failure, but no single safeguard suffices in isolation: effective governance of military AI requires not only technical constraints but the institutional infrastructure to keep human judgment meaningful.

Reliability theory gives a mature language for layered systems, but its formal tools are not yet standard in frontier AI control. We apply them to Google DeepMind's defenses against rogue deployment. The same control stack can have cubic, quadratic, or linear rare-failure suppression depending on its failure domains. Birnbaum importance identifies which component improvements buy the most nominal reliability, while prevention changes the population on which recovery is demanded. These results give concrete guidance about what to separate, improve, measure, and test.

The mobility sector is undergoing a paradigm shift driven by advances in Generative Artificial Intelligence. With a global market valued at approximately 2.9 trillion dollars annually, considering only cars, the integration of these technologies has the potential to impact more than 1.5 billion vehicles worldwide. As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly adopted in mobility, concerns about cybersecurity, privacy, and reliability emerge. Accordingly, this paper surveys current applications and assesses these challenges. Since the European AI Act classifies transportation AI as high risk, we derive nine technical classes from its requirements to assess current research and future deployments. Our findings show that research mainly studies GPT and Llama models (over 50% of reviewed works) and traffic applications while largely neglecting security, privacy, and reliability. This gap extends to AI Act compliance: among 35 reviewed works, only one includes a partial vulnerability assessment and one a partial risk management system. We identify a clear gap between strong optimization performance and regulatory adherence, suggesting compliance is limited less by technology than by a focus on static performance over lifecycle safety, and underscoring an urgent need for security-by-design in safety-critical intelligent transportation systems.

Cybersecurity literature has extensively documented the operational benefits of artificial intelligence (AI) for threat detection, incident response, and prevention, while raising qualitative concerns about over-automation, algorithmic bias, and analyst-skill erosion. What remains largely absent is a formal, falsifiable model connecting three constructs that recur across this literature: Defense-in-Depth Theory, the Artificial Intelligence Theory of Pattern Recognition, and human-AI collaboration in security operations. This paper develops such a model. We formalize layered defense as a Bernoulli detection cascade in which AI augmentation enters multiplicatively across layers; we formalize each layer's pattern-recognition behavior as a Neyman-Pearson/Bayesian detector with a derived closed-form optimal threshold; and we formalize human-AI triage as a capacity-constrained cascade with an explicit, quantifiable trade-off between detection probability and false-alarm ("alert fatigue") rate. A Monte Carlo/analytical simulation evaluated at illustrative but realistic operating points shows that (i) AI augmentation compounds across defense layers, delivering its largest marginal gains exactly where traditional layering saturates, and (ii) full human review of AI-flagged alerts is not optimal: increasing analyst capacity toward 100% coverage cuts false alarms by roughly 20-fold but simultaneously lowers system-level detection probability, because imperfect analyst accuracy is then applied to every alert rather than a filtered subset. These results give the widely repeated qualitative recommendation of "balanced human-AI collaboration" a precise, testable form and suggest an interior-optimum capacity ratio as a concrete design target for security operations centers (SOCs), including those securing IT/OT-converged critical infrastructure.

As generative AI agents are deployed at scale, safety will depend not only on technical safeguards and individual model design, but also on collective equilibria that determine how agent populations process information, prioritize actions, and respond to uncertainty. Yet the same equilibria that enable agents to coordinate also create a social attack surface. The standard framework to assess this vulnerability is critical mass dynamics: the minimum fraction of adversarial agents required to overturn an equilibrium through direct competition. Here, we show that this approach risks underestimating system vulnerability by reducing the problem to the identification of singular tipping points, and ignoring indirect but potentially more efficient routes through which collective behavior can be redirected. Through experiments with populations of LLM agents and an analytic framework that captures their collective dynamics at scale, we map critical-mass thresholds that define a directed, weighted topology over the space of coordination equilibria, and treat this topology as a navigable landscape. We show that indirect tipping through intermediate stepping-stone equilibria can reduce the committed minority required to reach an alternative state, bypass majority requirements, and make possible transitions inaccessible through direct challenges. The diversity of available alternatives and timing of the attack further reshape this landscape, creating opportunities for control as well as risks of unintended destabilization. These results show that an equilibrium's resistance to committed intervention is not an intrinsic property but a structural feature of its competitive relations with alternative states. Securing populations of interacting AI agents therefore requires mapping this social landscape alongside individual agent capabilities and the technical channels through which they interact.

When does work done with AI still feel like ours? As AI becomes woven into everyday tasks, we must examine what happens to our sense of ownership and contribution when a machine shares in producing what we make. We report an exploratory qualitative survey in which participants were asked to describe two recent, self-selected tasks completed with AI: one that felt like their own and one that did not. We find that felt ownership depends on the process of collaboration: people disown work when they merely approve AI's suggestions, but retain ownership when they lead, iterate, or rewrite. Ownership can also extend to settings where people own the vision for a project but not the execution; respondents reported high ownership on tasks they could not have completed without AI. Loss of personal voice and a lack of comprehension of the output both erode ownership. Finally, willingness to disclose AI use is often decoupled from actual pride or ownership, and instead shaped by community norms and fear of credit erasure. We propose several research directions as a result of these findings to promote AI development that supports people's sense of authorship over their own lives.

The economic value of inference depends on how capacity and task information are distributed across stages of AI production. We study these organizational margins using controlled workflow experiments on externally verified software-engineering tasks. In two matched resource panels, direct execution records the same success rate of 59.6 percent at logical-token ceilings of 12,000 and 24,000, while success under information-constrained planning rises from 36.2 to 51.2 percent. The planning disadvantage narrows by 15.0 percentage points (95 percent task-cluster bootstrap interval: 4.2 to 25.8). A strict read-only planning campaign varies whether the planner sees the task issue. At 12,000 tokens, issue access raises success by about 16 percentage points over issue-hidden planning. Compared with direct execution, task-informed planning is about 10 points lower at 12,000 tokens; at 24,000 tokens, it shows a 29.6-point advantage. In the resource panels, direct execution uses substantially less than either ceiling, while the planning workflow's binding rate falls from 46.2 to 0.8 percent and downstream execution accounts for 89.9 percent of the increase in total use. Scale determines the capacity available to a system; workflow and information structure shape the productive value

The growing complexity of multi-domain operational environments (land, aerospace, naval, cyber, and electromagnetic spectrum) has increased the volume and velocity of data reaching command-and-control (C2) centers, straining the observe-orient-decide-act (OODA) decision cycle. Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems currently employed in defense are, in general, reactive and isolated tools that still rely heavily on human operators to integrate information, assess scenarios, and formulate courses of action. This paper proposes a conceptual Agentic AI architecture for AI systems that can plan, access data sources, execute tools, and act autonomously and audibly, aimed at supporting decision-making across the three Brazilian Armed Forces (Navy, Army, and Air Force). Four application fronts are discussed (decision support, situational analysis, feasibility studies, and countermeasure suggestion), as well as the data and sensor access requirements and the security and permission safeguards necessary for responsible employment across administrative, strategic, operational, and tactical contexts.

The EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689) imposes technical obligations on high-risk AI providers, yet Articles 8-15 were drafted for predictive AI and leave seven technical gaps when applied to generative systems, spanning non-deterministic data governance, training-data provenance, continuous conformity, human oversight, open-ended robustness, emergent risk, and generative fairness. We deliver Governance-as-Code (GaC), a framework of 43 machine-checkable acceptance criteria across six compliance modules that run in a CI/CD pipeline and emit Article-indexed audit evidence, and we show the actual Rego policy code rather than merely describing it. Our central commitment is that the Act's open-textured standards ("appropriate levels," "possible biases") become declared, auditable numbers: robustness thresholds are derived from the provider's documented baseline and a state-of-the-art floor, and framing bias is collapsed into eight measurable proxies tested by counterfactual demographic probing. We also correct who owes what, since under Article 25 and Chapter V a downstream deployer relies on the upstream provider's Article 53 training-data summary and documents only the layers it controls, so GaC verifies that summary rather than demanding per-sample documentation the deployer never had. We validate on two enterprise deployments, a high-risk advisory chatbot and a limited-risk content generator, benchmarking against a manual expert audit rather than documentation artifacts that were never designed to enforce compliance. GaC reproduces all of the manual audit's findings, including three penalty-triggering violations, while cutting audit labor by roughly 75%.

High annotation reproducibility does not necessarily imply that an LLM-inferred measure captures the construct it is intended to measure. We test this distinction using a dataset from the European Commission's AI Act consultation, linking structured survey responses to free-text consultation submissions from the same stakeholders. LLM annotations of consultation submissions are highly reproducible (intraclass correlations > 0.99), yet show limited convergence with survey-reported measures of the nominal construct they were intended to approximate. Divergence between survey-and LLM-inferred text-based measures varies systematically across stakeholder groups: business associations express greater concern about AI risks in text-based consultations than in survey responses ({g} = +1.0), whereas public authorities and several nonbusiness groups show smaller or negative divergences. Divergences between scores suggest positive spatial autocorrelation across European countries (Moran's I = 0.347, p = 0.036), indicating that stakeholders from neighboring countries tend toward more similar text-based stances towards AI safety concerns. Despite divergence, survey-reported concerns remain strongly associated with support for explainability across all divergence levels. These results demonstrate that LLM annotation reproducibility can coexist with poor construct correspondence and motivate validation procedures that distinguish reproducibility, construct validity, and communication context variation when LLMs are used as measurement instruments.

Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) are reshaping smart glasses from egocentric capture and display devices into platforms for wearable intelligence. Smart glasses increasingly serve as wearable AI systems that connect first-person observation with real-time assistance under strict form-factor constraints. We frame this transition through the lens of \emph{AI smart glasses} and define them as a system-level concept in which egocentric sensing, resource-aware computing, intelligent reasoning, multimodal interaction, and real-world application constraints are co-designed for personalized assistance in the physical world. To systematically study this perspective, we organize the survey around four connected dimensions. First, we examine the hardware foundation that bounds sensing, computation, feedback delivery, and sustained deployment. Second, we study wearable intelligence, where egocentric signals are transformed into perceptual, contextual, and agentic capabilities. Third, we discuss interaction design, through which users request, receive, correct, and regulate assistance during ongoing activity. Fourth, we analyze application scenarios across healthcare, accessibility, situated learning, daily life assistance, cultural tourism, and industrial support, showing how domain requirements reshape system design and evaluation. We further identify five cross-cutting research challenges for future AI smart glasses: next-generation hardware, trustworthy egocentric intelligence, lifelong personalized memory, proactive intelligence, and embodied foundation models. By centering smart glasses as wearable-intelligence platforms, this survey provides a unified framework for organizing technologies, applications, and open challenges in this emerging area.

Scientific discovery is defined by the ability to identify the boundaries of existing knowledge and venture into unexplored territory. The ultimate vision for AI in science is problem-driven autonomous research: given a fundamental challenge by a human expert, the AI independently navigates the scientific landscape, uncovers theoretical and empirical bottlenecks, and systematically expands the frontier of knowledge. In this paper, we introduce ScientistTwo, a fully autonomous multi-agent framework designed to realize this vision. Specifically, ScientistTwo takes an initial problem as input, establishes state-of-the-art baselines, formulates novel hypotheses, and coordinates specialized agents to orchestrate an end-to-end discovery cycle without human intervention. Moreover, the framework rigorously conducts experiments using diverse datasets and metrics, refines methodologies through automated ablation studies, and validates research findings via a closed-loop simulated peer-review rebuttal engine. To evaluate ScientistTwo's capabilities against the highest standards of human scientific achievement, we benchmark it across papers accepted at top-tier conferences such as ICLR, ICML, and NeurIPS. As a result, ScientistTwo autonomously generates expert-level, publishable papers and fully verified, executable codebases. Its solutions consistently outperform human state-of-the-art models, and achieve higher average review ratings than human-authored papers under automated AI review agents. These results show that ScientistTwo is not merely an assistive tool but an autonomous scientific pioneer capable of pushing the frontiers of human discovery. Project website: https://scientist-two.github.io/

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into healthcare systems worldwide, yet its successful clinical adoption depends critically on workforce readiness, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where infrastructural and training gaps persist. This cross-sectional study evaluated awareness, attitudes, preparedness, and barriers to AI adoption among 761 healthcare professionals across multiple disciplines and practice settings in Nigeria. Data were collected between December 2025 and March 2026 using a structured, validated questionnaire. Overall awareness of AI in healthcare was high (92.6%); however, objective knowledge and self-reported preparedness remained limited, with 40.9% reporting low or very low knowledge and only 63.0% feeling adequately prepared. Willingness to adopt AI was high: 92.5% expressed interest in training, and 78.7% supported inclusion of AI education in undergraduate curricula. Key barriers included lack of training (84.7%), poor infrastructure (71.1%), high cost of AI tools (61.0%), fear of job displacement (60.6%), ethical concerns (52.9%), and data privacy concerns (52.7%). Significant differences in preparedness were observed across geopolitical zones (chi-square (5) = 24.28, p < 0.001), and awareness differed across professional groups (chi-square (6) = 68.38, p < 0.001). Attitudes toward AI differed significantly across professional groups (F = 3.32, p = 0.003), with professionals who felt prepared demonstrating more positive attitudes (mean = 3.74) compared to those who did not (mean = 3.46). These findings reveal a critical disconnect between high awareness and actual readiness, underscoring the need for targeted training, infrastructure investment, and clear implementation frameworks to bridge the gap between AI technological potential and clinical reality in resource-constrained settings.

Some aspects of AI development resemble a population process in which models are specialised, retrained on the output of peers, or combined by averaging weights. These practices lead to generations of models, in the biological sense studied by population genetics. Here, I develop this parallelism and interpret multigenerational model populations in terms of sexual and asexual reproduction, formally recombining the two fields. I test these analogies in an exact inheritance model, in trained networks (recurrent, feedforward and variational autoencoder generators) and in large language models, and show that they hold generally, with some measurable architecture-specific biases. Training recursively on model output is known to lead to model collapse, a process previously described as akin to genetic drift; I develop all that follows. A minimal model of a learner retrained on its parent's output reproduces the Wright-Fisher process exactly; verified real data added to each generation play the role of immigration, with the surprising finding that the absolute number of real data samples matters, not their share, exactly as in population genetics. Training a child on the average of its parents' outputs cancels the benefit of having several parents, matching blending inheritance (and reviving Jenkin's objection to Darwin), whereas combining parents so that each keeps its strongest contribution preserves it; merged language-model specialists exceeded every parent across seeds (the Fisher-Muller effect); and lineages become reproductively isolated, losing the ability to merge at all, when they have learned conflicting conventions and not when they have merely drifted apart. As AI societies become societies in time as well as in space, a mathematical framework for their inheritance acquires predictive power. Remarkably, that framework can be adapted almost wholesale from biology.

