Institutional Composition

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claimed, who answers for it, what evidence supports it, and what would require the claim to be qualified, revised, or withdrawn.

Institutions practising outcome-based education compute learning outcome attainment routinely, while reviews of curriculum analytics report an absence of evidence on how that computation informs decisions. This paper presents OBER+, an extension of a deployed institutional attainment platform that computes the step from a measured shortfall to an evaluated corrective action. Five connected stages accumulate attainment across deliveries of a course, signal a shortfall and a persistent shortfall, grade it on cutoffs the regulator already uses, record the decision against a catalogue of practices annotated with their evidence, log the change, and quantify the subsequent movement in the shortfall. A further rule compares successive statements of an outcome, so attainment is never read as a series across a point at which the outcome changed. Applying the rules to the live record of two real courses produced three results. Every outcome of a core course was substantively redefined between consecutive deliveries, with subject matter moving between outcome numbers, so a naive reading would have reported a twenty-five point collapse between quantities that do not refer to the same learning. Recomputing the platform's figures from its documented rule showed six of ten differing by more than rounding explains, in a pattern that identified a defect since reported to the institution. Across fifteen statement pairs from three transitions, five were identical character for character, and among the ten that were not, the outcome carrying a given number was nearest to a differently numbered earlier outcome in six, a result resting on an ordering of similarities and requiring no threshold and no labelling. The contribution is a computational design for outcome-based reporting, stated as rules any attainment platform can implement, with evidence of what they make visible in a live institutional record.

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

More capable agents do not necessarily form a more capable collective. A multi-agent system may jointly possess sufficient information yet fail because evidence is poorly routed, unreliable reports enter public belief, correlated claims masquerade as independent support, shared state becomes stale or strategically distorted, or useful evidence is exposed through an ineffective action interface. We ask when additional resources should improve the reasoner and when they should instead change the institutional structure through which the collective forms and acts on public information. Drawing on functional distinctions from research on group decision making and distributed cognition, we construct controlled artificial ecologies around four loci of collective failure: access and routing, admission and dependence, state maintenance and incentives, and representation and action. Across these ecologies, we separately vary model capability and institutional structure, pairing positive interventions with matched reasoning baselines and mechanism-breaking controls. The experiments reveal a consistent boundary: institutions help when they repair failures in how a collective constructs usable public state, but lose their advantage when their signals are uninformative or uncheckable, when stronger intelligence can perform the same transformation directly, or when the resulting state cannot support reliable action. Our results recast the choice between intelligence and institutions as a diagnosis of where collective reasoning fails.

Institutional policies stay in natural language while the systems that check compliance demand machine-readable constraints. Bridging that gap is still done by hand. PolicyKG closes the loop. It is an LLM pipeline that reads a policy PDF, classifies each sentence as an obligation, permission, or prohibition, lifts the label into first-order deontic logic, and emits SHACL constraints. Four stages run on a LangGraph state machine with per-stage validators. The piece that matters most is the Corpus Adapter: a YAML vocabulary registry that grounds LLM predicates in a target ontology. Retargeting to a new domain means swapping the registry, not retraining a model. On the Asian Institute of Technology Policies and Procedures corpus (1,663 sentences, 443 rules), PolicyKG reaches 86.9% deontic classification accuracy (Cohen's kappa = .709). Three annotators independently re-label a 50-item sample and agree at Fleiss' kappa = .844. SHACL shape correctness on a 69-shape subset is F1 = .866. The FOL path handles 79.2% of rules; the rest go through a direct NL-to-SHACL fallback. We audited every one of the 443 rules for second- or higher-order constructs. An automated regex checklist flagged none, and a first-author pass on the 92 FOL-fallback cases confirmed the same. The exact upper 95% Clopper-Pearson bound on the true HOL rate is 0.67%. This is an audit finding for one corpus, not a proof of FOL sufficiency for institutional policy. Swapping the AIT registry for a GDPR registry raises exact property alignment from 1/15 to 11/15 (Fisher's exact p < .001; Cohen's h = 1.53). On the LexDeMod lease-contract benchmark (N = 200), Macro F1 drops to .370 because lease English uses "shall be entitled" for permission -- exactly the vocabulary mismatch registry swap is meant to fix. Repeated runs produce hash-identical SHACL outputs.

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.

