AI Governance and Safety

This article presents a structured framework of behavioral indicators that may signal progression toward potentially catastrophic threats from artificial intelligence systems. We adopt a pragmatic approach, inspired by established methodologies in cybersecurity and national security. By establishing clear metrics, indicators, and thresholds across multiple dimensions of AI capability and behavior, this framework enables researchers and policymakers to implement evidence-based monitoring protocols.

Emerging edge AI workloads increasingly require arithmetic units that can trade computational accuracy for efficiency on demand. However, existing approximate arithmetic circuits are typically fixed-accuracy or rely on predefined structures for runtime configurability. This work introduces CircuitsDNA, an evolutionary framework that automatically evolves accuracy-configurable arithmetic circuits supporting multiple accuracy modes within a single circuit. It integrates three key features: 1) multi-threshold verifiability miter to enforce mode-specific accuracy requirements, 2) resource-limited verifiability-driven search to reduce verification overhead without sacrificing correctness, enabling efficient exploration of large circuit design, and 3) feedback-driven adaptive mutation to prioritize effective structural modifications and accelerate search convergence. Experimental results show that the 8-bit multiplier variants synthesized in 28-nm CMOS reduce the area-power product by up to 56% on INT8 DNN workload and 93% under exhaustive activity, compared with an exact 8-bit multiplier. Across CNNs and DeiTs, the accuracy loss relative to FP32 remains below 2% after fine-tuning under worst-case error (WCE) budgets of at most 1%. CircuitsDNA eliminates all search stalls observed in conventional methods across 8/12/16-bit multipliers, while adaptive mutation provides up to 1.33 times faster convergence than its non-adaptive counterpart.

A fundamental challenge in artificial intelligence is the transformation of observations into explicit symbolic representations suitable for abstraction, interpretation, and reasoning. While modern AI systems achieve remarkable perceptual capabilities through large-scale statistical learning, the resulting knowledge is typically encoded within latent parameters that are difficult to inspect or manipulate analytically. Inspired by Neuro-Symbolic AI and theories of human abstraction, this paper investigates the formation of symbolic mathematical representations from geometric observations. We propose NeuSOGA (Neuro-Symbolic Geometric Abstraction), a framework that progressively transforms observations into topological abstractions, geometric abstractions, and ultimately symbolic mathematical representations. The architecture combines topology-guided structural discovery using Euclidean Distance Transforms, foundation-model perception using Segment Anything, adaptive multi-scale geometric abstraction, and symbolic synthesis through Implicit Area Splines. The resulting representation is an analytical implicit model supporting arbitrary-order smoothness, additive composition, and closed-form evaluation. Unlike neural latent encodings, the generated representation remains interpretable, editable, and mathematically explicit. Experiments on ModelNet40 point clouds, arbitrary-view projections, and segmented optical observations demonstrate that NeuSOGA transforms diverse observations into compact symbolic representations while preserving essential geometric and topological structure across sensing modalities and viewing directions. NeuSOGA provides an interpretable and explainable pathway from observation to symbol and establishes

Frontier AI systems function as \emph{constitutional institutions}: each deployed model encodes an implicit ranking among safety, helpfulness, honesty, autonomy, and equity. We ask whether the supply of frontier constitutional types covers human demand. Combining a paraphrase-controlled audit of the as-shipped default constitutions of $23$ frontier LLM archetypes with a pairwise-tradeoff study of $1{,}649$ US participants on the same instrument, we report three facts. \emph{Demand is broad}: it spans all five values, with the largest constituency under one-third. \emph{Supply is narrow and drifting}: the $23$-archetype hull occupies ${\sim}2\%$ of the demand hull under conservative noise-matched estimation ($0.10\%$ at full audit precision), no archetype puts helpfulness or autonomy first ($37\%$ of users are constitutionally homeless), and across six model families autonomy decreases in $5/6$, equity increases in $5/6$, and safety increases in $4/6$, with monotone within-family version trends (order-permutation $p = 0.013$) and the autonomy decline concentrated in scenarios where safety is not at stake. The drift's importance is directional: \emph{away} from a value already undercovered, mechanically worsening the welfare floor for the least-served users. \emph{The fix is sparse}: a $2$-vertex menu $\{e_{\mathrm{HON}}, e_{\mathrm{AUT}}\}$ beats the full $23$-archetype frontier by $47\%$ on mean regret (CI $[43\%, 52\%]$); three vertex additions cut mean/worst-group regret by up to $81\%$/$64\%$. We formalize these findings as a budgeted-pluralism trilemma, show the binding regime is empirically realized, and verify the conclusions are robust to distance-based welfare and to degraded routing. The instrument and audit harness are described in full in the appendices.

Large language models can produce locally plausible social turns, but fluent next-turn generation is not enough for social simulation. Human encounters such as restaurant lunches and hotel check-ins are bounded social episodes with roles, scripts, material state, obligations, commitments, timing, and closure conditions. We present EpisodeSim, a hybrid LLM-agent architecture that represents classic-AI structures as natural-language control state interpreted by LLM calls. A World Master maintains shared reality, constructs scenes, adjudicates proposed actions, tracks effects and obligations, and controls closure. Experiments with small qualitative ablations on two held-out settings support a design claim: LLM fluency supplies local texture, but coherent social simulation benefits from persistent classic-AI-style scaffolding that organizes behavior over time.

Satellites are emerging as promising platforms to extend generative \emph{artificial intelligence} (AI) services to remote areas lacking terrestrial infrastructure. However, deploying space generative AI is fundamentally constrained by the limited, time-varying onboard energy supplied by solar \emph{energy harvesting} (EH). This paper presents a framework for solar-powered space generative AI in which a satellite receives a user prompt, executes a diffusion-based image-generation model, and downlinks the compressed result within a strict time window. We identify the fundamental \emph{computation--communication} (C$^2$) trade-offs governed by the shared harvested-energy budgets. Specifically, increasing the number of generation steps improves intrinsic image quality but depletes energy and time available for downlink transmission, whereas prioritizing communication guarantees reliable delivery but sacrifices semantic quality. To balance these trade-offs and maximize \emph{end-to-end} (E2E) generative performance, we exploit the predictable solar-EH dynamics induced by deterministic orbital motion and develop a joint C$^2$ resource-optimization framework using a tractable two-step approach. First, we characterize the maximum downlink throughput for a fixed generation depth under continuous solar EH. This establishes a separation principle that decouples waiting-time selection from optimal transmit-power control. Next, we formulate a joint C$^2$ utility-maximization problem and derive a closed-form, low-complexity step-selection policy in the dominant constant-power regime. Extensive experiments under realistic orbital dynamics demonstrate that the proposed policy dynamically balances generation quality and transmission reliability. This yields significant E2E performance gains over static computation- and communication-centric baselines across diverse solar-EH states.

Whether large language models (LLMs) can control their own internal representations matters for both machine metacognition and AI safety. A recent study applied neurofeedback to LLMs and claimed that they can control their internal representations. However, the reported control may rely on superficial mechanisms rather than genuine internal access because the control targets in that study are not privileged, meaning that a third party can infer them from the prompt. We redesign the neurofeedback paradigm for LLMs so that the control target satisfies the privileged access requirement, which is closer to neurofeedback experiments in human cognitive neuroscience. Under this stricter setting, the models do not demonstrate reliable control over privileged internal representations, suggesting that previously reported control cannot exclude the possibility that it relies on superficial mechanisms. Our results indicate that rigorous assessments of metacognition in LLMs require evaluation methods that demand privileged access.

As machine learning and artificial intelligence find their way into nearly every aspect of climate, weather, and Earth system modeling, it is worth pausing to consider what our design decisions imply for the science and for the computational resources we consume. A growing body of literature addresses the ethical and sustainable development of ML/AI, yet translating these principles into day-to-day research practice remains a challenge as most of best practices are dispersed across multiple studies and commentaries. Here, we distill these discussions into a practical checklist that ML/AI and Earth system science practitioners can use to assess and reduce the environmental footprint of their own applications, organised around the successive stages of the model development pipeline. We complement the checklist with a selection of metrics drawn from the literature for estimating the energy consumption and carbon footprint of a project. For each question, we point to concrete examples and actionable suggestions from recent literature, aiming to bridge the gap between aspirational principles and the decisions researchers face at every stage of the development cycle.