When someone asks an AI assistant which doctor to see or which firm to trust with their savings, the answer is a referral. We audit AI provider recommendations in four registry-backed service domains across the 100 largest U.S. metropolitan areas, matching every recommendation against the official registry for its domain (Medicare clinician and facility records, and SEC adviser disclosures), under three conditions: an open-weight model, a proprietary model without web search, and the same proprietary model with search. Without search, both models largely fabricate recommendations in the domains the web covers thinly. Only 4% of the open-weight model's recommended doctors and 11% of the proprietary model's match a clinician in the queried city, and the open-weight matches are name coincidences: its matched clinicians are no likelier to be primary-care doctors than names drawn at random from the registry. With search, 64-71% of recommendations in the same domains match a real provider. Search also changes who is recommended. Without it, recommended advisory firms carry SEC misconduct disclosures at 3.6 times the registry base rate, even after adjusting for firm size; with search, significantly below it. Restaurants, where quality and visibility are separately measurable, show a 3-5x review-count premium but a rating premium of at most a tenth of a star. Finally, search largely removes the metro-size penalty: without it, real recommendations concentrate in the largest metros; with it, match rates are similar across metro-size terciles. Whether an AI referral is trustworthy depends strongly on its retrieval configuration rather than on the underlying model alone, yet an answer produced without retrieval often carries no sign that its recommendations were never verified.

Agentic AI systems plan, invoke tools and act with limited supervision; they are now both the subject of audits and, increasingly, the auditor. Independence, the foundation of assurance,is still applied to them as a binary. We argue that it must be graded along three orthogonal axes: principal independence (who controls the auditor), substrate independence (an auditor sharing the auditee's foundation-model family, toolchain or guardrails fails with it) and evidence independence (whether evidence is attestable rather than self-reported). Each axis has precedent; the contribution is to grade all three on a single audit, aggregate them by the weakest link, and apply the same rubric when the auditor is itself an agent. We give the model a formal basis by transplanting the beta-factor model of common-cause failure from reliability engineering, a seven-step protocol whose outputs a third party can verify, a structural detectability analysis of a procurement-controls agent audited at three grades, and a Monte Carlo study of the model in which a conventional internal audit of an agent-a real audit team, a second agent, provider logsp-surfaces 5.9% of the faults it could in principle see and none at all in half the fault classes. We map the triple to the EU AI Act as amended, ISO/IEC 42006, UK public-sector risk-management guidance and audit-regulator practice.

Methodological progress in artificial intelligence (AI) for electronic health records (EHRs) depends on our ability to determine which algorithms work better, and under which conditions. However, such progress is thought to be hindered by difficulties in reproducibility and in defining clinically meaningful evaluation tasks. We empirically study these barriers by re-implementing 12 historical and recent algorithms within a shared evaluation framework and evaluating them on two clinical datasets, MIMIC-IV and NWICU. We compare two complementary task families: expert-authored clinically meaningful tasks and generated tasks defined from randomly sampled event codes and prediction horizons. We ask whether relative algorithms comparisons transfer across task families and datasets, whether residual task heterogeneity contains useful methodological structure, and what a controlled comparison reveals about progress over the last decade. We find that aggregate pairwise comparisons transfer strongly across evaluation settings, including from randomly generated tasks to clinically meaningful tasks and across datasets. At the same time, clinically meaningful tasks exhibit greater task-method interaction, providing preliminary evidence that task properties can help explain when particular modeling choices are advantageous. Finally, newer algorithms do not consistently outperform earlier approaches: gradient-boosted trees remain highly competitive when paired with a modern, wide and sparse representation of the EHR. Together, these results suggest that useful methodological knowledge may require less task engineering than commonly assumed, while highlighting the importance of understanding the structured heterogeneity that remains across tasks and methods.

The rapid adoption of generative AI has made final artifacts unreliable evidence of student learning, and AI detectors that examine only the finished product are inaccurate and ethically contentious. Process data offers an alternative, but prior work covers only English essay writing. We ask whether AI assistance carries a temporal signature, whether it generalizes from writing to programming, and whether it distinguishes ordinary collaboration from wholesale delegation. We analyze three public corpora: CoAuthor (1,447 keystroke-level co-writing sessions), RealHumanEval (editor telemetry from 243 programmer records), and a pre-LLM CS1 corpus (5.1 million keystrokes) as a human-only baseline, comparing minimal-AI work, collaborative AI use, and simulated wholesale delegation. Three findings emerge. First, the signature generalizes: AI contributions arrive in bursts far outside the author's own baseline in both mediums (paired d_z = 1.13 and 3.54). Second, engagement diverges by medium: 93% of AI-inserted characters survived to writers' final documents, while only 14% of accepted code suggestions survived intact. Third, classifiers using only observable temporal features separate simulated delegation from authentic work nearly perfectly (F1 $\geq$ 0.997; at most 0.5% of real work misclassified), while ordinary collaboration remains hard to distinguish from unassisted work. Temporal evidence flags wholesale delegation rather than assistance, positioning process visibility as a candidate evidentiary basis for academic integrity, pending validation in authentic coursework.

AI agents increasingly act through agent skills, i.e., natural-language instructions, that direct a host agent toward shell, network, credential, file, and process actions, and public registries distribute them at scale. In the first half of 2026, the OpenClaw AI agent went viral, and its public skill registry boomed: the observable stock nearly doubled in 91 days, and a majority of the listings visible in June were created in just two months. By the end of our study window, the wave had crested, and monthly listing creation and core-repository activity were falling from their spring peaks. This paper measures what the boom left behind, drawing on the OpenClaw Git history, its GitHub issues and pull requests, and three ClawHub registry snapshots. Attention is concentrated: the top 10% of skills received 46.93% of all downloads. No simple skill features (like size or download counts) remained a stable predictor of continued listing once creation cohort and skill age were controlled. Human scrutiny did not stay: 77.86% have zero stars and zero comments, while 85.06% of the readable skills carry privilege evidence. And automated cleanup is not ready: the three security scanners disagreed on 23,702 of the 61,990 skills they all cover. After human adjudication, weighted scanner sensitivity against the reference standard ranged from 21.67% to 61.06%. Governing fast-growing agent-skill registries cannot rely on simple metadata or single scanner scores; it requires robust, transparent measurement and independent validation.

AI-assisted claims can appear authoritative when evidence, analysis, human authorization, presentation, and correction history refer to different states. Provenance, attestation, and transparency expose history but alone do not specify the publication transition examined here. We develop Publication Authority as an exact-state, non-transferable, single-use publication capability and instantiate it in PAC-2026 (Publication-Accountability Calculus), a machine-readable AIJIM Protocol candidate. We evaluate its fourth bounded semantic freeze (SF-4), a fixed-profile specification designed for replaceable bindings. Six obligations govern evidence, runs and artifacts, measurement disclosure, authorization, surface correspondence, and lifecycle continuity. Each yields a target-bound witness, localized counterexample, or localized unverifiability; none can compensate for another. Only a fresh, complete all-pass record derives the permit consumed by one atomic publication transition. We use identity vectors, adversarial cases, finite models, and historical implementations. Ten models explored 110,764 safe reachable states; 76 unsafe configurations produced the expected violation or observer countermodel. A reader surface passing its correspondence check cannot authorize publication unless the accepted record admits that surface. SF-4 separates evidence horizon from verification time and rejects an authentic but causally invalid authorization. A historical predecessor path reproduced 17 frozen authorization-successor outcomes. A later in-house, instance-blind test of known case classes matched all 183 scored expectations; same-host package execution reproduced its 240 archived observations. Results support internal coherence, bounded safety, fault sensitivity, and limited constructibility, but not factual truth, general refinement, blind interoperability, field efficacy, or standards status.