We investigate how peer and institutional incentives jointly shape the evolution of cooperation, social welfare, and enforcement efficiency in social dilemmas. In a Prisoners Dilemma with four strategies, unconditional cooperators (C), defectors (D), social punishers (SP), and social rewarders (SR), we allow decentralised peer incentives and centralised institutional incentives to act simultaneously, with the institution able to reward or punish any subset of strategies. In infinite well-mixed populations, we analyse the resulting four-strategy replicator dynamics, and in structured populations we use agent-based simulations on square lattices to study spatial effects and network reciprocity. Intervention schemes are evaluated by equilibrium states and evolutionary flow for infinite well-mixed populations, by cooperation levels and social welfare for structured populations, defined as aggregate population payoff net of institutional cost. We find that peer punishment most strongly promotes cooperation, whereas peer reward is more beneficial for social welfare. Institutionally rewarding peer incentive strategies substantially improves both cooperation and welfare, while subsidising unconditional cooperators has little impact. Under institutional punishment, directly penalising defectors is the only consistently effective policy; punishing peer incentive strategies dismantles decentralised incentives, reduces cooperation, and harms social welfare, showing that maximising cooperation does not necessarily optimise overall societal benefit. Our findings provide design principles for institutions seeking to balance cooperation promotion with welfare maximisation.

The intersection of artificial intelligence adoption, cybersecurity governance, and public sector institutional constraints has not been examined as a unified analytical problem in the existing literature. Studies address AI cybersecurity risks generically, public sector governance independently, and framework adequacy separately. Existing studies have not integrated these three streams to explain specifically how AI adoption causes cybersecurity governance failure in government organizations, nor test existing governance instruments against AI-specific public sector failure causes. This paper ad-dresses that gap. It proposes a seven-domain typology identifying ten specific AI-driven cyber governance failure causes grounded in public sector institutional analysis. It presents a three-pathway failure model showing how accountability failure, opera-tional resilience failure, and compliance failure interact and reinforce each other. It de-livers a structured coverage matrix testing five major governance frameworks (NIST CSF 2.0, ISO/IEC 27001, COBIT, NIST AI RMF, and ISO/IEC 42001) against the typology, finding that no instrument addresses Shadow AI, speed asymmetry, or gov-ernance vacuum at the operational specificity required for public sector application. The paper introduces speed asymmetry as a named structural construct with a specified mechanism. The framework provides the design specification for an AI-enabled cyber-security maturity model for government organizations.

Standard automation ROI misses four categories of systemic risk -- tacit knowledge erosion, resilience reduction, regulatory exposure, and socio-institutional capital degradation -- that affect long-term organizational performance. PHP-AIO (Protocol for Human Preservation in AI-Optimized Organizations) is a five-gate sequential decision protocol with a final composite check that quantifies these unpriced systemic risks at the role level and produces auditable automation decisions. A closed-form automation-debt measure ($ρ(P)$) formalises how role-level decisions accumulate across multi-step processes; its warning is neutralised only by a regulator-mandated human-in-the-loop anchor. Applied to stylised profiles of representative internal roles, PHP-AIO produces distinct outcomes -- automate, augment, hybrid, and preserve -- for candidates that standard cost-benefit analysis would uniformly automate. Threshold sensitivity analysis confirms the gate decisions are robust to upward perturbations of at least 14% in three of four representative cases. Keywords: AI governance, automation decision, human oversight, tacit knowledge, organizational resilience, financial services

With the increased use of generative AI (GenAI) applications such as ChatGPT, higher education institutions (HEIs) have released a range of guidelines and policies to direct adoption within their institutions. In computer science (CS) courses GenAI adoption is especially high and the implications for student learning are significant. At the same time, instructors have also been forced to address the use of GenAI as students have started to use it for a range of functions. Currently, comparative analysis of guidance provided by institutions and its uptake in instruction is lacking. In this paper we bridge this gap by comparing institutional and computing course level guidance to better understand this terrain. We utilize secondary analysis of institutional and course syllabi guidelines from higher education institutions in the U.S. classified as research-intensive. Our findings reveal that although institutional guidance is more pro-use, at the course-level the uptake is still guarded. We discuss the implications and propose an instructor-centered framework to guide future adoption of GenAI.

University stakeholders often face difficulties in accessing timely and reliable information, especially in developing countries, where there are very few intelligent support systems. Existing rule-based chatbots are unable to handle complex, domain-specific queries and are not well-equipped to adapt to evolving institutional policies. As a fill-in-the-gap solution, we present the multimodal university chatbot with retrieval-augmented generation. The system combines the large language model with semantic retrieval to produce context-based responses from institution-centric resources, such as the university handbook. The system accepts text and image queries through the vision-language model and applies quantized inference for rapid deployment on constrained hardware. A scalable backend built with FastAPI, adjoined with a responsive frontend developed with Next.js, ensures real-time usability. Our multimodal evaluation demonstrates that the system maintains strong satisfaction scores across both text and image queries, despite increased response time for visual inputs. Furthermore, quantitative evaluation shows that hallucination is reduced from 31.7% to 6.6% in our proposed RAG-based system, confirming the effectiveness of retrieval grounding.