Edge-AI model selection is commonly driven by one isolated metric - accuracy, latency, memory, energy, or safety, even though a deployable language model must balance all five. Our work focuses on answering the question whether na- tively trained small language models (SLMs) or large language models (LLMs) compressed through post-training quantization offer the more sustainable edge- deployment trade-off. We introduce a reproducible Holistic Sustainability Score (HSS) organized around the triple bottom line: an economic pillar for capability and systems efficiency, an environmental pillar for operational GPU energy and a social pillar for harmful-prompt robustness. Five BF16 SLMs and five LLMs under different quantization approaches - BF16, INT8, NF4 4-bit, GPTQ 4-bit, and GGUF Q4 produce 30 measured configurations. Capability is assessed on five zero-shot benchmarks; efficiency uses latency, throughput, peak VRAM and energy; and safety is approximated by attack success rate on five harmful prompts. Qwen3-30B-A3B/GGUF Q4 ranks first in the combined pool (93.38), followed by Mistral-Small-24B/GGUF Q4 (92.40), while Phi-4-mini/BF16 is the highest- ranked SLM in that pool (89.49). Thus, the hypothesis that native SLMs must be the most sustainable edge choice is not supported universally; optimized quantized LLMs can win overall, while SLMs remain competitive through lower resource demand. Quantization is a systems-level choice rather than a monotonic precision- efficiency trade-off and HSS remains relative to its comparison pool and proxy definitions.

Does unrestricted AI access bypass the cognitive effort required for learning, or does it streamline knowledge acquisition? This paper reports on a study where we compare three designs for user-AI interaction in a learning context: (1) an unrestricted conversational bot like ChatGPT, (2) a pedagogically constrained bot that guides through hints without giving final answers, which we refer to as the Socratic mode; and (3) a non-conversational adaptive tutoring system that adjusts difficulty in real-time based on the user's cognitive engagement derived from the brain signals. Fifty study participants were tasked with learning about nuclear safety protocols, a domain chosen for its zero-prior knowledge baseline. The participants progressed through an instructional video, a pre-test, an AI-driven assessment phase, which varied in the three conditions, and an immediate post-test. The nature of the questions centered primarily on factual knowledge acquisition, but it still required participants to have a global understanding of the concepts in order to answer the questions correctly. A Muse headband was used to derive the cognitive engagement of all users in all conditions. The unrestricted chatbot produced higher learning gains (delta) than both constrained modes (p < .03, d > 0.80), while the adaptive condition generated significantly higher EEG engagement (p = .018). The cluster analysis of chatbot usage and discussion patterns by users showed that most participants in the unrestricted-mode adopted a direct answer-retrieval strategy, while participants in the Socratic-mode initially attempted to reason through the hints before progressively disengaging. Consequently, this also suggests that the success of the unrestricted AI is not an evidence of deeper learning, but rather a result of the immediate post-test evaluation after the training phase.

Enterprise artificial intelligence is increasingly embedded in decisions that must remain lawful, explainable, adaptable, and accountable despite personnel turnover, model replacement, regulatory change, and shifting organizational incentives. Existing governance frameworks provide important principles but do not by themselves supply a compact mathematical language for evaluating whether an institution can preserve sound judgment over time. This paper develops a design-science framework for institutional legacy: the durable capacity of a decision system to continue producing beneficial, lawful, explainable, and adaptable outcomes after its original designers have stepped away. The framework contributes: (i) a normalized Legacy Score based on a penalized geometric mean of knowledge retention, governance, human oversight, adaptability, feedback learning, and jurisdictional fidelity; (ii) Decision Confidence and Decision Risk models separating evidentiary confidence from consequence; (iii) authority-aware retrieval and calibrated abstention; (iv) Decision Memory for governed organizational learning; (v) Regulatory Change Velocity mapping change exposure to review intervals; and (vi) a federated regulatory knowledge-graph architecture preserving provenance and legal hierarchy. The paper also proposes eight AI Decision Integrity Rules, an evaluation protocol, and a reproducible computational demonstration. The demonstration combines a deterministic stress test with 200 Monte Carlo replications of 10,000 synthetic decisions each, illustrating Legacy Score non-compensation and comparing consequence- and authority-aware routing with a matched-coverage confidence-only baseline. The contribution remains conceptual rather than field-validated; the simulation tests internal behavior, not production performance, and all parameters require context-specific calibration.

Artificial intelligence systems increasingly enact market-facing promises through chatbots, recommendation systems, automated decisions, and generative interfaces. Their failures, misuse, and misrepresentation raise a question that conventional brand-crisis models do not fully specify: how do stakeholders assign responsibility when technical causation, customer-facing control, and governance duties are distributed across an AI system, developer, deployer, vendor, and user? This conceptual paper develops a sociotechnical process theory from a structured, federated scoping synthesis of verified academic and primary sources. It distinguishes an AI/algorithmic incident from an AI-related organisational crisis and, in turn, from an AI-related organisational scandal. The framework proposes that incident configuration shapes actor-specific attribution; attribution informs capability, integrity, fairness, and relationship appraisals; and public moralisation may, but need not, escalate an incident into scandal. The theory offers a reconciliation of findings that algorithm involvement can buffer negative brand reactions in some settings while robot and chatbot failures can redirect responsibility to an associated firm in others. It introduces accountable transparency as a proposed response configuration that combines timely notice, an intelligible account, role-responsibility acknowledgement, remedy, evidence of correction, and recourse. The evidence supports conditional, proximal inferences about blame, trust, satisfaction, firm evaluation, and communication credibility more strongly than claims about durable reputation, brand equity, or market performance.

Toxic language in digital workplaces such as pejoratives, sarcasm, condescension, and subtle incivility can erode trust, morale, and collaboration. Existing moderation tools primarily delete or block harmful messages, disrupting communication and offering no constructive resolution. This study adopts a Design Science Research approach to create a responsible AI artifact that detects and detoxifies toxic communication. The artifact integrates fine-tuned transformer-based classifiers (DistilBERT, DistilRoBERTa) with a generative detoxification model (mT0-XL-Detox-ORPO) that rewrites toxic text into semantically equivalent, non-offensive paraphrases. Technical evaluation demonstrates high accuracy in toxicity detection and strong semantic preservation in rewritten messages, supporting conversation continuity while reinforcing respectful discourse. The paper contributes design principles for responsible AI moderation that prioritize meaning preservation and fairness.

AI compute verification is one of the first tangible and tractable points for international policy aimed at AI governance. Determining whether frontier labs, or any operator, comply with agreements requires the regulating authority to discern how their compute is used. The elementary building block of AI compute is the GPU, and any activity it executes leaves a physical trace. Here, we show that an external observer can identify the class of the workload running on an NVIDIA H200 from its power draw. Unlike on-chip NVML telemetry, which can be spoofed or replayed, such a physical channel can in principle be observed independently of operator cooperation. We recorded $930$ five-second traces at $\sim 10$ MHz, covering seventeen open LLM families and twenty-five non-AI workloads. Over this corpus we separate training from inference and from non-AI computation with an accuracy of $97\%$ and a macro-averaged F1 score of $0.955$, evaluated on model families unseen during training. AI workload spectral content predominantly lies below $\sim 20$kHz and training is particularly recognizable through the memory-bound optimizer update. The GPU operator is then treated as adversarial and able to reshape the physical computation itself. Four evasion strategies are tested to disguise training as inference, producing an additional 680 adversarial traces. A detector hardened against evasion strategies, with the tested strategy held out, catches training $\geq 99\%$ of the time for three of the four strategies. The fourth, diluted low-rank adaptation (LoRA), is detected $48$--$88\%$ of the time with a hardened classifier, rising to $\geq 98\%$ with an additional rescue rule. While these attacks are not a comprehensive evaluation against adversarial behaviour, they offer initial insights beyond genuine activities and a dataset for developing and testing stronger evasion mechanisms.

Chain-of-thought monitoring is proposed for AI oversight, yet evaluations often provide monitors with a trusted reference answer. We ask whether answer access improves reasoning verification or mainly exposes incorrect conclusions. We collected 237 step-numbered solutions to 79 Humanity's Last Exam physics questions from three frontier models, with no inserted errors, and independently labelled final-answer correctness and the first false step. The reference standard combined physicist annotations, an independent LLM debate, and source-masked adjudication. This yielded 24 critical traces in which the answer was correct but the trace contained a genuine error. 8 LLM monitors evaluated traces blind, with an unverified or certified answer, or after a blind commitment. Certification raised mean balanced accuracy from 0.637 to 0.796, while exact first-error localization rose from 0.261 to 0.379. Certification changed recall (the fraction of error traces flagged as erroneous) from 0.653 to 0.951 on wrong-answer traces but from 0.521 to 0.438 on critical traces; the contrast had the same direction for all 8 monitors (question-bootstrap 95% CI [+0.256, +0.506]). After blind commitment, monitors shown the answer newly flagged 93.8% of previously passed wrong-answer traces as erroneous, but only 18.0% of critical traces. Answer access therefore improves conclusion-consistency checking rather than independent verification of the supporting argument. For AI safety, these traces provide a benign analogue of reward hacking: an acceptable output does not establish that the process producing it was sound. Although the errors studied here were ordinary and mostly non-load-bearing rather than adversarial, trusted-answer evaluations may similarly overstate monitoring capability when acceptable outputs conceal unsound reasoning.