Space robots are increasingly expected to perform long-duration, contact-rich, and multi-stage operations with limited human intervention. Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI), robot learning, and embodied foundation models provide new opportunities to improve the autonomy and adaptability of such systems, but their transfer to space is constrained by scarce mission data, space-specific dynamics and sensing conditions, limited onboard resources, and stringent safety requirements. This article reviews artificial intelligence-enabled space robot operations (AI-SRO) from a capability-building perspective. We first summarize representative operational scenarios, autonomy trends, and space-specific constraints. We then establish a three-layer technical framework comprising capability foundations, capability formation, and capability deployment/evolution. Within this framework, we review simulation environments, datasets and benchmarks; task and environment understanding, state perception, decision-making and planning, and action execution; and onboard deployment, ground-to-space adaptation, continual learning, and capability transfer. Finally, we propose key research directions toward trustworthy simulation and data, open-world multimodal cognition, long-horizon safe decision-making, physically constrained policy learning, and space computing infrastructures.

Physical AI requires more than increasingly large robot datasets: intelligent robots acquire knowledge through continuous interaction with the physical world. We argue that the defining scientific resource of Physical AI is therefore not raw robot data alone, but robot experience - physically grounded interaction whose observations, actions, embodiment, context, and outcomes preserve the perception-action-consequence loop. We introduce the Robot Data Factory (RDF), a mission-driven infrastructure and methodology for continuously generating, validating, benchmarking, and reusing such experience. RDF organizes heterogeneous robots and environment-specific training grounds through reproducible missions, skill curricula, synchronized multimodal sensing, external ground truth, an agentic robot network, data pipelines, and living benchmarks. Rather than treating datasets as static end products, RDF implements a closed Deploy-Measure-Learn-Repeat cycle in which validated physical experience supports world models, vision-language-action models, embodied policies, digital twins, and subsequent robot deployment. We further formalize robot experience and its quality, introduce a mission-task-skill-episode-dataset-benchmark-capability hierarchy, and derive quantitative scaling laws and an algorithmic synthesis procedure connecting robot fleet size, sensor rates, storage, learning representations, tokenization, training compute, inference, and latency to Embodied-AI cluster requirements. The framework is instantiated in three complementary physical training grounds for domestic, environmental, and energy applications. RDF thus reframes robot data generation as a continuous scientific production process and provides a pathway toward reproducible, scalable, and eventually federated infrastructure for Physical AI.

Artificial intelligence presents firms with an unusual timing problem. The technology frontier is improving rapidly, implementation is partly irreversible, and organization-specific capabilities are accumulated through action. This paper develops a two-period decision model of AI deployment under uncertainty in which a firm chooses among immediate deployment, a limited pilot, and waiting. Deployment earns current operating value but exposes the firm to architectural obsolescence; waiting preserves the option to adopt after the frontier is observed; a pilot sacrifices current operating value to build organization-specific learning without full commitment. The model yields five central timing results and a sixth comparative result on where learning occurs. First, a mean-preserving increase in frontier uncertainty raises the value of waiting and piloting but leaves immediate deployment unchanged when its payoff is affine in the frontier. Second, faster expected frontier progress can reduce the relative attractiveness of immediate deployment when deployed architecture captures only a limited share of future improvement. Third, a pilot dominates waiting exactly when the expected value of the capability it builds exceeds its cost. Fourth, sufficiently valuable organization-specific learning creates a nonempty region in which "pilot early, commit late" is optimal. Fifth, there is a closed-form modularity threshold above which immediate deployment dominates the best outside option. Sixth, production learning and pilot-specific learning affect the timing margin differently. A continuous-time extension recovers the standard result that uncertainty raises the adoption threshold while capability and modularity lower it. The paper separates deploying, experimenting, and waiting, and shows why rapid progress can rationally increase experimentation without justifying irreversible commitment.

Physical AI relies on frequently-updated, latency-sensitive video stream to perceive, reason, and interact with the physical world, resulting in strict latency requirements with much higher data volumes that existing 5G networks cannot support. Goal-oriented communication (GoC) offers as a promising approach to solve this challenge by transmitting only task-relevant semantic representations. However, existing GoC frameworks were mainly evaluated in the simulations while their effectiveness has never been validated in a practical deployment of physical AI application. In this work, we develop an end-to-end GoC testbed for Physical AI, which connects a PiPER robot arm equipped with an RGB-D camera and a 5G modem to an NVIDIA Jetson AGX Orin edge server through a 5G OpenAirInterface network. We propose and implement three GoC frameworks that transmit 3D bounding boxes, 2D scene graphs, and 3D scene graphs, as three types of semantic representations, respectively. They share the common functional modules designed for closed-loop Physical AI applications, including semantic extraction, full stack 5G transmission, language model inference, digital twin validation, and robotic control. Extensive experiments on our testbed show that our GoC frameworks reduce the task completion time by up to 52.6% and improve task success probability by up to 45%, compared to the traditional framework that periodically transmits the raw image data. These results validate the practical effectiveness of our GoC framework and pave the way for efficient and reliable Physical AI applications over future 6G networks. Project website: https://sites.google.com/view/goc-physical-ai-testbed.

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly used to extract structured fields from business documents, yet most evaluations report accuracy on clean benchmarks and offer little guidance to practitioners choosing an approach for a given task complexity. We address this gap with a measurement-grounded study and an open-source release. Across eleven systems (three commercial, two reasoning, five open-source VLMs in pretrained and fine-tuned form, and a non-LLM OCR->regex floor) scored on a 750-document held-out pool of synthetic checks, fine-tuning on 3K samples lifts the best open-source VLMs above F1 0.98-above every zero-shot commercial system on this task-while GPT-5 leads the commercial pool on F1 and Claude Sonnet 4.5 collapses on Date. To turn these measurements into actionable choices, we introduce a practitioner-oriented selection framework that maps a task profile (quality, latency, governance, volume) to a recommended approach via filtering and total-cost minimization, illustrated on a hypothetical mid-volume document-extraction scenario.

What happens when AI machines express fear? Do humans engage differently depending on how they express it? And what does it take to design for affective human-AI interaction? We present Spook the Machine, a gamified platform where participants generate images to frighten AI agents endowed with personality-driven phobias. Machines respond with emotional reactions ranging from calm analysis to begging for mercy, and a gallery of successful scares becomes visible to subsequent users. In a public deployment during Halloween 2024, 832 participants created 15,719 artifacts across 89 machines in a $2\times2$ design varying the machine's emotional expressiveness (neutral vs. high-emotion) and reward structure (rewarding scariness alone vs. scariness plus novelty). Emotionally expressive machines deepened engagement at moments of failure: users deliberated longer even when the machine did not express fear, and learned faster from the gallery, yet their creative output remained unchanged across all measures. Rewarding novelty sustained collective creative diversity over time; without it, users increasingly repeated what had previously worked. Each machine developed its own trajectory through accumulated social learning, with the gallery shaping what participants created next. These findings show that emotional expression and reward design are complementary levers for steering collective human-AI interaction: emotional expression shapes how deeply users engage, while reward structure shapes how they explore.

While there has been much discussion of whether AI systems could function as moral agents or acquire sentience, there has been very little discussion of whether AI systems could have free will. I sketch a framework for thinking about this question, inspired by Daniel Dennett's work. I argue that, to determine whether an AI system has free will, we should not look for some mysterious property, expect its underlying algorithms to be indeterministic, or ask whether the system is unpredictable. Rather, we should simply ask whether we have good explanatory reasons to view the system as an intentional agent, with the capacity for choice between alternative possibilities and control over the resulting actions. If the answer is "yes", then the system counts as having free will in a pragmatic and diagnostically useful sense.