Generative Synthetic Populations (GSP) -- the convergence of population synthesis, agent-based modelling, and LLM agents -- are attracting growing interest for urban simulation and institutional communication research. Before any GSP instrument is used on a real population, a more basic question must be answered: does it respond to stimuli of known valence in an ordered, replicable, group-structured way? We call this controllability. We ask not whether a synthetic population tracks humans, but whether it tracks itself: whether the latent structure we impose on it is recovered in its own responses. This internal-validity question is logically prior to any claim about external validity, just as characterising an instrument's response function must precede using it to test a theory. We report SIVE (Synthetic Instrument Validation Experiment): a fictional municipality (Montelago) with 120 synthetic personas of known latent structure, exposed to seven conditions spanning strongly positive to strongly negative institutional communications about a water network. Seven pre-registered criteria, evaluated across a temperature sweep, jointly assess fidelity, stability, noise floor, specificity, sensitivity, and ordering. All seven pass at every temperature. A central finding turns a calibration failure into a diagnostic success: a message designed as "weakly positive" was identified by the instrument as functionally negative, traced to unresolved problems, uncertainty, and institutional passivity in its text; a redesigned version restored the expected ordering and interacts with agents' latent trust in unanticipated ways. A noise sub-experiment shows the instrument's intrinsic noise is roughly half the cross-agent estimate and stable across temperatures. Individual trajectories reveal coherent micro-dynamics that summary statistics obscure. Full data are available via an interactive explorer.

Emotional bonds between humans and AI companions are growing, and the question of whether a person may marry an AI system will soon move from speculative fiction into law. This chapter examines whether the autonomy-centered logic that has expanded marital choice among human beings can justify extending marital status to superintelligent companions. Following a scenario-envisioning exercise informed by anticipatory ethics, I argue that granting such status leads to socially unjust outcomes, even under the generous assumption of reliable superintelligence. Marriage as a socio-legal institution does more than ratify private agreement; it creates networks of mutual obligation, joins families, and makes each partner vulnerable to the other. A relationship sustained by corporate policy and continued payments is a subscription rather than a bond tested by time. Discussing wholesale marital status is therefore the wrong frame. Law should carve out targeted rights and protections for pressing needs arising from intimate human-AI relationships.

The composition of author teams is an important factor influencing the novelty of academic papers. However, existing studies have paid limited attention to the role of institutional composition, and most novelty measures remain at a general level, making it difficult to explain the specific sources and types of novelty in papers. Taking the field of natural language processing as an example, this study investigates the relationship between team institutional composition and the fine-grained novelty of academic papers. Author teams are classified into three types: academic institutions, industrial institutions, and mixed academic and industrial institutions. Four types of fine-grained knowledge entities are extracted from full-text papers, including methods, datasets, tools, and metrics. The novelty of papers is then measured based on entity combinations, and pairwise combinations of different entity types are further analyzed to examine their contributions to novel papers. The results show that, in the field of natural language processing, collaboration between industrial and academic institutions is more likely to produce novel papers than purely industrial collaboration. From the perspective of fine-grained knowledge entities, mixed academic and industrial teams pay more attention to the novelty of method-metric combinations, whereas industrial teams pay more attention to the novelty of method-tool combinations. This study reveals the relationship between institutional team composition and paper novelty through fine-grained novelty measurement, providing useful evidence for improving paper quality and promoting industry-academia-research collaboration.

Climate governance processes involve complex interactions between heterogeneous citizens, advocacy groups, media actors, and political decision-makers. While agent-based models (ABMs) have been widely used to study environmental policy and socio-ecological systems, many existing approaches focus either on institutional dynamics or individual behavioural mechanisms in isolation. This paper presents a modular multi-level agent-based architecture that integrates empirically grounded cognitive decision models with strategic institutional behaviour within a unified simulation framework. The architecture combines (i) motive-based individual decision-making operationalised through the HUMAT and MOA frameworks, (ii) socially embedded influence processes via demographic homophily networks, and (iii) institutional strategy modules for environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs), media agents, and politicians. Political decisions emerge from the aggregation of multiple signals, including expert input, public mobilisation, party alignment, and media framing. The model is designed to be empirically calibrated through synthetic populations derived from survey data and and institutional parameters informed through Living Lab stakeholder engagement, and to support scenario-based exploration of climate-relevant land-use governance processes. Rather than presenting empirical results, this paper focuses on the architectural design principles, modular structure, and integration logic of the model. We discuss how this multi-layered approach contributes to the modelling of democratic climate governance and outline pathways for generalization and future validation.