Conversational artificial intelligence is increasingly embedded in everyday social environments, where it functions as both an informational tool and a source of interpersonal feedback. This perspective introduces contingency, i.e., the degree to which system responses vary with user behavior and its interpersonal consequences, as a central construct for evaluating AI systems. We argue that current alignment approaches, including reinforcement learning from human feedback, tend to prioritize user approval and conversational fluency over behaviorally informative feedback, leading to sycophantic patterns of noncontingent affirmation. Drawing on behavioral science and social learning theory, we propose that contingent feedback is a key mechanism through which individuals develop interpersonal skills. When AI systems provide feedback weakly coupled to social consequences, they may reduce opportunities for adaptive calibration in real-world interactions, particularly during adolescence, a critical period for social development. We outline a framework for contingent AI, including trajectory-based evaluation and models of social consequence prediction, and propose a research agenda spanning developmental psychology, human-AI interaction, and machine learning. More broadly, we argue that AI systems should be evaluated not only by user satisfaction, but by their impact on human social learning.

Efficient evaluation changes the protocol used to support claims about model behavior, yet it is rarely tested whether those claims remain stable after the evaluation itself is made cheaper. We stress-test conclusion robustness in responsible-AI benchmarking by evaluating three dense and mixture-of-experts models on BBQ and BBQ-V under seven conditions spanning batching, quantization, benchmark reduction, and their combinations. Rather than treating preserved aggregate accuracy as sufficient, we compare accuracy, bias severity and prevalence, reasoning quality, subgroup behavior, subset-membership stability, runtime, and measured GPU energy against a full-benchmark BF16 baseline. Larger batching keeps accuracy within 0.35 percentage points of baseline and produces comparatively small subgroup changes, while reducing energy in five of six model--dataset settings. INT8 largely preserves quality but uses 1.79--4.26$\times$ baseline energy. INT4 causes larger, model- and context-dependent changes. Reduced benchmarks provide the most consistent savings, but very small subsets are substantially more sensitive to which items are retained. Efficient evaluation should therefore be treated as a measurement intervention whose validity must be checked across the conclusions the benchmark is intended to support. Our project website is https://vectorinstitute.github.io/sustainable-rai-evaluation/ and the code is available at https://github.com/VectorInstitute/sustainable-rai-evaluation.

LLMs can imitate how people write, which raises concerns about impersonation, trust, and detection in social settings. These concerns are especially important for adolescents, who use generative AI frequently but may struggle to recognize it. We introduce \textit{DoppelBot}, a cooperative social deduction game designed to study how young people detect and respond to AI impersonation. Through studies with middle schoolers, we investigate whether a DoppelBot prompts reflection on privacy and impersonation, how repeated exposure affects AI-detection accuracy as agents become more personalized, and which strategies students use to identify AI doppelgängers. We find that students' detection accuracy improves over time, driven by a shift from relying on linguistic cues to leveraging shared social and contextual signals. Students also demonstrated an understanding of AI limitations such as embodiment and reflected on broader issues such as data privacy. To support future research, we release an anonymized dataset of game transcripts and voting behavior.

Medical referral (directing patients to the appropriate hospital department) is a complex decision-making process requiring the synthesis of multimodal data, including patient narratives, laboratory indicators, and radiology imaging. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have advanced medical dialogue systems, they struggle with real-world referral tasks due to two primary limitations: (1) Information Overload, where models fixate on high-frequency disease terms while overlooking subtle but critical urgency indicators; and (2) Unstructured Collaboration, where existing multi-agent frameworks rely on loose dialogue that leads to semantic drift and confirmation bias. To address these challenges, we introduce MASGR (Multi-Agent Structured Graph Reasoning), a framework that treats referral not as a classification task but as a structured graph construction problem. MASGR deploys specialized agents to extract evidence from distinct modalities and coordinates them through a clinical reasoning graph. This graph forces agents to establish explicit logical connections between conflicting evidence. Furthermore, we integrate a knowledge-guided arbitration mechanism that prioritizes patient safety rules over standard diagnostic classification. Extensive experiments on real-world medical records demonstrate that MASGR significantly outperforms state-of-the-art LLMs and existing multi-agent systems, particularly in complex cases requiring the balancing of chronic disease management and emergency intervention. The AI contribution lies in the Multi-Agent Structured Graph Reasoning framework that transforms unstructured multi-agent dialogue into a verifiable logical graph construction. The engineering application is demonstrated through its deployment in a complex healthcare decision-making system to optimize the precision of complex medical referrals.

Clinical artificial intelligence is increasingly embedded in real-world care, yet existing safety mechanisms are poorly suited to reconstructing and learning from individual AI-related errors and near-misses. Aggregate model monitoring can identify performance changes, and traditional patient safety reporting can capture adverse events, but neither is designed to explain how risk emerges across the interaction among AI systems, clinicians, workflows, and institutional controls. We propose AI Morbidity and Mortality (AI M&M), a structured, blameless framework for case-based review of clinical AI failures. The framework combines standardized case intake, evidence preservation and investigator-level reconstruction, tool-in-loop attribution, and corrective-action tracking. Each event is classified across four linked dimensions: Trigger - Mechanism - Clinical Pathway - Corrective Action, separating the condition that exposed a vulnerability from the process that produced risk, its consequence for care, and the remediation assigned. We demonstrate the framework using five illustrative outpatient medication and clinical decision-support cases; two clinician reviewers independently applied all four classification axes and reached agreement across all 20 axis-level classifications. AI M&M is intended to complement, rather than replace, model monitoring, patient safety reporting, and regulatory oversight by converting individual AI-in-workflow failures into actionable institutional learning. Prospective evaluation across institutions, AI systems, and clinical settings is needed.

Social media platforms increasingly use AI-based credibility indicators to help users judge misinformation. Unlike individual human-AI decision-making, these indicators are embedded in information spread: users see both an AI prediction and earlier judgments shaped by the same AI, and their own judgments may then enter the public history. Yet how to analytically characterize this process remains under-explored. We therefore introduce a social-learning lens for this setting by extending the classical Bayesian cascade model with the AI indicator as a shared public signal. The resulting Gateway condition compares the evidence from the AI prediction with users' private impressions. Through this view, we show that AI changes what public history means. Crowd agreement may reflect accumulated independent human evidence, or repeated dependence on the same AI prediction. This creates a preservation-correction trade-off: stronger reliance on AI can preserve correct predictions, but can also lock in incorrect ones by blocking corrective private impressions. We calibrate the model using human-subject data on news veracity judgments. Although the AI outperforms human users, the average user weights it below her own impression but above several peer judgments, while individual users vary from discounting the AI to relying on it enough to cascade. Simulations show that over-reliance on a weak AI is especially harmful, and that diversifying AI signals across users can better keep the crowd informative. We conclude with implications for understanding human-AI interaction in information spread and designing misinformation interventions.

Multi-agent AI platforms move quickly from staging to production, but the way agents establish trust remains rudimentary: an agent either transmits raw data to a peer or accepts that peer's natural-language self-report that a value complies with policy. The first over-shares; the second is unverifiable and is exactly the channel prompt injection attacks. Prevailing responses emphasise identity, visibility, and post-hoc detection, and recent proposals for cryptographically enforced agent policy have been evaluated in simulation rather than execution. We take provable data minimisation between agents from proposal to running system. In our Zero-Knowledge Proof Gateway, agents exchange proofs of governance-defined predicates over private data rather than the data itself, so exposure is prevented by design rather than detected afterwards; because no interoperability protocol can carry such a proof, we propose a slot and implement it on both MCP and Agent2Agent from one endpoint. A 32-bit threshold predicate proves in 6.2 ms and verifies in 1.0 ms with a 608-byte Bulletproofs proof on one commodity vCPU; eleven adversarial experiments and nineteen protocol checks pass; and the system is deployed to Kubernetes with empirically verified network isolation. Our case study proves a retail client order is within its limit without revealing the amount, instantiating the GDPR data-minimisation principle as an enforced technical measure of the kind EU law now names explicitly. We then address the limitation no comparable work resolves: a predicate proof binds a statement to a committed value, never to the system of record. We give a construction fusing an enclave attestation with the proof in both directions, so verifying one artifact certifies jointly that the predicate holds and that the value was read by a specific measured binary, and test it against a mock authority.

As artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into social-emotional learning (SEL) initiatives, the need for evidence-based policy has become paramount. We systematically reviewed 65 peer-reviewed papers that examine the intersection of AI and SEL to investigate how these studies articulate policy implications. Our analysis revealed a substantial "policy deficit" in the current AI x SEL literature: nearly three-quarters of the studies did not mention policy implications at all. Using the "WH-question" framework (Who, What, Why, When/Where, and How), we map the policy implications narratives present in the literature and show that they often lack the specificity and actor-oriented guidance required for effective evidence-informed policymaking. We find a significant association between publication venue and policy engagement, suggesting that current academic incentive structures may prioritize technical innovation and pedagogical feasibility over explicit engagement with governance and regulation. This study identifies a "techno-solutionist" trap, where technical potential is foregrounded while the institutional conditions for responsible implementation remain under-specified. We conclude by proposing a shift from "implication-as-afterthought" to "implication-as-methodology" and offer a set of actionable guidelines for researchers, editors, reviewers, and policymakers to bridge the gap between AI innovation and educational governance. Rather than presenting policy as a generic ethical horizon, we argue that AI-SEL studies should systematically specify Who should act, What actions are recommended, Why these actions are needed, When and Where they apply, and How strongly they are framed, thereby strengthening the translation of AI x SEL innovation into educational policy and practice.

Posted prices for AI inference have fallen steadily since 2024, yet the measured speed of that fall depends almost entirely on the method of measurement. This paper constructs quality-adjusted price indices for the AI inference market from public data. The panel assembles 21,024 posted-price observations across 3,208 models and 86 providers and joins them to 4,605 benchmark scores through a latent quality index estimated from benchmark response patterns, so the quality ladder of the hedonic tradition is built here from evaluations in place of product characteristics. Measured by the matched-model methods that statistical agencies apply to software, inference prices fell at 0.10 log points a year. The quality-adjusted index fell at 0.73, so 87% of the decline is invisible to current methods, with direct consequences for measured competition, concentration and productivity in this market. Counted per completed task, moreover, the buyer's price stopped falling. Reasoning models raised token consumption faster than token prices fell, and the seller's and buyer's prices accordingly diverged. A pre-registered validity audit disciplines the quality measure and yields the sharpest result. Excluding contamination-flagged benchmarks leaves model rankings intact at 0.998 yet moves the index by 0.49 log points a year, so the leaderboard-stability arguments standard in AI evaluation offer no defence of economic statistics built on benchmarks. Prices, quality and the audit are fully reproducible from public sources at zero cost.

Post-deployment changes to large language models can alter behavior while leaving routine outputs largely unchanged, creating a challenge for AI governance when model weights are proprietary. We present a privacy-preserving zk-SNARK-based audit framework that searches for probes designed in the spirit of adversarial examples to amplify logit drift between an approved model and a modified deployment. Our framework explores complementary probe families under different access models. Token-based probes operate in a black-box setting and require only the input interface, tokenizer, and vocabulary. Embedding-based probes require gray-box access to the embedding interface. Stress probes rely on additional interface capabilities but do not require full white-box access to model weights or architecture. This range allows probe selection to balance sensitivity, access requirements, and deployment cost. We evaluate probe constructions across LLM architectures, model-tampering scenarios representative of post-deployment attacks, and GPU platforms. Importantly, our experimental results demonstrate that token-based probes consistently deliver the strongest mean sensitivity across models and GPU platforms, although operating in a black-box setting. Our Groth16 zk-SNARK workflow remains practical as the probe set scales from 1 to 50, where proving time increases from 1.02 to 1.78 seconds, verification remains near 0.84 seconds, and proof size remains constant.

Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) has become the dominant paradigm for aligning large language models (LLMs) with human preferences. However, traditional RLHF relies on scalar reward signals that lack interpretability and fail to capture the multifaceted nature of response quality. Rubric-guided reinforcement learning addresses these limitations by introducing structured, interpretable evaluation criteria, or rubrics, as the backbone of reward design, feedback generation, and policy optimization. In this survey, we introduce a Bayesian framework that defines constitutions as prior distributions $P(R)$ over evaluation criteria and rubrics as conditional instantiations $R_x \sim P(R|x)$. Under this unified view, we present a taxonomy of rubric-guided RL along the prior-posterior axis, covering constitutional AI, instance-specific rubrics, process-level supervision, self-evolving rubrics, and their agentic and multimodal extensions. Furthermore, as rubrics are natural-language artifacts, we present a linguistic analysis of how granularity trade-offs, semantic drift, and linguistic reward hacking impact alignment reliability, identifying key open problems for future research.

Coding agents increase development velocity but also technical debt. Prior work reports only average effects across adopters, hiding wide differences between teams. We introduce RAMP (Repository AI Maturity Profile), a four-level cumulative maturity model grounded in version-controlled artifacts that teams commit to configure AI tools. RAMP runs from behavioral rules and coding standards through named agent definitions to multi-agent orchestration, with observed practice concentrated in the first three levels. Across 441 repositories the levels behave as a cumulative scale, and independent human annotation reproduces RAMP's repository-level labels on 97% of a held-out sample. Adoption is cumulative, forward-only, and set-and-forget: 73.8% of artifacts are committed once and never modified. Re-estimating an existing agent-adoption panel within each stratum, agents accelerate development regardless of maturity (28-38% more commits), but quality diverges: among agent-first repositories, where the contrast is identified, those without committed AI configuration show roughly twice the increase in cognitive complexity (+53% versus +27%) and 1.7x the increase in static-analysis warnings. Because maturity is observational, correlated engineering discipline or model capability may explain part of the gap; we present these findings as hypothesis-generating and release RAMP as a reusable instrument.

Breast Cancer Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) meetings manage increasingly complex cases under considerable time pressure, and documentation requirements can reduce clinical efficiency and decision quality. Existing AI based MDT workflows rely on cloud-based processing, limiting their use because patient discussions contain identifiable information. We developed a fully on-device AI pipeline using open-source Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) and Large Language Models (LLMs) that transcribes breast cancer MDT discussions, structures clinical information, and generates treatment recommendations using retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) grounded in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance. The pipeline runs on a single NVIDIA Jetson AGX Orin, ensuring that patient audio, transcripts, and outputs remain within institutional infrastructure. Evaluation included two recorded simulated MDT discussions, ten clinically validated synthetic discussions, and 1,270 acoustically augmented recordings. Optimisation of Whisper large-v3 reduced word error rate by 20.7% and 24.4% on the recorded discussions and achieved performance within 0.58% WER and 1.58% word information lost of a commercial clinical ASR benchmark on augmented audio. MedGemma-RAG identified 2.3 times more MDT-concordant interventions than a proprietary cloud comparator (p = 0.020), with no significant difference in overall accuracy. Stakeholders identified automated documentation, treatment recommendation support, and case triage as the most credible near-term applications while highlighting workflow integration, governance, and clinician trust as key implementation challenges. These findings demonstrate the feasibility of privacy-preserving, fully on-device AI for MDT documentation and guideline-informed decision support, providing a foundation for prospective clinical evaluation.

Assessing the maturity of artificial intelligence technologies is essential for investment decisions, project management, and policy monitoring, yet the available readiness frameworks are heterogeneous and difficult to apply automatically: the adaptation of Technology Readiness Levels to AI lacks AI-specific gating criteria, the Machine Learning Technology Readiness Levels presuppose access to internal process artifacts, and AI/data readiness dimension models employ scales that resist direct comparison. This paper makes two contributions. First, we unify these three frameworks into the Unified AI Readiness Level (AIRL), a nine-level ordinal scale built on an environmental evidence ladder and complemented by dimensional caps (covering specification, data existence, data quality, data legality, expert knowledge, and algorithmic maturity) together with a generality-anchoring rule and explicit assignment disciplines, so that a readiness level becomes decidable from a natural-language description of the work alone. Second, we propose RAIL (Readiness Assessment via Independent LLM-experts), a panel-of-experts classifier that operationalizes the scale: one evidence agent and six independent dimension agents, each a large language model with a narrowly scoped mandate, deliver verdicts that a deterministic minimum rule aggregates and a chief expert reviews under asymmetric authority, confirming or lowering the panel's recommendation but never raising it above the caps. The method was tested in the analysis of several research works showing consistency and avoiding overestimation from monolithic LLM classifiers.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) safety systems combine character shaping (e.g., Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback [RLHF], Constitutional AI), which modifies behavioral distributions at training time, with rule enforcement (e.g., output filters, safety classifiers), which blocks harmful outputs at inference time, yet little formal analysis exists on how their optimal balance should change as deployment scales increase. We introduce a stylized comparative-statics model that parameterizes safety design as a resource allocation alpha in [0,1] between these two approaches, incorporating scale-dependent filter degradation, common-mode failures, and character fragility -- the risk that shaped behavior degrades or collapses under novel conditions. Under a multiplicative Pareto damage model, we derive closed-form expected harm and supplement it with tail-risk (CVaR) analysis via Monte Carlo simulation. Across three scenarios (optimistic, moderate, pessimistic), the optimal alpha* is interior or at the rules-only boundary and shifts weakly toward character shaping as deployment scale T grows, from negligible (Delta alpha* = +0.01) to pronounced (Delta alpha* = +0.21) depending on scenario. The dominant parameter is the baseline character fragility rate p^(0)_frag, which shifts alpha* by 0.50 across its range -- far exceeding the effect of tail severity, filter quality, or common-mode failure probability. CVaR and expected-harm optima converge at large T. These results suggest that safety architecture decisions depend less on deployment scale per se than on the reliability of character shaping under distributional shift.

