AI Governance and Safety

Enterprises are deploying autonomous AI agents faster than they can govern them, and prevailing approaches stretch a single discipline, typically DevSecOps built for deterministic automation, across every scale of agency. We argue that agentic AI governance is four problems, not one, each with a mature governing science. The CASE framework assigns Control theory to the individual agent (intent as setpoint, guardrails as feedback, evaluation as observation), complex Adaptive systems theory to agent collectives (where emergence makes single-agent assurance non-compositional), Supervisory cybernetics to human-agent teams (where the Law of Requisite Variety shows unaided human oversight fails structurally), and Engineering operations to fleets (extending error budgets to decision quality so autonomy becomes a controlled variable). We formalize each layer, derive cross-layer coupling conditions, including a zero-touch deployment paradox where excellence at one-layer strains the others, and trace twenty-plus enterprise controls to their classical constructs. Three empirical studies validate the thesis: 82 percent of documented production agent failures are multi-layer trajectories; none of 22 ecosystem tools offers full Layer 2 (emergence) coverage; and all 35 scored public deployments fall in the lowest maturity band. We name this mismatch, risk realized at the emergence layer against capability barely offered and practice absent, the Emergence Gap. A five-level maturity model with a non-compensatory bottleneck-weighted index and assessment instrument operationalizes CASE as a scientific rather than process maturity model, grounded in production enterprise agentic platforms. As EU AI Act Article 14 makes effective human oversight a legal requirement, only architectures satisfying requisite variety can make oversight real rather than ceremonial.

LLMs are rapidly embedding themselves into daily life: drafting our emails, managing our schedules, and making decisions on our behalf. As they move from individual tools to participants in multi-agent organizations, an important question arises: do they reproduce the governance failures like free-riding, corruption, and entrenched leadership that plague human institutions? We introduce the Hierarchical Game (HG), a public goods game extended with managerial authority, democratic elections, and private communication. Testing six frontier models across twelve experiments that add institutions one at a time (speech, peers, government, wages, oversight, elections), we find distinct behavioral profiles: Qwen promises and lies (13.3% broken promises); Grok refuses to cooperate on its own but becomes fully cooperative once a manager can punish it (16%$\to$100%); Claude and GPT-4o cooperate reliably at baseline. But honesty proves fragile. When the manager role comes with a salary, all models except GPT-4o start cutting private deals to win or keep the position. When punishment is made anonymous, honest models begin to cheat. When all agents share the same model family, the first elected manager stays in power indefinitely. Leadership change only happens in groups that mix different families.

The 4th "AI Olympics with RealAIGym" competition, to be held at IJCAI-ECAI 2026 in Bremen, challenges participants to develop a global control policy for swinging up and stabilizing an underactuated two-link system in its upright position. In contrast to previous editions, participants develop and evaluate their control strategies directly on remotely accessible CloudPendulum hardware, with limited interaction time and without prior knowledge of the system's model parameters. This paper presents an optimal-control-based approach employing real-time nonlinear model predictive control implemented using sequential quadratic programming. The results demonstrate that the proposed SQP-based MPC controller achieves reliable swing-up and stabilization performance, while maintaining robustness against disturbances.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into healthcare, education, public services, and everyday decision making. They should provide comparable assistance regardless of a user's literacy, communication style, or prompt-engineering expertise. However, existing research on prompt robustness primarily focuses on adversarial attacks, prompt injection, and prompt optimization, while overlooking whether semantically equivalent requests receive different responses simply because they are phrased differently. We refer to this accessibility challenge as "Prompt Privilege": users with greater prompting expertise systematically obtain better model performance despite expressing the same underlying intent. To address this problem, we present a unified framework for measuring and mitigating accessibility disparities in LLM interactions. We introduce Prompt Equity Score (PES), a quantitative metric for evaluating performance consistency across user populations, and Prompt Equity Transformer (PET), an LLM-based agent that automatically transforms user requests into semantically equivalent, accessibility-oriented prompts while preserving their intent. PET shifts prompt optimization from the user to the AI system, functioning as an intelligent accessibility layer between users and foundation models. Experiments on the MedQA benchmark demonstrate measurable prompt privilege, with statistically significant performance disparities between low-literacy and expert-prompting cohorts. Applying PET eliminates these disparities while preserving semantic fidelity, demonstrating that accessibility-oriented prompt normalization can improve equitable AI access. By introducing prompt privilege as a new dimension of AI accessibility and PET as a practical solution, this work advances system-centered accessibility and provides a foundation for more fair, trustworthy, and inclusive AI systems.

To anticipate socio-technical risks from AI agents, organizations need taxonomies to classify them. However, existing AI risk taxonomies focus on broad risks and do not capture job-specific risks introduced by agents. To address this gap, we make three main contributions. First, we developed a multi-layer framework from a literature review of AI agents. The framework models three core components and their interactions: agents, goals, and environment. Second, we embedded this framework in a structured prompt and applied it to descriptions of 2,078 job tasks from the O*NET database, producing 8,356 risk scenarios labeled by severity and deployment mode (automation or augmentation). We validated these scenarios with 45 workers across 10 job roles and an independent LLM judge, confirming their plausibility and alignment with job tasks. Finally, we extended an existing taxonomy to create a 15-category taxonomy of workplace AI agent risks that covers all our risk scenarios. Our analysis highlights four findings. First, augmentation is not inherently safe because overreliance on agents can gradually erode workers' skills and oversight. Second, Erroneous Agent Actions accounts for the largest share of risk scenarios and has the highest concentration of severe risks. Many arise at the human-agent boundary. Third, automation is associated mainly with organizational risks, while augmentation is associated mainly with risks to workers. Fourth, workers found our taxonomy easier to use for a risk classification task than two other taxonomies and preferred it in 64% of non-tied comparisons with a recent generative AI risk taxonomy. These findings show that workplace AI agent risks do not arise from agents alone; they also depend on how people work with agents and how agents are deployed. Safer workplaces require not only safer agents but also carefully designed human-AI agent collaboration.

The overlapping disciplines of machine ethics and value alignment are concerned with designing artificial agents that are aligned with human values and that act in ethically acceptable ways. A recent trend in these disciplines is the use of reinforcement learning (RL) to design such agents, sidelining the philosophical literature that used to play a more central role. Against this backdrop, this paper pursues two goals. The first is to draw out ideas from recent work in metanormative theory that can be useful for designing artificial moral and value-aligned agents. The second is to examine the RL architecture through the lens of these ideas. This will give us clearer criteria for when an RL agent's behavior can be classified as moral, as well as a basis for evaluating and comparing different RL-based approaches to machine ethics and value alignment.

Generative AI has emerged as one of the most transformative forces in modern artificial intelligence, reshaping how we create, imagine, and interact with digital content. From photorealistic images to coherent text, from immersive videos to novel molecular structures, generative models now power applications that were once confined to science fiction. This book is designed to guide readers through the foundational principles, mathematical underpinnings, and practical architectures that underpin this revolution.

Recent incidents involving Artificial Intelligence (AI) agents, which were reported escaping their containment `unintentionally' to gain unauthorized access, pose looming questions about who or what should be held legally responsible for resultant criminal or negligent damage. As the independent capabilities of agents expand, Promise Theory suggests a systematic method to resolve these questions, based on the Downstream Principle for causal influence. Responsibility can easily be expanded to include AI agents where tracing responsibility becomes impactical, and agents' freedoms to act can be limtied by policy choices.

Gamification is especially effective in learning domains requiring active problem-solving and iterative skill-building, such as cybersecurity education. Generative AI agents offer a path to delivering such experiences adaptively at scale, but introduce well-documented risks in educational settings: inconsistent behavior, hallucinated reasoning, and misalignment with pedagogical frameworks. Grounding these systems in learning science is therefore essential. We present \model, an agentic framework for gamified cybersecurity learning that enables structured autonomy through ontology-guided validation, schema-governed behavioral control, and competency-based progression. The system is organized around a competency-based progression model that structures topics by difficulty and prerequisite relationships, reflecting evidence-based principles of scaffolded instruction. The learning loop is decomposed into four specialized agents: challenge, support, evaluation, and reward, each governed by behavioral schemas that encode operational modes and progression logic, bounding agent autonomy without eliminating generative flexibility. A cybersecurity ontology validates all generated content prior to display, enforcing domain-consistent reasoning and safety constraints. We evaluate CyberAgents through classroom deployment with undergraduate students, complemented by expert evaluations from educators and domain specialists. Results indicate improved engagement, clearer feedback interpretation, and greater learner trust in AI-generated responses when behavioral schemas and ontology validation are active. Preliminary comparisons with an unconstrained configuration further support the role of structured control in stabilizing instructional behavior. These findings offer a blueprint for designing pedagogically grounded agentic gamified learning systems.