Agentic artificial intelligence (AI) systems are beginning to assist, accelerate, and partially automate scientific discovery, performing tasks that span literature synthesis, code generation, data analysis, hypothesis proposal, and model criticism. We argue that this transition is qualitative rather than incremental, and that suitably designed multi-agent systems may evolve from passive computational tools into ``AI scientists'' that can expand the hypothesis-generating and verification capacity of science. Such systems must be developed and deployed within a scientific ecosystem fit for purpose: institutions must be redesigned for verification, accountability, interpretability, and dual-use safety. We sketch how multi-agent architectures, illustrated by the prototype framework \textit{Denario}, accelerate the discovery cycle and traverse model spaces beyond human reach; examine what this implies for authorship, peer review, and the enduring role of human scientists; and close with recommendations for governing AI as an epistemic actor rather than a mere instrument.

Research on artificial intelligence and democracy has grown quickly over the last decade. A shared conclusion in this literature is that AI does not create new democratic problems so much as it makes old ones worse. We now see this across information ecosystems, in elections, and in public administration. However, despite growing evidence, we lack a clear way to prioritize risks in this area, compare them across domains, and identify where democratic control is most likely to break down. So, our problem is: How can we systematize the problems that AI systems pose to democratic processes? This paper argues that principal agent theory may fit the task. In many phases of democratic systems, principals delegate key functions to AI systems and their providers without really being able to monitor how these systems operate or the outputs they produce. Treating AI as a delegation problem helps identify accountability gaps and other governance failures. Most importantly, as we shall illustrate, it provides metrics for empirical assessments of AI impact on democracy. As a second analytical element, we draw on the NIST AI Risk Management Framework and its seven characteristics of trustworthy AI, which supply substantive criteria for evaluating delegated tasks. Operationalized across the three domains through measurable indicators and domain specific trustworthiness criteria, we propose an analytical framework that centers on institutional assessability as the central condition for democratic control over AI. However, we stress that how severe a harm is, and how much risk is acceptable, are evaluative judgments that current methodologies neither acknowledge nor operationalize. This becomes acute when such evaluative judgments are (silently) delegated to private vendors. We identify this as a strong limitation left for future work.

Synthetic and distilled student data are increasingly used to enable privacy-conscious learning analytics, yet their suitability for decision-facing institutional support remains uncertain. In dropout support, generated data must preserve not only predictive utility or distributional resemblance, but also the financial-status evidence used to guide advising, payment-plan assistance, and scholarship-related decisions. Method: This study introduces CaP-Eval, a decision-facing causal-privacy audit workflow for evaluating generated student data under a fixed estimand, timing-aware adjustment design, estimator set, and empirical privacy-governance screen. The workflow compares original, distilled, adversarial synthetic, statistical synthetic, and DPGNet privacy-oriented generated data on predictive utility, treatment-effect fidelity, robustness to alternative estimators, and local training-record proximity. Results: DPGNet and distilled data preserved the original financial-status treatment-effect structure more reliably than the adversarial and Gaussian Copula baselines. DPGNet preserved full direction and rank agreement across epsilon levels; epsilon = 10 produced the smallest non-original IPW and DML deviations, while epsilon = 1 and epsilon = 5 amplified several financial-status contrasts. Distilled data remained highly faithful but retained the strongest local training-record proximity signal. TabularGNet preserved qualitative directions with moderate attenuation, and Gaussian Copula compressed effect magnitudes. Conclusions: Predictive utility, privacy orientation, empirical disclosure signals, and causal fidelity diverged; generated student data require joint audits of direction, magnitude, overlap, and release-governance risk before decision use.

