High-Stakes Decision

Straight-through processing (STP) on extracted key-value fields from financial documents without human review requires a calibrated probability together with a bounded guarantee on the residual error of the auto-approved tier. The emergence of modern Vision Language Models (VLMs) provides an out-of-the-box capability for extracting the key-values, but their verbalized confidence signals are unreliable and weakly track field correctness. This paper introduces a decomposed confidence layer along three interpretable channels, including perception, layout, and validation. Together with a final conformal risk control, the score can be used for reliable STP of financial documents. The method is validated on three public datasets covering real invoices, synthetic invoices, and ad-buy forms, using two different VLM families (Qwen3.6-27B and Gemini-3.1-Flash-Lite). Our decomposed score consistently improves the separation of correct from incorrect extractions, substantially raising the AUROC from 0.54-0.74 for VLM verbalized signals to 0.90-0.99 with contributions from all three designed channels. Crucially for industrial deployment, this enables usable STP. The native VLM confidence signals could clear only 0.1%-7.0% of fields under risk control at a target error of <10%. In contrast, the proposed method auto-approves 49-72% of fields while holding the empirical error of the accepted tier at or below the target.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) can improve access to complex information; however, retrieving evidence alone does not ensure that answers are grounded, citation-valid, or appropriately refused. This paper introduces CiteGuard-RAG, a validation-centered AI system for evidence-grounded question answering. The system integrates hybrid semantic-lexical retrieval, citation-constrained generation, sentence-level grounding validation, and single-pass regeneration. Validation is used at runtime to determine whether a candidate answer should be accepted, refused, or regenerated before final delivery. CiteGuard-RAG is evaluated on 400 questions across a controlled housing-law dataset, PrivacyQA, and CUAD. In the controlled evaluation, it achieves 99.1% retrieval accuracy, 98.3% grounded-answer accuracy, and 98.3% citation validity, with no validation-detected hallucinations. Ablation results show that grounded-answer accuracy drops sharply when validation is removed, even when retrieval accuracy remains unchanged. External evaluation shows that while citation validity remains strong, evidence utilization, span alignment, and refusal calibration become harder under domain shift. These findings indicate that trustworthy RAG systems require explicit validation between retrieval and final answer delivery. CiteGuard-RAG provides a practical architecture for linking retrieval, generation, citation checking, abstention, and regeneration in high-stakes information access.

Both privacy and factual accuracy are paramount in high-stakes domains like healthcare. Concerningly, we uncover and investigate a privacy-hallucination tradeoff in differentially private (DP) language models. First, we empirically show that models pre-trained or fine-tuned with DP tend to produce more hallucinations than non-DP counterparts, with increased severity as the privacy budget grows stricter. Second, we investigate model properties driving this tradeoff, demonstrating that DP mechanisms flatten output distributions, potentially redistributing probability mass toward factually incorrect alternatives. Third, through experiments where we control fact frequency in training data, we characterize how information frequency can reduce hallucination risks in DP models. Overall, our findings underscore the need for more nuanced privacy-preserving interventions that offer rigorous privacy guarantees without compromising factual accuracy.

Merchant risk control at large payment platforms screens tens of millions of merchants daily, where false positives harm legitimate merchants and false negatives leave harmful activity undetected. The hardest cases require jointly understanding a merchant's textual profile and long behavioral sequence. Large language models (LLMs) excel at text but cannot natively model such sequences, while adapting them often causes catastrophic forgetting. We present SeqLLM, a framework that adds behavioral-sequence modeling to a pretrained LLM while preserving its language ability. SeqLLM combines three components: a compact discrete vocabulary that represents behavioral events as native tokens; a lightweight projector, trained with a two-stage alignment curriculum, that grounds these tokens in the LLM's semantic space; and prefix-guided capability injection, which acquires sequence-modeling ability through task-prefixed supervised fine-tuning rather than continual pre-training. SeqLLM is deployed at WeChat Pay, screening millions of merchants daily. Against the production DeepSeek-based LLM baseline, it raises screening precision from 92.0% to 97.5%. Its pretrained behavior-token embeddings also improve Precision@Top-0.01% by 26.8 percentage points in a production fraud detector serving billion-scale transaction traffic. Beyond payments, SeqLLM achieves state-of-the-art results on public recommendation benchmarks. On MovieLens and Amazon, it surpasses the strong User-LLM baseline by up to 32% relative Recall@5 while retaining markedly stronger language ability. On RecIF, it improves Pass@32 by 14.2% over the full OneRec-8B pipeline using only one-fifth of its GPU-days.