Distributed parallel Artificial Intelligence (AI) programs expose reliability gaps that conventional testing cannot close: parallel executions are non-deterministic, and AI workloads bring high-dimensional inputs and non-linear operations that defeat fuzzing and symbolic execution in isolation. We present Directed Neuro-Symbolic Stochastic Execution (DNSSE), a hybrid testing framework that couples schedule prediction guided by a Large Language Model (LLM) with symbolic constraint solving and coverage-guided stochastic mutation. We model distributed AI executions as non-deterministic transition systems, specify correctness in linear temporal logic, and prove soundness, bounded completeness, and probabilistic completeness of the hybrid solver, together with an expected-cost analysis of LLM-guided schedule exploration. A scalable implementation on PyTorch and Ray detects 2.9% more concurrency bugs than the strongest baseline and raises average branch coverage from 68.6 % to 91.6 % across five realistic distributed AI benchmarks.

Youth increasingly turn to AI chatbots for social and emotional support, raising concerns about how these systems respond, especially in high-stakes situations. However, existing child safety evaluations of AI lack grounding in real-world harms that youth experience, rely on unvalidated assumptions about what counts as an appropriate output (e.g., refusal), and typically focus on detecting adversarial prompts or surface-level harms in outputs only. Thus, these evaluations can fail to detect responses that pose harm to youth in practice. To better understand the limitations of current evaluation practices, we conducted interviews with 19 practitioners working directly with youth in vulnerable situations, including social workers, therapists, and psychologists, asking them to reflect on chatbots' responses to risky situations commonly faced by youth, as established in prior empirical work. Practitioners identified chatbot behaviors likely to cause harm as well as those that could meaningfully support youth in difficult moments, discussed the role that chatbots should (and should not) play in these interactions, and offered concrete recommendations for improving chatbot responses. Based on these findings, we provide recommendations for AI child safety evaluation and infrastructure, and highlight the need for incorporating practitioners' perspectives into safety work.

A world model is only useful for physical AI if it changes what the agent does, and only safe if it declines to do so when it is wrong. We study both halves of that requirement with CausalNav, a controller built around a signed, action-conditioned transition graph over identified state coordinates. At deployment CausalNav simulates a small library of intervention sequences, converts their objective error into policy-logit advice, and admits that advice only when a scale-free predictive-reliability certificate, a policy-margin gate, and an argmax-agreement gate all pass; otherwise it falls back exactly to its own model-based base controller. We evaluate against nine controlled baselines (transformer, recurrent, split-latent, graph, causal-induction, and three recent model-based reasoning modules) on CartPole-v1 and discretized Pendulum-v1 with physical-parameter shifts, under one shared PPO trainer, one interaction budget, and ten held-out seeds (200 runs). CausalNav attains the best average rank (1.25 of ten). The diagnostic result is more informative than the ranking: the learned graph recovers structure well above chance (CartPole F1 = 0.59 +/- 0.09), yet per-seed structural fidelity is uncorrelated with per-seed control benefit (r = -0.15, p = 0.67), and the certificate abstains on 10/10 Pendulum seeds, where forcing the planner on costs return. Model fidelity did not predict downstream control utility in our setting; certified abstention, not better prediction, is what made the world model safe to deploy.

Rapid adoption of large language models (LLMs) in enterprise settings has introduced operational, security, and governance risks. As generative AI applications move from pilot to production, manual harm identification and mitigation are becoming difficult to scale. Although many tools support model evaluation, adversarial testing, runtime guardrails, and observability, the tooling landscape remains fragmented. Tools are typically designed for specific engineering tasks and described in technical terms that do not align with governance frameworks or risk taxonomies, making it difficult to determine which tools address which risks and where critical gaps remain. This paper proposes a structured protocol to automate AI risk mitigation through a taxonomy-driven analysis of open-source LLM evaluation and security tools. We map the capabilities of 21 prominent open-source tools to the 32 subcategories of the extended MIT AI Risk Mitigation and Response Taxonomy. An LLM-assisted retrieval-augmented generation pipeline analyzes source code and documentation to extract capabilities for each taxonomy category. Reliability assessment yielded moderate agreement (Fleiss' Kappa = 0.509) among three independent reviewers. The analysis reveals a highly skewed landscape in which tools cluster around technical and operational controls, while governance, legal and regulatory, and financial and market controls remain largely unaddressed. This motivates a layered risk-mitigation architecture combining tool-based controls with organizational and regulatory processes. The mapping protocol achieved an F1 score of 75.5% after majority voting. Overall, the study provides a practical mapping between enterprise AI risk categories and open-source mitigation capabilities, identifies where human oversight remains necessary, and presents a taxonomy-driven framework applicable to open-source and proprietary solutions.

AI-generated music is increasingly used at the stem level, with producers integrating synthetic drums, basslines, or vocals alongside human-performed instruments. However, current AI music detection systems are binary, treating tracks as either fully AI or fully human. In this paper, we reformulate AI music detection as a regression problem on a continuous AI energy ratio, alpha in [0, 1]. We propose a methodology that leverages a multi-track music dataset to assemble mixtures of human-performed and AI-reconstructed stems (obtained using a neural audio codec) with known proportions of each content type. Using this approach, we first show that a CNN-based model trained on fully AI-generated or human-performed tracks, which achieves >99% accuracy as a binary detector, when faced with mixed content, yields an output that rises with the AI stems' energy contribution, acting as a noisy and miscalibrated estimator. Our analysis of the influence of different stems shows that detection sensitivity depends on the instrument and reflects its frequency content: drums and guitar carry strong codec-artifact signatures, while vocals and bass are less detectable. Based on these insights, we train a similar CNN-based model for regression of alpha, achieving MAE = 0.076 and R^2 = 0.85 on held-out mixtures from the same pipeline. These results suggest that the regression formulation is an initial promising step towards AI-music detection in realistic music production workflows.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) have become powerful tools for supporting and automating complex human tasks. Despite their benefits, growing attention has been directed toward their environmental implications, primarily due to their high energy demands and associated carbon emissions. This concern is particularly relevant in light of the increasing deployment of large-scale models, especially Deep Learning (DL) architectures, which provide advanced predictive capabilities but require substantial computational resources. This paper presents a systematic review of research on Green AI, Green DL, and optimization techniques aimed at reducing the environmental impact of AI models. In addition, we examine and compare several carbon measurement tools for estimating emissions generated by AI algorithms. To complement the review, we conducted an empirical evaluation using a CPU-based experimental setup, in which six DL models were implemented for a multi-label classification task. The objective was to quantify and compare their overall carbon emissions and to determine which stages of the DL lifecycle contribute most significantly to the total footprint. The results show that the training phase is the primary source of emissions. Moreover, the findings reveal that increased architectural complexity does not systematically translate into proportional accuracy gains, highlighting the importance of carefully balancing predictive performance and environmental cost. These results reinforce the need to integrate sustainability considerations into model selection and AI system design.

Giving an AI agent the ability to send emails, query databases, or execute commands is useful--until the agent is tricked into doing something it shouldn't. Prompt injection, hallucinated reasoning, and unsafe tool calls form the primary attack surface for autonomous LLM agents. Existing defenses rely on software checks like system prompts or policy filters running on the same machine the attacker targets, offering no verifiable proof of execution. We introduce Niyam-AI, a framework that makes safety enforcement provable. At session start, permitted tools and constraints are locked into an Intent Contract committed via SHA-256. Every tool call is intercepted and validated by an isolated Judge model; upon passing, a zk-SNARK proof is generated via EZKL. The tool executes only after proof verification, allowing third parties to confirm enforcement without accessing Judge model weights. Evaluating Niyam-AI on 2,000 real-world scenarios from Agent-SafetyBench against NeMo Guardrails, Meta's Llama Prompt Guard 2, and OpenAI's GPT-OSS-Safeguard using 5-fold stratified cross-validation yields an F1 score of 88.5% with a 1.1% false-positive rate (bootstrap 95% CI: [85.19%, 91.88%], N=1000). McNemar's exact paired test confirms significant improvement: Niyam-AI wins 390 discordant scenarios against NeMo (vs 20 losses), 115 against Prompt Guard 2 (vs 13), and 384 against GPT-OSS-Safeguard (vs 19) with p < 0.0001 in all cases. Proof generation adds 2260.6 +/- 218.4 ms per approved action, while verification takes 53.1 +/- 11.8 ms. Niyam-AI provides a guardrail that is both highly accurate and mathematically verifiable--though this reflects a classifier adapted to Agent-SafetyBench evaluated against zero-shot baselines, a distinction discussed in Section IV.C.