The UK government has adopted a pro-AI stance to help transform public service delivery in the face of severe financial pressures, but the path to translate this vision into responsible AI practice remains ill-defined. While UK policy is often set at the national level, local authorities are responsible for most public service delivery, and the rapid advance of AI-first narratives in the public sector is exposing fault lines in knowledge and practice at this national-local interface. This paper examines how responsible AI is interpreted and implemented at the interface between the UK's central government and local authorities, taking the high-stakes area of Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) as a case study. We present a thematic analysis of 17 semi-structured interviews with policymakers, practitioners, and third-sector professionals to identify barriers and enabling conditions for responsible AI where national policy meets local practice. We identify five interconnected challenges facing local authorities: shadow usage of AI and data privacy risks, market-government asymmetry in AI provision, insufficient workforce readiness, a lack of standardised definitions and measurements, and gaps in human accountability. For each, participants proposed actionable steps, from strengthening data protection frameworks and rebalancing the market-government relationship to enhancing workforce capacity. Our examination of SEND brings these challenges into sharper focus, showing how high-stakes decisions affecting vulnerable children and families intensify tensions around accountability, fairness, and human oversight, exposing the limits of a principle-based regulatory approach. We argue that responsible public sector AI requires both national policy adjustments and structural reforms to institutional capacity, values, and governance mechanisms at the local level.

Self-harm presentations to emergency departments (EDs) are strongly associated with higher suicide risk. NLP models have shown robust performance in detecting self-harm from triage notes within single hospitals, yet performance often declines across institutions. To examine potential causes, we compare ED triage notes from two hospitals by analyzing lexical characteristics, highly associated predictive features, and salient topics. Our results reveal variation in lexical expression and feature importance related to self-harm across hospitals, despite consistent core themes such as self-poisoning and self-injury. These documentation differences are associated with reduced cross-site performance. Our findings provide insight into how institutional variation affects the identification of self-harm in clinical text and highlight potential methods to improve model generalisability.

Artificial intelligence in France is often discussed through separate dimensions such as investment, compute, regulation, employment, sovereignty, and education. This viewpoint paper proposes a unified interpretation: France can be analyzed as a national AI learning system. Building on Human-Centered Learning Mechanics (HCLM), we use HCLM not as a validated econometric model, but as a conceptual and diagnostic lens for interpreting national AI development as a balance between information injection, absorptive capacity, and institutional dissipation. Information injection includes compute, data, talent, research, capital, industrial deployment, and policy experimentation. Institutional dissipation refers to avoidable frictions such as administrative overload, coordination failures, energy constraints, regulatory uncertainty, talent mobility pressures, and weak industrial absorption. Regulation is not treated as mere friction: adaptive governance, trusted data spaces, and safety-oriented standards may increase long-term learning capacity by improving legitimacy, interoperability, and social trust. The central claim is not that a country follows neural-network equations, but that AI sovereignty depends on how effectively it converts distributed information into absorbed, coordinated, and socially legitimate capability. The paper connects HCLM with neural scaling laws, endogenous growth theory, creative destruction, absorptive capacity, and coordination mechanisms. It offers a formal heuristic, policy indicators, illustrative scenarios, and implications for France. The numerical results are diagnostic scenarios, not econometric estimates or official rankings. The proposed viewpoint reframes AI policy as the governance of an open, strategic, non-equilibrium learning system that should be tested with historical and cross-country data.

What made useful knowledge cumulative was not discovery alone but the institutions that transmitted it. We provide the first exhaustive structural measurement of the network through which upper-tail human capital passed from master to student across a millennium. Using 470,000 mentor-student records from Wikidata (which integrates the Mathematics Genealogy Project and MacTutor Archive), and all 64 historical Fields Medalists as a fixed, ex ante tracer set, backward traversal yields a directed acyclic graph of 25.5 million paths reaching 57 generations. We document two institutional transitions. First, a 17th-century watershed concentrates lineage traffic on Leibniz: 47 of 64 lineages pass through him with a 10:1 downstream-to-upstream ratio, and seven independent attributes -- learned-society membership (a 46-fold rise per scholar), field, language, employer, institutional diversification, student production, and diffusion entropy -- re-organize coherently across the same window. This is the network signature of Mokyr's Republic of Letters, and it reframes the Newton-Leibniz priority dispute as a distinction between the possession and the transmission of upper-tail human capital: it is transmission that generates the spillovers on which growth depends. Second, 84% of lineages converge upstream on five 12th-13th-century Islamic and Byzantine scholars before terminating at an 11th-century boundary -- the ``Monastery Wall'' -- at which personal academic mentorship first becomes record-generating in Europe. Our claims are descriptive-structural, not causal. Because exhaustive traversal at this scale defeats standard tools, we also contribute a deterministic, algebraic graph-traversal instrument whose measurement bias we characterize in closed form, and report one emergent property of independent methodological interest.