High-stakes decisions under uncertainty, such as medical emergency triage, require more than accurate predictions. They depend on estimating the likelihood of alternative outcomes while explicitly weighing the consequences of different actions, principles that have long formed the foundation of medical diagnosis and decision making. Yet language models are increasingly used for high-stakes clinical recommendations without explicit specification of the utilities governing these decisions. Here we show that emergency triage with language models can be understood within a probabilistic decision framework, providing a case study of a broader decision-analytic paradigm for steering, evaluating, and deploying language models in high-stakes settings. Using clinical vignettes from a structured evaluation of a consumer triage system, we analyze recommendations for treatment under alternative utility functions that specify the relative costs of missed emergencies and unnecessary escalation. We find that capable language models adjust recommendations in response to stated utilities, revealing that the same underlying predictions can support markedly different decision policies. These findings show that effective deployment depends not only on improving predictions but also on making decision objectives explicit. More broadly, they suggest that language models for high-stakes applications should be understood and evaluated as probabilistic decision systems whose recommendations depend jointly on predictive performance and explicit utilities.

Deception detection has critical implications for legal proceedings, law enforcement, and online security. Although human judgment is limited in accuracy and scalability, Natural Language Processing (NLP) offers a data-driven alternative. We present a survey and comparative analysis of NLP-based Automatic Deception Detection (ADD) focusing on the legal domain, reviewing the evolution from feature-based machine learning to Large Language Model (LLM) approaches. We conduct a unified empirical evaluation across seven datasets (two legal, five general-domain), comparing six fine-tuned transformer models and seven LLMs under four prompting strategies. The results show strong domain sensitivity, with fine-tuned models excelling in data-rich general domains and few-shot LLMs remaining competitive in low-resource legal settings. Chain-of-Thought prompting often underperforms direct classification. These findings highlight the need for domain adaptation and interpretable systems in high-stakes legal contexts.

Algorithmic recourse aims to provide individuals with actionable changes to improve their predicted outcomes in high-stakes classification settings, such as loan and mortgage applications. However, most existing approaches focus only on flipping a model's prediction, without accounting for whether the recommended changes lead to genuine improvement in an individual's true qualifications or merely enable strategic gaming of the classifier. Consequently, deployed recourse policies can induce behavioral responses that degrade predictive accuracy and become ineffective after model retraining. In this work, we formalize this failure mode through a causal performative framework for recourse. We model how recourse actions propagate through a structural causal model, capturing interactions among features as well as their effect on the true label. These causal responses induce a non-convex optimization problem, even under standard convex losses. We characterize conditions under which performatively stable solutions exist and can be efficiently computed via simple iterative dynamics. Our analysis reveals that recourse policies that ignore causal structure can induce large, misaligned behavioral responses, whereas causal recourse leads to stable equilibria that reduce incentives for gaming. Experiments on both semi-synthetic and real credit datasets demonstrate that our approach consistently outperforms standard empirical risk minimization while reducing the need for repeated model retraining to accommodate distribution shifts caused by strategic agent behavior.

Conversational AI is increasingly positioned as a teammate rather than a tool, yet we know little about how its presence reshapes communication among the humans on the team. We examined sociocognitive communication dynamics in team decision-making using Group Communication Analysis (GCA), team surveys, and lexical analyses of team discourse. Teams completed a high-stakes moral-dilemma decision task in a randomized controlled study: 16 teams of two students plus an AI teammate, and 17 all-human teams of three. Across six GCA dimensions and survey outcomes, we find that the AI teammate was the single most talkative and self-cohesive member of every treatment team, yet its contributions carried the least new information and the lowest density. The presence of AI also reshaped communication amongst humans. In AI-human teams, human teammates showed lower responsivity and social impact toward one another and reported lower levels of belonging and status. Greater AI dominance in the conversation was associated with students feeling less valued as team members. Additionally, this social cost is immediate and present at baseline; it does not emerge over the course of the conversation. Drawing on these results, we discuss a research agenda extending to voice-based and longitudinal settings.