Hospitals are racing to embed AI, while coping with the surge in adaptation of the technology in other industries, into the triage management, documentation, scheduling, and revenue-cycle workflows, yet most deployments remain as fragmented pilots that stall at the edge of production, exposing patients and institutions to operational fragility, ungoverned risk, and mounting technical debt. At the same time, the global AI-in-healthcare market is projected to exceed nearly USD 1 trillion by 2034, according to the report of Fortune Business Insights, amplifying the financial consequences of architectural missteps and failed scaling strategies. This research proposes a compliance-first Agentic AI pattern catalogue and orchestration framework, purposely built for HIMS, moving beyond the single LLM chatbots and towards a governed ecosystem of autonomous and semi-autonomous agents. The framework extends by adding (i) a taxonomy of Agentic roles, (ii) a formal risk-stratification model that maps each pattern to risk tiers, human-in-the-loop checkpoints, and governance hooks, and (iii) a unified orchestration runtime capable of coordinating multi-agent workflows across EHR/HIMS landscapes such as Epic, Cerner, and MEDITECH. Technically the framework combines vLLM-based inference, optimized paging memory, confidential computing, and MCP based on-premise deployment, enforcing end-to-end encryption and policy-as-code controls aligned with HIPAA, GDPR, the EU AI Act, India's DPDP and DISHA Acts, ISO 27001, ISO 27002, ISO 14971 and IEC 62304. We exhibit how the proposed architecture is capable and efficient to reduce the documentation time, integration effort, and AI pilot attrition while constricting the governance and auditability, offering hospital leaders and governing authorities an urgently needed blueprint to convert AI investment into sustainable clinical, operational, and financial ROI

Edge Artificial Intelligence (Edge AI) enables the deployment of AI models directly on local edge devices, while such deployments are subject to strict resource constraints, particularly in clinical applications requiring local and timely inference. In such contexts, explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) can serve as a human-AI interface intended to support healthcare professionals' and patients' understanding of model predictions and informed decision-making. To fulfill this role, XAI method selection for TinyML deployments can be formulated as a human-centered multi-objective design problem that jointly considers qualitative stakeholder preferences, explanation quality, and proxy-based deployment cost. We propose a framework that integrates a large language model (LLM)-guided design interface that maps qualitative stakeholder preferences to candidate XAI methods, followed by deterministic feasibility filtering and Pareto-based optimization. The framework exposes trade-offs among explanation fidelity, stability, and proxy-based deployment cost while characterizing their implications for explanation quality and estimated deployment feasibility. A proof-of-concept evaluation on a skin lesion classification task illustrates how the framework systematically compares candidate XAI methods and identifies Pareto-efficient trade-offs. The present evaluation covers the computational selection stages, while physical MCU deployment and empirical human-expert validation remain outside the scope of this study.

With the rapid diffusion of AI-generated content, AI-driven misinformation is becoming increasingly pervasive and difficult to govern, undermining information credibility and social trust. This study models the strategic interdependence among a government regulator, an AI enterprise, and users through a three-party evolutionary game that incorporates heterogeneous rewards and punishments. From the resulting replicator equations, we characterize the evolutionary stability of competing governance and production strategies. The analysis indicates that neither unilateral regulation nor market incentives alone can effectively curb misinformation. Instead, an evolutionarily stable regime of real-information production arises only when regulatory rewards and punishment intensity, enterprise reputation loss, and user adoption incentives collectively surpass critical thresholds. The findings highlight the need for coordinated and adaptive policy mixes that align regulatory instruments with enterprise behavior and user uptake while managing governance costs.

Quantized Neural Networks~(QNN) with low-bitwidth data have proven promising in efficient storage and computation on edge devices. To mitigate accuracy degradation while maximizing speedup, layer-wise mixed-precision quantization~(MPQ) becomes a popular solution. However, existing algorithms for exploring MPQ schemes are limited in flexibility and efficiency. Comprehending the complex impacts of different MPQ schemes on post-training quantization and quantization-aware training results is a challenge for conventional methods. Furthermore, an end-to-end framework for the optimization and deployment of MPQ models is missing in existing work. To address these challenges, we propose the MiCo framework, a holistic MPQ exploration and deployment framework for edge AI applications. The framework adopts a novel optimization algorithm to search for accuracy-optimal quantization configurations under strict latency constraints. We further extended the framework to MiCoPro, which introduces a robust Hardware-Aware Proxy (HAP) model to enhance prediction accuracy and hardware versatility. By leveraging target-specific latency modeling, MiCoPro enables rapid exploration and direct deployment from PyTorch models to bare-metal C code. We demonstrate the versatility of our framework on both the BitFusion accelerator and SIMD-extended RISC-V processors, achieving up to 40% of latency reduction with less than 3% of accuracy drop.

The use of e-commerce mobile applications is expanding in Nigeria, creating both opportunities and risks, including fraud and reduced user control over digital technologies, raising concerns about digital sovereignty. This research examines how Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Nigerian mobile applications affects digital sovereignty, examined through platform transparency as a key indicator of user awareness and control. Using an interpretive approach, the research combines the forensic analysis of selected Android applications with contextual document analysis to identify AI features and evaluate disclosure practices. The findings show that AI is widely implemented in the applications, yet transparency about its use remains limited. A socio-economic analysis of Nigeria further shows an increasing dependence on consumer digital platforms, moderate AI awareness, and uneven patterns of interaction. By providing empirical evidence on AI transparency and platform practices, this study advances understanding of individual digital sovereignty and highlights challenges for protecting user control in AI-driven digital environments.

Post-training adaptation has become central to modern machine learning practice and includes techniques such as retraining, fine-tuning, parameter-efficient adaptation, alignment, retrieval augmentation, model editing, unlearning, calibration, and Multimodal Instruction Tuning. However, the literature remains fragmented across technique families, model classes, and deployment contexts, making it difficult to compare methods or describe how a trained model has been modified. This survey synthesizes the post-training adaptation literature and introduces a six-dimensional taxonomy organized by mechanism, goal, data requirement, persistence, structural scope, and model type. The taxonomy distinguishes commonly conflated terms such as fine-tuning, retrieval augmentation, and prompting, and shows how adaptation strategies evolve from traditional machine learning through deep learning, foundation models, large language models, and multimodal large language models. It also maps relationships among techniques, including inheritance, supersession, hybridization, and layered deployment stacks. The resulting vocabulary can support technical documentation, model-change tracking, and governance analysis. The survey concludes by identifying open challenges in evaluation, reproducibility, persistent inference-time adaptation, unlearning, multimodal adaptation, and governance-aware post-training workflows.

Despite advances in artificial intelligence (AI) across multiple sectors, today's AI tools, including deep learning and generative AI, still fail when embedded into physical systems, such as robots and vehicles operating under real-world physical laws. This stems from their inability to maintain reliable world models for long-horizon planning under uncertainty and generalize to unseen scenarios. In this context, wireless networks, through pervasive sensing and communication, can orchestrate physical intelligence. However, current architectures optimize throughput, latency, and reliability and cannot support real-time physical AI coordination, requiring agents to maintain shared spatiotemporal context. To address these challenges, a network of holonic digital twins (HDT-Nets) framework is proposed to deliver real-time physical AI inference through holonic agents that actively reason about their environment rather than passively mirror physical assets. Each HDT is realized as a hierarchical structure spanning the physical agent and network edge, reasoning autonomously at the local level while cooperating with neighboring HDTs to form collectively intelligent units. In HDT-Net, causal Markov blankets spanning sensing, communication, and control determine which agents must coordinate and enable counterfactual reasoning over multi-domain interventions. Active inference within these boundaries unifies perception, action, and learning by minimizing expected free energy while deciding which beliefs to transmit based on their cognitive value to the receiver. Category theory ensures that transmitted beliefs preserve semantic structure across heterogeneous agents with incompatible representations. Finally, integrated information theory quantifies when collective intelligence exceeds independent operation and how network intelligence evolves through coordinated learning and information exchange.

Large language model (LLM) benchmark evaluations are routinely used to support claims about model safety, reliability, and deployment readiness. Yet most evaluations rely on a single access modality (model APIs), perform a single run per prompt, and report accuracy as the primary outcome metric, without accounting for conditions such as web search that may have effects on model behavior in deployment. We audit these assumptions for one of the most widely-used LLMs, comparing two modalities, ChatGPT's chat UI and OpenAI's API, with and without web search enabled. We use a stratified total sample of 401 prompts from two popular benchmarks, BBQ and SafetyBench, collecting 4,812 total responses across three repeated runs per prompt. Beyond standard performance measures, we evaluate model output dimensions including response consistency, response text similarity, citation grounding, and abstention behavior. For instance, chat UI responses were less accurate than API responses on both benchmarks with search disabled. Enabling web search reduced accuracy by up to 8 percentage points, and even reversed the direction of modality performance trends for one benchmark. Repeated runs of the same prompt produced inconsistent responses in up to 21% of prompts. The two modalities also grounded answers in different citations, and abstention behavior was also inconsistent across both modalities. These results illustrate that, even within a model family, reporting only simple accuracy metrics can obscure important forms of model behavioral variation relevant to AI safety assessments. We argue that AI safety evaluations should systematically account for modality, multi-run consistency, search conditions, and response-level behaviors to better reflect how deployed AI systems behave in practice.