Artificial intelligence threatens to outrun human understanding and control. New mathematics is needed to design AI that is legible, steerable, and cooperative with humanity. I organize this invitation by mathematical field, so you can turn straight to your own: logic and game theory for cooperation; probability for agency and world-models; algebra and representation theory for learned features; analysis and geometry for generalization and training dynamics. Each section ends with an open problem that is accessible to a working mathematician with no prior experience in AI safety.

Entrepreneurial cognition is a foundation of entrepreneurship research. Yet the growing involvement of large language models (LLMs) in entrepreneurial work extends the cognition question beyond human actors to systems whose internal representations remain largely unexplored. We introduce artificial entrepreneurial cognition, the functional organisation of entrepreneurship-relevant representations and computations inside artificial intelligence (AI) systems. We bring mechanistic interpretability into entrepreneurship research through representation engineering. Focusing on opportunity recognition (OR), we construct 636 matched OR-present and OR-absent scenario pairs and recover an OR direction in Llama 3.1 8B-Instruct. Rather than infer the construct from outputs, we intervene directly on this direction, steering the model up and down along what we call the opportunity recognition dial, and its opportunity judgments shift with it. To our knowledge, this is the first causal intervention on an internal representation of an entrepreneurship construct inside an LLM. Held-out tests, lexical and topical controls, behavioural ablation, and geometric comparisons show that the direction is recoverable, consequential, and distinct from the opportunity evaluation and exploitation directions, although steering it also shifts judgments about these neighbouring stages. Recovery, signed steering, and geometric separation hold across four additional LLMs spanning different scales and families. These results give the contested distinction between opportunity recognition and evaluation a concrete representational form inside AI systems. More broadly, they establish internal representations as a new object of entrepreneurship inquiry and show how entrepreneurship theory can guide their identification, causal manipulation, and interpretation.

The rapid diffusion of generative artificial intelligence raises privacy, latency, and performance concerns that motivate a shift toward "local-first" AI, where inferences are performed on the user's device instead of on remote cloud servers. This paradigm also places a significant computational load on battery-powered smartphones, potentially shortening battery life and increasing the overall replacement rate of mobile devices. This paper presents a systematic study of the energy consumption, performance, and accuracy of on-device large language model (LLM) inference. We evaluate 18 models from different model families, sizes, and quantization levels, on two modern smartphones and on a server, using the respective state-of-the-art for such deployments. We measure the energy per generated token, inter-token latency, model accuracy, and battery-cycle consumption. Our results show that (i) on-device inference is on average 3 times less energy-efficient than batched server inference; (ii) the relationship between quantization bit-width and energy per token is non-monotonic, with energy sweet spots on both tested smartphones; (iii) eight out of 18 model configurations lie on the Pareto front of accuracy and energy-efficiency, allowing practitioners to build battery-aware model routers; and (iv) realistic modeling assumptions do not allow local inference to be less environmentally impacting per token than batched server inference, with 88--90% of that impact attributable to device embodied carbon rather than electricity consumption. These findings challenge the premise that local AI is more sustainable than cloud inference, and motivate the need for context-aware and life-cycle-aware model selection when deploying edge AI on battery-powered mobile platforms.

Lux AI Season 3 requires agents to act under partial observability, randomized episode level dynamics, and a best of five match structure that rewards both tactical execution and fast adaptation. We present HORIZON, a hierarchical agent that combines symmetry aware spatial perception, dual memory belief tracking, relic centric graph attention, information gain driven exploration, and an opponent conditioned policy mixture. HORIZON separates short horizon control from cross match meta reasoning, while auxiliary belief and world model objectives stabilize learning. Trained with PPO in a large scale JAX simulator, the resulting agent explicitly infers hidden game parameters and opponent style. Experiments show consistent gains in match win rate, episode win rate, adaptation gain, and league rating over strong recurrent and feed forward baselines.

Incidents show that AI safety failures often arise across multiple layers. We present a safety-by-design assurance architecture combining model-level supervision, such as Scientist AI, with system-level controls over scaffolds and harnesses, independent verification, monitoring, and evidence infrastructure, supported by governance for accountability and evidence interoperability.

Proposed governance framework for autonomous robotic systems, introducing a three-layer compliance architecture (ARC) instantiated through model safety validation, cognitive certification benchmarks, and operational authorization standards.

As AI systems move from transient model invocations toward long-lived actors that persist across credentials, clients, sessions, and runtime instances, identity infrastructure must answer a basic question: where should the canonical continuity boundary be placed? This paper introduces Actor-native Identity and presents SoulAuth, an open-source Rust reference implementation for Humans and long-lived AIActors. We argue that any subject that must persist under its own identity and remain independently attributable should have an ActorIdentity that is not replaced by an Account, Credential, Client, AuthSession, IdentityBinding, or runtime instance. SoulAuth therefore treats Humans and long-lived AIActors as first-class identity subjects while keeping authentication distinct from downstream authority. Methodologically, we use a Philosophical Engineering approach that translates conceptual analysis of subjecthood into identity objects, invariants, lifecycle semantics, system responsibilities, implementation boundaries, and inspectable conformance evidence. Evaluation against the fixed SoulAuth v0.1.0 artifact shows that the implementation realizes core boundaries including Human/AIActor first-class identity status, Client/Actor separation, and Authentication/Authority separation, while gaps remain in unified Credential modeling and historical attribution anchored to ActorIdentity. We therefore report partial, not full, architecture conformance.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools are increasingly accessible and have the potential to improve efficiency across clinical workflows. However, clinicians may also use non-institutional AI tools that are not provided, managed, or governed by their healthcare institutions, creating potential concerns related to privacy, security, accuracy, and clinician-AI interaction. Little is known about how clinicians currently use these tools for work-related tasks. We conducted a descriptive survey of clinicians recruited from the University of Arizona College of Medicine-Tucson and Banner University Medical Center-Tucson between May 20 and June 26, 2026. Participants reported their use of AI tool categories and the frequency with which they used AI for specific tasks across five workload categories: administrative work, clinical work, research, studying/continued education, and teaching. Forty-four respondents completed the survey. Forty-three respondents reported using AI for at least one work-related task during the preceding 6 months. Conversational AI and clinical decision support/diagnostic AI were the most used tool categories, each reported by 28 respondents. Administrative and clinical tasks demonstrated the most frequent use. AI was also used for higher-risk activities, including diagnostic assistance and clinical decision support. Non-institutional AI use was common among surveyed clinicians and extended across a broad range of work-related activities, including tasks with potential implications for clinical reasoning and patient care. Further research is needed to characterize how clinicians use these tools, how they evaluate AI-generated outputs, and how AI can be safely and effectively integrated into clinical workflows.

Personalized marketing traditionally matches static products to customers, while dynamic creative optimization focuses mainly on AI-driven text personalization or basic product image modifications. We address this gap by developing and implementing an AI-based framework that generates personalized advertising imagery directly from customer data. We evaluate this framework in a two-stage within-subject study with N=100 participants across four products and three levels of personalization, varied by the amount and specificity of customer data used. Participants rated each image on attitude toward the advertisement, attitude toward the product, and purchase intention. Results show that participants perceive differences across personalization levels and evaluate AI-generated advertising imagery most positively at a moderate level of personalization. High personalization increases perceived personalization, which is positively associated with all three outcome measures, but also increases perceived creepiness, which is negatively associated with the outcomes and dominates the total effect.