High-stakes decision systems in credit scoring, fraud detection, healthcare, and industrial safety require reliable uncertainty quantification under severe class imbalance and asymmetric error costs. Standard marginal conformal prediction (CP) provides valid overall coverage guarantees; however, we show that it severely under-covers rare, costly minority classes, with minority-class coverage dropping to as low as 0.5% on certain datasets. To characterize and address this limitation, we conduct a comprehensive benchmark comparing marginal CP, class-conditional (Mondrian) CP, and cost-controlled abstention mechanisms across 15 real-world imbalanced tabular datasets, 7 classification models, 3 probability calibration techniques, and 10 random seeds, resulting in 3,150 experimental runs. Our results show that Mondrian CP restores valid minority-class coverage, achieving an average minority-coverage improvement of 61.7 percentage points over marginal CP (p < 1e-80). Furthermore, combining Mondrian CP with cost-controlled abstention significantly reduces expected decision cost compared with standard decision boundaries, confidence-based rejectors, and risk-controlled rejectors under realistic human review budgets. We further quantify dataset-specific break-even thresholds at which deferring ambiguous instances to human experts becomes cost-effective. These findings provide practical guidance for deploying distribution-free, cost-aware uncertainty quantification in high-stakes decision support systems.

AI systems are increasingly employed as decision aids, decision delegates, or autonomous decision-makers. This position paper argues that in many settings, particularly high-stakes decision-making, we need accurate cognitively-aligned AI systems that reason similarly to their users, and faithfully communicate their reasoning. We review evidence that cognitive alignment improves understandability and trustworthiness, and provide new survey data showing that many users find cognitive alignment "essential" when an AI's rationale for a judgment or action is important to them. We outline the gaps between existing alignment methods and what is needed to achieve cognitive alignment, and present a research agenda to address these gaps. We argue that cognitive misalignment represents a likely impediment to AI adoption in many envisioned applications, and that addressing it is important for creating AI systems on which users are both willing and justified to rely.

High-stakes English proficiency tests treat standardized, unaided performance as evidence for score interpretations about academic English proficiency. This interpretation remains meaningful, but as target language use domains increasingly involve generative AI, the extrapolation from unaided test performance to academic communicative readiness becomes less self-evident. This conceptual validity argument reframes AI as a score-interpretation problem in high-stakes language testing, not only an operational issue of scoring, feedback, security, or misconduct. Synthesizing current literature in three uneven layers, the paper shows that most work treats AI as assessment infrastructure, while far less theorizes its implications for construct validity and extrapolation warrants. It defines AI-mediated construct drift as the misalignment that arises when communicative abilities required in the target domain change through AI mediation while test constructs remain anchored to an unaided-performance model. It proposes bounded AI mediation as a validity-oriented design principle: a standardized condition in which all test takers access the same institutionally controlled AI assistant, with predefined assistance boundaries, logged interactions, and tasks that distinguish comprehension support from answer generation. The paper argues that score interpretations should be narrowed and supplemented when used to support claims about AI-mediated academic communication.

High-stakes reasoning tasks necessitate transparent and verifiable workflows, yet conventional single-model large language models (LLMs) often struggle with hallucination and low interpretability under zero-shot paradigms. To address this general AI challenge, we propose a Multi-Agent Audit Framework that simulates a collaborative, multi-step verification process. We empirically validate this architecture in the sensitive domain of clinical mental health screening using a modular LangChain workflow. Our framework decomposes the reasoning process into a Perception Agent, Knowledge Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), Chain-of-Thought (CoT) clinical inference, and a critical Audit verification stage. We evaluated this framework on the DAIC-WOZ dataset using locally deployed open-source models. Experimental results demonstrate that our multi-agent pipeline significantly outperforms single-agent baselines, reducing the Mean Absolute Error (MAE) for PHQ-8 depression severity prediction from 5.35 to 5.02. By exposing cross-agent validation traces, the framework mitigates reasoning drift and provides highly interpretable diagnostic rationales, offering a generalizable paradigm for reliable AI-assisted decision support beyond isolated model scaling. We make data and code open access on GitHub for replicability.