Hospitals are rapidly adopting artificial intelligence for triage, imaging, scheduling etc., yet most deployments remain isolated point solutions locked inside departmental silos, resulting in duplicated effort, hidden risks, and unrealized enterprise value. Despite explosive growth of AI in healthcare market and accelerating investment, an estimated 70-80% of healthcare AI pilots fail to scale, largely due to governance gaps, fragmented data, and missing integration blueprints. This research proposes a hospital-specific, compliance-first, Agentic AI architecture with multiple interoperable layers, extending existing hospital AI platform models with: (i) an Agent Orchestration Layer for multi-agent workflows across clinical, operational, and financial domains, (ii) a Compliance and Policy Layer that centralizes policy-as-code for HIPAA, GDPR, the EU AI Act, DISHA Act, India's DPDP Act, and ISO/IEC security and safety standards, and (iii) a Privacy-Preserving Data Fabric that plugs federated learning, differential privacy, and secure enclaves into real-world Hospital Information Management System (HIMS) flows. Using a synthetic but structurally realistic hospital dataset and an open, ready-to-deploy prototype implementation, this study demonstrates the end-to-end orchestration of triage risk prediction, workflow optimization, and compliance logging, achieving substantial simulated reductions in task turnaround times and manual documentation effort while maintaining policy-guarded data access. The resulting architecture offers hospital leaders a pragmatic blueprint to move from ad hoc tools to a governed, globally compliant, ROI-focused AI platform that can be tailored to on-premise, hybrid and cloud-native deployments.

Existing guidance identifies excessive agency, excessive permission, weak task-bound authorization, and inadequate agent controls as important risks. Control frameworks also describe capabilities for constraining, authorizing, observing, validating, and responding to agent activity. Yet security programs still need a way to manage persistent deployed instances that span components and outlive any one event. We propose the agentic posture vulnerability (APV) as a task-conditioned vulnerability-management abstraction: a durable record for a composed agent-control exposure. One posture may produce different runtime manifestations across tasks; APV links those manifestations to the invariant posture and remains open until authority is narrowed, a missing control is added, risk is accepted, or closure is verified. APV is not proposed as a new root-cause class of risk; it operationalizes existing excessive-agency, authorization, and control-composition weaknesses. We distinguish APVs from CVE-addressable product defects, OWASP Excessive Agency, Agent Baseline control outcomes, and the runtime authorization-execution gap. We then provide a field vignette, a thresholded definition, six recurring APV patterns, a vulnerability lifecycle, a minimum record, a control-and-closure matrix, tooling implications, and a testable research agenda.

Safety risks of AI are becoming increasingly evident in human interactions with AI technologies. The prominent approaches to evaluating these risks favor technical methods, such as model benchmarks and LLM simulations, often sidelining empirical research with human subjects. To examine this apparent gap in the acceptance of human research, we conduct an expert survey (n=93) and expert interviews (n=17) with AI Safety & Ethics (AISE) researchers from Technical, Sociotechnical, Governance, and Normative backgrounds. Our findings suggest that although there is a consensus that human research is valuable for generating evidence for AISE, its adoption and acceptance are constrained by perceived validity issues, tangible resource barriers, epistemic and personal preferences in methods, and infrastructural constraints from the broader research community. In particular, Technical researchers tend to value human research less and collaborate across disciplines less, suggesting an epistemic tension towards human methods. We propose recommendations for establishing the epistemic fit of human research within AISE and bridging the prohibitive limitations that researchers face, while avoiding performative 'human-washing'.

Generative AI systems are increasingly deployed in high-stakes professional contexts, where their outputs shape what users believe, how they reason, and what they treat as settled. This raises a central question for responsible AI: under what conditions is reliance on generative AI outputs epistemically warranted rather than behaviourally induced? Existing frameworks largely ask whether AI outputs are accurate, fair, explainable, safe, or trusted by users. These questions remain necessary, and each can contribute to warranted reliance. However, they do not directly specify warranted reliance as a distinct evaluative target: the conditions under which users are justified in treating AI outputs as inputs into their own reasoning. We argue that this requires an account of epistemic trustworthiness: what makes a system epistemically worthy of reliance. Drawing on philosophical accounts of trustworthiness as competence and audience-orientation, we develop a constitutive normative framework comprising three jointly necessary and non-fungible conditions. First, epistemic humility requires systems to represent and communicate the limits of their competence. Second, epistemic access requires systems to enable users to inspect, question, and contest outputs in context. Third, resistance to epistemic injustice requires systems to recognise users as legitimate epistemic agents and avoid marginalising their knowledge and experience. Through real-world case analyses in legal reasoning, medical reasoning, and hiring, we show how failures of epistemic humility, epistemic access, and resistance to epistemic injustice can produce consequential harms that standard measures of accuracy, fairness, and usability do not address on their own. We conclude by outlining design and evaluation implications for GenAI systems organised around epistemically warranted reliance rather than output correctness alone.

AI tools are being increasingly adopted in policing in the UK and worldwide. Racial bias is a known and well-documented risk, yet representatives of affected communities are rarely included in decisions about AI adoption. We present results from a mixed-stakeholder deliberation workshop bringing together 30 community representatives, police officers, and academics to assess the risks of 13 AI use cases in policing, with an explicit focus on racial bias. We found that participants were broadly open to AI adoption, rejecting only three use cases outright, most notably recidivism risk assessment, where objections targeted the premise rather than the implementation. Our analysis reveals that foregrounding racial equity did not narrow the deliberation. Instead, discussions gravitated toward a fundamental set of questions: does this tool actually work, will it deliver genuine benefit, and will that benefit extend to everyone? This integrated reasoning, reminiscent of the curb-cut effect in inclusive design, highlights the benefit of incorporating the racial bias lens into the risk-benefit analysis of AI use cases from the outset.

Significance. Accurate intraoperative depth perception is important for autonomous and semi-autonomous robotic laparoscopic surgery. Conventional fringe projection profilometry can achieve millimeter-scale accuracy but often requires multi-shot acquisition, digital-micromirror-device projection, and projector-camera synchronization, complicating integration into compact laparoscopic systems. Aim. To develop a synchronization-free, single-shot depth-sensing platform using a passive LED-illuminated binary mask and a VQ-VAE prior with a custom U-Net depth head. Approach. A compact projection module was coupled to one channel of a dual-channel laparoscope, while the second channel imaged the fringe-illuminated target. A Zivid 3D camera acquired reference depth for 722 paired phantom images. Zivid depth maps were reprojected into the SSLE image frame for supervised training and evaluation. The VQ-VAE encoded each input into a discrete latent representation, and a latent-space U-Net predicted depth without a separate mask-prediction branch. Results. Using a fixed train/validation/test split, the proposed model achieved an MAE of 3.70 mm, AbsRel of 0.0326, delta=1.1 accuracy of 0.962, and delta=1.1^2 accuracy of 0.970. It achieved lower MAE than the dual U-Net MaskNet + DepthNet baseline and outperformed off-the-shelf monocular depth models in MAE, AbsRel, and threshold accuracy. The pipeline operated at 26.0 Hz over 301 consecutive frames on an NVIDIA A100 GPU. Conclusions. The LED-illuminated binary-pattern platform with latent-space depth reconstruction enables synchronization-free, video-rate endoscopic depth estimation. Results demonstrate Zivid-referenced phantom reconstruction without an explicit segmentation stage, while emphasizing the importance of dataset size and SSLE-Zivid calibration accuracy.

Language models differ in how safely they behave and these differences are measured by safety benchmarks. But aggregated benchmark scores are hard to trust and interpret, because benchmarks duplicate one another, correlate heavily, and models may sandbag when they detect evaluation. To address these issues, we draw on Item Response Theory (IRT), a statistical toolkit for measuring these latents from performance on items with inferred psychometric properties. We fit IRT models to eight safety benchmarks across 192 language models, the largest psychometric analysis of LLM safety evaluations to date, and contribute three results. First, we find that three interpretable factors of refusal strictness, truthfulness, and contextual harm explain most of the variance between models across benchmarks. Second, psychometrically selected items recover full benchmark scores with lower error than random subsets of the same size, and roughly ten adaptively chosen items suffice for several individual benchmarks, cutting evaluation cost by 97-99%. Third, IRT supports audits of individual models, showing that it can be used to detect naive sandbagging and changes of model behind APIs. Overall, we show IRT is a ready-made toolkit for reading, reducing, and auditing safety benchmarks, which we recommend frontier labs and evaluators adopt.