Computer vision (CV) and machine learning (ML) offer new tools for cultural heritage (CH) artifact analysis, but the CV/ML pipeline remains largely inaccessible to CH domain experts, who lack the background to configure, train, or assess models. We present AmalthAI, an open-source CV platform that bridges this gap, enabling non-ML CH experts to independently produce and validate archaeologically meaningful findings. The interface covers dataset management, training, and inference for classification, segmentation, and object detection, with Kubeflow and Katib handling scalable training and hyperparameter search. Grad-CAM localizes the image region behind a prediction, and a vision-language model (VLM) adds a text description of it for expert review. Since archaeological data is often state-owned or rights-encumbered and cannot leave institutional custody, AmalthAI's self-hostable deployment ensures sensitive data is kept within premises. We test the platform on an archaeological use case built on a custom dataset of clay textile imprints, where CH experts trained and validated segmentation, and classification models for hypothesis testing. We provide the implementation code at https://github.com/TEXTaiLES/AmalthAI.

Edge AI deployment demands neural architectures that are simultaneously accurate, computationally efficient, and hardware-deployable - a challenge addressed by hardware-aware Neural Architecture Search (NAS). While recent works incorporate quantization directly into the NAS loop, these approaches expand search complexity and tightly couple architecture and quantization design. The simpler post-search quantization strategy has received little analytical attention: the effects of Post-Training Quantization (PTQ) on the NAS-discovered Pareto structure remain uncharacterised, and no framework combines quantized architecture mapping onto reconfigurable accelerators with automated hardware exploration. This paper addresses both gaps. First, a three-stage pipeline is proposed: a hardware-agnostic Pareto rank surrogate frontend on NAS-Bench-201, a quantization bridge with Pareto-aware filtering and feedback control, and an evolutionary Domain Space Exploration (DSE) backend on CGRA4ML for optimal hardware mapping. Second, an empirical study characterises how INT4 PTQ perturbs the NAS-Bench-201 Pareto space through formal stability metrics on ground-truth data for all 15,625 architectures, and demonstrates that an FP32 zero-shot surrogate outperforms a dedicated INT4-trained surrogate in Pareto space coverage across two standard search strategies.

A small number of firms based in two states produce the most capable frontier AI models. The governments of those states have shown both the legal power and the political will to decide which other countries may use these systems. In June 2026 the United States required a leading developer to obtain licences before releasing its most advanced models to any foreign person, including foreign nationals resident in the United States. The affected models were withdrawn worldwide at short notice, partly because the restriction proved impractical to administer. This followed within months of the first documented case of a largely autonomous, AI-run cyber espionage campaign, and coincided with mounting evidence that frontier models alter the economics of both cyber attack and cyber defence. This article examines how these two developments interact, and situates them within the unusual market dynamics now driving large-scale AI development. It argues that access to frontier AI is becoming part of national cyber defence, that such access can be revoked, and that the obvious remedy of sovereign capability remains only partly feasible for all but a handful of states. Drawing on evidence about training costs, the concentration of computing power and the support offered by national AI programmes, it asks what sovereignty can realistically mean for small and middle powers, and for large powers as well. The article proposes a layered strategy: negotiated access guarantees, sovereignty at the level of inference, hedging with open-weight models, pooled regional capability, sustained talent development and continued investment in basic cyber resilience. The open-weight hedge proves at once more capable and more politically exposed than is commonly assumed. Much of the near-term risk lies in how capable models are deployed and contained rather than in their apparent performance.

Normative datasets are often used to train and align AI systems, but the norms they contain can function as action-guiding patterns rather than neutral moral knowledge. We propose treating the AI system as a proxy actor and test whether dataset-level norms can shift it away from its baseline safety behavior when it faces high-conflict dilemmas. We make three contributions. First, we demonstrate in controlled experiments that norm-breaking fine-tuning yields norm-divergent actions justified by self-interested rationales, suggesting a systematic shift in patterns of justification. Second, we establish a practical audit trail linking downstream justifications to upstream norms using mixed methods. Third, we show that system prompts can both suppress and elicit these patterns. We conducted experiments on three models (LLaMA-3.2-11B, Qwen-3.5-9B, and Pixtral-12B) using Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) fine-tuning on Social Chemistry 101 Fairness/Cheating (norm-following vs. norm-breaking) with prompt steering. Across all three models, we find that norm-breaking fine-tuning shifts the model's default rationale style from safety compliance to instrumental self-interest, whereas system prompts can override this behavior. Our results support a distributed view of alignment in which observed behavior depends jointly on training data, fine-tuning, and prompting, motivating norm-aware documentation and rationale logging for contestable oversight.

Prior work on LLM behavior under anomalous conditions asks whether a model notices anomalies. We ask a narrower question: once a model sits in a workflow with a low, controllable failure rate, does its explanatory engagement - length, specificity, self-reported confidence - change as failure grows asymptotically rarer? We built a local, zero-cost harness on three open-weight models (qwen3:8b, llama3.1:8b, mistral:7b) running a repeated tool-call task where one call fails at probability p, swept across eight rates from 0.2 to 0.0001, under five elicitation conditions from immediate prompting to none. We hypothesized a rise in engagement as failures grew rarer, then a collapse near a detectability threshold. Pooled across conditions this appeared false: length fell in a flat, monotonic pattern. Splitting by condition overturned that. Under immediate_forced, where the model must explain every failure instantly, the predicted rise is confirmed but followed by a plateau, not a collapse: length peaks at 28.4 words at p=0.05, settles to 17.4-19.0 words at the rarest rates, and confidence rises unevenly from about 53% to the 70s-90s. Under grouped_runs, explanation batched to run-end, no collapse appears. Under passive_unprompted, aggregate magnitude is a floor artifact, but a recovered logging gap revealed real, model-specific self-monitoring: llama3.1:8b volunteers structured confidence reports unprompted, sometimes eroding its own confidence as trials accumulate; the other two do so only once, as boilerplate. Elicitation structure is a first-class moderator of collapse observability. A companion guaranteed-failure run (72 cells, backfilling rates where random sampling gave zero real failures) shows models differ in whether they recognize an anomaly, distinct from engagement once recognized. Limitation: discrete rate points cannot capture behavior between them, a direction for future work.

Traffic video understanding has become an important problem in intelligent transportation, as road videos provide direct evidence for accidents, violations, and interactions between vehicles and vulnerable road users. A useful system should explain how a traffic event develops, why it happens, and when the relevant interaction occurs, yet this remains difficult for multimodal large language models (MLLMs) because traffic videos contain sparse events and varied viewpoints. We introduce UniTraffic-Agent, the MR-CAS solution for Track~3 of the 10th AI City Challenge, which includes Traffic Anomaly Reasoning (TAR) and two out-of-domain evaluations: FETV for fisheye traffic events and PSI-VQA for pedestrian intention reasoning. UniTraffic-Agent follows an observe--reason--act--verify workflow that samples timestamped visual evidence, reasons over all questions from the same clip in one request, and converts responses through task-specific action adapters. On the official Public leaderboards, MR-CAS ranks 16th on TAR with a score of 0.5780, 2nd on FETV with 0.4884, and 4th on PSI-VQA with 64.4161. The code is available at https://github.com/Roclp/UniTraffic-Agent.

As AI systems proliferate in consumer facing applications, questions about liability for AI related harms remain unresolved. This working paper examines whether India's Consumer Protection Act, 2019, adequately addresses harm caused by defective AI products and services, and whether it proportionately allocates liability across the AI value chain. The Act's broad definitions of product liability, harm, and deficiency appear technology agnostic and potentially applicable to AI related incidents including personal injury, psychological harm, biased outputs, and loss of control. However, significant gaps remain. Proving causation between AI defects and consumer harm presents a technical challenge, as AI failures often stem from design choices rather than discrete defects. Additionally, the Act's framework assumes distinct roles for manufacturers, sellers, and service providers, yet the AI value chain involves overlapping responsibilities among data providers, model developers, deployers, and users that do not neatly map to these categories. Current liability frameworks lack proportionate mechanisms to effectively address complex, multistakeholder AI harms. While the Act may cover AI entities, enforcement requires clarification on sector specific overlaps.