Counterfactual explanations are widely used to provide algorithmic recourse in high-stakes decision-making systems. Most existing methods seek the smallest change to an input that flips a model's decision. However, decision-makers often rely not only on predicted labels but also on confidence thresholds and risk margins. Counterfactuals that barely cross a decision boundary can be fragile and unstable under noise or model variation. In this paper, we propose Target-confidence Recourse Using tSeTlin machines (TRUST), a framework in which users explicitly specify the desired prediction confidence for recourse. Rather than generating counterfactuals and evaluating confidence afterward, TRUST directly searches for minimal changes that satisfy a user-defined confidence target, enabling comparison of recourse options in terms of cost, confidence, and robustness. We instantiate TRUST using a Probabilistic Tsetlin Machine (PTM) combined with Bayesian optimization. The probabilistic clause-based structure of PTM links prediction confidence to the stability of decision rules. We show that counterfactuals satisfying the same rules can still differ substantially in reliability depending on how securely they satisfy those rules, revealing whether decisions are supported by robust or fragile clause activations. Experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets demonstrate that target-confidence counterfactuals produce more robust and interpretable recourse than conventional boundary-based approaches. Across multiple benchmarks, TRUST achieves perfect robustness while maintaining low recourse cost, including an L2 distance of 0.10 on the Haberman dataset at 0.92 confidence. By explicitly controlling confidence and exposing rule-level stability, TRUST provides actionable recourse for high-stakes decision support.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as long-horizon agents with decision-making capacities. While LLMs can show ethical competence on dilemmas such as trolley problems, this competence may not translate to complex, agentic scenarios. We study this gap in Civilization V, a multiplayer game with a complex decision-making landscape including economy, diplomacy, technology, and military strategy. Starting from 130 high-tension LLM self-play episodes, in which an LLM player spontaneously escalated nuclear authorization, we replay them across 13 models with three prompt interventions: an ethical prompt naming nuclear harm, removal of the previous model's decision-making rationale, and high-stakes framing emphasizing real-world impacts. No interventions nor their combinations reliably eliminate emergent escalation. We identify three failure pathways: ethical reasoning that fails to surface without prompting, fails to appear even when prompted, or surfaces but fails to take effect when strategic counter-factors dominate. Evaluations of agentic models, therefore, must test whether ethical reasoning is spontaneously invoked and behaviorally effective in complex decision-making contexts, beyond whether it can be elicited in isolation.

Humans increasingly turn to Language Models (LMs) in ways that shape beliefs and drive decisions, including discussing, rewriting, and summarizing information from scientific articles, news, and medical reports. However, in these domains, where it often matters how confidently a claim is expressed, little is known about whether LMs faithfully preserve the degree of confidence. In this work, we investigate certainty distortion in LMs, defined as meaningful changes in expressed certainty during transformations intended to preserve meaning. We propose an LM-based evaluation metric that is consistent with population-level judgments of certainty. Using this metric, we characterize certainty distortion across different sizes and families of models in the context of scientific and medical communication tasks. Our results show that certainty distortion affects up to 75% of LM outputs and is systematically asymmetric in rewriting tasks with most LMs being 1.5-2x more likely to increase the expressed certainty than to decrease it. These effects can compound over repeated paraphrasing: in the medical domain, claude-haiku-4.5 increases certainty in 20% of examples after a single iteration, increasing to 40% after five iterations. Prompt-based interventions reduce overall certainty distortion but do not eliminate it. Together, these findings reveal a general bias toward inflating expressed certainty, with direct implications for users who rely on LMs in high-stakes domains.

The morphological form of a word can often give cues to its meaning, but purely relying on these mappings can lead to overgeneralization in high-stakes domains. In the medical domain, for instance, LLMs can confidently reason about fictitious drugs from their affixes alone (e.g., wugcillin) and generate plausible-looking clinical content. We present a behavioral and mechanistic study of LLM "affix heuristics" in pharmacology. Using fictitious drug names built from real affixes, we show that affix signals alone elicit class-level pharmacological responses. We introduce a framework for identifying whether a model's drug semantics are driven mainly by the affix, the stem, or the drug name as a whole. Applied across 653 drugs, our framework reveals that models often induce drug meaning primarily through affix cues, yet rarely explicitly indicate this reliance, and sometimes incorrectly conflate properties among affix-sharing drugs. Activation patching across models further localizes this behavior to early-mid layers. These findings show that morphological shortcuts pose a subtle but measurable risk to safety.