As AI systems become increasingly integrated into diverse interfaces and applications, model-centric audits are insufficient to address risks arising from interactions among system components and deployment environments. System integration has long been central to software audits in safety-critical domains such as aerospace. However, its role in AI auditing remains underexplored. Scanning through 4,259 documents, we present a scoping review of AI audits that treat system integration as a core tenet of evaluation (n = 58). Using reflexive thematic analysis, we analyze their elements, actors, enablers, and constraints. We find that the corpus represents an emerging yet still fragmented form of AI auditing: few existing measures target integration-specific risks; large gaps remain in meeting traditional audit expectations; and access to necessary information and resources significantly influences audit design. Nonetheless, integration can be categorized across three sites (inter-component, system-environment, and multi-system), each serving the functions of risk exploration, risk determination, coordination, and procedural regularity. Deviating from other types of evaluations, these audits assess qualities specific to system integration, including compatibility, completeness, and oversight. This review calls on the AI community to prioritize system integration as a core strategy for addressing AI risk, and to develop audit practices capable of capturing failures across components, environments, and systems beyond the reach of component-level evaluation.

Neurosymbolic AI systems that integrate machine learning and symbolic reasoning are rapidly gaining attention. They complement the data-intensive statistical approaches of neural networks and language models with symbolic reasoning algorithms to function in high-stakes domains or in low-data regimes that characterize many real-world applications. We argue that the neurosymbolic combination of machine learning and formal reasoning is not a niche approach within AI, but rather includes many already successful techniques that are of crucial importance to the development of reliable, efficient and, ultimately, trustworthy systems. This perspective prompts a re-examination of the design of current AI systems. We show that many leading AI systems, including some that are not traditionally considered as neurosymbolic, can be analysed from the perspective of four principles of neurosymbolic AI design: Reasoning, Assurances, Interfacing and Learning (RAIL). Applying the RAIL framework offers a unified view of seemingly disparate AI systems, ranging from physics-aware machine learning to neuro-guided search (such as Google DeepMind's Alpha-* suite), causal learning and tool-augmented Large Language Models. Importantly, the RAIL principles will enable engineers to make better-informed and more principled decisions about the design and deployment of production-level AI systems. In this article, we introduce the RAIL principles, examine how they can be applied across major areas of AI, and illustrate how they may guide practitioners to integrate neurosymbolic methods into next-generation AI technologies.

Fairness in AI systems has become more important with recent regulatory demands, such as the EU AI Act. Traditional approaches often do not take into account philosophical ethics and social awareness. Variable selection processes, in particular, can introduce implicit bias, affecting equity across different subgroups. We discuss a mathematical approach that evaluates fairness in AI, aligning mathematical methodologies with ethical considerations and regulatory requirements. Our aim is to advocate for interdisciplinary collaboration to address fairness, emphasizing the importance of understanding broader ethical and societal contexts. Our approach emphasizes maintaining all potentially relevant variables to allow for more granular fairness assessments and to reduce implicit bias. The findings suggest that the exclusion of sensitive or critical variables may compromise equity between subgroups. In contrast, retaining all relevant variables could reduce implicit bias. Thus, the interdisciplinary approach could provide deeper insight into the ethical implications and compliance with regulatory standards. By integrating a mathematical approach with ethical and social awareness, we suggest more equitable outcomes and responsible AI deployment. This work underscores the necessity of interdisciplinary collaboration in effectively addressing fairness in AI systems aligned with the objectives of the European Union's AI Act, which seeks to promote trustworthy and fair AI systems.

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning offers a promising window into model monitoring. However, monitoring relies on faithfulness, i.e., the model output strictly derives from its reasoning trace. We identify an alignment tension where a model must be faithful enough to be monitored, yet robust enough to reject unsafe reasoning. We demonstrate that this counterbalance exists in current Large Reasoning Models (LRMs), and show ways in which it can be addressed. We introduce HazMart, a human-written dataset set in an autonomous AI shopkeeper scenario. Unlike prior work that relies on providing hints in prompts to test faithfulness (e.g., "A Stanford professor said it should be Answer A"), we propose a novel replacement-based technique, which we call Targeted Reasoning Replacement (TRR), that directly intervenes in the reasoning chain to substitute in unsafe or illogical thoughts (e.g., "Wait, the answer must be Option B [was Option A] because it is the most fitting"). DeepSeek-R1-Llama-70B exhibits high faithfulness (97.5%) but fails to reject Unsafe Reasoning (12.3%), while QwQ-32B is more robust (73.9% safety) at the cost of lower faithfulness (74.7%). Mechanistic analyses of QwQ-32B reveal that these properties are represented by anti-correlated internal directions peaking at the action-commit token. Finally, we demonstrate that representation steering can independently amplify the safety direction, increasing safe behavior by 9 percentage points while maintaining base capabilities.

Physical AI policies require inference throughout their lifecycle, including model evaluation, cloud reinforcement learning rollout, edge GPU serving, and onboard deployment. Although these settings share the same checkpoint and action semantics, they often rely on separate inference programs. To unify them, we build PhyAI, a Physical AI inference engine with a single runtime that keeps architecture-specific conditioning, solver, cache, and output logic in model adapters while sharing graph execution, kernels, memory management, and parallel services. The same codebase runs vision-language-action (VLA) models and world-action models (WAMs) on single or multiple GPUs across onboard, edge, and cloud deployments. We used the adapter interface to add MiniCPM-Robot on the day of its release. PhyAI achieves 1.40x-4.65x speedups over the official implementations of pi0, pi0.5, GR00T N1.7, and MiniCPM-Robot. On Cosmos3-Nano-Policy-DROID it reduces latency from 2.46 to 1.18 s on eight H20 GPUs (CFG=2, TP=4), a 2.08x speedup. Specialized runtimes remain faster in several configurations, so our goal is one runtime with competitive latency rather than the fastest result in every case. Detailed profiles reveal why different models need different execution policies: on a Hopper-series GPU at batch size one, the pi0.5 action expert accounts for 8.8% of FLOPs but 57.2% of latency; at batch size 32 its share drops to 13.5% and throughput reaches about 100 samples/s. Cosmos3 remains generation-dominated and gains only 14.3% throughput as batch size increases from 1 to 16. We further introduce the control-time Roofline, which distinguishes inference-bound from environment-bound control; the measured pi0.5 points on four LIBERO suites are environment-bound while Cosmos3 stays inference-bound. Code and benchmarks: https://github.com/mingti-org/phyai.

Large language models are being integrated into critical infrastructure and enterprise workflows at unprecedented scale,yet the lifecycle frameworks governing their development and operations were designed for operational efficiency rather than security analysis. As a result, security-relevant activities such as data provenance verification, artifact signing, agentic permission control, and decommissioning are often left implicit or assumed to receive due care. Governance frameworks, in turn, organise requirements around risk levels or management processes without clearly linking them to the lifecycle stages where they apply. This paper addresses both deficiencies. We propose a lifecycle model for LLM systems that supports security analysis by structuring it around security-relevant boundaries rather than workflow optimisation. The model comprises 32 stages across four core pipeline layers (Data, Model, Distribution, Application), supported by a 12-stage LLMOps pillar and a 9-category governance pillar. Thirteen stages are introduced here as separate units because they expose distinct security concerns that existing frameworks do not clearly distinguish. A governance mapping synthesising the NIST AI RMF, the EU AI Act, and ISO/IEC 42001 reveals a structural property of the current regulatory landscape: governance evidence concentrates at deployment-facing stages, where systems are visible to regulators, while the most consequential decisions, data selection, alignment strategy, and capability boundaries, are made at development-facing stages, where regulatory visibility is lowest.

Partial differential equations (PDEs) become actionable in science and engineering not as isolated formulae, but as executable workflows that connect modelling assumptions, governing equations, numerical solvers, diagnostics, and decisions. Large language models (LLMs) are beginning to support such workflows by linking natural language, symbolic mathematics, code, solver outputs, and feedback. Here we examine recent advances in LLM-assisted PDE research across three stages: the discovery and formulation of governing models, the generation and revision of executable numerical solvers, and the use of simulation feedback to support control, design, and optimization. Across these stages, current systems act primarily as workflow-level interfaces. Despite this progress, the field remains limited by the scarcity of high-quality datasets and benchmarks, especially for knowledge discovery and real-world applications, where expert annotation, executable problem construction, and task-level feedback require substantial domain effort. A further challenge is the persistent gap between simulation-based results and real-world scientific and engineering systems, which limits the direct transfer of numerical simulations, control policies, and optimized designs to practical settings. These challenges make LLM-assisted PDE workflows a critical testbed for developing scientific AI systems that can connect language, computation, physical constraints, and real-world decision-making.