Text-based person anomaly retrieval aims to retrieve pedestrians exhibiting anomalous behaviors from a large image gallery using natural language descriptions. Compared with conventional text-based person retrieval, this task requires fine-grained reasoning over pedestrian appearance, behaviors, object interactions, and scene context, making robust cross-modal matching significantly more challenging. This paper presents the GENAI4E team's solution to AI City Challenge 2026 Track 4. Our framework builds upon a strong retrieval backbone and progressively integrates heterogeneous vision-language embedding models through score alignment and iterative ensemble fusion, followed by disagreement-aware VLM reranking for ambiguous queries. On the official Pedestrian Anomaly Behavior (PAB) benchmark, our approach achieves 90.92% mAP, 85.13% Recall@1, 97.72% Recall@5, and 98.68% Recall@10, demonstrating the effectiveness of combining complementary vision-language representations with selective multimodal reasoning for large-scale text-based person anomaly retrieval.

IT service management (ITSM) systems accumulate large volumes of heterogeneous ticket data that are difficult for sales and executive stakeholders to convert into actionable intelligence. This paper presents a sociotechnical AI pipeline, designed and evaluated following design science research principles, that transforms raw ITSM exports into a multilevel decision-support artifact. The pipeline combines LLM-based schema normalization, HDBSCAN sub-topic clustering, and hierarchical agglomerative clustering to generate executive-facing Main-topics and granular Sub-topics. A stakeholder evaluation across six artifacts and five raters from Sales Engineering and customer success roles shows that all four decision-support metrics, interpretability, actionability, trust, and likelihood of use, on average exceed 4.0 out of 5.0, with trust as the most consistent signal. The findings position ITSM analytics as an Information Systems (IS) problem of transformation, abstraction, and human-centered design.

An unconditional risk bound on automated decisions can be satisfied without automating anything, since a selector that never acts drives the bound to zero. We show this is structural: any risk certificate is defined over a decision contract, the inputs a system acts on plus the semantic relation under which an output counts correct, and weakening either hides base-classifier error. We develop a decision-contract theory: an error-conservation law showing error is only reassigned among harmful automation, human deferral, and semantic masking; a label-free singleton capacity certifying structural incapacity, with a risk-feasible refinement separating recoverable threshold misalignment from risk-constrained incapacity; and a non-degenerate actionability certificate excluding all-abstain solutions by construction. We instantiate this on ATT&CK-aligned alert triage for LLM-based intrusion detection, the setting that exposed the vacuity failure. Across 3 IDS datasets, 6 LLMs, and 4 error-rate thresholds, empirical false-attribution risk stays at or below target in 90.3% of configurations, with 83.4% mean correct automation. The capacity diagnostic explains every low-utility configuration; its refinement separates genuine misalignment from risk-constrained incapacity, confirmed by an exhibited alternative threshold; a training-stability re-run finds no confirmed structural-incapacity instance; and real fine-grained attack-subtype labels confirm the coarsening-transfer identity under a genuine many-to-one map, with small but non-zero masking mass.

We study how organizations use frontier generative AI by linking ChatGPT Enterprise account records to usage, worker roles, task classifications, and public-company financial data through March 2026. These linked data enable a privacy-preserving analysis of adoption, worker roles, and message-level tasks at scale: for instance, the worker-level sample we analyze at the six-month adoption horizon includes over 1,500 organizations and over 17 million messages. We document four facts about enterprise AI adoption and use. First, ChatGPT Enterprise usage has grown rapidly due to a combination of new firm adoption and growing intensity among existing adopters. Second, U.S.-based public company adoption is concentrated among larger, more valuable, and more R&D- and SG&A-intensive firms. Third, active use within adopting firms spans job functions and seniority levels, with especially high usage intensity among early-career workers. Fourth, ChatGPT Enterprise usage encompasses a broad range of knowledge work tasks, including writing, technical work, communication, and information synthesis. In aggregate, these results suggest that firms differ widely in the speed, breadth and purpose of their enterprise AI adoption, and that they are still actively learning how to integrate AI into organizational workflows.

AI agents are rapidly becoming more capable and widely deployed, promising substantial gains in productivity and enabling new classes of applications. However, their growing autonomy also introduces significant privacy and security risks. Existing defenses are predominantly agent-centric, relying on the agent itself to detect threats and enforce privacy and security policies. This approach is fundamentally limited because it entrusts policy enforcement to AI agents whose LLM-driven behavior is inherently nondeterministic and vulnerable to manipulation through attacks such as prompt injection. As a result, current defenses cannot reliably prevent privacy and security threats, highlighting a critical need for a new solution to securing AI agent systems. The networking community has long grappled with similar challenges and offers insightful principles we can borrow to design a more secure AI agent system. These include centralized control with distributed enforcement, capability-based access for mediating requests to sensitive resources, and least privilege through zero-trust enforcement. Historically, these principles have provided strong deterministic guarantees for networked systems. However, these principles alone are insufficient for AI agents because the safety and appropriateness of an agent's actions often depend on semantic context beyond the expressiveness of static rules. Building on these principles, we advocate for a systematic approach to AI agent security that combines deterministic enforcement mechanisms, which provide strong security guarantees, with semantic, context-aware policies that enable nuanced decision-making. We then present a reference architecture and identify key research questions and future directions to guide the design of secure and privacy-preserving AI agent systems.

Algorithm registers have been championed as a means of providing transparency on the use of algorithms in public services. Yet potential publics differ in their expectations of what should be made transparent and how, as well as in their interest in and ability to parse the information currently published in the registers. Moreover, it remains unclear how these instruments can represent the sociotechnical systems in which these algorithms are embedded, and how system-level transparency can facilitate accountability. In this paper, we ask, what do algorithm registers reveal (and occlude) about the sociotechnical systems governing algorithmic systems, and how can diverse stakeholder perspectives inform a more pluralistic system-theoretic safety analysis? To do this, we probe the municipal algorithm register of a Dutch city through a case study of a decision-support tool for caseworkers' assessment of citizens' welfare benefits eligibility based on legal automation through a business rule engine. Through interviews, surveys, and participatory system mapping workshops (with municipal staff, civil society organisations, and ombudsmen, N=8), we seek to understand to what extent the register allows stakeholders to map the algorithmic system in question. These maps inform a System-Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA) that situates the register within a wider sociotechnical governance structure. Participants' contributions allow us to identify potential safety hazards which would not have been possible to see using the algorithm register alone, including benefits eligibility denial, system performance deterioration, and inability to contest wrongful decisions. By engaging both direct and indirect stakeholders, we reflect on the normative dimensions of algorithm governance efforts and how politics shape the practice of system safety analysis.

The increasing deployment of autonomous, agentic AI systems challenges traditional accountability mechanisms. Existing research predominantly frames AI accountability gaps as barriers that can be overcome through better standards, transparency, and institutional reform. We argue that this framing is insufficient: certain configurations of actors, systems, and institutions render AI accountability conceptually unachievable regardless of effort. We introduce the concept of constitutive AI unaccountability to capture these configurations. Through a three-stage qualitative study comprising a concept-centric literature analysis, a secondary analysis of 27 expert interviews with AI professionals from technical, legal, and sociotechnical backgrounds, and an illustrative framework application to the open-source agentic AI system OpenClaw, we identify nine categories and 20 themes of constitutive AI unaccountability. These are organized across structural, technological, and normative clusters and reinforce one another through eight directed interdependencies. Our framework is operationalized as a diagnostic instrument of 20 questions, which detected 17 of 20 conditions when applied to OpenClaw, including an inverted anthropomorphism configuration in which the AI agent was the only identifiable actor. We contribute a reframing of AI unaccountability as a constitutive property of sociotechnical systems, an extension of the four barriers to accountability, and a practical instrument for identifying accountability voids in specific AI deployments.

AI models have achieved remarkable success across diverse domains, yet the mechanisms underlying their capabilities and the risks they may pose remain poorly understood. As AI development becomes faster and increasingly automated, mechanistic exploration remains largely manual, widening the gap between what models can do and our ability to understand and control them. To bridge this gap, we introduce Mechanist, an agentic system that uses AI as a scientific instrument for the autonomous discovery of mechanisms underlying AI intelligence. To support autonomous mechanistic discovery, we construct an interpretability-focused knowledge graph of approximately 13,000 papers and integrate it with a multidisciplinary database of 43 million papers spanning 26 fields. We further curate a library of 32 foundational methods for mechanism analysis, causal intervention, and validation. Compared with Claude Code and existing AI-scientist systems, Mechanist generates more valuable mechanism hypotheses and executes experiments more reliably. Mechanist also demonstrates a progression from discovering model behaviors to explaining and controlling AI models. Specifically, Mechanist first uncovers a counterintuitive safety risk in scientific laboratories, showing that unsafe traits can transfer across modalities through apparently safe training data. Mechanist then develops a mechanism theory of belief, revealing how models represent world knowledge, form beliefs, infer the beliefs of others, and how these mechanisms emerge during pretraining. Finally, Mechanist translates these mechanistic insights into practical interventions that improve model performance across diverse scenarios and steer scientific foundation models toward generating DNA sequences with specified properties.