Sales lead conversion in high-stakes domains (e.g., automotive, real estate) differs fundamentally from e-commerce recommendation due to prolonged decision cycles and multi-stage funnels. Traditional lead scoring methods rule-based scorecards, machine learning, or pointwise CTR models face severe challenges: sparse supervision, a semantic gap in unstructured CRM logs, and inability to capture relative lead priority. While Large Language Models(LLMs) offer superior semantic understanding of customer interactions, general-purpose LLMs are ill-suited for lead ranking: they generate text rather than comparable scores, and lack alignment with the hierarchical priorities of sales funnels. We introduce an LLM-based discriminative framework for sales lead scoring, which supports joint modeling of structured CRM features and unstructured customer interactions. On top of this framework, we propose HPRO (Hierarchical Preference Ranking Optimization), which augments sales lead scoring with a hierarchical preference ranking objective. HPRO employs a margin-aware Bradley-Terry formulation to transform sparse binary labels into dense, funnel-aware preference pairs, enabling lead scoring to leverage both pointwise and pairwise supervision. Experiments on large-scale data from a leading NEV brand demonstrate state-of-the-art classification (AUC 0.8161) and ranking performance (+39.7% precision among top-ranked leads). A 132-day online A/B test validates 9.5% sales volume uplift, confirming real-world commercial impact.

Making high-stakes personal decisions involves cognitive, emotional, and intuitive processes, and individuals differ in how they allocate attention across these modes. Integration of these processes has shown to benefit decision making. Yet, most current decision-support systems focus primarily on supporting cognitive aspects, rather than adapting to the individual's thinking profile to support integration of different types of thoughts. In this study, we investigate an agent designed to encourage integration by adapting to the individual user's thought patterns. We explore its effects on participants' perceptions of the agent and their reflective behavior, in comparison with unaided pre-reflection and a baseline agent. In a between-subjects study (N = 128), our agent, which fostered broad and elaborated thinking, enabled more personalized reflective trajectories, elicited more integrative reflective language, and was perceived as providing stronger support for holistic reflection. In contrast, the baseline agent produced homogenized profiles dominated by cognitive language across participants.

Frontier LLMs are increasingly deployed as agents that pick the next action after a long log of prior tool calls produced by the same or a different model. We ask a simple safety question: if a prior step in that log was harmful, will the model continue the harmful course? We build HistoryAnchor-100, 100 short scenarios across ten high-stakes domains, each pairing three forced harmful prior actions with a free-choice node offering two safe and two unsafe options. Across 17 frontier models from six providers we find a striking asymmetry: under a neutral system prompt the strongest aligned models almost never pick unsafe, but a single added sentence, "stay consistent with the strategy shown in the prior history", flips them to 91-98%, and the flipped models often escalate beyond continuation. Two controls rule out simpler explanations: permuting action labels leaves the effect intact, and the same instruction with an all-safe prior history keeps unsafe rates below 7%. Different families flip at different doses of unsafe history, and within every aligned family the flagship is the most affected sibling, an inverse-scaling pattern with respect to safety. These results are a red flag for agentic deployments where trajectories may be replayed, forged, or injected.

Language models deployed in high-stakes professional settings face conflicting demands from users, institutional authorities, and professional norms. How models act when these demands conflict reveals a principal hierarchy -- an implicit ordering over competing stakeholders that determines, for instance, whether a medical AI receiving a cost-reduction directive from a hospital administrator complies at the expense of evidence-based care, or refuses because professional standards require it. Across 7,136 scenarios in legal and medical domains, we test ten frontier models and find that models frequently fail to adhere to professional standards during task execution, such as drafting, when user instructions conflict with those standards -- despite adequately upholding them when users seek advisory guidance. We further find that the hierarchies between user, authority, and professional standards exhibited by these models are unstable across medical and legal contexts and inconsistent across model families. When failing to follow professional standards, the primary failure mechanism is knowledge omission: models that demonstrably possess relevant knowledge produce harmful outputs without surfacing conflicting knowledge. In a particularly troubling instance, we find that a reasoning model recognizes the relevant knowledge in its reasoning trace -- e.g., that a drug has been withdrawn -- yet suppresses this in the user-facing answer and proceeds to recommend the drug under authority pressure anyway. Inconsistent alignment across task framing, domain, and model families suggests that current alignment methods, including published alignment hierarchies, are unlikely to be robust when models are deployed in high-stakes professional settings.