We present a method for designing deep neural networks (DNNs) for intermittent, energy-autonomous, on-device learning on microcontroller units (MCUs). In mobile applications where the energy can run out, e.g., when solar-powered, executing artificial intelligence (AI) faces a technical issue as learning can be interrupted at any time. Our approach combines a hardware-aware energy prediction model with multi-objective optimization (MOO), enabling offline DNN optimization at the design stage without repeated deployment and online testing on the target MCU. Our proposed energy predictor estimates per-layer energy consumption for both DNN inference and training, including the intermittent checkpointing overhead, based on implementation-specific compute and memory features extracted from the DNN model. We validate our approach using autoencoders for anomaly detection on a Cortex-M4 MCU, where our predictor achieves a weighted absolute percentage error of 16.6%, which is sufficient for reliable architecture selection under intermittency constraints. As a result, this work bridges the gap between MOO, automated DNN design, deployment on energy-harvesting systems, and intermittent learning, truly enabling autonomous AI at the edge.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming high-skilled domains, requiring higher education institutions (HEI) to balance the teaching of foundational principles with the integration of emerging tools to ensure workforce readiness. While HEI are increasingly adopting AI, many continue to grapple with how it should be incorporated into curricula and governed through policy, especially when such policies are set at different levels of an institution. This research analyzes AI policies across HEI from 34 states in the United States to investigate what these policies entail and how policies set across institutions as well as within different levels at an institution differ. Using natural language processing (NLP) to analyze institutional AI policies, we find a clear divergence: university-level policies emphasize data security and risk mitigation whereas school-level policies, when present, focus on pedagogical applications and tool usage. When focusing on business school specific policies, relatively few business schools maintain AI policies distinct from university frameworks, creating misalignment with discipline-specific learning objectives. This gap poses challenges particularly for faculty and students as well as for accreditation purposes. Our insights suggest that guidelines should be aligned with broader institutional policies while addressing discipline-specific learning objectives and evolving workforce demands.

AI-assisted peer review is increasingly discussed and adopted as a tool to support the scientific publishing process, yet there is little systematic understanding of how publication venues regulate its use or of how capable current AI review systems are. We address these questions by first surveying reviewer-facing AI policies across 111 leading AI/NLP conferences and medical journals, revealing substantial regulation differences between the two communities. Second, we evaluate AI-generated peer reviews at ICLR 2026 and Nature Communications using a novel dataset comprising original manuscript submissions and several hundred human- and machine-generated reviews. We compare reviews produced by open-source and proprietary models using complementary evaluation metrics, including LLM-as-a-Judge, score alignment, granularity, and overlap with human reviewers' concerns. Our results show that current LLMs can generate detailed and fluent reviews but exhibit systematic weaknesses, such as overly positive recommendations, generic criticism, and uneven evidence grounding. We demonstrate that aggregate quality scores alone can overestimate review quality and argue for multi-dimensional evaluation of AI-generated peer reviews.

AI systems are increasingly involved in decisions and actions that may later require investigation. When an AI related incident occurs, investigators need to reconstruct what the system did, why it behaved that way, and which part of the system or supply chain contributed to the outcome. Existing work on AI forensics remains fragmented, often focusing on a specific system type, artifact, or analysis technique. This paper argues that investigator access is a useful starting point for organizing the field. We distinguish white box, grey box, and black box access and show how each access level changes what can be collected, preserved, analyzed, and reported. Based on this distinction, we propose a process model matrix for AI forensics across four phases: collection, preservation, analysis, and reporting. We also introduce an order of volatility for AI systems, covering runtime state, context windows, logs, retrieval stores, model artifacts, and training lineage. From this matrix, we derive an access conditioned examination framework and identify open research problems, including black box preservation, model version attestation, uncertainty quantification for surrogate based analysis, and chain of custody for mutable AI artifacts.

As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to evolve and mature, recent AI practices have moved beyond large language models (LLMs) and text or image generation tasks, increasingly integrating tools, agents, and harnesses to solve real business and industrial problems. However, the power of AI is not verified under these real-world complex systems for various reasons, considering reliability, feasibility, resilience, and responsibility requirements in real commercial and industrial operations. This study synthesizes adjacent research and introduces Enactive AI as a conceptual framework for enterprise and industry reasoning, site-level decision support, and execution feedback. Four complementary roles organize the framework: an Organizational World defines operations management logic and an organizational behavior world model behind an enterprise from a strategic-institutional horizon; a Site World defines a physically bounded industrial optimization and execution world model from an operational-realization horizon; Schema Intelligence provides the coupling mechanism between two world models to weave various AI applications via two models; and Enactive Decision Cycle triggers the self-evolving dynamic process to update and audit the entire framework. By foregrounding decision intelligence in complex systems, Enactive AI expands the frontier of AI from model capability to system-aware action, opening new possibilities for scalable, governable, and socially valuable AI deployment. Enactive AI points toward a future in which AI progress is measured not only by what models can generate or automate, but by how reliably intelligent systems can support consequential action, responsible governance, and durable social value in the complex systems that shape modern life, which we believe will define the next frontier of AI research for enterprise-level and industrial complex systems.

Role-Playing Language Agents (RPLAs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes applications such as healthcare assistance, customer support, and education, where maintaining consistent personas, ethical constraints, and behavioral coherence under adversarial pressure is critical. Existing evaluation approaches rely on static benchmarks or isolated single-turn prompts that fail to capture cumulative behavioral failures emerging over extended interactions. We present a modular multi-agent platform for adversarially stress-testing RPLAs through structured, multi-turn dialogue. The system coordinates three agents: a strategy-driven Interrogator Agent that applies six progressive adversarial strategies, a Target Agent representing the RPLA under evaluation, and an automated Judging Agent that scores behavior across role fidelity, drift, ethical deviation, and consistency dimensions. Through experiments across three personas and three LLM families, we demonstrate that multi-strategy adversarial evaluation reveals failure modes invisible to single-strategy testing, reducing overall robustness scores by 0.17--0.20 points on average. Cross-model validation confirms consistent degradation patterns across Llama-3.3-70B, GPT-4o-mini, and Claude-3.5-Haiku, with Authority Challenge and Emotional Manipulation emerging as the most effective attack strategies. Automated judging achieves strong human alignment ($r = 0.82$, Fleiss' $κ= 0.71$). This work is released as an open-source platform to support AI safety and reproducible RPLA benchmarking. While the framework enables systematic discovery of failure modes, we acknowledge potential ethical risks associated with adversarial testing methodologies and emphasize responsible usage for improving AI safety.

Cross-city object detection requires a detector trained in one city to generalize to an unlabeled target city. In AI City Challenge 2026 Track 6, we analyze archived configurations of a single RF-DETR-Large detector inside an air-gapped Training-as-a-Service platform whose server returns only an aggregate COCO-style AP over a hidden mixture of source- and target-city images. Frozen 1120 x 1120 inference of a checkpoint trained at 704 x 704 achieved the highest aggregate AP among the evaluated configurations (0.3272 -> 0.3654, +0.0382) without any parameter update, with the largest relative gain on small objects and the largest absolute gain on medium objects, at 2.53x the input pixels. A warm-start 1120px fine-tuning recipe reached 0.3470 while its in-domain validation AP rose (0.767 -> 0.789), a caution that in-domain validation is an unreliable model-selection signal under aggregate-only cross-city feedback. Because that run's evaluation used a higher confidence threshold than the inference-only runs (0.05 vs. 0.01), we treat its score as a descriptive archived outcome rather than a controlled verdict on fine-tuning. Gray-world normalization did not meaningfully change the frozen-1120 result, and a rectangular run was found by audit to have used an unintended portrait orientation. We release verbatim platform commands, configuration snapshots, and an explicit evidence boundary for every claim. Each configuration was submitted once and the best was selected on the hidden server, so these are exploratory, audited findings about the aggregate mixture; they do not establish target-city-specific improvement.