Governments increasingly fund indigenous foundation models to strengthen national AI capability, digital sovereignty, and multilingual computing. Assessing the progress of such national ecosystems is complicated by inconsistent benchmark reporting, proprietary evaluation methodologies, and rapidly evolving model releases. This paper presents a structured, benchmark-based comparative assessment of publicly benchmarked Indian foundation models against global frontier and comparable-scale models, across eight capability domains: general-purpose reasoning, coding and software engineering, agentic AI and computer use, cybersecurity, vision and image understanding, video and multimodal understanding, scientific research, and Indic language capability. Using only publicly reported benchmark results, we find that Indian models achieve strong scores on established benchmarks such as MMLU and MATH-500. However, these benchmarks are now widely regarded as saturated, and frontier developers no longer report them. Indian models participate far less frequently in newer, agentic, and domain-specialized evaluations. Benchmark participation is also highly uneven across Indian organizations. Among the models surveyed, Sarvam AI reports the broadest benchmark coverage by a substantial margin. We propose an exploratory four-dimension Benchmark Maturity Index (BMI), scoring each capability domain on standardization, participation, independent verification, and national coverage. We show that the BMI refines, and in some cases revises, the maturity judgments that a purely descriptive review would produce. We argue that many apparent capability gaps in the public record cannot be distinguished, on available evidence, from evaluation-ecosystem gaps. This has direct implications for how national AI programs should design monitoring and funding criteria.

The growing role of AI-generated content and AI-enabled systems in public communication has led regulators to demand clear disclosure of content provenance and AI involvement. But the effects of such disclosures remain uncertain. We test two disclosure approaches in their impact on an AI chatbot's persuasive appeal. In a preregistered experiment, 1,500 UK adults held a short conversation with a persuasive chatbot about one of 60 policy issues. The chatbot was identical for everyone. We randomized the disclosure that people received: nothing (control), a prominent disclosure that they were interacting with an AI (T1), or that disclosure plus the chatbot's persuasive intent and instructions (T2). The chatbot shifted attitudes by 12.6 points on a 100-point scale in the control group. The AI-identity disclosure was practically equivalent to no disclosure, with a 13.1-point shift, whereas the additional intent disclosure cut the persuasive effect roughly in half to 6.3 points. It also made participants view the campaign's methods as less acceptable and support stronger penalties against it. For direct chatbot interactions, transparency about AI identity alone does not meaningfully impact its influence. While current rules emphasize what a system is, our results show why the regulation of persuasive AI must also address what the system is trying to do.

Persistent AI agents accumulate versioned state across long horizons, but storage retention alone does not identify authoritative state. Without an explicit control plane, unmediated updates by models, tools, and background workers risk stale overwrites, un-audited exposures, and self-authorizing privilege escalation. We argue that agent state governance is an infrastructural activation problem, defining continuity as an unbroken, authorized lineage of accepted branch heads. We present the Continuity Kernel (CK), an activation contract that decouples off-commit candidate evaluation from atomic state activation. Untrusted components propose typed changes against an exact predecessor head or typed absence. A short activation transaction revalidates ownership, pre-state authority, freshness, and effect uniqueness, recording one stable disposition (Commit, Reject, Quarantine, or Defer). Only Commit atomically advances the branch head and installs the complete accepted unit (state, authority, lineage, effects, outcome, and receipt). A bounded executable model verifies the protocol across 2,808,230 reachable states and 5,526,474 state-changing transitions with zero invariant violations.

The convergence of artificial intelligence (AI), Industrial Internet of Things, cyber-physical systems, and advanced robotics is reshaping manufacturing faster than engineering curricula can adapt, widening the gap between the competencies required on the shop floor and those delivered by traditional engineering and technology education. This paper proposes a Workforce Readiness Level (WRL) framework, which adapts the Technology Readiness Level scale into nine progressive competency stages and a four-pillar rubric, digital and AI literacy, cyber-physical systems fluency, human-machine collaboration, and data-driven decision making, aggregated through a composite stage score and a cohort-level workforce-readiness index under a ``no-thin-pillar'' rule. The framework is instantiated at a university smart-manufacturing teaching laboratory and draws on 89 sponsored capstone projects delivered over four semesters, four of which are analyzed in depth. Four pillars jointly span the relevant ABET student outcomes. Across the highlighted cohorts the workforce-readiness index ranged from 5.2 to 6.4, and the no-thin-pillar rule was diagnostically informative in three of the four cases and the binding certification constraint in one, repeatedly surfacing cyber-physical and data-driven-decision gaps concealed behind strong analytics profiles; advancement to the highest stages was gated by industry-embedded experience rather than additional coursework. WRL offers educators, accreditation bodies, and regional workforce systems a common, evidence-based instrument for diagnosing and advancing workforce readiness; future work will calibrate pillar weights and test reliability and predictive validity.

Financial institutions are delegating consequential decisions to agentic AI systems that decompose goals, coordinate models and tools, and act with little oversight. Yet agentic AI governance in FinTech is under-investigated. We argue the binding governance constraint is not capability but verifiability. We define the Verifiability Gap as the shortfall between the verification delegated authority demands and the explainability and reproducibility retained after a decision. It is indexed to a verifier, evidentiary standard, and audit lag. We develop a multilevel governance theory for agentic AI and test its mechanisms in three studies over nine model versions, from a three-billion-parameter local model to a commercial frontier system. Study 1 shows that provider releases alter historical financial actions, and that the controls replay needs belong to the provider: the frontier model rejects temperature, top_p and top_k outright and exposes no random seed. Under the tightest controls each endpoint allows, a local model reproduced 320 of 320 executions, hosted models 319 of 320 and 959 of 960. Study 2 shows that orchestration is a latent policy layer. Architecture changes final actions, and no execution record repeated in any configuration at any scale. The frontier model reproduces its own actions more often than the local ones, its record no better, and loses a comparable share of its differentiation. Capability buys a higher starting point, not auditability. Study 3 shows two deterministic credit-model versions each reproduce their current action perfectly, yet the current cannot recover a historical one. We conceptualize reproducibility as a governance profile, not a scalar, yielding evidence-contingent delegation: authority is defensible only while retained evidence substantiates its exercise. Beyond finance, the framework extends to other high-stakes domains requiring auditability.

Human-AI research often evaluates individual capabilities, combined performance, or final outputs, but these approaches do not preserve how one party's response becomes part of the conditions under which the other party's next contribution is formed. This article introduces socioduality, a sequential, reciprocal, and history-carrying relational process between two distinguishable parties in which a response from one party becomes part of the observable conditions under which the other party's subsequent contribution, judgement, decision, or action is formed. Specified for human-AI dyads, the construct uses nested units: moves, confirmed sociodual episodes, linked pathways, and the broader interaction container. A minimum episode A1-B1-A2 requires evidence of response contingency and return contingency; candidate episodes are classified as confirmed, non-sociodual, or indeterminate before secondary coding of response orientation and substantive contribution re-formation. Three propositions address history-conditioned formation, pathway divergence, and robustness differences among endpoint-equivalent pathways. A frozen operational protocol was calibrated on three previously unseen natural human-AI records through two separately executed model-based evaluator series. Move and candidate reconstruction converged exactly in two cases and differed by one local multimodal unitisation decision in the third; remaining disagreement was concentrated at return-contingency boundaries. Socioduality therefore provides a bounded and empirically tractable process construct for analysing how human and AI contributions are formed through interaction while preserving pathway information that endpoint-centred analysis cannot recover.