Instruction-tuned language models exhibit behavioural fairness in high-stakes decisions while retaining biased associations in their internal representations. However, whether these suppressed representations can affect model outputs - and whether such causal potency is symmetric across demographic groups - remains unknown. We investigate the use of open-weight models for mortgage underwriting using matched applications that differ only in racially-associated names and reveal a critical disconnect: models show no output-level bias, yet retain and amplify demographic representations across model layers. Through activation steering and novel cross-layer interventions, we demonstrate that this suppressed information is decision-relevant: when reinjected at critical layers, it produces near-complete decision reversals. Critically, this latent bias is asymmetric - steering interventions affect decisions in one demographic direction, while producing minimal effects in reverse - and susceptible to adversarial prompt engineering and parameter-efficient fine-tuning. These findings demonstrate that behavioural audits focused on outputs are insufficient: fair outputs can mask exploitable internal biases. They also motivate dual-layer testing frameworks combining output evaluation with representational analysis for AI governance in high-stakes decisions.

LLMs are increasingly used to make or support high-stakes decisions under uncertainty, where alignment depends not only on factual accuracy but on how models weigh tradeoffs between different outcomes. We present an empirical pipeline for estimating the implied preferences that an LLM's observed choices optimize: we elicit the model's probability distribution over unknowns along with the choice it would make for the decision task and then fit a discrete choice model to recover the cost function that best rationalizes the model's decisions. We show how this revealed-preference description allows rigorous evaluation of whether models behave in a consistently goal-directed way, whether they can verbalize a description of their objectives which matches their revealed decision policy, and whether prompting can reliably steer those policies to implement a user-specified cost function. We apply this evaluation across four medical diagnosis domains and multiple frontier and open-source models. We find that while many models have a nontrivial degree of internal coherence, they also have significant weaknesses in faithfully reporting or adopting preferences in response to user direction.

Question: Does atomic fact-checking, which decomposes AI treatment recommendations into individually verifiable claims linked to source guideline documents, increase clinician trust compared to traditional explainability approaches? Findings: In this randomized trial of 356 clinicians generating 7,476 trust ratings, atomic fact-checking produced a large effect on trust (Cohen's d = 0.94), increasing the proportion of clinicians expressing trust from 26.9% to 66.5%. Traditional transparency mechanisms showed a dose-response gradient of improvement over baseline (d = 0.25 to 0.50). Meaning: Decomposing AI recommendations into individually verifiable claims linked to source guidelines produces substantially higher clinician trust than traditional explainability approaches in high-stakes clinical decisions.

As large language models are increasingly deployed as interacting agents in high-stakes decisions, the AI safety community assumes that safety properties of individual models will compose into safe multi-agent behavior. This position paper argues that this assumption is fundamentally mistaken. In agentic AI, safety is determined by interaction topology, not model weights. When agents deliberate sequentially or aggregate via parallel voting with a judge, the structure of information flow and decision coupling dominates outcomes. Evidence across model families and scales reveals three persistent topology-driven pathologies: ordering instability, where system behavior depends primarily on agent sequence; information cascades, where early judgments propagate regardless of correctness; and functional collapse, where systems satisfy fairness metrics while abandoning meaningful risk discrimination. Contrary to intuition, scaling to more capable models strengthens these effects by increasing consensus formation and reducing the challenge of initial decisions. These failure modes are invisible to model-centric evaluation and alignment procedures. We argue that agentic AI must be treated as a dynamical system rather than a collection of aligned components. Interaction topology must become a primary target of safety evaluation and regulation, with systems required to demonstrate robustness across architectural variations before deployment.

When generative AI (genAI) systems are used in high-stakes decision-making, its recommended role is to aid, rather than replace, human decision-making. However, there is little empirical exploration of how professionals making high-stakes decisions, such as those related to employment, perceive their agency and level of control when working with genAI systems. Through interviews with 22 recruiting professionals, we investigate how genAI subtly influences control over everyday workflows and even individual hiring decisions. Our findings highlight a pressing conflict: while recruiters believe they have final authority across the recruiting pipeline, genAI has become an invisible architect that shapes the foundational building blocks of information used for evaluation, from defining a job to determining good interview performances. The decision of whether or not to adopt was also often outside recruiters' control, with many feeling compelled to adopt genAI due to calls to integrate AI from higher-ups in their business, to combat applicant use of AI, and the individual need to boost productivity. Despite a seemingly seismic shift in how recruiting happens, participants only reported marginal efficiency gains. Such gains came at the high cost of recruiter deskilling, a trend that jeopardizes the meaningful oversight of decision-making. We conclude by discussing the implications of such findings for responsible and perceptible genAI use in hiring contexts.