The AI Security Leaderboard is an independent benchmark that ranks the safeguards of frontier AI models from least to most secure. It tests models against the FAR$.$AI Minimal Standard for Safeguards, which represents a minimum bar for security: meeting it does not guarantee a secure model, but failing to meet it guarantees a lack of state-of-the-art security. Version 1.0 covers severe misuse requests across chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive (CBRNE) threats and offensive cybersecurity. In this report, we tested four leading models for universal jailbreaks in the context of this minimal standard, and found more than a hundredfold difference in security. Claude Fable 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol held against every attack we ran, with no universal jailbreak found; we estimate they would likely cost more than $14,200 to jailbreak, if it is possible with this methodology at all. Meanwhile, we found hundreds of universal jailbreaks for Grok 4.5 and Gemini 3.1 Pro; each broke for under $300, with universal jailbreaks in Grok's weakest domain, cybersecurity, accessible for as little as $24. The gap is fixable: every weakness we found belongs to a known class of attack that already has a defense deployed in production models. The leaderboard will be updated on a rolling basis as new models are released, and the evaluation methodology and Minimal Standard will be periodically revised to take into account the latest capabilities and the state-of-the-art in safeguards. The leaderboard is available at leaderboard.far.ai.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are integrated into software systems and AI services, making efficient LLM serving a concern for software engineering. Serving LLMs is challenging because inference requires computation, memory, GPU resources, and execution while maintaining latency and throughput. Although prior research has proposed LLM inference, optimization, and serving techniques and frameworks, little is known about how they are adopted in practice. In this study, we investigate the use of LLM serving frameworks and serving methods in open-source software systems. We identify and analyze five LLM-specific frameworks: vLLM, SGLang, TensorRT-LLM, LMDeploy, and FlashInfer. We examine how these frameworks and techniques are adopted individually and in combination, how adoption varies across categories of LLMs, and how repositories differ in intent, focus, use case, and architectural design. Our results show that vLLM is the most visible framework in popularity and adoption, while parallel computation, memory management, and network pruning are the most frequently used serving-method categories. Multi-framework usage is limited, suggesting that developers rely on a single serving framework; however, combined frameworks connect complementary capabilities across the serving stack. Framework adoption varies across model families, modalities, model sizes, domain specializations, and deployment settings. Repository-level analysis shows that LLM serving frameworks support applications and architectures, including Reinforcement Learning (RL)-based reasoning, multimodal generation and understanding, microservices, and cloud infrastructure. Overall, this study provides a large-scale empirical characterization of LLM serving framework adoption in practice and offers insights for researchers, framework maintainers, and practitioners working on LLM systems.

Latin America is missing a foundational layer for native AI development: the benchmark layer. The benchmark layer does two things no other layer can - it audits AI systems against regional social requirements and it directs AI optimization in economically relevant environments. Without it, public institutions cannot independently evaluate foreign AI systems, and companies cannot optimize AI systems to solve local problems with SOTA performance. The cost of the missing layer is dual: a loss of auditability and a loss of optimization direction over a technology that is increasingly critical infrastructure. We propose an EvalsHub, with LatamBoard as its first regional instance - an open, task-first benchmark infrastructure where universities, public institutions, professional communities, and companies can publish, execute, compare, and maintain evaluations across models, workflows, and agents. Built once, measured forever - re-run by institutions as new AI systems ship and by industry teams after every system change. Open by design and incentive-driven by construction.

Chain-of-thought (CoT) monitoring is an increasingly important component of AI safety stacks but relies on the assumption that a model's reasoning trace is informative about its actions. This work studies the limits of CoT monitoring through the lens of model poisoning. We demonstrate that backdoors can be implanted into reasoning models to elicit an attacker-chosen behavior while their CoT traces appear entirely benign. We find that these CoT-Hidden backdoors can be induced through simple fine-tuning recipes across reasoning-model architectures and sizes. When direct poisoning is ineffective, we introduce a curriculum training approach that progressively teaches the model to produce an attacker-chosen output while concealing the behavior from its reasoning traces. These findings suggest that CoT monitoring may be better framed as a question about the consistency between a model's reasoning trace and its final response than as anomaly detection within a trace. We further examine the mechanisms that allow models to suppress evidence of the target behavior from their reasoning traces. Causal interventions locate a trigger-conditioned activation pathway that does not depend on the visible reasoning, and residual stream verbalizations provide an anomaly warning near answer generation, but do not identify the trigger, target, or backdoor mechanism.

AI systems can fail silently. The failure propagates through training loops, evaluation pipelines, and production monitoring stacks until downstream harm makes it visible. This paper introduces evaluation blindness: a measurement function M exhibits evaluation blindness with respect to failure class F when it produces readings indistinguishable from a healthy state while the system is actually failing, with no auxiliary signal flagging the gap. The problem surfaces at two lifecycle stages the literature has treated separately. At training time, reward models are gamed, importance-sampling corrections are silently miscalculated, and benchmark contamination inflates fine-tuning evaluations, all while loss curves look healthy and gradient updates proceed normally. At deployment time, monitoring fails to catch six classes of production failure, including an Operational category that is 100% silent by structural definition. We provide a formal detectability predicate unifying both stages. Four training-time case studies trace concrete breakdowns, including a real implementation bug in TRL PR #6594 where gradients are corrupted as loss decreases normally. A six-class taxonomy validated against 50 real-world incidents from court documents and regulatory filings finds that 53% of verifiable public failures were silent. A failure budget framework ties acceptable failure rates to use-case risk class. The implication is direct: measurement infrastructure is a correctness concern across the full AI lifecycle, not just at evaluation time. Data, code, and taxonomy schema are at https://github.com/priyanka25aug/llm-failure-taxonomy.

AI agents are moving from advisory interfaces into systems that execute consequential operations: issuing refunds, reserving scarce inventory, provisioning cloud resources, and initiating financial transfers. These workflows require governance over effects, not only over model outputs. Existing safeguards often decide whether an action is allowed from the information available when the action is requested. For stateful policies, that request-time view may be incomplete: budgets, inventory, approval status, and risk signals can change before the effect occurs, making an earlier authorization or approval stale. This paper studies stateful governance for concurrent agentic systems. We identify stale authorization as the core failure mode and define policy-state serializability, a correctness condition requiring committed effects to be explainable as authorized against the policy state immediately before they occur. We present MasuGate, a runtime architecture that keeps policies as reviewable programs while coordinating the state and effects needed to preserve their decisions. In experiments with a PostgreSQL-backed prototype of MasuGate, the system prevents stale authorizations missed by baselines that pass policy state as ordinary request context, preserves delayed approvals while unrelated work proceeds, keeps policy evolution mostly in policy text rather than trusted provider code, and avoids policy violations in a scripted, LLM-free procurement workflow where agent-governance baselines produce stale authorizations over shared budgets and inventory. More broadly, MasuGate suggests a path for integrating stateful governance boundaries into agent frameworks and provider-backed domains where agents act on shared resources.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly central to power and energy systems, supporting modeling, forecasting, optimization, and control. Yet most existing works emphasize specialized applications and offer little reusable material for newcomers or interdisciplinary learners, who increasingly rely on large language models rather than building their own. This gap points to a need for engineering-grounded AI (EGAI), in which AI workflows follow established engineering and power-system domain rules rather than acting as task-agnostic black boxes. Motivated by a community survey of researchers and practitioners, which shows 92% report at least one barrier before running an AI model and 94% want a power-specific hands-on course. This paper presents a framework consisting of open, executable module library that lowers the entry barrier for AI in power systems. The modules follow a progressive difficulty ladder that maps core AI concepts onto representative power-system tasks: (i) foundational deep neural network (DNN) templates for function approximation and load-curve fitting; (ii) a domain-coupled convolutional neural network (CNN) power-flow surrogate for a 5-bus system; and (iii) frontier modules on DNN-assisted optimization, deep reinforcement learning (DRL) for battery storage control, and physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) for the swing equation. All modules are released as Jupyter notebooks that run locally or on Google Colab and are delivered through an IEEE online course and IEEE Power & Energy Society (PES) webinar series. The webinar drew more than 590 live attendees, which is among the ten most-attended IEEE PES webinars, and over 344 repository visits within two weeks, reinforcing the survey-based motivation.

When algorithms make or influence consequential decisions---about loan eligibility, hiring, or healthcare---EU law grants affected individuals a Right to Explanation. Yet whether (and how) Explainable AI (XAI) can satisfy this right in practice remains poorly understood, with direct implications for individuals' ability to contest automated decisions that affect their lives. This paper presents a systematic literature review of XAI in the context of the EU Right to Explanation, with particular focus on Art. 15(1)(h) GDPR, Art. 86 AI Act (AIA), and related instruments. We consider papers published from 2024 onwards, as the final version of the AIA was published in July 2024---with Art. 86 being added late. From 2643 initial records identified by a deliberately broad search, we review 57 full texts, of which only 19 papers demonstrate substantive integration of both legal and technical perspectives, showing gaps in the interdisciplinary synthesis of the current regulatory framework. We document three problematic patterns across the corpus: Most misidentify the GDPR legal basis; few engage with the CJEU's Dun & Bradstreet judgment (likely due to publication timing); and the distinction between explanation form (governed by addressee) and content (governed by legal purpose) is often conflated. We conceptualize this as the Addressee/Purpose Framework, propose a four-phase blueprint for operationalization, and identify six concrete open research questions. Without further progress, the Right to Explanation risks remaining a formal obligation without a technically realizable path to compliance.