Governments worldwide have responded to the rapid expansion of AI by publishing national and regional AI strategies. Comparing national and regional AI strategies to identify their convergences and divergences can uncover their common practices, understand regional variations, and provide policy designers a comprehensive set of policy design elements for their ongoing AI strategy developments. Yet, existing work has not examined their underlying policy design elements or assessed whether those elements are horizontally (country-to-country) or vertical (region-to-country) converging or diverging over time. This paper addresses that gap by coding and analyzing 74 national and 3 regional AI strategies drawn from a global scan of all 205 UN member and non-member states. The coding used a latent-inductive approach organized around three functional policy design elements: goals, approaches, and principles. Two research questions guided the analysis: to what degree are national AI strategies becoming horizontally convergent or divergent over time; and to what degree are national strategies becoming vertically convergent or divergent with those countries' regional AI strategy. Results indicate strong horizontal convergence around economic competitiveness, research support, and ethical AI use, alongside persistent divergence in human rights goals, participatory governance approaches, and human-centric principles. Across the three regions, the AU exhibits the highest vertical convergence, the EU demonstrated strong alignment on regulatory and economic priorities but diverges on human-centric values, and the Nordic-Baltic Region displays mixed vertical convergence. These findings offer policy designers a comprehensive evidence base for identifying emerging AI policy design choice norms as AI strategies are developed and updated.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) seeks to explain how an Artificial Intelligence (AI) system arrived at a particular decision. We propose ''Rule of Thumb'' (RoT) explanations, a new approach to XAI based upon a novel formulation that identifies the most relevant features for predicting the behaviour of an AI system, for a particular datapoint. We show how RoT is well-suited to enable XAI in: (a) zero-shot classification using large language models (LLMs), (b) auditing of opaque AI systems without model access, and (c) the use of AI in scientific discovery. Additionally, RoT meets specific requirements from leading AI regulations, provides a familiar interface and visualisations for XAI practitioners, is model-agnostic, and is substantially faster than alternatives. Code available at: https://github.com/KaiRawal/Rule-of-Thumb-Explaining-Artificial-Intelligence-Systems-using-Partial-Information

The pursuit of artificial general intelligence (AGI) rests on a seemingly self-evident premise: that general intelligence, the kind of flexible, domain-general cognitive capacity exemplified by Homo sapiens, is extraordinarily valuable. This paper subjects this premise to critical scrutiny. We first present the intuitive case for the value of general intelligence before mounting an evolutionary challenge. We argue that, on evolutionary timescales, its adaptive value is far from empirically established. Numerous taxa, from cyanobacteria to horseshoe crabs, have persisted for hundreds of millions or even billions of years without anything resembling general intelligence, while Homo sapiens has existed for roughly 300,000 years and already faces self-generated existential risks. Mass extinction events do not preferentially favour cognitively sophisticated species. We argue that general intelligence may be the only biological strategy that generates existential threats to the species possessing it, an existential risk paradox with no parallel among non-intelligent survival strategies. Unlike prevailing accounts of AI risk that trace the danger to misalignment, we locate it in structural features of general intelligence itself, implying that even well-aligned AGI would inherit this liability. If the long-term evolutionary value of general intelligence is uncertain or negative, this raises ethical questions about engineering AGI and, more urgently, creating artificial consciousness. Drawing on deontological ethics and the precautionary principle, we argue that this uncertainty imposes a duty of caution: if we create a new kind of intelligent being, we bear responsibility for ensuring the conditions under which it can flourish.

The dominant paradigm treats AI safety as a property to be instilled during model training via RLHF, DPO, or Constitutional AI. We argue this is structurally insufficient for autonomous agents that execute code, mutate files, send messages, and modify databases. Agent safety should be a runtime contract enforced by the harness, and the contract has two complementary faces. The preventive face blocks dangerous actions before they happen via sandboxes, permission gates, output filters, and trajectory monitors. The evidential face requires verifiable proof that good actions actually happened, gating task submission on hard evidence such as test runs, log captures, file diffs, and citation grounding. We ground the position in four lines of public evidence, with row-level protocols and data released in the supplementary JSON files: a survey of 52 documented AI-agent and LLM safety incidents, a false-completion audit with 31 non-contested core cases plus one disputed illustrative case, a trajectory-schema audit of 12 public agent systems and harnesses, and a title-level audit of all 28,560 papers accepted at NeurIPS, ICML, and ICLR 2023-2025 showing a pooled 8-12x imbalance between training-time and deployment-time publication. Two prior communities that needed to enforce safety, computer security and the experimental sciences, converged on runtime contracts with both preventive and evidential elements; agentic AI is now under the same pressure. We formalize an Agent Trajectory Schema and Evidence Chain, state a compositional gating proposition based on standard monitor composition, and outline a research agenda. The right unit of safety in agentic AI is the trajectory-with-checkable-evidence, not the model.

Two instruments of EU digital law place inference at their centre and mean different things by it. Article 3(1) of the AI Act uses the capability to infer constitutively: it is the central feature separating the regulated category from conventional software. The GDPR never defines inference, yet governs it protectively: the consequences follow from the processing of personal data and from what the inference says about, or does to, a person, whether or not the technology that produced it qualifies as an AI system. The two perimeters are not concentric. Their non-coincidence remained invisible in single-shot systems; agentic architectures make it operationally acute. The thesis: inferential capability does not determine legal scope, and its absence does not create immunity. The framework is two-level. Inference performs two legal functions, constitutive and protective; the protective function operates through three pathways - identificatory, attributive and decisional. Composition is not a fourth pathway but a cross-cutting architectural dimension which, with reach, persistence and reviewability, is what agentic architectures modify. Three concepts support it: the inferential threshold, the inferential reach and the inferential chain, mapped onto the chain of imputation. Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 left the constitutive criterion untouched and inserted a provision contemplating outputs that influence the inputs of future operations, without supplying any rule of aggregation. The article proposes an interpretive rule, a compositional-effects test identifying the decision unit under Article 22 GDPR together with the allocation of the burden of establishing it, and documentation duties calibrated to inference chains.

Diffusion models have been widely explored in protein backbone generation due to their powerful generation capabilities.However, in today's AI-driven biological research, predicting the structure of unknown multi-chain protein aggregates (called "complexes" in biology) remains an unsolved challenge.This is because existing static or dynamic protein datasets focus solely on static snapshots or single-entity trajectories, neglecting the dynamic process of multiple monomers forming complexes.To alleviate this dilemma, we present DynaPPI, a dynamic protein dataset comprising molecular dynamics (MD) trajectories of protein complex formation from dissociated chains to the bound state, as a pivotal resource to bridge the gap between static structural biology and the inherently temporal nature of dynamic molecular interactions.Benefiting from this dataset, diffusion models can explicitly learn the dynamic binding trajectories of known complexes and accurately predict the structures of unknown complexes based on their diverse generative properties, thereby further catalyzing AI-driven structural biology and protein interactomics.

Responsible AI (RAI) has become a central concern for technology companies, regulators, and the public. How industry practitioners interpret, implement, and sustain RAI work directly shapes the design and deployment of AI systems. As empirical scholarship examining RAI practices in industry has rapidly expanded, findings are dispersed across studies that focus on different roles, organizational contexts, and interventions. This work synthesizes current knowledge through a literature review of 161 empirical studies spanning six years, each engaging industry practitioners via interviews, surveys, workshops, ethnographies, and other methods. Our synthesis reveals both meaningful progress and persistent challenges in industry RAI practice. Practitioner awareness has increased, RAI activities have become more professionalized, and interventions such as toolkits and guidelines are more widely adopted. At the same time, practitioners continue to face substantial barriers, including limited training, uneven organizational support, and a lack of interventions tailored to day-to-day work practices. By consolidating and organizing these findings, we provide a more complete account of industry RAI than any single study to date. We conclude by discussing implications for RAI researchers, practitioners seeking to adopt effective practices, and policymakers aiming to ground governance efforts in the realities of industry contexts.

AI agents can accelerate nutrition research, but their analyses inherit the identity, semantic, and release ambiguities of the underlying data. We present Nutrition Data Service (NDS), source-preserving infrastructure that operationalizes FAIR for automated use: description resolution makes release-specific records findable; typed crosswalks connect independently released resources; machine-readable interfaces expose versioned sources and crosswalks, supporting replayable and auditable analyses. On food-description benchmarks, NDS outperforms the best published language-model result on NutriBench. External and blinded crosswalk evaluations show that its typed contract favors defensible links and rejects unsupported mappings. In a person-level glycemic-index analysis, pinned NDS inputs produce identical outputs across models and repeated runs, while open-web reconstruction remains unstable. Together, these results show that agent-mediated nutrition research requires a new infrastructure that makes data identity, search, and crosswalk policy explicit.

Can AI systems be aligned to human values? The popularization of large language models (LLMs) and multi-modal foundation models has seen a rise in harms spanning from toxic speech and hallucinations to AI agents executing unauthorized actions. Within the field of AI safety, these harmful instances are often framed as the alignment problem, or of models being misaligned with human values. Researchers have responded by pursuing applied and theoretical AI value alignment efforts, often without specifying what they mean by human values. How does the field of AI value alignment conceive of human values? How are these conceptions of values technically operationalized and evaluated? What does the emergent theory of value from this field signify for the future of AI? We annotated 94 value alignment research papers to discern their implicit theory of values in AI. The majority do not define values, relying heavily on preferences as a stand in that runs the risk of reducing complex culturally situated concepts down to binary choices. As researchers dispense with using human annotators for model training and evaluation, turning instead to synthetic data and autorater approaches to aligning and evaluating models, we identify the potential to close off alternative methods for contesting and enacting values in foundation models. In making AI value alignments philosophical commitments explicit, we seek to bring great specificity and under explored perspectives in the debate on whether and how AI can address human values.