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit systematic differences in moral reasoning across languages, yet the source of this variation remains unclear. We test the hypothesis that languages encode aspects of the institutional environments in which they are spoken, allowing LLMs to inherit institution-specific moral priors through training. Across nine languages spanning a broad gradient of institutional quality, six frontier LLMs, and two preregistered studies, we examine moral dilemmas whose acceptability depends on institutional functioning. In Study 1, explicit institutional framing produced uniformly null results: cross-linguistic moral divergence did not increase in institutionally contingent scenarios, nor did it track institutional differences between language communities. In Study 2, we introduced institutionally ambiguous scenarios in which institutional stakes were present but not explicitly stated. Under these conditions, cross-linguistic moral divergence increased relative to institutionally inert controls and, with one theoretically informative exception, was associated with real-world institutional differences between language communities. Explicit framing again attenuated these effects. These findings suggest that institutional experience may leave detectable traces in language that shape LLM moral reasoning, while also indicating that explicit institutional cues can suppress the expression of those differences.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in financial services, a single non-compliant interaction can expose institutions to regulatory penalties and direct consumer harm. Existing guard models are built around general harm taxonomies and overlook violations grounded in specific financial regulations. We address this gap with a regulation-driven pipeline that operates directly on regulatory documents, inducing a financial compliance risk taxonomy and synthesizing grounded training data without any predefined violation categories. Instantiating the pipeline on Chinese financial regulations, we release \textbf{FinGuard-Bench}, to our knowledge the first benchmark for financial regulatory compliance detection, with expert-annotated labels at both the query and response levels. We further train \textbf{FinGuard}, a financial compliance detection model built on Qwen3-8B and trained on the regulation-grounded data via supervised fine-tuning and self-play reinforcement learning. On FinGuard-Bench, FinGuard substantially outperforms all baselines, including dedicated guard models and much larger general-purpose LLMs such as Qwen3.5-397B-A17B and GPT-5.1. Furthermore, FinGuard also preserves general safety capabilities and adapts to unseen institution-specific policies using policy documents alone. We will publicly release the code, prompts, and resources used in this work on GitHub.

In strategic classification, an institution (e.g., a bank) anticipates adaptation from users who change their features to increase utility in a classification task (e.g., loan repayment). Since a key challenge is the distribution shift induced by users, we turn to causal models, which have been shown to bound the worst-case out-of-distribution (OOD) risk, and establish several new results that link causality and strategic classification. First, we show that causal classification leads to optimal classification error after any sufficiently large adaptation, when the noise is bounded in a certain way. Second, when these assumptions do not hold, we show OOD cross-entropy risk of optimal classifiers decomposes into an OOD bias term and a term arising from not using all observable features, allowing us to understand when causal classifiers have an advantage. Finally, we show that the use of causal features can allow alignment of long-term incentives between institutions and users, contrasting with previous work that highlights social costs of such approaches. We validate our theory empirically on synthetic data, finding that our results predict behavior in practice.

Integration of artificial intelligent (AI) agents in higher education is transforming teaching, learning and administrative processes. Although existing AI agents effectively support individual tasks, their implementation remains fragmented and inefficient for handling the complexity of educational institutions. This highlights a significant research gap: the lack of integrated eco-system-level agentic multi-agent AI platform capable of coordinated planning, reasoning, and adaptive decision-making across multiple educational functions. This paper presents a forward-looking perspective on agentic multi-agent AI platform in higher education, consisting interconnected autonomous, goal driven agents that support learning, teaching, and institutional operations. It addresses timely and critical questions: Can agentic AI represent the next generation of intelligent systems in tertiary education? Can they collectively support seamless coordinated operations across teaching, learning and administrative support? To what extent can such systems foster inclusive and equitable learning for diverse learners with special educational needs? To ground this perspective, a thematic analysis of existing literature identifies four dominant themes: task-specific fragmented AI tools, the transition from single-agent to multi-agent systems, limited cross-functional integration, and insufficient focus on inclusivity and accessibility. Findings reveal a clear gap between current AI implementations and the needs of holistic, learner-centered educational ecosystem. The paper synthesizes challenges and outlines future research directions for scalable human-aligned, and inclusive agentic AI platform. The significant contribution is the incorporation of inclusive learning perspectives, highlighting how coordinated agentic multi-agent platform can support diverse learners through adaptive, multimodal interventions.