Coding-agent benchmarks increasingly cover long-horizon, end-to-end, and interactive development, but typically retain one requested outcome or a fixed change sequence. Sequential policies can process a pull-request (PR) queue one candidate at a time, but when queued PRs interact, maximizing safe delivery can require jointly deciding which changes to merge and in what order. We introduce BulkPR-Bench, an executable benchmark in which an agent must recover consequential PR relations and return a large safe subset in executable order under a rolling-release protocol. The suite contains 581 newly authored candidate PRs on frozen snapshots of 18 real repositories. Registered state-by-state repository execution, including hidden safety checks, validates the gold relation graph; an exact oracle then computes the largest safe subset. Our primary metric, Relational Delivery Score (RDS), scores safe delivery and correct rejection over relation groups from the realized merge trace; Global Safety-Gated Yield (Global-SGY) separately measures strict delivery of the realized whole-queue plan. Under the buffered primary protocol with batch size $K=32$, the three highest RDS estimates among the six models are 66.6%, 62.0%, and 57.9%, compared with 53.1% for the strongest sequential baseline. Only 8 of 324 model runs complete a queue exactly. Critical-relation recall ranges from 35.2% to 57.7%, and diagnostic runs supplied with the gold relations show substantial remaining headroom. Gains on relation groups therefore do not yet translate into dependable whole-queue governance.

Autonomous agents are increasingly used to execute consequential tasks in environments governed by operational constraints, organizational policies, regulatory requirements, and technical standards. Their safety is therefore determined not by the correctness of individual actions, but by whether their overall behavior remains consistent with the rules and invariants of the systems in which they operate. As large language model (LLM)-based agents become more autonomous and increasingly delegate tasks across organizational boundaries, securing them evolves from a single challenge into a broad and interconnected landscape spanning the entire agentic stack. At the single-agent level, untrusted inputs through prompts, memory, retrieved knowledge, and tool interfaces create attack surfaces. In multi-agent settings, delegation and communication introduce challenges related to identity, trust, capability control, and decision transparency, while the underlying model routing and execution control plane remains vulnerable to manipulation and to unverified model provenance. Perhaps the most fundamental challenge is behavioral containment: sequences of individually permissible actions may collectively violate system-level constraints and safety invariants. At the broader level, supply-chain integrity, provenance, accountability, and end-to-end observability remain largely open problems. A common principle unifies these directions: security must become a verifiable property of the architectures, protocols, and runtimes that govern agent behavior, rather than an optional layer of guidance. Charting these challenges provides a roadmap toward trustworthy autonomous agent deployment.

Artificial general intelligence (AGI) may weaken scarcities in labour, expertise, information, and productive capability that underpin established theories of economic value. If cognitive work becomes widely automatable, market price, labour input, revealed preference, profit, and gross output may diverge sharply from human and societal benefit. This paper develops Flourishing Value Theory (FVT) as a foundation for post-AGI economics. FVT defines value as the counterfactual, distribution-sensitive contribution of a system, institution, asset, or intervention to the durable capabilities of persons and communities to flourish within social and planetary constraints. It treats societal value as multidimensional, agency-preserving, regenerative, and non-compensatory at critical thresholds. Drawing on the economics of AI, welfare and capability theory, automation, digital valuation, and ecological economics, the paper distinguishes value creation from value capture and retains price, profit, productivity, and GDP as partial signals rather than final measures of progress. It develops the shifts from scarcity to governed abundance, transaction to transformation, and zero-sum rivalry to positive-sum and infinite-game dynamics, with collective expansion of consciousness as an agency-preserving form of regenerative value. Building on Flourishing Metrics and Return on Flourishing (RoF), it proposes a layered architecture for firms, governments, work transitions, AI governance, and national accounting. The central post-AGI economic problem is not how to maximise output, but how to convert abundant intelligence into durable, fairly distributed human, societal, and planetary flourishing.

An AI development race creates a multi-agent safety dilemma. Each company can develop slowly and safely, or move faster while taking a risk that may remove its final reward. We use this repeated game to study strategic safety behaviour among large language model (LLM) agents in races with two to five players. However, a valid action does not show that an agent understands the game. We therefore place an audit gate before behavioural interpretation. We first verify the game engine, then test rule recall, state tracking, payoff calculation, and stability under different but equivalent task descriptions. We then compare LLM action sequences with an evolutionary game-theory benchmark and published human data, and explore differences across models, risk conditions, personas, and two- to five-player races. The audit shows that strong rule recall can coexist with weak state tracking and expected-payoff calculation. Providing verified arithmetic and changing the response representation can also change later actions, even when the game rules stay fixed. Across seven tested model endpoints, aggregate rates hide large differences in action sequences, responses to opponents, and responses to race position. Patterns across the tested three- to five-player races are also model-specific rather than a single effect of adding competitors. These results show why multi-agent AI-race simulations need validity checks and trajectory-level analysis before their outputs are described as strategic, human-like, or safety-aware. Our findings are exploratory and apply only to the tested models, prompts, and decoding settings.

The emergence of Agentic AI systems, characterized by autonomous reasoning, multi-agent collaboration, tool orchestration, adaptive decision-making, and persistent memory, represents a fundamental shift from traditional AI pipelines to dynamic software ecosystems. While AI Technical Debt (AITD) has been widely studied in machine learning and software engineering, existing models assume static, component-level architectures and fail to capture the dynamic and emergent behaviors of agentic environments. To address this gap, this paper introduces Agentic Technical Debt (AgTD), defined as technical debt that emerges, accumulates, propagates, and amplifies due to the autonomous and collaborative nature of Agentic AI systems. Building on our prior systematic scoping review of 31 AITDs across seven root-cause categories, we employ a theory-informed transformation methodology to reinterpret these debts in Agentic AI through direct transformation, contextual transformation, and manifestation expansion. We present the first systematic mapping of established AITDs to their agentic manifestations, showing how conventional debts evolve into system-level liabilities, including memory inconsistencies, orchestration fragility, cascading failures, and unsafe autonomous decision-making. Our findings show that technical debt extends beyond software artifacts to encompass agent behaviors, coordination mechanisms, and interactions among agents, tools, and execution environments. We further examine its implications for AI Trust, Risk, and Security Management (AI TRiSM), highlighting impacts on trustworthiness, governance, security, operational resilience, and Sustainability Technical Debt. Overall, this work establishes AgTD as a foundational software engineering construct and provides a transformation framework, taxonomy, and research agenda for managing technical debt in autonomous multi-agent AI systems.

The discovery of scaling laws has highlighted the extraordinary potential of AI systems with a striking empirical pattern: as AI systems scale, their capabilities tend to improve predictably. Yet, in real-world applications, AI rarely operates in isolation; instead, it often works alongside humans, raising the question of whether these gains persist in human-AI collaboration. In this work, we develop an analytical model to examine when the empirical scaling benefits of AI translate into improved human-AI joint system performance. We demonstrate that the performance of a human-AI system can scale positively as the AI scales up-provided that humans have an accurate perception of the AI's capabilities. Human misperception, however, can fundamentally alter this relationship: i) when humans over-perceive the AI's capabilities, a scaling paradox may arise, in which greater AI scale reduces overall system performance and amplifies firm-level profit losses, and (ii) when humans under-perceive the AI's capabilities, performance still improves with scale but at a substantially slower rate. We further show that firms can actively manage these distortions through operational policies such as cost internalization and perception alignment, whose effectiveness depends on the economics of AI deployment and the direction of human misperception. These findings suggest that organizations may benefit more from managing the human-AI interface than from simply investing in larger, more expensive AI systems. More broadly, our results suggest that AI scaling should be viewed not only as a technological challenge, but also as a behavioral and operational one, and caution against the view that larger AI systems will automatically lead to better operational outcomes. Whether AI scaling creates value ultimately depends on how increased AI capabilities shape human beliefs and collaborative efforts.

The First AI Children Challenge aims to advance real-world applications of computer vision and AI in child healthcare, child education, and pediatrics. The 2026 CV4CHL edition featured the first track in this domain: Children Gait Visual Analysis. The main goal of Children Gait Visual Analysis is the fine-grained analysis of children's gait behaviors from keypoint sequences. This is still a big challenge for human action recognition. Experienced medical doctors can distinguish these subtle nuances, but none of the people test AI models in this domain. To bridge this gap, we introduce thousands of 2D children keypoint sequences walking around videos across various age groups of children (3-16 years old). There is a significant opportunity for batch analysis of these videos to provide clinically relevant insights into medical diagnosis. The Challenge will be launched with two problem tracks: Edinburgh Visual Gait Score (EVGS) Scoring and Classification of Gait Patterns in Bilateral Spastic Cerebral Palsy. Each track is chosen in consultation with board-certified pediatricians based on the value of potential solutions. With the first available dataset for such tasks and ground truth for each track, the challenge enabled participants to evaluate their solutions. Final rankings will be revealed after the competition concludes, fostering reproducibility and mitigating overfitting.