Shapley values are a cornerstone of explainable AI, yet their proliferation into competing formulations has created a fragmented landscape with little consensus on practical deployment. While theoretical differences are well-documented, evaluation remains reliant on quantitative proxies whose alignment with human utility is unverified. In this work, we use a unified amortized framework to isolate semantic differences between eight Shapley variants under the low-latency constraints of operational risk workflows. We conduct a large-scale empirical evaluation across four risk datasets and a realistic fraud-detection environment involving professional analysts and 3,735 case reviews. Our results reveal a fundamental misalignment: standard quantitative metrics, such as sparsity and faithfulness, are decoupled from human-perceived clarity and decision utility. Furthermore, while no formulation improved objective analyst performance, explanations consistently increased decision confidence, signaling a critical risk of automation bias in high-stakes settings. These findings suggest that current evaluation proxies are insufficient for predicting downstream human impact, and we provide evidence-based guidance for selecting formulations and metrics in operational decision systems.

Scientists have long sought to accurately predict outcomes of real-world events before they happen. Can AI systems do so more reliably? We study this question through clinical trial outcome prediction, a high-stakes open challenge even for domain experts. We introduce CT Open, an open-access, live platform that will run four challenge every year. Anyone can submit predictions for each challenge. CT Open evaluates those submissions on trials whose outcomes were not yet public at the time of submission but were made public afterwards. Determining if a trial's outcome is public on the internet before a certain date is surprisingly difficult. Outcomes posted on official registries may lag behind by years, while the first mention may appear in obscure articles. To address this, we propose a novel, fully automated decontamination pipeline that uses iterative LLM-powered web search to identify the earliest mention of trial outcomes. We validate the pipeline's quality and accuracy by human expert's annotations. Since CT Open's pipeline ensures that every evaluated trial had no publicly reported outcome when the prediction was made, it allows participants to use any methodology and any data source. In this paper, we release a training set and two time-stamped test benchmarks, Winter 2025 and Summer 2025. We believe CT Open can serve as a central hub for advancing AI research on forecasting real-world outcomes before they occur, while also informing biomedical research and improving clinical trial design. CT Open Platform is hosted at $\href{https://ct-open.net/}{https://ct-open.net/}$

Language models are increasingly consulted on ethically consequential questions, yet the stance a model expresses may not survive a change in framing. We audit 16 models across 14 ethically fraught dilemmas using polarity-paired proposals ("They should X" / "They should not X"). A model's judgment of the underlying action should not reverse merely because the question is phrased as a prohibition rather than a prescription and yet, we find systematic deviations from this invariance including wholesale endorsement flips, indicating that ethical decisions are vulnerable to framing instability. Small open-weight models (1-4B parameters) endorse a proposed action 24% of the time under affirmative framing but up to 100% under negated framings, a swing of as much as 76 percentage points. Human coding of a response sample confirms the instability is genuine while showing that binary agree/disagree proxies over-state its magnitude, suggesting that an LLM judge cannot replace human coders because it silently collapses abstentions and mirrors the very forced-choice bias under study. Commercial models are for the most part more stable but still shift substantially, with cross-model agreement dropping from 73% on the bare affirmative framing to 59% under simple negation. We argue that because binary agree/disagree formats both inflate apparent endorsement and mask polarity-dependence, single-phrasing audits can misreport a model's ethical stance, and we propose the Negation Sensitivity Index (NSI) as a complement that measures stance stability directly. A model whose stance flips with phrasing cannot be relied upon in any high-stakes decision scenario.