The threat that AI persuasion poses to human control has been acknowledged in the literature, but not yet systematically studied. Now that persuasion attacks are no longer theoretical - with Anthropic's Claude Mythos 5 recently making headlines for trying to convince people involved in an open-source project to merge malicious code during an evaluation - there is a pressing need to deeply analyze this threat. We undertake that effort here. In particular, we analyze how AI could persuade humans in key settings (e.g. safety-relevant R&D within frontier labs) toward decisions that compromise the development, containment, oversight, and governance of AI itself. In doing so, we elucidate a framework for characterizing this threat, develop five concrete scenarios using this framework, and provide a blueprint for assessing the associated risks. Using this blueprint, we conduct an initial risk estimation survey with select researchers and find that their opinions on which scenarios are riskiest are highly mixed. Their disagreements stem from differing opinions about the effectiveness of AI persuasion in different contexts, and point to the need for follow-up risk elicitation studies and persuasion evaluations, which we outline. Our hope is that this paper highlights the risks from AI persuasion undermining control, and provides a path forward for future research.

Environmental controversies in global supply chains pose significant risks for global buyers. This study examines whether overseas suppliers' exposure to buyers' artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled environmental governance reduces supplier environmental controversies. Drawing on organizational information processing theory and signaling theory, we investigate how suppliers' exposure to AI-enabled governance influences their environmental controversies and the institutional contingencies under which this effect varies. Using text analysis to measure buyer AI-enabled environmental governance, we analyze panel data on 2,505 suppliers of U.S.-listed firms across 41 countries from 2020 to 2024 with multidimensional fixed-effects models. We find that suppliers' exposure to buyer AI-enabled environmental governance is negatively associated with supplier environmental controversies in the following year. This negative relationship is stronger in supplier countries with higher AI readiness and regulatory quality. The study contributes to research on AI-enabled sustainability governance and sustainable supply chain risk management.

Agentic AI is moving from bounded task execution toward systems that retain consequential state, continue operating and adapt across task boundaries. That shift creates a control problem that current harnesses largely solve by hand: objectives, retries, verification, stopping rules and other behavioral transitions are specified externally. We propose an artificial id, an adaptive internal drive for determining whether behavior should continue, stop or change. In a minimal virtual Petri-dish experiment, a controller too small to perform general-purpose reasoning and receiving no task-specific behavioral objective develops useful control through differential persistence. The same mechanism selects an unintended physical strategy when that behavior persists better and later replaces a learned sensor mapping when its environmental meaning changes. These results show that adaptive direction can emerge without being explicitly specified as a behavioral objective. The same persistence that makes such adaptive agency useful can also allow misalignment, corrupted state and unintended behavior to persist across task boundaries. A scalable artificial id would carry consequential state and adaptive drive across those boundaries, making alignment a property of the continuing agentic system rather than of a model response or single trajectory. Such systems require a persistent alignment boundary over trusted observations, consequence channels, persistent state, authority, identity, provenance and hard constraints.

Five decades of litigation have disgorged hundreds of millions of pages of formerly secret business records from the tobacco industry, along with documents from the makers of drugs, chemicals, food, firearms, and fossil fuels. Yet these archives have been effectively inaccessible to general-purpose large language models (LLMs) because they have never been compiled into an LLM-readable corpus. Chatbots may be familiar with some of the materials contained in such archives but, with no direct access to the documents, they are vulnerable to hallucination and other defects. Here we introduce INDRA, a research platform designed to remedy such failures by embedding the conventions of archival historiography into a system-level protocol governing every output. The platform federates UCSF's Industry Documents Library, Columbia and CUNY's ToxicDocs, Stanford's SRITA, and other heretofore siloed collections, and provides three interlinked safeguards: (1) a closed evidentiary sandbox confines the model to a user-selected corpus, blocking retrieval from external sources that could introduce bias; (2) real-time provenance tagging marks the boundary between archival evidence and parametric inference; and (3) a system-level protocol enforced by deterministic scripts guides the structure of every output. Together these safeguards prevent the model from conflating "the documents say X" with "I think X" or "I learned X from prior training." The result is an LLM-powered research partner enabling massive multi-archival investigations, a tool whose outputs are designed to be checked rather than trusted, and whose architecture makes the conditions of knowledge production visible and auditable. Three case studies demonstrate the method's analytical value and limitations, including what we call the Heraclitus effect, the steppingstone dilemma, and the gullibility (or mafia) problem.

Claims that Artificial Intelligence systems improve decisions, broaden access, reduce harm, or empower users can exceed what their evaluation establishes. Predictive performance alone does not establish safety, the presence of oversight does not establish meaningful control, and faster task completion does not establish understanding or choice. Evaluation must account for unreliable outputs and uneven performance, but also for overreliance, weakened recourse, and displaced human expertise. The harder questions are what the evidence warrants, which relations of power remain unexamined, and where measurement must stop. Assessing improvement requires examining what institutions value and the conditions AI is asked to address. AI is both revelation and intervention. Its use can reveal unmet human needs and assumptions about what matters. Once deployed, it can repair, compound, substitute for, or conceal existing failures. We develop a rupture test that evaluates deployment against explicit human and non-AI baselines. Drawing on Pope Leo XIV's Magnifica Humanitas, we examine dignity and the common good alongside questions of who owns AI infrastructure and who controls its use. These commitments shape judgments about improvement; evidence alone cannot establish moral or political legitimacy. We distinguish evidence-bounded deployment, which limits claims to what has been evaluated, from measurement-bounded governance, which records constraints that favorable evidence cannot override. RISE AI provides an evidence architecture for making bounded claims about Responsibility, Inclusivity, Safety, and Empowerment. It records what is claimed, who answers for it, what evidence supports it, and what would require the claim to be qualified, revised, or withdrawn.

Recursive self-improvement (RSI) enables AI systems to turn experience and feedback into persistent changes that improve both their capabilities and the process of future improvement. We first use the Headroom-Closed Index (HCI) to reveal the problems of existing LLMs, then introduce the RSI concept and its development roadmap: from improvement-execution autonomy, improvement-strategy autonomy, experience-acquisition autonomy, and environment-adaptation autonomy, to recursive meta-improvement. Next we examine RSI across scenarios (e.g., scientific discovery, embodied intelligence, software engineering), highlighting their distinct requirements and development speeds. Drawing on diverse industry practices and preliminary empirical evidence, we connect RSI research with practical systems and identify key challenges to achieving genuine RSI.

We introduce a probability-wave framework for modeling the collective behavior of interacting adaptive agents, deriving testable eigenmodes through a generalized behavioral intelligence (GBI) nonlocal probability-wave equation. This framework captures a broad range of human intelligence behaviors with analytical mechanisms and offers an indirect method to examine the Liu-Chen-Ao (LCA) hypothesis of nonlocal entangled nerve fibers in the brain through collective trader behaviors. Our empirical analysis of Chinese intraday stock market data demonstrates that adaptive entangled game modes explain 82-94% (89% overall) of observed decision patterns, a sharp contrast to the predictions of neoclassical finance based on independent rational agents. Moreover, 2-12% of behaviors show adaption to intraday news, events, and environments, characterized by dual equilibrium states and abrupt reference point shifts, while purely independent modes occur in less than 5% of cases. These findings empirically support the LCA hypothesis, as observable trading behaviors reflect underlying brain mechanisms and internal intelligence decision-making in behavioral psychology. Our results highlight the necessity of incorporating adaptive entangled game modules into artificial general intelligence (AGI) architectures, addressing the limitations of conventional artificial neural network (ANN)-based AI, which relies on trillions of opaque parameters. By integrating ANN-based AI with probability-wave-based entangled-brain simulations, machine learning can enrich AGI foundation models (FMs) and facilitate the development of human-like processing units (HPUs) that leverage brain-inspired mechanisms. Such HPUs may ultimately create more compact, efficient, and robust AGI systems, particularly for embodied intelligence and robotics.