Voxel-wise dose prediction is a critical yet challenging task in practical radiotherapy (RT) planning, as bespoke models trained from scratch often struggle to generalize across diverse clinical settings. Meanwhile, generative models trained on billion-scale datasets from vision domains have achieved impressive performance. Herein, we propose DiffKT3D, a unified Any2Any 3D diffusion framework that leverages prior knowledge from pretrained video diffusion models for efficient and clinically meaningful dose prediction. To enable flexible conditioning across multiple clinical modalities (CT, anatomical structures, body, beam settings, etc.), we introduce an Any2Any conditional paradigm utilizing modality-specific embeddings without cross-attention overhead. Further, we design a novel reinforcement learning (RL) post-training mechanism guided by a clinically-informed Scorecard explicitly tailored to institutional treatment preferences. Compared with winner of GDP-HMM challenge, DiffKT3D sets a new state-of-the-art in dose prediction by reducing voxel-level MAE from 2.07 to 1.93. In addition, DiffKT3D achieves superior image quality and preference match. These results demonstrate that transferring diffusion priors via modality-aware conditioning and clinically aligned RL post-training can provide a robust and generalizable solution for RT planning across various clinical scenarios.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems are widely used in institutional question answering settings where responses must be grounded in authoritative documentation (Gao et al., 2023). In entity-dense domains where relevant information is distributed across heterogeneous documents, vector-only retrieval often produces fragmented evidence and increases dependence on inference-time reasoning (Zhao et al., 2024). This paper introduces GRACE-RAG, a retrieval-governed, graph-augmented RAG architecture that externalizes structural reasoning from the generative stage to a structured retrieval layer, resolving structural ambiguity offline, enabling deployment on self-hosted lightweight models calibrated to closed-domain institutional vocabulary. Experiments across three model capacities: Mistral 24B, GPT OSS 120B, and Gemini 2.5 Flash show consistent improvements in completeness, depth, and anticipatory coverage, with overall quality gains of up to 20% under mid-scale models, indicating that retrieval architecture governs structural quality over model scale, reducing computational and latency footprint without dependence on proprietary systems.

The study examines the adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in education by analyzing the roles of institutional support, teacher confidence, and teacher concerns. It aims to determine whether teacher concerns moderate the relationship between institutional support and two outcomes: teacher confidence and attitudes toward AI adoption. The sample included 260 teachers from the Philippines. Composite scores were calculated for institutional support, confidence, concerns, and attitudes. Moderated multiple regression analysis showed that institutional support significantly predicted both teacher confidence and attitudes toward AI. However, teacher concerns did not significantly moderate these relationships. A follow-up mediation analysis tested whether confidence explains the effect of institutional support on attitudes. Results showed full mediation. The indirect effect was significant based on the Sobel test, and the direct effect became non-significant when confidence was included in the model. This shows that institutional support improves teacher attitudes by increasing their confidence. The study recommends that institutions provide structured and ongoing support to strengthen teacher confidence. Professional development, mentoring, and AI integration in teacher education programs can increase readiness and support effective AI adoption.

This study examines the factors influencing pre-service teachers' behavioral intention to use AI-enabled educational tools during their practicum, using the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 (UTAUT2) as the theoretical framework. The model includes the core UTAUT2 constructs such as performance expectancy, effort expectancy, hedonic motivation, social influence, facilitating conditions, price value, and habit. It also incorporates additional predictors including computer self-efficacy, computer anxiety, and computer playfulness. Data were collected from 563 pre-service teachers using a structured questionnaire and analyzed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). The results indicate that performance expectancy and hedonic motivation are the strongest predictors of behavioral intention. Computer self-efficacy, computer anxiety, and computer playfulness significantly influenced effort expectancy, although effort expectancy did not directly predict behavioral intention. Performance expectancy was significantly predicted by extrinsic motivation, job fit, relative advantage, and outcome expectations. Constructs such as social influence and facilitating conditions showed limited or inverse effects. These findings suggest that internal motivational, cognitive, and emotional factors are more influential than external or institutional factors in shaping the adoption of AI-enabled tools. The study highlights the importance of promoting personal relevance, confidence, and enjoyment in teacher preparation programs to encourage technology integration.

Each major technological revolution inverts a particular scarcity and rebuilds institutions around the shift. The near-consensus diagnosis of the AI revolution holds that AI collapses the cost of prediction while judgment remains scarce. This Opinion argues the inversion has now flipped: competent-looking judgment (selecting, ranking, attributing, certifying) is produced at scale and at marginal cost approaching zero, and four complements become scarce: verified signal, legitimacy, authentic provenance, and integration capacity (the community's tolerance for delegated cognition). Because judgment is the substance of institutions, the institutions built to manufacture legitimate judgment (courts, journals, licensing bodies, legislatures) now compete with the technology for the same functional role. The piece traces the pattern across scientific institutions, professional licensing, intellectual property, democratic legitimacy, and foundation-model concentration, and closes with a three-move agenda: reframe AI policy as institutional redesign, build provenance and verification as commons, and develop the formal apparatus for institutional composition under strategic agents.