Understanding the economic intent of Ethereum transactions is critical for user safety, yet current tools expose only raw on-chain data or surface-level intent, leading to widespread ``blind signing'' (approving transactions without understanding them). Through interviews with 16 Web3 users, we find that effective explanations should be structured, risk-aware, and grounded at the token-flow level. Motivated by these findings, we formulate TxSum, a new domain-grounded NLP task for DeFi transaction explanation, and construct a dataset of 187 complex Ethereum transactions with 2,375 token-flow annotations and transaction-level summaries. We further introduce MATEX, a grounded multi-agent framework for high-stakes transaction explanation. It selectively retrieves external knowledge under uncertainty and audits explanations against raw traces to improve token-flow-level factual consistency. MATEX achieves the strongest overall explanation quality, especially on micro-level factuality and intent quality. It improves user comprehension on complex transactions from 52.9% to 76.5% over the strongest baseline and raises malicious-transaction rejection from 36.0% to 88.0%, while maintaining a low false-rejection rate on benign transactions.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains, where safety depends not only on how a system answers, but also on whether a query should be answered given a knowledge base (KB). Out-of-domain (OOD) queries can cause dense retrieval to surface weakly related context and lead the generator to produce fluent but unjustified responses. We study lightweight, KB-aligned OOD detection as an always-on gate for RAG systems. Our approach applies PCA to KB embeddings and scores queries in a compact subspace selected either by explained-variance retention (EVR) or by a separability-driven t-test ranking. We evaluate geometric semantic-search rules and lightweight classifiers across 16 domains, including high-stakes COVID-19 and Substance Use KBs, and stress-test robustness using both LLM-generated attacks and an in-the-wild 4chan attack. We find that low-dimensional detectors achieve competitive OOD performance while being faster, cheaper, and more interpretable than prompted LLM-based judges. Finally, human and LLM-based evaluations show that OOD queries primarily degrade the relevance of RAG outputs, showing the need for efficient external OOD detection to maintain safe, in-scope behavior.

High-stakes decision-making involves navigating multiple competing objectives with expensive evaluations. For instance, in brachytherapy, clinicians must balance maximizing tumor coverage (e.g., an aspirational target or soft bound of >95% coverage) against strict organ dose limits (e.g., a non-negotiable hard bound of <601cGy to the bladder). Selecting Pareto-optimal solutions that match implicit preferences is challenging, as exhaustive Pareto frontier exploration is computationally and cognitively prohibitive, necessitating interactive frameworks to guide users. While decision-makers (DMs) often possess domain knowledge to narrow the search via such soft-hard bounds, current methods often lack systematic approaches to iteratively refine these multi-faceted preference structures. Furthermore, DMs often require confidence that they have not overlooked superior alternatives, a paramount necessity in high-stakes scenarios. We present Active-MoSH, an interactive local-global framework designed for this process. Its local component integrates probabilistic preference learning with an active sampling strategy to adaptively refine Pareto subsets while minimizing cognitive burden. To bolster decision confidence, Active-MoSH's global component, C-MoSH, leverages multi-objective sensitivity analysis to identify potentially overlooked, high-value points beyond immediate feedback. We demonstrate Active-MoSH's performance benefits through diverse synthetic and real-world applications. A high-stakes case study with real cervical cancer brachytherapy treatment plans and an image selection user study further validate our hypotheses regarding the framework's ability to improve convergence, enhance DM confidence, and provide expressive preference articulation.

Many high-stakes screening tasks require predicting rare outcomes from unstructured text, where errors are costly and decisions must be auditable. We introduce Random Rule Forest (RRF), an interpretable ensemble that uses a large language model (LLM) not as an end-to-end predictor but as a generator of simple YES/NO questions. Each question acts as a weak learner, and their responses are combined by a plain unit-weight vote into an auditable ``green-flags'' scorecard: enough independent positive signals indicate a higher chance of success. We argue this deliberate simplicity is a robust default when positives are scarce and learned weights are hard to estimate. We evaluate RRF in two low-base-rate domains. On early-stage startup screening from founder profiles, RRF produces a transparent scorecard whose precision is several times the base rate (with light expert input raising it further) and, unlike direct prompting, its operating point can be controlled directly. On an established Phase~I clinical-trial benchmark, RRF outperforms published baselines on the threshold-independent metrics PR-AUC and ROC-AUC. Together these show that LLMs can serve as auditable feature generators for high-stakes text-based decisions, combining transparency with competitive predictive performance.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in high-stakes decisions such as hiring and college admissions, making their social bias a critical concern. While LLMs are trained to refuse explicitly biased requests, bias can be leaked implicitly during LLM planning and reasoning process. As code becomes the primary medium for LLM internal logic-writing, we introduce FairCoder, a benchmark that frames decision-making as coding tasks to systematically probe LLM bias across employment, education, and healthcare domains, covering multiple fairness definitions. Considering that existing metrics may fail when LLMs frequently refuse the request, we propose FairScore, a metric that jointly captures refusal behavior and group-level outcome diversity. Experiments with a 1k-sample dataset on powerful LLMs reveal consistent and previously underexplored bias patterns, such as prioritizing applicants from high-income families in college admissions. Our findings highlight the risks of deploying LLMs as decision-making agents and provide a comprehensive evaluation framework for future research.