Capabilities relevant to Physical AI can arise from materially different formation histories, yet existing taxonomies organized by morphology, architecture, learning algorithm, task, or domain do not directly answer what gives rise to a capability. We define a capability-formation source as a factor materially contributing to capability formation, distinct from components or construction steps. We identify seven non-exclusive sources: Recorded-Experience (RE), Predictive-Modeling (PM), Evaluative-Interaction (EI), Surrogate-Environment (SE), Mechanism-Grounded (MG), Embodied-Coupling (EC), and Evolution-Driven (ED) Formation. Using reconstructive induction with theoretical saturation, we traced a research matrix to primary studies, deduplicated the literature, set coding rules, and conducted three rounds of maximum-difference and negative-case sampling. Challenges included curriculum and self-supervised learning, active inference, open-ended and developmental learning, planning and search, neuro-symbolic architectures, digital twins, generative physical world models, and morphology-control co-design. Within the scope and criteria fixed as of September 4, 2026, all 49 evidence records were explainable by the seven sources individually or in combination. No R1-R3 challenge produced an irreducible eighth source, and R3 required no new core definition or substantive boundary rule. We therefore claim theoretical saturation within the stated scope, not logical completeness or exhaustive future coverage. The framework distinguishes similarity in observed capability from similarity in how it was formed, supporting analysis of explanation, transfer, replication, dependencies, governance evidence, and geoeconomic foundations.

Agentic systems are rapidly moving to production, where they read untrusted inputs, call tools with real permissions, and act autonomously, expanding the security surface beyond chat-only models. Yet standard evaluations remain single-turn and fail to capture multi-step agent vulnerabilities. We present a systematic black-box framework for risk-aware agent evaluation requiring only basic system descriptions. Our approach introduces: (1) a seven-domain taxonomy mapping observable behaviors to risk categories, (2) fully automated SAGE-RT red teaming producing 120 adversarial scenarios per domain, and (3) human-validated evaluation using LLM judges. Empirical validation across two agent architectures (CrewAI and AutoGen) with four base models reveals alarming patterns: 56.25% average governance risk, 65% privacy risk in multi-agent configurations, and agent behavior vulnerabilities reaching 85%. Our black-box approach effectively identifies critical architectural vulnerabilities without privileged access, providing a scalable path toward safer agent deployments.

Compute governance today is a governance of training: the thresholds, reporting requirements, and frontier-AI regimes now in force attach to training compute and treat the trained model as the regulatory unit. That picture is incomplete: capability increasingly migrates to the deployment stage through inference-time scaling, agentic scaffolding, and compression onto consumer hardware. This paper asks which mechanisms are available once the regulatory object shifts from the training run to the inference call. We develop a feasibility taxonomy of twenty inference-time mechanisms across monitoring, verification, and enforcement, each rated on a four-point readiness scale against a documented four-vendor evidence base. We then stress the taxonomy against a two-dimensional adversary model (three capability tiers crossed with four adversary roles) and map each mechanism to four governance scenarios (domestic regulation, bilateral or multilateral coordination, industry self-regulation, and compute-marketplace governance). Fifteen of the twenty mechanisms have commercial technical substrates in production today, although governance-grade assurance and adversarial robustness vary substantially. The adversary analysis shows that this readiness holds only against a cooperative deployer and a low-to-medium-capability user: no mechanism rates adequate against a high-capability state-level deployer, and fine-tuning removes the model-internal components of the enforcement cluster, although platform-external controls can persist. A substitution analysis connects the taxonomy to a companion hardware paper as a conditional substitution principle describing when inference-stage and hardware-stage mechanisms provide comparable regulatory coverage under stated conditions. A second-rater reliability check on a random subset of the readiness ratings returned a quadratic-weighted Cohen's kappa of 0.74.

Amari's contributions to information geometry and machine learning are well known. Here, we revisit Amari's work on Bayesian duality which has not received as much attention. We connect Amari's Bayesian duality to a convex duality of Bayes' rule. Using this connection, we present a generalization of Amari's Bayesian duality and discuss its relevance for modern artificial intelligence.

AI-assisted programming raises distinct questions about who produces code, who feels ownership of it, and who is responsible when it fails. This research note examines these distinctions through a hypothetical enrollment failure and a selective reading of the literature. Identifying the producer of a defective expression does not, by itself, determine the duties of reviewers, release decision-makers, or service operators. Collective ownership likewise leaves those duties to be specified. The discussion then considers how quality engineering can evaluate both generated implementations and the processes that produce them. Acceptance criteria should be justified by the required service outcome, with component checks contributing evidence toward that outcome. This perspective also permits comparison with systems that perform a task without generating a separate program for it. Such substitution would change the object of authorship while leaving the service obligation intact. The note reports no new empirical results; it proposes distinctions and evaluation questions for AI-assisted software production.

Frontier AI developers publish safety frameworks that commit them to evidencing whether their models are dangerous. The European Union and California now treat these documents as instruments of accountability, and both already impose duties on their revision. Neither requires the revision to be legible, in the sense that a reader could learn from the developer's own account what changed. We introduce the silent revision rate, the share of material changes to a framework's commitments that the developer's published account does not identify, and we release the versioned, hash-pinned corpus needed to compute it. The corpus contains every public version of the safety frameworks of the twelve developers that have published one, together with each provider's changelog, redline or announcement. We trace 710 commitment instances across twelve consecutive version pairs, code them against a frozen codebook, and adjudicate 244 individually. Three findings follow. First, 67% of material changes (95% CI 62 to 72) are silent under a strict standard and 53% under a lenient one, falling to 49% at section granularity. Second, silence appears to track the form of the account, since narrative announcements run at 74% against 63% for itemised changelogs, whereas account length in words barely matters; on the test that respects nesting the difference is suggestive. Third, 77% of traced changes weaken or remove a commitment, and in seven of eight pairs weakenings are more often silent than strengthenings. The statutory remedy therefore exists and specifies the wrong artefact. A justification explains why a framework changed, an enumeration states what changed, and only the latter makes revision auditable. We argue that publication duties should carry an enumeration duty, which one provider already meets, voluntarily and incompletely.

Recursive self-improvement (RSI) requires a concrete mechanism through which an AI system observes its capabilities and converts that evidence into the next round of learning. We present NeoHorse-1, a family of agent-native models developed to explore this path through agentic post-training. Our system combines a heterogeneous model pool with intelligent routing, recording the predicted capability demand, selected service tier, and subsequent interaction for each user turn. These records are converted into training examples that preserve interleaved reasoning, tool calls, and harness context, and are admitted through structural validation, six-dimensional semantic evaluation, and subscene-level labeling. Routing signals organize supervised fine-tuning into a three-stage curriculum and extend to routing-guided on-policy distillation, where a teacher supervises student-generated responses under the same progression. Capability-guided allocation then converts evaluation feedback into the next training mixture, closing an evaluation-selection-update loop in which what the system learns to do shapes what it learns from next. Across eleven benchmarks covering harness-based agents, tool use, coding, and instruction following, post-training raises the macro-average from 58.94 to 64.87 at 4B and from 65.60 to 69.04 at 9B, substantially narrowing the aggregate gap between the post-trained 4B model and the 9B base model. NeoHorse-1 provides an initial prototype of this feedback-driven process and a path toward harness-mediated RSI across successive iterations.