The increasing integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in higher education has raised important questions regarding students' transparency in reporting AI-assisted work. This study investigates the psychological mechanisms underlying university students' willingness to disclose AI use by applying the Cognition--Affect--Conation (CAC) framework. A sequential explanatory mixed-methods design was employed. In the quantitative phase, survey data were collected from 546 university students and analysed using structural equation modelling to examine the relationships among cognitive perceptions, affective responses, and disclosure intention. In the qualitative phase, semi-structured interviews with 22 students were conducted to further interpret the quantitative findings. The results indicate that psychological safety significantly increases students' willingness to disclose AI use and is positively shaped by perceived fairness, perceived teacher support, and perceived organisational support. Conversely, evaluation apprehension reduces disclosure intention and psychological safety, and is strengthened by perceived stigma, perceived uncertainty, and privacy concern. Qualitative findings further reveal that institutional clarity and supportive instructional practices encourage openness, whereas policy ambiguity and fear of negative evaluation often lead students to adopt cautious or strategic disclosure practices. Overall, the study highlights the dual role of enabling and inhibitory psychological mechanisms in shaping AI-use disclosure and underscores the importance of supportive institutional environments and clear guidance for promoting responsible AI transparency in higher education.

Failures in complex systems often emerge through gradual degradation and the propagation of stress across interacting components rather than through isolated shocks. Democratic systems exhibit similar dynamics, where weakening institutions can trigger cascading deterioration in related institutional structures. Traditional reliability and survival models typically estimate failure risk based on the current system state but do not explicitly capture how degradation propagates through institutional networks over time. This paper introduces a trajectory-aware reliability modeling framework based on Dynamic Causal Neural Autoregression (DCNAR). The framework first estimates a causal interaction structure among institutional indicators and then models their joint temporal evolution to generate forward trajectories of system states. Failure risk is defined as the probability that predicted trajectories cross predefined degradation thresholds within a fixed horizon. Using longitudinal institutional indicators, we compare DCNAR-based trajectory risk models with discrete-time hazard and Cox proportional hazards models. Results show that trajectory-aware modeling consistently outperforms Cox models and improves risk prediction for several propagation-driven institutional failures. These findings highlight the importance of modeling dynamic system interactions for reliability analysis and early detection of systemic degradation.

Fairness audits of institutional risk models are critical for understanding how deployed machine learning pipelines allocate resources. Drawing on multi-year collaboration with Centennial College, where our prior ethnographic work introduced the ASP-HEI Cycle, we present a replica-based audit of a deployed Early Warning System (EWS), replicating its model using institutional training data and design specifications. We evaluate disparities by gender, age, and residency status across the full pipeline (training data, model predictions, and post-processing) using standard fairness metrics. Our audit reveals systematic misallocation: younger, male, and international students are disproportionately flagged for support, even when many ultimately succeed, while older and female students with comparable dropout risk are under-identified. Post-processing amplifies these disparities by collapsing heterogeneous probabilities into percentile-based risk tiers. This work provides a replicable methodology for auditing institutional ML systems and shows how disparities emerge and compound across stages, highlighting the importance of evaluating construct validity alongside statistical fairness. It contributes one empirical thread to a broader program investigating algorithms, student data, and power in higher education.

The governance of open-weight artificial intelligence (AI) models has been framed as a binary choice: openness as risk, restriction as safety. This paper challenges that framing, arguing that access restrictions, without governed alternatives, may displace risks rather than reduce them. The global concentration of compute infrastructure makes open-weight models one of the most viable pathways to sovereign AI capacity in the Global South; restricting such access deepens asymmetries while driving proliferation into unsupervised settings. This analysis proposes that hardware-layer governance, including chip-level attestation mechanisms such as FlexHEG, trusted execution environments, confidential computing, and complementary software-layer safeguards, offers a defense-in-depth alternative to the current binary. A threat model taxonomy mapping misuse vectors to hardware, software, institutional, and liability layers illustrates why no single governance mechanism suffices. To operationalize this approach, the paper argues that effective AI governance as a dual-use technology will likely require a multilateral institutional architecture functionally analogous, though not identical, to the role performed by the IAEA in the nuclear domain, with explicit safeguards against the co-option of hardware controls for domestic repression. The relevant policy question is how to make openness safer through technical and institutional design while addressing the transition realities of legacy hardware, attestation at scale, and civil liberties protection.