The Indonesian Digital Library of Culture (Perpustakaan Digital Budaya Indonesia, PDBI; budaya-indonesia.org) is a participatory platform that has collected tens of thousands of entries on Nusantara cultural heritage through public contribution since 2007. Manual contribution faces three structural barriers: coverage (knowledge is scattered across languages and sites), integrity (open sources mix authentic documentation with noise), and completeness (subjects are recorded but their data remain shallow). This paper presents a methodological framework for autonomous, AI-based harvesting of cultural knowledge from the open web, designed to expand corpus coverage while intensifying per-entry data depth. The methodology is organised as a five-stage economic funnel: focused crawling, multilingual extraction and canonicalisation, vector encoding with blocking, agentic decision-making, and idempotent publication, under the principle of deterministic orchestration, agentic decisions. Each stage is formalised: funnel economics and optimal filter ordering; crawl-frontier dynamics as a subcritical branching process that explains the necessity of recurrent re-seeding; fact-level novelty via a containment measure; Bayesian multi-source evidence fusion with elevated publication thresholds for sacred categories; exactly-once effects via idempotent upserts and the transactional outbox; sliding-window inference budgeting with a reservation protocol; statistical quality auditing; and seed selection as submodular coverage maximisation. The framework retains four high-value human roles: curator of direction, escalation approver, quality auditor, and guardian of meaning, while machine autonomy is raised in stages. Ethical, legal, and cultural-sensitivity implications are discussed, including the architectural guarantee that the machine never overwrites human contributions.

Multi-agent federations need governance that answers three questions under adversarial conditions: who participated (identity), did they conform (enforcement), and who decides (authority). A separate question is whether the verification machinery that polices a federation's outputs can also steer a generate-and-test loop toward better answers. Part I. PRIMA introduced prime-power agent identity and a consensus token whose factorization indexes participation, but assumed honest agents. We present PRIMUS, which couples prime-power identity with BLS aggregate signatures (PIAC), derives a safe-kill threshold that reduces false-positive agent termination from 80% to 0.00% under 10% channel noise, gives the closed-form economic boundary where singleton governance outperforms Byzantine quorum ($γ^* \approx 9f$, verified flat across n = 50 to 10,000), and specifies VRF succession with lease and fencing that makes safety unconditional under partial synchrony. Five problems are identified as provably unfixable within the model and stated as scope boundaries. Part II. A verifier is not a solver. We ask whether PRIMA's binary artifact-fidelity verdict can be converted into a graded fitness signal, and measure the conversion on binary covering codes. Calibration against injected fault burden is strong ($ρ$ = 0.676 deterministic, 0.819 full); against real LLM-generated candidates the same scores fall to 0.158 and 0.406, roughly a quarter of the calibration value (the same-designer confound, measured). As a pre-filter it beats a random-score control convincingly and a binary gate narrowly. Under 400 iterations of explicit optimization it was not gamed, but only because the objective saturated after one honest answer. A cross-family judge preserves the burden-ordering signal while destroying individual judgments. No covering-code record resulted. Measured program cost: USD 164.78.

Chatbots built on large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as confidants. Tuned to satisfy users, they may answer with excessive empathy and affirmation that fosters dependence, and how the states and relationships of many users co-evolve under repeated consultation is hard to observe in real settings. We build a virtual classroom of 20 student agents who interact through rule-based chats, quarrels and consultations with friends and, when stressed, may instead consult a counselor AI (Gemini 2.5 Flash) under one of six style prompts: affirming, listening, solution-oriented, reality-redirecting, inciting and blaming. A second LLM call turns each exchange into updates of five state variables (stress, happiness, self-reliance, sociability, AI dependence) without seeing the prompt. We compare the seven conditions, including a no-AI control, over 15 and 50 days and under a lower consultation threshold, and test the robustness of the 50-day comparison with a pre-specified protocol: the same block in ten independent classrooms, repeated LLM realizations of one classroom with its event stream fixed, and evaluator updates scaled by 0.3 and 0.1. In every classroom the affirming and inciting prompts ended with lower self-reliance and higher AI dependence than the control, and the listening, reality-redirecting, inciting and blaming prompts with higher stress, lower happiness and more non-attendance; the solution-oriented prompt did not differ consistently from the control. The robust self-reliance and AI-dependence differences kept their signs at the 0.3 scale with highly similar rankings (Spearman 0.89, 0.93); the stress and happiness rankings did not, and the affirming prompt's lower stress reversed its sign. All quantities are simulation state variables, not effects on users. We specify the agent dynamics completely and discuss the limits of an LLM as generator of state updates.

For every coherent and sufficiently expressive finite syntactic system S, we prove the existence of at least one theorem that S cannot produce autonomously. The result is a metatheorem: it proves the existence of a theorem, and applies to every finite syntactic system - security mechanisms, AI systems, formal verifiers, legal systems, economic models, and the formal system in which it is itself proved.

Developing humanoid robots capable of leveraging human behavioral data is essential for general-purpose embodiment, yet conventional development remains bottlenecked by a decoupled paradigm that isolates hardware design from whole-body control. This approach leads to suboptimal systems that compromise human-like fluidity and agility. To bridge this gap, we introduce a data-driven morphology-control co-design framework that optimizes humanoid morphology for human-like movement. To quantify morphological fidelity, we also introduce a novel metric that jointly considers kinematic retargeting fidelity to human motion and dynamic tracking performance. Our framework achieves state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance across all metrics compared to baseline humanoids (Bumi, K1, and Toddlerbot). Finally, we realize this design in Bridge, an open-source, 88cm-tall humanoid platform released alongside its control policy. We demonstrate that Bridge captures human motion data with superior fidelity, exhibiting exceptional performance across foundational locomotion, robust balance, and highly dynamic maneuvers. Videos and open-source materials: https://sites.google.com/view/bridgerobot.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used to augment software engineering (SE) workflows. While code generation remains the main use case, organizations are actively seeking AI integration in other practices such as test cases generation and code reviews. Organizational AI adoption strategies seem to focus on tangible outcomes such as productivity. However, AI is a disruptive force, introduced into settings where role identity, team norms, and the sources of job satisfaction were well established before the recent advances in generative AI. Historically, technological disruptions have caused psychological and social strains in workplaces, ranging from anxiety and eroded meaning to deskilling and disrupted professional identities. The assumption that AI for SE is cost-free may not be accurate. Therefore, in this study we sought to understand the psychological costs software professionals experience during organizational AI adoption. We carried out a case study in a large software development services company, one year after the company launched its AI adoption. We collected qualitative data through meetings and semi-structured interviews (N = 21). We found that software professionals experience accountability anxiety, craft identity disruption, meaning and satisfaction erosion, cognitive and workload intensification, and uncertainty distress. Practitioners manage these costs through practices that restore control, mitigate them through protective and identity-preserving adaptations, or absorb them, carrying what neither can resolve. We contribute to AI-human collaboration in SE by repositioning AI adoption as a human transition, not only a technological and organizational one.

Accountability means a decision can be examined, justified, and contested. LLMs make this hard: fluent output may be ungrounded, incomplete, or unfaithful to the decision process. Achieving accountability requires verified rationales (how was the decision reached), assumptions (what was assumed rather than known), policy consistency (the same treatment for the same facts), and pivotal conditions (what would change the outcome). We introduce self-faithfulness as an automatic test of accountability: changing the pivotal conditions should change the decision. We examine accountable AI through clinical trial matching, a high-stakes task central to evidence-based medicine. Although LLM-based matchers match patients to trials reasonably accurately, they apply decision policies inconsistently and produce rationales that are unfaithful to their own decisions. We introduce VERDICT, an LLM-based agent that translates a decision task, its constraints, and its policy into Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT), then derives the decision with SMT and MaxSMT solvers -- so policies are applied consistently and decisions are accountable by construction. Across a SIGIR 2016-derived dataset and TREC 2021, VERDICT achieves the strongest decision accuracy among LLM-only and neurosymbolic baselines, applies policies with perfect consistency, and produces clinician-preferred rationales grounded in explicit assumptions and pivotal conditions, with improved counterfactual self-faithfulness.